ETS: No majority = FAIL

The really interesting question now is, where is National going to get a majority for its amendments to the ETS in the House? Peter Dunne on his own hasn’t got the votes. They need one more party.

The Maori Party’s minority report makes it clear they do not support an ETS at all, and if there is going to be one they do not support intensity based allocation. They have a simple principle: the polluter should pay. So National can count them out. And their good will is at a low ebb anyway after being shafted on the Maori seats on the Auckland super council.

Act has ruled itself out on “principle” – something Rodney says was very important to them on the super council – because their minority report rejects the findings of the IPCC and strongly opposes an ETS. They could with integrity support repeal of the law, but not amendment.

That leaves Labour, who has been in discussions with National in an attempt to find a cross party consensus around the ETS. It has always puzzled me why Labour would negotiate to amend its own ETS legislation which remains law until National get a sufficient majority to amend it. Their minority report rejects allocation on an intensity basis and would accept only a very short term cap on the price. This analysis suggests that they can hold firm and prevent the worst outcomes here if they keep their nerve.

It may be that NZ aligns with Australia more closely than anyone was trying to – by being the second Australasian country to fail to get its ETS through Parliament. In that case, the energy sector will come into the scheme in just four and a half months time, with no allocation plans in place, because officials have been waiting for the amended law to draft the regulations.

Probably a number of us would help them out in this situation by voting to make the law actually workable.

Or am I missing something? Was there a price for National’s capitulation to Rodney over the Auckland Maori seats? Is it possible that this party of “principle”, who campaigned relentlessly last year to “dump the ETS” has done a deal to vote for it – in a dangerously watered down version – after all?

45 thoughts on “ETS: No majority = FAIL

  1. It wouldn’t be a surprise, Jeanette.

    Act (or most of them) voted for the Whanganui Fashion Police Bill, having vociferously opposed it earlier, apparently to get National support for Garrett’s 3 strikes bill.

    “Values, not politics” was the slogan they use to campaign under, wasn’t it?

  2. npb – the changes effectively gut the ETS, and mean that taxpayers have to foot the whole bill for our big emitters. It would be cheaper for everyone to repeal the current ETS, rather than create a fake market and then pretend we’ve done something about climate change. In short, the changes are BOGUS, and amount to corporate welfare of the worst kind.

  3. fair enough – why not do this

    Buy 30 Million tonnes of AAUs off the Estonians at NZ$15 – sell to emitters for first two years at NZ$15 – for immediate surrender -cannot bank or sell oseas – that way our balance is unchanged. Also – carbon prcie is only going to go up in next few yaers – its only down here because of teh recession and low global emissions

    Allow forest owners can sell their AAUs overseas

  4. I think I see where you are going npb, but to what end? If the government plays broker here, where is the incentive for anyone to move to a low-carbon economy? How will we make cuts? Wouldn’t it be easier just to tax everyone at 15$ a tonne, and recycle the extra revenues in long-term carbon reducing schemes? (Which is, in fact, Green policy, but a dare say we’d charge the market rate for carbon after a very short adjustment period.)

  5. its just a short term measure to appease everyone – the biggest elephant in the ETS/Carbon room is this recession.

    ETS or TAX – ist effectively the same thing but the ETS is better becauise you can globally link (everyone is doing ETS) and its better to have the markets et the price rather than the government

    Smith backed national into a corner with his rabid harmonisation plans – they got BAD advice recommending cap and ban as it has clearly backfired

    This route (buy foreign AAUs and onsell) keeps the ETS with cap and allows forest owners and maori to sell overseas

  6. ‘The time is past for scheming and trading – we want an Emissions Reduction Programme’….

    ——–

    shouldnt the green party like the maori party be pro emissions reductions, rather than corporate welfare via a pollution trading market for carbon traders…??

    a NZ Australia ETS would/could make NZ an offset destination for Australian coal fired power stations, and allow Australian capital to invest in mining NZ national parks.

