Labour takes 40 years to act on the 100 month challenge
Yesterday No Right Turn pointed to the New Economics Foundation’s challenge that we only have 100 months left to avert potentially irreversible climate change:
We calculate that 100 months from 1 August 2008, atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will begin to exceed a point whereby it is no longer likely we will be able to avert potentially irreversible climate change. ‘Likely’ in this context refers to the definition of risk used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to mean that, at that particular level of greenhouse gas concentration, there is only a 66 - 90 per cent chance of global average surface temperatures stabilising at 2º Celsius above pre-industrial levels.1 Once this concentration is exceeded, it becomes more and more likely that we will overshoot a 2º C level of warming. This is the maximum acceptable level of temperature rise agreed by the European Union and others as necessary to retain reasonable confidence of preventing uncontrollable and ultimately catastrophic warming. We also believe this calculation to be conservative.
So what has ‘Sustainable’ Labour done since then?
It announced its 40 year plan for greener safer transport. I don’t have so many toes and fingers but I think 40 years works out to 480 months (give or take a bit of Swedish decimal rounding). 380 too many. During these 40 years Labour pledges to increase public transport funding fivefold, which will mean in 2048 when we have irreversible climate change Labour will still spend significantly less on public transport than the amount it is spending currently on promoting fossil fuel based private transport.
The New Economics Foundation gives some technical explanation for its 100 months figure here [pdf].
Our analysis shows that, assuming that other anthropogenic driven radiative forcings remain constant and the growth rate of carbon dioxide emissions (due to economic growth and increasing carbon intensity of the economy) remains stable - by the end of December 2016 we will exceed an atmospheric CO2e concentration of 400ppmv.
Our estimate is cautious. We have used the lowest estimate of carbon-cycle feedbacks. Furthermore, historically, an increase in the Earth’s global average surface temperatures of just below 2oC has been considered a ’safe’ level of warming. But, with the advancement of global climate models to three-dimensional coupled entities, with ever increasing spatial resolutions, it is now known that the impacts of climate change will manifest in more extreme local changes in temperature. For example, collapse of the Greenland Ice Sheet is more than likely to be triggered by a local warming of 2.7 degrees, which could correspond to a global mean temperature increase of 2 degrees or less. The disintegration of the Greenland Ice Sheet could correspond to a sea level rise of up to 7 metres.
Meanwhile Labour’s sustainability page currently has 4 items on it - 2 items talking about National and John Key, one on Te Wiki or Te Reo Maori 2 weeks ago and a Helen Clark speech where she announces the government is spending $1.9 billion on roading and $18 million on walking and cycling infrastructure. Vision?
Maybe Labour needs to read Dot Earth’s article Are We Stuck With ‘Blah, Blah, Blah, … Bang’?
It seems Homo S “Sapiens” at large needs to first get hit by the wall before changing path. There will be always someone debating (denying) the science (evidence) of walls and bricks. We can’t falsify the theory about that wall ahead, so it’s no science, blah, blah, blah, … bang.
August 6th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Yeah, I saw this in the paper today and said to myself “That looks nice, where’s the hook?” until I looked at the bit where it said they were going to take forty years to do it.
Ouch.
August 6th, 2008 at 11:52 pm
100 months before the world decides that climate change is the biggest load of bullshit ever?
Hmmmm I’d say a bit less than that
End of this year, it is announced 2008 is substantially cooler than any of the last 10-15 years
Then once GWB leaves office, who in reality never tried to state a decent argument against AGW despite not agreeing with, climate skepticism will start to become a bit more tolerated.
Give it another year or 2 years tops it’ll all be over
August 7th, 2008 at 1:12 am
Of course, the government isn’t spending anything on walking and cycling or on roads, or on building or maintaining power stations. Nope, all that spending is being done by quasi-independent entities with money they receive from their customers for services rendered. The really alarming thing is that the LTA charged it’s customers $2.7 billion but only delivered services to the value of $1.9 billion.
All the politicians do with roads is set the price that users pay, usually well below the price the operators consider desireable. But, where there’s credit to be taken there will always be a politician taking it.
The Helen Clark speech has gone but there was a press release Auckland to benefit from increased transport spend . Has Judith Tizard been repremanded for telling this lie:
“MP for Auckland Central Judith Tizard welcomes the launch of the 2008/09 National Land Transport Programme (NLTP) which allocates a record $2.7 billion for the development of New Zealand’s transport network.”
Follow the link at the bottom of the press release and we find a mere $1.2 billion for the development of New Zealand’s transport network. The other 1.5 billion is for maintanance and operation - nothing developmental about that.