Big splash in the mainstream
Wow, if we ever needed proof that climate change has become a mainstream issue this year, we have it today. Internationally, the world press is abuzz with the release of the Stern Report - a study commissioned by the UK government into the economics of climate change - which predicts that climate change could cost up to $9 trillion worldwide.
Locally, the reaction has centred on food miles - a concept which could have a serious impact on New Zealand’s export-led economy. The humble kiwifruit is singled out in the report as one of the biggest offenders, and Agriculture Minister Jim Anderton was quick to slam the arguments.
Food miles are important from an environmental point of view (that’s why Buy Kiwi Made is so vital!) but it’s also important to remember that it’s not just transport that gives a product a high or low environmental cost, but other factors as well such as methods of production. Thus New Zealand butter is still more energy-efficient than European butter, even after being shipped over there, because our cows graze outside etc etc. [And yet, our diary industry is one of our biggest emitters of greenhouse gases - so nothing is black and white. Except maybe the cows.]
Meanwhile, it’s interesting to see Helen Clark and the Labour Party jump on the climate change bandwagon - and not a moment too soon. As Jeanette pointed out in this release, it’s hard not to be cynical with such a complete dearth of actual policies, but we’ll be watching what the Government comes up with with great interest. The release of the Stern report along with growing public and international pressure on this issue means they won’t get away with lipservice or half measures.
The Greens have some exciting activities of their own coming up to mark International Day of Action on Climate Change on the 4th of November.
Finally, thanks to all gave feedback about frogblog a while back. Some exciting new changes are about to happen - expect an announcement very soon.
October 31st, 2006 at 11:17 am
Thanks Frog.
There is indeed plenty being said. Theres also plenty of local action planned for Saturday - Global Climate Campaign day. I’ve pooled a fair bit of news on the Stern Review and on local action. Take a look…
M
October 31st, 2006 at 11:29 am
Looks like Stern (or the journalists?) shot himself in the foot claiming that kiwifruit are shipped to the UK from NZ by air… when actually they go by boat, at a very low and justifiable energy cost.
All “food miles” are not created equal, in terms of units of energy expended per mile per kilo of product. “Air miles” are the worst by a long way, followed, I guess, by “car miles” between the supermarket and the consumer; then “truck miles” getting the food from the producer (or port) to the point of sale.
“Ship miles”, whether the cargo is travelling a few hundred miles, or even halfway around the world, are a very, very small contribution to energy consumption. Because those darn great container ships are a very, very efficient means of transport.
(Could make them 30 to 50% more efficient by fitting them with sails or kites.)
October 31st, 2006 at 11:43 am
In terms of energy consumption, it is less wasteful to import recycled aluminium cans from overseas, than those made from NZ aluminium from the Tiwai Point smaelter in Southland.
In reality a major step forward in meeting our greenhouse gas contributuions would be to get rid of the smelter - then we wouldn’t need to run any of the coal or gas thermal power stations. And we could concentrate on sorting out the farting livestock and the anti-climate sustainability policies of the State-Owned Enterprises.
October 31st, 2006 at 12:31 pm
Mark B:
Can you give some easily digestable facts/figures/references on that ?
I knew that Te Wai Point was a bad idea (right from its “Think BIG” political conception) but I hadn’t realised it was that bad!
October 31st, 2006 at 12:45 pm
“Food miles are important from an environmental point of view”
and it is a bit rich given the subsidies throttled down farmers’ throats in Europe and the USA to use this to justify exclusion from their markets.
To me the food miles arguement is yet another crappy argument by the West to shit on the third world WRT the WTO agriculture talks.
Let’s have a level playing field and *then* let’s talk about food miles.
That being said, perception is everything so as well as pointing out the hypocracy of the Europeans (whose motorways a solid with trucks transporting goods across the continent) we *do* need to make sure we are squeaky clean and to let the world know. Some way to go on that front.
October 31st, 2006 at 12:53 pm
Can anybody help me here, I have traveled a hell of a lot and for the life of me I cannot see what we can do that would make an ounce of difference towards “global warming”.
One only has to visit the US or Asia and look up to see the massive pollution problems they have….our minuscule contributions are not going to make an ounce of difference.
I must also say that I am yet to be convinced that the whole “global warming” argument is not another Y2K con.
If we assume (for the sake of the argument) that global warming is real and that it is man made then why the hell should I pay when I am not the cause of the problem.
October 31st, 2006 at 1:04 pm
big bruv Says:
“…I have traveled a hell of a lot … why the hell should I pay when I am not the cause of the problem.”