    The Greens are playing a dangerous game supporting carbon trading and a tory ETS.

    Where is the evidence an ETS would reduce emissions in NZ???

    ————-
    ‘Papatuanuku, mother earth, has a right to be free from pollution, unsustainable growth and exploitation, and every New Zealander has the right to advocate for her protection. ‘

    “The earth has finite resources and the interests of the envir…onment must be the first consideration as we prepare for the future,”

    – Rahui Katene, Maori Party

    ………The Maori Party’s minority report on the proposed Emissions Trading Scheme shows the party wants stronger controls on greenhous gas emissions, according to its climate change spokesperson Rahui Katene.

    “The time is past for scheming and trading – we want an Emissions Reduction Programme,” said Mrs Katene. “We want a regime that is transparent and fair, and requires polluters to pay.”

  7. treesoftomorrow says:
    September 1, 2009 at 1:38 pm

    > wouldnt taxpayers be paying for polluters emissions under an ETS?

    In an ETS with free allocations like the National Party is proposing, taxpayers would be paying for part of the polluters’ emissions.

    With a carbon tax, taxpayers would end up paying for polluters’ emissions if the tax rate was set below the world price of carbon.

    ACT and the Business Round Table want a carbon tax so that they can set the tax rate so low that it doesn’t make any difference.

  8. The Maori Party would have been happy last year if nothing had been done and taxpayers footed the bill for NZ’s Kyoto liability. They do not believe there is great urgency to put a price on carbon, so are happy to hold out for their preferred ideal instead. The Green Party greatly agrees with them on the ideal solution, but did not see that doing nothing was an option given the threat of climate change, so long as the thing done reached a certain standard of effectiveness. We felt the ETS crafted with Labour was good enough to have the desired effects that come from putting a price on carbon, e.g. an incentive to reduce emissions in all industry sectors over time and a good incentive to plant trees. What National is likely to do with Act is the worst of both worlds: it would create a false market with all of the inefficiencies that entails, while providing no incentive to reduce emissions or even to grow more trees.

  9. Act will ‘get in behind’ but the result will be the worst possible scenario. They’ll win kudos for their ‘reasonable stance’, having softened their hard-line view. Actoids will squeal, but know that the Act position is cemented even tighter. Hurrah!

  10. Why aren’t the Maori Party using their position to push for an ETS that would be better for plantation forestry?

    wouldn’t that be in the interests of their constituents?

  11. I fail to see how an ETS would for example reduce coal mining, reduce emissions from intensive dairy and from polluting industries.

    An ETS will make the public cover a lot of the polluting costs for big business – ie a ETS gives them a liscence to pollute.

    Would not climate policy and emissions reduction targets that are binding be more effective, make more sense and be more fair?

  12. trees – it won’t reduce coal mining if the coal is exported, but it will if it’s burnt here. Dairy and industries will have an incentive to switch to carbon neutral energy sources or higher energy efficiencies per unit produced – all good for the economy and the planet. The ETS, if it has a true price signal at the margin, will do all this. It is imperfect and incomplete, but in its current form, is better than nothing. An ETS is only part of the mix, and ours, as is, could be expected to reduce emissions overall just slightly.

    Levelling off emissions growth in itself is a laudable goal, don’t you think?

  13. treesoftomorrow says:
    September 1, 2009 at 3:55 pm

    > I fail to see how an ETS would for example reduce coal mining, reduce emissions from intensive dairy and from polluting industries.

    They will reduce emissions if (1) the reducing emissions is cheaper than buying carbon credits to cover them, or (2) they can’t afford to the cost of carbon credits to cover their emissions, so they close down and customers shift to less emission-intensive sources of food or energy, or less energy-intensive technology.

    > An ETS will make the public cover a lot of the polluting costs for big business – ie a ETS gives them a liscence to pollute.

    If there are no free credits given out, then an ETS doesn’t involve the public paying for anyone’s polluting costs.

    Both an ETS and a carbon tax can be seen as giving a moral ‘licence to pollute’.

