by Russel Norman
In the paper this morning I referred to the MAF briefing to the incoming Government released yesterday.The Government’s press release chose to focus on bland reassertion of the fact that agriculture is the back-bone of the economy as if someone had forgotten.
Far more topical is the briefing’s sage advice for our climate change negotiators in Poznan and the Government’s advisors considering changes to the ETS (p9-10):
International climate change frameworks and institutions have the potential to significantly impact on the primary sectors and their overseas markets. It is, therefore, of considerable strategic importance that New Zealand is both engaged, and sufficiently credible in its domestic policy settings, to influence international responses to climate change. New Zealand agriculture and forestry must be, and must be seen to be, part of the solution rather than the problem.
Unfortunately, yesterday’s admission [RNZ audio] that our negotiating team is focusing on detailed Kyoto rules around farming and forestry, at the expense of giving moral leadership by commitment to a strong binding target, suggests they are trying to redefine the problem rather than be part of the solution.
However, already the pressure on the Government is showing, the Prime Minister moving to limit the review of the ETS at the post-Cabinet meeting yesterday, and rule out any amendments to delay it for now.
So it seems that Rodney will get a brief chance to use his ecology degree to prove the world’s climate scientists wrong, and then we’ll be back to tinkering with the details of the ETS.
Kevin Hague pointed out yesterday the dire need for the $1 billion dollar Green Homes Fund to fix our homes’ chronic health and efficiency problems highlighted this week by the NZBCSD study. The Fund is written into the ETS legislation, and will require an amendment to kill it. Maybe there is hope National will see sense?
The dent to NZ’s credibility caused by National’s halt of the ETS and agreement to conduct a flat earth enquiry into the science, is rapidly turning into a car crash.
[Frog: I have linked to the relevant documents in Russel's post]
Published in Economy, Work, & Welfare | Environment & Resource Management by Russel Norman on Tue, December 2nd, 2008
Tags: climate change, ETS, Frog, frogblog, government, green, MAF, negotiations, new zealand, NZBCSD, party, poznan
More posts by Russel Norman | more about Russel Norman
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
“So it seems that Rodney will get a brief chance to use his ecology degree to prove the world’s climate scientists wrong”
Rodney AND the 31,000 scientists who agree that global warming is a con.
Face it Russ, even at a time when the world is being bombarded by the lies and half truths of Al Gore (and the Greens) they still rejected that message.
Key is being smart, as the world moves deeper into this recession the first thing that governments all around the world will do is renege on Kyoto and the various carbon trading scams, even the Obama messiah will greatly water down what he promised.
Once one of the big boys calls for a second look at Kyoto (and it will happen) they all bets are off, it would be stupid for us to be the ones to do it so all Key has to do is wait for somebody else to start the ball rolling and we can quietly pull out, of course like all the other countries we will promise to look at things at a later date but the reality is that will not happen.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
My guess is that papers by top scientists in many diverse fields (including geology, paleantology, modelling, ecology, etc etc) are running at least two to one AGAINST the proposition that AGW poses a serious threat to man or the planet.
The much greater risk is that we take actions to reduce economic wellbeing as we move from a warm period into a little ice age with devastating consequences to the poor and frail.
And don’t mention the UN to me. A recent essay in Prospect argues persuasively that the UN is an inherently corrupt body and cannot be trusted with anything.
He uses the infamous Food for Oil programme as an example but says it the rule rather than any exception. I particularly like the part where he realised that the UN likes Australians and New Zealanders as administrators because we so honest as to be naive and fail to recognise that all those around them, and especially those above them, are all massively “on the take” and siphoning of funds to Swiss Bank Accounts. Australian companies (as opposed to Australian individuals) proved of course to be willing participants.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I stopped reading after “my guess is”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Your guess” Owen? Give me a break and show me the money! Show me the links!
thomasf – I guess I’m a glutton for punishment!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“31,000 scientists”
Oh, please. You don’t mean the Oregon Petition, do you? The one from quite a few years ago now, that was filled with anyone and anybody, and which very few actual climate scientists actually signed.
“My guess is that papers by top scientists in many diverse fields (including geology, paleantology, modelling, ecology, etc etc) are running at least two to one AGAINST the proposition that AGW poses a serious threat to man or the planet.”
To the contrary. In 2005 Oreskes did a random survey of papers matching the keywords “global climate change” in ISI, and found that less than 1% challenged the conclusion that human induced climate change was real. Follow up work has confirmed her findings. Yet, a large proportion of the population still thinks there is substantial disagreement among climate scientists. This confusion is the result of deliberate attempts to create the impression of controversy, when in fact there is none, and the basics of the science are very well established.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I think like a long-discredited UFO sighting, the Oregon Petition will be doing the rounds for decades to come. Here’s an analysis of it from actual, real skeptics:
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-11-12.html
In conclusion, through his Global Warming Petition Project, Arthur Robinson has solicited the opinions of the wrong group of people in the wrong way and drawn the wrong conclusions about any possible consensus among relevant and qualified scientists regarding the hypothesis of human-caused global warming. His petition is unqualified to deliver answers about a consensus in which the public is interested. He has a right to conduct any kind of petition drive he wishes, but he is not ethically entitled to misrepresent his petition as a fair reflection of relevant scientific opinion. He has confused his political with his scientific aims and misled the public in the process.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Nice quote XYY! I’ve never seen that one before, but I guess from the date it is relatively new. So far, it’s an interesting read, might be worth a post….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Owen
I’ve never met ANY scientist who doubted it in my 8 years at JPL. I could count the legitimate arguers on the fingers of one hand. Most of the rest is well known and appropriately valued blog blather.
