Links to various studies and reports on geosequestration of CO2 in NZ:

http://www.crownminerals.govt.nz/cms/pdf-library/petroleum-conferences-1/2006/papers/Paper_Higgs_others.pdf (abstract)

http://www.crownminerals.govt.nz/cms/pdf-library/petroleum-conferences-1/2008-conference-proceedings/presentations/r-funnell

http://www.greymouthpetroleum.co.nz/industry2007/30_5_2007.pdf (which includes a comment that CO2 has been reinjected at Kapuni for several years)

http://www.crl.co.nz/publications/Corporate/CCSproceedings.pdf (27 April 2009 one-day seminar)

http://www.crownminerals.govt.nz/cms/pdf-library/petroleum-conferences-1/2002-nz-petroleum-conference-proceedings/kessells-429-kb-pdf/at_download/file

http://www.cleancoal.org.nz/content/files/RFunnell.pdf

Trevor.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

la nina , not la nino and the idea that we’re going to make money out of it is asinine.

Pay attention to reality for a change. I reckon the shock to your system might kill you, but here is a truth.

If you do not put a price on the commons, it WILL be destroyed.

The atmosphere and hydrosphere of this planet are our commons. A ton of gas emitted in China is equal to a ton emitted in NZ. The fish in the sea disappear for everyone, not just the guy who caught the last one.

Greens don’t want government to have “extra” money out of any part of this, our proposals promote revenue neutrality…. and putting a price on the consumption of the commons. An economic signal that the market has to respect.

Which you would know if you read anything of ours. Clearly your expertise doesn’t include actual research… because you clearly have done none at all.

BJ

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

That you are happy to make up bullshit about our intentions regarding carbon trading probably explains the other bullshit you believe too.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Hi Wat Dabney,

I tend to agree with you. It is paranoia!
The recent climate variations are due to natural processes that result in the variation of solar radiation being absorbed to the earths surface.
Events like La Nino and El Nino (the Southern Oscillation) are being renamed as global warming.

This forums members have already made up their mind that global warming is occuring and working out how much “MONEY” they will be making out of the shonky Emissions Trading scheme.

Is this “Green Ethics” or “GREED Ethics”?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

One suggestion that hasn’t been mentioned here is CO2 re-sequestration in our old gas fields. Kapuni gas has a high CO2 content, much of which is separated out at Kapuni and vented. If this CO2 was reinjected back into the gas field using existing technology, we could reduce CO2 emissions significantly – perhaps 0.8Mtonnes/year.

Trevor.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Great link BOSH – thanks.

Trevor.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Owen, you would do well to start with Spencer Weart’s The Discovery of Global Warming – a 250,000 word history of our understanding of climate (free download from that link). It is not especially technical, but does provide an excellent perspective on the science. In particular, Weart explains how the “CO2 runs out of puff” idea was prevalent at the beginning of the last century, but later shown to be erroneous when better instrumentation allowed more accurate measurements to be made.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

It all sounds like rhetoric to me…

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Sir Henry
Quote your sources.
And please do NOT quote Al Gore and other celebretariats.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Still in denial about our small bit of responsibility, eh BP? How do you sleep at night, knowing that you are conflicting with your core ideological beliefs about personal responsibility? No one is talking about taking responsibility for other’s emissions. Just our own. But you won’t own it, will you?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Bluepeter; Do you say we should go to Copenhagen and say,

“Our offer is… zero”?

How do you think that would affect our trade opportunities?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

We’re not responsible, so we need do nothing.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Still abdicating personal responsibility BluePeter? How unlike you.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Owen: CO2 on its own has run out of puff.

Nonsense. You need to do some serious reading outside the make-believe world of climate cranks. The radiative behaviour of CO2 and other GHGs is understood down to the quantum level. To use your term, there’s plenty of “puff” left in the old gas yet.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

I think someone needs to chill out with a cool beverage….

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Which is to say, we are going to come out of Copenhagen with a 15-18% target and as a result we will have a HELL of a time persuading the Chinese to help at all.

Which means that we are going to hit 450 and we aren’t going to get to 80% reduction overall by 2050. The odds of hitting a tipping point – IMHO are closer to 7-3 in favor of completely losing control of the process as opposed to being maybe 4-1 in our favor with the higher target.

Cue Andrew Lloyd Webber…

(Somebody needs to be building CATS)

respectfully
BJ

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Should have gone for zero. We don’t make a difference.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

They’ve gone for -10 to -20%.

Gutless.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

I do not know much about the advise to Gingrich but I do know that the UN Framework convention in 1992 decided to change the term “Global Warming” to climate change. I do not know why but some say it was so any change in the weather could be described as climate change and by implication caused by AGW.

Here is the definition from the 1992 Convention:
“Climate change means a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.”
The Labour government adopted this in its amendment to the RMA and I don’t think would have taken any notice of advice to Gingrich.
Here is a typical reference in the Labour Amendment Bill:

(2) Section 7 of the principal Act is amended by adding the following
paragraphs:

“(i) the effects of climate change:

“(j) the benefits to be derived from the use and development of renewable
energy.”

So I believe we have simply followed the UN definition, unless you believe the Labour Government was in the pocket of Frank Luntz.

You might like to get familiar with the RMA and its precursor to the 2202 Amendment, The Climate Change Response Act of 2202.

New Zealand has its own history.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

No conflict here.
The authors of the letter say:
You confirmed that climate change is caused by human activity and have made it a primary objective to implement expensive strategies to reduce the so-called greenhouse gas CO2.

And later say as you point out:
“Indeed CO2’s capability to absorb radiation is almost exhausted by today’s atmospheric concentrations”
You say this is nonsense but it is the standard science of Carbon Dioxide. IT has its major impact when raised from zero to say 50ppm and then goes into a phase of diminishing returns.. Hence the standard analogy of multiple coats of paint on a sheet of glass. The effect is not linear. The modeled scenarios of catastrophic global warming all depend on subsequent feedback loops as warming temperatures trigger other events. I do not know of any serious atmospheric scientist who says that doubling CO2 concentrations from say 200 ppm to 400 ppm doubles the previous impact of doubling from say 50 ppm to 100 ppm.
CO2 on its own has run out of puff.
Germans are very precise in their language I am not surprised that these two authors reject the “greenhouse” analogy when talking about these gases.
They possibly have a German word running to about fifty letters which is more technically accurate. As I say, I am happy to stick with greenhouse – but I know many who dislike it as much as I hate cervayackal.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)