    > Would not climate policy and emissions reduction targets that are binding be more effective, make more sense and be more fair?

    How would you deal with new companies entering the market? They couldn’t have a reduction target, so they would have to have no right to emit anything, meaning they couldn’t set up even if they were much more environmentally-friendly than the existing companies.

  14. I fail to see how an ETS would for example reduce coal mining, reduce emissions from intensive dairy and from polluting industries.

    The incentive for industries to reduce emissions is to reduce their costs. Doing so makes them more competetive than someone who isn’t. A price on carbon makes doing so make sense financially.

    An ETS will make the public cover a lot of the polluting costs for big business – ie a ETS gives them a liscence to pollute.

    No, doing nothing is what makes the public cover the costs. The Kyoto bill is coming. With no price on carbon, the only way to pay it is through taxes. This also creates no incentive to emit less to make the next bill go down, so the cost stays high – in fact the public subsidises the growth of emitting industries. Putting a price on carbon shifts the cost away from the taxpayer to the industry and hence to the consumer, who then has an incentive to take their business to more carbon efficient suppliers.

    Would not climate policy and emissions reduction targets that are binding be more effective, make more sense and be more fair?

    Of course and putting a price on carbon is all part of what needs to happen. It cannot all be done by government fiat. An ETS has real problems, but can work if set up well. The current problem is that the Nats seem determined not to do what is needed to make it effective. They also refuse to set a meaningful target for reductions and will not investigate the most obvious complementary measures like NZ fuel efficiency standards. Big failures in all areas.

  15. It seems to me an ETS is a free market neo liberal approach.

    As opposed to a policy approach – ie binding emissions reduction, investment in conservation, green jobs and low carbon industries.

    Instead national is announcing mining in national parks, just before conservation week, more motorways and has no plans to retire Huntly in the hear future –

    If an ETS will not reduce emissions, then there is no point having one.

    We need emissions reductions, not emissions markets.

    There is no point buying and selling carbon credits if the carbon market does not reduce emissions and pollution.

    NZ needs to stop overpackaging crap food, and buying junk from China made in coal powered factories, and buying cheap Japanese cars and exporting coal to all three of those countries.

    An ETS has no biodiversity clauses, no ethical standards and it not a democratic or transparent system, and lastly is not effective.

    Neither Kyoto nor the EU ETS has largely made a positive effect on the quality of the environment, or reduced industrial greenhouse gas emissions.

    ———–
    How much would a NZ ETS reduce emissions by???

    and how much would that cost… and for who???

  16. And that is a problem. I’d suggest we should just legislate to keep all the coal in the ground (apart from the anthracite necessary for steel production, for which – as far as I am aware – we don’t yet have a viable technological alternative).

    If a way of sequestering its carbon emissions (both the coal seam methane and the CO2 released from burning it) becomes technologially and commercially viable, such a decision could be revisited.

    But I suspect the cost of doing this, even if proven to be technologically viable and safe) is always going to be greater than the cost of producing energy from renewable resources that don’t emit greenhouse gases to any significant extent.

    The coal miners, on the other hand, just want to get on with the job and let the taxpayer pick up the bill.

  17. treesoftomorrow, indeed, it is. And I blogged to that effect last year.

    But the reality is that unless the Green Party suddenly starts polling at 30%, it is the only option on the table.

    I thought the Green Party should oppose it last year, and should have preferred a carbon tax, because it would weakly allow polluters too much leeway to do dodgy deals with dodgy Russian and Ukrainian credits and leave the taxpayer having to pick up much of the cost of industry’s emissions.

    Now we have a National/ACT majority that, potentially, could repeal what we already have altogether so the taxpayer continues to pick up the entirety of the cost of polluters emissions, I think we are in a different realpolitik.

    We can’t afford to wait another three years before we do anything at all to address climate change.