I know how the SCIENCE is done Owen and it is not done by people with any agenda except the desire to get at the truth.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Great news:
“Prime Minister John Key says representatives at the Poznan meeting are arguing very strongly that New Zealand has a different position to other countries, in that many of New Zealand’s emissions come from agriculture. He says it has to be recognised that New Zealand does not have technological solutions to the problem and to cut production could have unintended consequences.”
This National win came just in the nick of time…..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What national win, exactly? So they are expelling a lot of hot air, contributing to global warming. What are the other parties at Poznan saying?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
National won the election.
I thought you might have noticed….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
IceBaby, communicating badly and then acting smug when you’re not understood is not cleverness… Bad things happen on the internet when you do that.
Anyway, it’s becoming pretty clear that the current Government is failing one of it’s first tests – the comments by Simon Upton (of all people) make it clear that National/ACT’s position on climate change is pretty much giving up on the issue, when it is clear that sustained and real engagement is necessary.
If we continue down this path, I think we’re going to see high tariffs from the EU on our agricultural exports, and/or the “clean green” charade exposed. Much of my family is in agriculture, and this is going to hurt them. Their businesses are making efforts to reduce their emissions and depend on NZ’s reputation, and they’re going to be screwed over, by a bunch of reactionary dairy farmers and their friends (personal friends in many cases) in National and ACT.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Uh, duh, IceBaby. I meant the other parties to the negotiation, not kiwi political parties. Remember, there are other people at Poznan besides Key’s kids et al.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>on climate change is pretty much giving up on the issue
Nope.
They’ll get agriculture out the equation. Nobody else was stupid enough to include it.
>>communicating badly and then acting smug when you’re not understood is not cleverness…
Speak for yourself, George…..
>>I think we’re going to see high tariffs from the EU on our agricultural exports
Protectionism and trade barriers from Europe? Wow, that is something new!
Sarcasm ends….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“New Zealand does not have technological solutions to the problem”
It does. That comment is utter rubbish from Mr Key. A number of immediate emissions reductions solutions are available, such as manure management and controlled use of nitrogen fertilisers, they just cost a little – but dairy and livestock farmers would rather that the rest of us pay for their emissions than clean up their act. Some are responsible and are doing something about it, but most have no compulsion, moral or financial, to do so. A number of long term technologies are in development, but here again dairy and livestock farmers would rather that the rest of us fund that research.
Of course, another clear response to a price signal is to diversify or shift production into less emitting forms of agriculture, but this again is too much work for the industry.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Your guess” ??
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Orestes’ survey has been discredited so widely I am surprised anyone even mentions it.
Anyhow It is also out of date.
My guess is based on current papers ie say the last two years and in particular since the Aqua satellites have been giving dat and since more diverse disciplines have entered the debate.
The Oregon petition you are referring to is also somewhat out of date. There are more current petitions and declarations and they grow by the day.
Anyhow, I am not fussed by the abuse. In the end – and the end is not far away – real science will triumph – and by real science I mean scientific findings based on observation tested against a nul hypothesis rather than based on computer models which are just computer games in which the garbage out depends on the garbage in.
Where is the evidence of dangerous global warming?
Just tell me – and quote computer models. Show me the observations?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Owen
Oreskes’ work stands. If anything it is now more robust for having been tested. The right-wing blogosphere might not have noticed but Peisner didn’t do nearly so well.
http://timlambert.org/2005/05/peiser/
34 would be 3 % of the total. The actual count appears to be one single paper in a thousand.
The end? Maybe in the end our kids simply up and kill us all for being so amazingly stupid.
http://www.ageofstupid.net/
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Owen, that is complete b*ll*cks, and I’m surprised you have the chutzpah to even suggest something like that.
Mind you, if all you read is Benny’s emails and the Heartland funded PR sites (NZ CSC, ICSC, Icecap, etc) then perhaps it’s not surprising.
Get your head out of the echo chamber, sniff the air in the real world, then get back to us with a rational argument about the “best” way to deal with the problem.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I suspect that the 28% of Americans who still think that Bush is doing a heckuva job get their news from the same echo chamber…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
georgedarroch
Mr. Key is NOT failing! No one is allowed to fail in the ashes of Helengrad, he is Not Achieving; A TOTALLY DIFFERENT THING!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I think all factory farms should get rid of their animal waste in a bio gas digestor. Even if global warming is not all it is cracked up to be, factory farms should take more responsiblity to do less damage to the environment. And now we are getting bigger and bigger factory farms and i think something should be done. There was something on this blog a few months back about a farm in Canterbury I think that was saving heaps of money because of the biogas digestor. Small family farms should not affected, they seem to be a dying breed at the moment.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Factory farmers like the ACT party MP who Hide wanted to be in cabinet have already proved they don’t give a toss about animal suffering. So it is naive to think they would give any thought to their environmental footprint. In fact factory farmers are continually being caught violating resource consent conditions.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)