But if you have travelled a hell of a lot, then you are a cause of the problem. Unless, of course, you are able to get to the US and Asia without burning petroleum products.
October 31st, 2006 at 1:17 pm
big bruv Says:
“…I have traveled a hell of a lot … why the hell should I pay when I am not the cause of the problem.�
Also, if you have partaken of any benefit from our industrial or post-industrial economy, then it is fair that you should accept responsibilities together with benefits.
The only people who have no ethical obligations to help solve the problems they have benefited from are those that have lived in the bush and caught their own food. Or possibly some of the city homeless who scrounge all food and clothing from what would otherwise be thrown away. But we would not expect any of them to be using a computer, so they would be unlikely to contribute to this blog.
I take Jeeve’s point about “food miles” being used as an excuse to dump on the poorer countries (I dislike the term “developing nations” by the way), in the same way we blame them for population growth. But I think Alistair has already made the point that food miles is only one part of the equation. As well as food miles and production method we should also look at fair trade concerns.
kiore1
http://www.epf.org.nz
October 31st, 2006 at 1:19 pm
Interesting that Stern opts for a 500-550ppm target CO2 level — some pretty bad runaway effects (including loss of methane from Arctic tundra and loss of Greenland ice sheet) seem inevitable at this level.
Maybe the target was chosen for political buy-in…
October 31st, 2006 at 1:50 pm
Toad.
How the hell else am I supposed to get there?..is it now being suggested that international travel should be banned in the interest of climate change?
And by the way, can I assume that you never fly?..or drive a car?, why just last month I picked my good lady up from the airport and who should be on the same flight but the Green party leader.
October 31st, 2006 at 1:53 pm
Kiore.
I am not Asian nor American, my sky’s are not grey, the air I breath is clean…I repeat…I am not the cause of the problem.
I am stuffed if I am going to pay the price for the “sins” of others.
October 31st, 2006 at 2:04 pm
“I must also say that I am yet to be convinced that the whole “global warmingâ€? argument is not another Y2K con.
Except the Y2K stuff was hardly a con (unless you built a bunker or got all your information from the SST, that is). For thousands of businesses and their systems it was an issue and one that was largely fixed in time.
There are two issues with global warming. The first is that it is, er, global. If we opt out then we have noe excuse for complaining about others, who may have far more impact opting out.
The other is that because of the size of our economy we can be an excellent test bed for a variety of solutions and technologies. There is an opportunity to be and early adopter/leader which can add significant value to our economy as we seek to export ideas and technology.
October 31st, 2006 at 2:13 pm
Suspected you weren’t that strong a swimmer, big bruv.
Of course I travel by air and car on occasion too, although I try to use train and bus where practicable. I am certainly not suggesting we ban air travel or private cars, although we can as individuals try to reduce the frequency with which we use those means of transport.
But if we want to be carbon-neutral, then we need to accept that we pay for the cost of the reforestation required to offset the carbon emissions caused by the burning of jet and motor fuel used in our travel.
October 31st, 2006 at 2:24 pm
Big bruv
If you have travelled in an aeroplane, travelled in a car, or eaten meat then you have contributed directly to the problem of global warming. If you have accepted a salary from a multinational corporation, or from a smaller business that has a multinational corporation as a customer or a customer of a customer, and that multinational (often Asian or American) corporation is involved in any form of manufacture, then you have derived benefit from those contributing to the problem of global warming, and very likely the other problems of air pollution you mentioned. The same if you have accepted a salary from any airline, car company, agricultural enterprise (including a family farm), fish and chip shop (their landlord would have contributed to the roblem by thier building activity), in fact need I go on.
If you have accepted any salary from a government agency (including a benefit) you have benefited from the present oil-baed economic system, because governments get their income from taxes paid by industry and agriculture, and they make their money by burning fossil fuels.
If you have put any money into a bank, you have contributed to all the polluting actions of the companies the abnk lends money to.
If you have used any building, if you live in a house, if you wear clothes, in fact if you in any way contribute to this society, then you are benefiting from the present system. You are also using a computer, the manufacture of which involves burning fossil fuels.
This is not meant as a moral slur; the same can be said of me, and indeed of anyone on this blog. But what it does mean is that you, and I, and everyone here are part of the problem, and therefore we need to be part of the solution.
October 31st, 2006 at 2:27 pm
I agree with toad and kiore1. We will all need to change our lifestyles and expectations.
I think that people can be quite unaware of the impacts of their own activities. It is not something that retailers, TV advertising, SUV salesmen or glossy travel brochures say much if anything about, of course. Air travel is fuel intensive. As someone pointed out recently on another thread, peak oil is expected to have a significant impact on tourism to NZ.
tochigi - I think I know what you are referring to; I think it’s best left to run privately for a while - a better look for everyone. In the meantime, your thoughts on bigger issues (such as climate change) could be valuable!