  18. The Greens F*cked up massively by choosing this position on the ETS and led everyone down the same path with them. This was loudly communicated to the party and was chosen to be ignored by a few people either far too naieve to see the consequences that are coming home now in the form of an even more dangerous ETS or people who simply dont have any faith in New Zealanders being able to engage in real political action themselves.

    unfortunately treesoftomorrow is completely correct.
    The ETS was always worse than nothing – and now its getting even worse than that.

    It cant be called the only option on the table when its not able to reduce emissions – its not even an option. its not even climate policy.

    Look at what has ghappened to Kyoto since the introduction of emissions trading…

    look at the crap thats on the table for copenhagen…

    look at how the biggest and most powerful lobby group in Kyoto in now the International Emissions trading association, bigger than FOE / Greenpeace / WWF etc… thats whats happening on an international level – and thats where the political acceptance of ET in New Zealand is taking us at a national policy level.

    Weve lost the moratorium[?] on fossil fuel generation since – just like the US has now lost the EPA’s ability to regulate GHGs from Coal power plants. For the past decade Emissions Trading has been pushing out all other options that might have actually worked while the politikal acceptance of it by certain groups / partys is destroying the public’s ability to understand whats happening with climate policy.

    How much of the elusive 40% target do you think, if agreed upon will be met by offsets??? Pretty much all of it – and the public will be completely sucked in thanks to their being lied to about the ability of ET to actually address long term GHG emissions.

    I’d much rather “the taxpayer pick up the cost of reductions” as a result of the government’s inaction on climate change and get very f*cked off about it than the taxpayer pay to be lied to through picking up the cost of the ETS.

    Heres a quote from James Hansen…

    “What’s being talked about for Copenhagen is a strengthening of Kyoto [protocol] approach, a cap and trade with offsets and escape hatches which will be guaranteed to fail in terms of getting the required rapid reduction in emissions. They talk about goals which sound impressive, but when you see the actions are such that it will be impossible to reach those goals, then I can understand the informed public getting frustrated.”

    James Hansen – Head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies

  19. treesoftomorrow says:
    September 1, 2009 at 5:03 pm

    > As opposed to a policy approach – ie binding emissions reduction, investment in conservation, green jobs and low carbon industries.

    I really don’t see any practical way of having binding emissions reductions without emissions trading – you would effectively have to say that existing businesses are the only businesses that have the right to emit anything at all, even if new competitors could produce competing products with lower emissions.

    > We need emissions reductions, not emissions markets.

    the only practical way I can see to achieve emissions reductions without emissions markets is through a carbon tax. But that directly contradicts your earlier insistence on binding reductions targets.

    > There is no point buying and selling carbon credits if the carbon market does not reduce emissions and pollution.

    Indeed. The cap needs to be set low enough that it actually will reduce emissions.

    > NZ needs to stop overpackaging crap food, and buying junk from China made in coal powered factories, and buying cheap Japanese cars and exporting coal to all three of those countries.

    I only count two countries in that list. Anyway, we should have laws to stop or reduce all of those things, but that is not a reason not to have an ETS as well.

    > An ETS has no biodiversity clauses, no ethical standards and it not a democratic or transparent system, and lastly is not effective.

    well, logically, ethical standards and biodiversity clauses would function separately from an ETS, but the ETS law passed in New Zealand last year did have biodiversity protection regulations as part of the act of parliament.

    > How much would a NZ ETS reduce emissions by???

    That depends on where the emissions cap is set.

    > and how much would that cost… and for who???

    That depends on what free emissions credits are given out to existing polluters.

  20. I agree treesoftomorrow is correct withoutyourwalls.

    And maybe if the Greens had have opposed Labour’s ETS last year, they might have got another couple of MPs.

    But even if those seats in Parliament had been at the expense of National, it still would have not been sufficient to prevent the debacle we now face.

    Problem is that people don’t vote on climate change alone, and that Labour’s continued defence of Field, Benson-Pope and Peters along with the EFA debacle tarred Labour, and to some extent the Greens, because they probably did not sufficiently establish their independence and dissociate themselves form the worst of Labour’s transgressions of proper democratic process.

