Consultation: clayton’s or genuine?

The Government chose the Forest and Bird AGM to tonight announce there will be a quick-fire round of public consulation in July on what 2020 climate change target New Zealand should choose. They plan to announce the target in August.

Will it be a clayton’s consultation, or is it genuine? How will they weigh public opinion with industry clamouring? How will they present the scientific imperative to the public – i.e. that scientists are united on the need for a 30%+ reduction target, despite the challenge it entails.

Expect some fudging of agricultural emissions. Government comments have deflected attention from agriculture on the basis that the rise in electricity emissions has been greater. But electricity is a sub-sector of energy; and I would be interested to know how its rise compares to the rise in the main agricultural sub-sector, dairy… Anyone know?

The announcement is here, and the public meeting schedule is:

11 thoughts on “Consultation: clayton’s or genuine?

  1. -“scientists are united on the need for a 30%+ reduction target, despite the challenge it entails”

    But they’re not, are they.

    There is no such consensus.

    You are lying through your teeth.

    Why won’t you stop lying?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  2. About the only reason that there is no consensus amongst scientists is that the anti-AGW group keeps inventing new “scientists” who promote a counter view with dodgy explanations just plausible enough to non-scientists to give the appearance of a lack of consensus. If only the media would do a bit more research before promoting such counter claims and giving them a weighting that they don’t deserve.

    Trevor.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  3. Wat,

    Most scientists I know would agree with Frog’s statement. Maybe not 100%, but a very large majority (my guess would be 95% or more). Then again, my sample is biased, they are mostly atmospheric scientists.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  4. When you look at scientists who are actually credible and rational enough to get their articles published in peer reviewed journals then I reckon it would be more than 99% who agree that a target of at least 30% by 2020 is needed.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  5. >> “But electricity is a sub-sector of energy; and I would be interested to know how its rise compares to the rise in the main agricultural sub-sector, dairy… Anyone know?”

    If you mean ‘Is one causing the other?’ the answer is no, unless there has been a boom in dairying in Auckland which is where almost all of the increase in fossil fueled power stations has occurred.

    Or do you mean ‘Have co2 emissions from dairy farms increased faster than co2 emissions from viticulture or any other ag-sub-sector?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  6. “Why won’t you stop lying?”

    If you were being accurate, you would probably describe Frog’s claims as a something of an exaggeration, rather than “lying”. Why don’t you do this rather than engage in dishonest hyperbole?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  7. Sam,

    Does saying that “scientists are united” mean scientists are unanimous? I think that might be the dictionary definition of the word. But, for at least the scientists I know, the percentage who would agree with Frog’s statement is so close to unanminity that the use of the phrase “scientists are united” is reasonable.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  8. Wat

    We’ve been around this before. People who specialize in climate science will tell you we need a 30% reduction. More than 90% of them will. If you count up all the random respondents to an online poll you can get different and less meaningful results. You choose to believe who you will, but I go with the scientists, some of whom are familiar to me.

    They COULD be wrong. They know that. They also know the odds of it rather better than you seem to know them. They reckon that spending some of the worlds wealth, including THEIR not so hefty paychecks, on preventing a problem that they are more than 90% certain is real is better than spending it on the thieves who caused the financial meltdown in the first place and betting on the 10% chance that it won’t happen. If THEY are wrong, we’ve given up some money and growth. If YOU are wrong the human population of the planet is likely cut in half AT LEAST, along with every other living thing on the planet facing extinction. Inaction at this point puts the temperature up 4 degrees or more, not 2.

    My personal estimate is that at plus 4 degrees 4-5 billion people will die, and the core of knowledge that supports civilization may well be completely destroyed (50-50). That’s the stakes. Not the cost estimated by some charlatan economist.

    Place a bet.

    respectfully
    BJ

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  9. I think it is a Clayton’s consultation. That said, whatever target is arrived at, even if it is 40% by 2020, is useless if we then get a Clayton’s strategy to get there.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>