Big bruv - you may be interested to have a look at some ecological footprint calculators, listed on the MfE website at:
http://www.climatechange.govt.nz/take-action/
October 31st, 2006 at 2:36 pm
Kiore & Prim
That is all well and good, I am sure that after reading that some people will just about feel like committing suicide such is the damage they are causing the world.
However neither of you have answered my original question, I cannot see how anything we do down here in New Zealand (are you still allowed to call it that?) will make one ounce of difference in the battle against global warming, perhaps your efforts might be better directed against those countries who actually produce the bloody pollution in the first place.
October 31st, 2006 at 2:51 pm
Big bruv - I think you have raised a good point. To my mind, NZ should cooperate with the international effort, to be a good member of the international community, and particularly if we want to retain the “clean green” image. Also, poorer nations may be more willing to take action when they see “richer” nations making changes.
Like you, I also think that NZ should be trying to achieve as much as it can in international fora to help get emissions reductions from large emitters.
October 31st, 2006 at 2:53 pm
big bruv, we can make millions of tons of difference. That may be small when stacked against billions of tons produced around the world, but every bit counts.
Naturally foreign Greens are simultaneously putting a lot of effort into changing the minds of people in the superpowers too, but our local Greens do what they can locally. Just because it is a big problem doesn’t mean we should do nothing.
October 31st, 2006 at 2:54 pm
Big Bruv
> perhaps your efforts might be better directed against those
> countries who actually produce the bloody pollution in the
> first place.
…which of course includes New Zealand.
Any country contributes a minority of GHGs, but that’s not a good argument to opt out of acting: as with any global issue it’s an argument for all countries to pull their weight.
October 31st, 2006 at 3:00 pm
MarkB - Eredwen
Aluminium production does indeed require large inputs of electricity. You could regard each aluminium can as a couple of kilowatts of condensed electricity. However, the choice is having Aluminium from renewable power here, or from coal or nuclear power plants somewhere else, or not having Aluminium.
Since Aluminium is critical to the construction of lightweight and efficient vehicles any plan to shut down the smelter turns out to be a false economy. The critical problem in NZ isn’t the use of power to make Aluminium, but the waste of power to heat the great outdoors, and worse, doing so using resistance heaters.
We have to get more wind, geothermal and other sources tapped. This is a very wealthy country in terms of renewables. It is one of our biggest advantages. Shutting down the smelter will ultimately make things worse.
—————————-
The food-miles argument is easily debunked, although even a ship, efficient as it is, doen’t make it from here to England on nothing at all and an EFFICIENT local producer would have an advantage. NZ producers should still have some advantage because the climate here is better, the rain is more reliable, the cold season is less severe.
If transport costs include the CO2 cost of the transport, then it’s taken care of automatically. That is the right way to manage this as it allows the economic costs to be factored into the market and the market to do what it does best. We haven’t reached that stage yet. We have to reach that stage soon, and not by having individual nations taxing incoming products.
A UN carbon tax on international shipping?
The whole thing is IMHO (agreeing with Jeeves), currently just a smoke screen to allow them to sidestep the WTO and its regulations and impose a tariff on imports. The Green movement is being used.
respectfully
BJ
October 31st, 2006 at 3:24 pm
As BJ says, the food miles argument is simplistic and easily debunked. It’s not only the energy use and CO2 emissions in the distribution of the product that must be considered. The energy and emissions involved in the production are just as significant.
Take a look at this report published very recently by the Agribusiness & Economics Research Unit at
Lincoln University.
October 31st, 2006 at 4:09 pm
there are several threads to this sea-change in the zeitgeist that the greens need to do a heads-up..! on…
one of them is that the next election will be a ‘green’ election…in that the old parties are going to have cohesive/coherent green policies..
(as noted on national radio..labour has over 20 ‘green’ policies in various states of development..that long starved/neglected wing of the labour party has now come into their own…
’tis their time in the sun..and it’s been a long winter for them..eh..?..they should all get medals struck for their perseverance against what was for so long institutional ennui from labour to their concerns..)
and national has the current blue/green model they are hawking around..but that will be tweaked again/amped-up by election time…
(with nick smith the national party equivalent of those happy green labourites..and also having his moment in the sun…)
these are the reasons i have been banging on on other threads about the need for the greens to get their ars*s into gear with their policy formulation…
(and a reliance on that creaky/glacial speed of approval etc for policy will be even more hazardous..eh..?..wot with changes happening so fast..)..
cos’ this next time out..they won’t be able to fudge it on the policy front like they did last time..