    At least the Greens differentiated themselves from Labour sufficiently to increase their vote (unlike any other Party that was publicly perceived as a support party for the Labour-led government).

    But it was not enough to get the electoral support that would have made them a real player post-election, given the level of National’s and (surprisingly) ACT’s vote.

    So the environment, and because the taxpayer pays for emissions that polluters don’t pay for, the economy gets stuffed again.

    But I don’t think that even if the Greens had taken a hard line against Labour’s ETS they could have prevented this.

  21. Labour estimated their ETS would reduce emissions by 2%. That is way not enough, but considering emissions have grown 24% in the last 19 years and that’s the trajectory we’re still on, it is not insignificant either. The Greens have never claimed any means of putting a price on carbon would be enough to achieve the needed reductions. Jeanette has always talked about the many complementary measures needed. It is only National who want to take no other step except a weak ETS.

    The Greens F*cked up massively by choosing this position on the ETS and led everyone down the same path with them. This was loudly communicated to the party and was chosen to be ignored by a few people either far too naieve to see the consequences that are coming home now in the form of an even more dangerous ETS or people who simply dont have any faith in New Zealanders being able to engage in real political action themselves.

    This is quite a statement. The feedback to the Green Party from individuals and environmental groups was split, with loud arguments both ways, but a majority in support of the ETS, including the vast majority of environmental groups. Still it was a very tough decision that was made only after lots of debate. Making wild claims about Jeanette and the Green Caucus and National Executive being naive or ignoring feedback is just ridiculous.

    As for Kiwis engaging in political action, where are they? The Nats will say they ran on an anti-climate change platform and they are currently on 58% support, so why should they worry? Of the rest, I haven’t seen any in the streets over this or any other environment issue the Nats have shat on since being elected. I think you overestimate Kiwi’s understanding of the issues.

  22. True Labour did estimate their ETS would reduce emissions by 2% but Im not sure how Labour Party estimates relate to anything that actually happens in the real world and no 2% isnt going to change anything.

    ‘The Greens have never claimed any means of putting a price on carbon would be enough to achieve the needed reductions. Jeanette has always talked about the many complementary measures needed.’

    These other measures that might actually work are being squeezed out of the debate in NZ just like they have been in Kyoto and recently in the US with the US ETS. Thats why ET is preferable to governments and polluters, because it means they can look as though something is being done instead of actually doing something. Again – just look at whats on the table in Copenhagen compared to what was being talked about in Kyoto before Emissions Trading took centre stage.

    The vast majority of Environmantal groups support for the ETS came as a result of their desperate clinging to a process that died a long time ago. Its sad but true and since then, the concerned public, who have always turned to these groups for direction have been caught up in all the spin.

    Unfortunately, The production of Greenpeace NZ’s ETS report which wrongly told everyone that the ETS could be amended if it had a cap and some other changes kicked this off here in NZ and the Green Party followed suit. The changes neccesary to amend the ETS could never ever have happened in a debate over such a wishy washy industry designed market based mechanism like this. Market based instruments like ETS reduce peoples ability to social/political engagement and instead hand over the control to the designers and abusers of them.

    I do totally understand what went on within the greens over the ETS, I sent input myself. But in the end a decision was made that has stifled peoples ability to engage in an informed debate.

    So if its a question of political will – then tell New Zealanders the truth and let them generate that political will themselves rather than leading them into the dark. I dont know why anyone who thinks this is impossible would bother trying to change anything.

    Theres LOADS of information on how Emisisons Trading is fundamentally incapable of taking us in the right direction out there. It is very unfortunate that this doesn’t seem to get picked up by environmentalists in NZ too much – but hopefully this will change in December when the Copenhagen summit falls on its face, largely as a result of all the above problems.

    Heres a recent report by friends of the Earth that outlines why offsetting isnt just a bad idea – its a dangerous distraction

    http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefing_notes/dangerous_distraction.pdf

    In any case – Its not too late to change stance on emissions trading – friends of the earth did it in January

  23. The key thing is climate policy from labour has been week and not common.

    The greens didnt get the results with labour, and labour is still pro motorways and coal exports.

    An ETS will not get a 40% emissions reduction – an emissions reduction focus is needed, not a free market approach that does not work, or reduce emissions.

    The objective of climate policy, is emissions reductions NOW, not creating new markets.

    Why are the greens considering selling out to big business and middle class tory voters? they could just joint the bluegreens.

  24. What do you mean “considering selling out to big business and middle class tory voters”. Jeanette has completely trashed what the Nats are doing and would never support it.

  25. I note that the report you reference is not strictly about trading, but offsetting, which can be different. A trading scheme with a cap, for instance, is a very different thing. But certainly trading schemes have big problems. So if you don’t like that, would you support any means of putting a price on carbon? A tax perhaps? Or are you holding out for 40% reductions or nothing, knowing you will very likely get the latter.

  26. Emissions Trading Schemes are seriously flawed, as well as the science behind “the global warming issue”!
    How can a monetary system (like Carbon Credits) change a planetary system (like weather)?
    We are being set up by rich investors into a single economic market, and people ( including Keisha) ignorant of science and economics are being conned into believing that an ETS and Global Warming theory is right.
    As a voter, I am horrified at having to pay a $3000+ per year carbon tax next year because of emissions trading. I am sad for the many families that will suffer significantly, while the rich boys fcuk everyone over by implementing this scheme.
    The scheme is very anti conservation and discriminates against poor and middle class NZers.

    I say “NO” to emissions trading, “NO” to carbon credits as we are going to lose our rights, money, and land to a global government when key creates an Emission Trading Scheme, removes MMP, and hooks us up into a single economic market.

  27. How about James Hansen then…

    “What’s being talked about for Copenhagen is a strenghening of Kyoto [protocol] approach, a cap and trade with offsets and escape hatches which will be guaranteed to fail in terms of getting the required rapid reduction in emissions. They talk about goals which sound impressive, but when you see the actions are such that it will be impossible to reach those goals, then I can understand the informed public getting frustrated.” – James Hansen – Head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies

    And… from: http://www.zmag.org/zspace/commentaries/3974

    “Recall that scientists insist an 80% drop in emissions will be necessary within four decades at most, with the major cuts before 2020. To achieve this, carbon markets won’t work, as the leading US climate scientist, James Hansen, remarked in opposition to Barack Obama’s cap and trade scheme.

    Obama’s legislation – the Waxman-Markey bill that passed the house in June – is so profoundly flawed it should be scrapped. Some excellent movements have sprung up to try to prevent US carbon trading and the destruction of Environmental Protection Agency powers to regulate carbon pollution, on which Waxman-Markey is especially wicked (please help by joining scores of groups disgusted with Obama’s legislation, at http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/action/toolbox/ACESA/sign-on_letter.html and http://www.climatesos.org – and do give a miss to pro-Hopenhagen campaigners like Avaaz, the World Wildlife Federation, the ‘Climate Action Network’ and other deal-doers who either haven’t thought through the issues properly or who wallow in conflicts of interest as carbon-traders themselves).

    In sum, the emissions trade is a bogus, ‘false solution’. Very different forms of climate finance are required at the Copenhagen Summit in December, including the North’s payment of ecological debt. But Zenawi and others from Africa – especially civil society – will have to work much harder to put climate compensation on the agenda (and to ensure that governments corrupted by the fossil fuel industry and other TNCs, as well as local elites, do not become the vehicle for distributing the compensation).”

  28. Heretic

    My view is that Hansen is correct, Goldman-Sachs-The-Planet will game the system and in the long run we all lose.

    OTOH, this is THE ONLY game in town. We got beat on Carbon Taxes and we got beat on every other sort of regulation and limitation we proposed.

    The market IS quite a powerful tool. The question is really, what sort of framework can we get put in place, and once it is there, HOW CAN WE CHANGE IT TO MAKE IT WORK.

    We can’t change any cap or price if there is no agreement to start with. If we once have it in place, we have some power to move things.

    Politics is the art of the possible. We don’t have the ability to force the issue yet, will NOT have that ability until the consequences become less debatable for the vast majority of folks. When the deniers abandon ship it may be possible to try to steer it away from the catastrophe, and it will very likely be too damned late as well.

    With some mechanism in place we will be able to ratchet the pressure on them far more quickly. I

    I know you don’t like it. I am not too fond of it myself. Waxman-Malarkey is the US version, and theirs is a far steeper problem than our own. I don’t see how it can work, but I don’t see anything else that will even be attempted! That is good reason for pessimism IMHO, but not a good reason not to try.

    respectfully
    BJ

  29. we will never ever be able to fix it,
    its fundamentally screwed.
    get over emissions trading – its an obstacle – not a stepping stone and certainly not a solution.

  30. Sometimes it is difficult for us all to be wrong about things we believe are true. It takes an open mind to view all information both scientific evidence, hearsay, and mass communication. From viewing information based on scientific evidence, being raw data, global warming and cooling is a natural event predominantly driven by solar activity, and humans influence even though we think we are producing huge amounts of CO2 is relatively insignificant (less than 0.2%) compared to every living animal, yeast, mould, bacteria that lives on this planet.

    Humans polute this planet, we discharge waste, produce toxic chemicals and destroy the natural environment. However, plants need CO2 to live. All higher forms of life feed off plant based organisms, or the organisms that feed off them.

    Where does Emmissions Trading fit into this scheme of things?

  31. Heretic

    In that case we get nothing at all but the status quo.

    Business will do what it damn well pleases and there is no chance at all.

    Because there is NO chance if we don’t try. Zero.

    Giving up is the most certain path to defeat.

    respectfully
    BJ

  32. Sorry Greenfly,
    I am very opposed to the importation and use of genetically engineered species. My understanding of climate change comes from over 18 years in the scientific and environmental sector.

  33. I never said Anything about giving up – I was talking about the ETS being fundamentally screwed.

    “What has stymied effective climate action so far, in short, is not lack of ideas, inspiration, alternatives, initiative, knowledge or experience. It is rather the way political and social power is organized, and the way large numbers of people, and especially the middle classes on whose passive consent many political elites are dependent, have been made forgetful about what they already know, ignorant about what already exists, and divided from the movements and processes that are already working toward a solution.” – Larry Lohmann of The Corner House

    Emissions Trading is a dead end while real political organising by real people is the only thing that has ever changed anything on the scale we require in the face of climate change.

    I really would recommend making more research into CTrading before supporting it. I dont know anyone that both supports it and actually understands it thoroughly – all support for it is based purely on faith by those looking for a solution to Climate Change and greed by those who aren’t yet want to keep profiting.

    theres loads of academic analysis of E.T. on the Corner House Website here… http://www.thecornerhouse.org.uk/subject/climate/

  34. Emissions Trading is a dead end while real political organising by real people is the only thing that has ever changed anything on the scale we require in the face of climate change.

    What part of “the art of the possible” has escaped your notice? The sort of REVOLUTION that is required will not happen until it is far FAR too late… when people start realizing that “oh sh!t, those scientific loons weren’t so loony after all” and want to KILL the already dead culprits from Government-Sachs.

    Because what you want is a revolution… and the people are NOT going to give you one. Not yet. This has nothing to do with how much I know about Climate Change and the ETS, which is actually a hell of a lot. It has to do with what I know about people, particularly people in the majority, in the USA. I am not arguing that the ETS is the best answer… I am telling you that it is the only one you can get without getting the banksters out of government… and they won’t go except feet first. It is an interesting niche conspiracy theory. Look at the Presidents who took on the bankers… THEY left office feet first.

    I know you want that revolution… heck, I rather would like it myself, but I know what it isn’t happening. Not where it needs to happen. Not when it needs to happen.

    respectfully
    BJ

  35. The Copenhagen summit will be shut down and occupied on the 16th December by thousands of people who actually understand the dangerous nonsense coming out of Kyoto and what needs to be done instead.

    this is what I meant when I quoted Lohmann above… “and divided from the movements and processes that are already working toward a solution”

    ten years ago [30th Nov] – the WTO summit in Seattle was shut down
    – its happening again, for the same reasons

    check it out here…

    http://www.climate-justice-action.org/
    and take a look at the massive list of organisatiopns involved

    THIS is what we need

  36. So it was a banker on the grassy knoll, or Noel on a grassy bank? We’ll never know, unless someone grasses (you can bank on it).

  37. You reckon it is all natural. I suppose that opinion has some basis. The claims you make however, do not hold up under any sort of scientific scrutiny. These are ancient arguments. I keep wishing for something new…

    Taking them one at a time:

    global warming and cooling is a natural event predominantly driven by solar activity

    http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant

    From the Satellite data, not since 1978. No change in mean Solar output, no Trend. This is a period of comparatively rapid warming

    http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrsp-2007-2&page=articlesu6.html

    Essentially attributes a third of warming to solar.

    http://tqe.quaker.org/2007/TQE158-EN-GlobalWarming.html

    Essentially showing the same percentage attribution using purely statistical methods.

    http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/raimund/publications/Muscheler_et_al_Nature2005.pdf

    An attempt to reconstruct solar activity back to 1500 AD

    …and of course Solanki’s analysis of the more recent past.
    http://cc.oulu.fi/%7Eusoskin/personal/nature02995.pdf

    The models DO attribute a portion of the temperature response to solar, so an unexpected and protracted solar minimum does affect their accuracy. Note however that we do NOT have good models for the internal workings of the Sun. Lack of ability to predict its output is a significant weakness. We do project its possible output and include it in the climate models in spite of that difficulty and the larger error bars that result from that.

    The scientists are telling you that it isn’t primarily the Sun, the statisticians are telling you the same thing. The modelers include their best guess.

    ———–

    Your second point is that our burning of fossil fuels is a miniscule effect. This fails at several levels. The Isotope analysis is telling…

    One good analysis as to how much of the CO2 is due to us is here at RealClimate.

    http://tinyurl.com/2nzry9

    However, there is another less often noticed point. The claim has sometimes been made that the CO2 increases are due to the warming ocean releasing CO2. Which it does at a relatively sedate pace at the end of a glacial period. However, the oceanic CO2 concentrations are increasing as a result of the increased concentration in the atmosphere. This effect is SLOWING as the ocean warms but the CO2 has risen 50 TIMES as fast as it ever has in the known history of the climate. Which is not unrelated to our returning carbon previously sequestered, to the living carbon cycle of the planet.

    Sorry, I am going to short you on this second one. Only one rebuttal. I am short of sleep and long on work.

    respectfully
    BJ

  38. I don’t mind if you succeed, but I don’t think you will.

    Oh you may well shut down Copenhagen.

    I just don’t think you’ll get what you actually WANT by shutting down Copenhagen.

    I have a modest proposal that is RELATED to socializing energy. It is that our currency be based on energy in the form of “work”, ie, every dollar is backed by a KWH or so of work, provided at some standard outlets in government offices of the country that issues the dollar.

    That means that the power systems get nationalized (socialized) but it ALSO gives an excuse to ditch the Fractional-Reserve banking system that as a minor consequence of its method of operation, requires some percentage of growth, continuous and compounded, forever…. or it collapses.

    Interesting detail that. There’s only the one planet, and the currency system in use can’t work without us committing climaticide.

    All courtesy of economists who reckon that if we use up this earth we will just find a substitute.

    I wish you luck. We all will need it.

    respectfully
    BJ

Comments are closed.