(and anyway..last time was light on policy and heavy on ‘we’re with them.!.”…while pointing at labour…and smiling vigorously at the same time eh..?..)
and one thing about the greening of the old parties is that that should finally shut up those within the green party that bang on about the need for the greens to just focus on the environmental issues..and to leave the social issues ..(like cannabis reform..anyone remember cannabis reform..?..)..and other ’social ‘policies alone..
‘cos now…the greens have to present as a broad-based party…not just an environmental party..
being just a ‘green’ party might work for one election…
but electorate gratitude for being the ‘first’ there..will only stretch so far…
so ask yourself…how can the greens just present environmental policies..?..(when the big parties are going gangbusters on environmental policies..(and hey..don’t delude/reassure yourself they won’t..that would be a big mistake..eh.?..)
with these radical changes to the political landscape…if the greens don’t grow into that broad party..(talking sense on all issues..not just the environment..)..they will wither and die….’cos of irrelevancy..
think..!..do we need a transport party…an agriculture party..?..or any other specific policy area party..?….no..we don’t..!
(thank goodness..finally..!..) there is no longer that urgent need for an (apparently)single-issue ‘green party’…
but with that good news..comes this new imperative for the green party..
to change/grow/develop…or die…
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 31st, 2006 at 4:16 pm
‘Food miles are important from an environmental point of view (that’s why Buy Kiwi Made is so vital!)’
sorry but i disagree the isolationist policies of the greens will not help us we need to be able to trade and by being involved with environmentaly conscious countries we can be involved with the development of systems that will negate the transport concerns. An eg
http://www.solarnavigator.net/solar_transporter_orcelle.htm
Cheers
October 31st, 2006 at 4:25 pm
Big bruv, you also aprear to be assuming that because the worst pollution is not occuring in New Zealand that New Zealanders are not responsible for it. But any economic transaction has two sides. Asian and American companies produce goods, and New Zealanders buy them. We actually have a higher per capita car ownership than Japan, the country that makes them.
And New Zealand’s environmental record is actually not all that good, considering our low population. Most of our native forest for example has been totally stripped to make way for grazing ruminants. And intensive farming is damaging waterways far more than industry, which has largely got its act together.
October 31st, 2006 at 5:17 pm
Phil is correct in that adoption of green issues by Labour or imitations by National, will make it harder for the Green party of NZ to manage a good showing in the next election. Considering our position in the last election, this is not a really desireable thing, and considering our position with no candidate strong enough to carry their own district outright (as Rodney Hide or Jim Anderton do) there’s ample scope for trouble.
We can cope with putting in place policies that will make us appear more complete as a party (ie, a valid choice), but our positioning has to also provide differences between us and Labour and National that the people of NZ can agree with and on that basis choose us instead. That’s a necessity.
They aren’t going to be interested in drug policy or prison policy except in a negative way. Tax policy might be a fruitful area to differentiate ourselves from the rest. Others?
We may be able to field more honest “Green” proposals… but out-greening the majors is going to be a delicate line. Easy to go too far. So we had better do some growing up or all we’ll do is take a 3-4% cut out of labour. The 5% threshold is pretty high for a minor party. We have to be able to make the cut, and a lot of people are going to vote according to the expectations (read polls) of our succeeding or not.
respectfully
BJ
October 31st, 2006 at 7:12 pm
Rather than taxing middle NZ even more, how about forcing the hundreds of thousands of people on benefits to plant one tree a week? Or better yet, spend some money on easy CO2 targets like rebuilding commuter rail, removing motorway bottlenecks, insulating houses, building more hydro / wind power stations etc.
Climate change may be entirely unavoidable, but better that the government acts locally, rather than imposes economy-killing taxes to go to an unaccountable global body. If this report is correct, 9 Trillion is about the annual GDP of the USA, this spread across the entire world is not that much, and it would be spread unevenly of course. We might not get hit too badly, and it might be far less damaging to the economy to react rather than be proactive.
Regarding Tiwai point, production is about 350,000 tons of aluminium, which releases about half that amount of CO2. With global CO2 of 24 billion tons it is 0.0008% of global emissions. i.e. bugger all.
October 31st, 2006 at 7:47 pm
kiore/baz/ben, don’t bother yourself with good ole bruv. He’s not too fond of community. He’s fond of a laugh though, so feel free to engage in fact free banter.
In many ways we’re sitting here gawking at the smoke screen again. The fact that scientific consensus on the issue was reached a long time ago means that big picture stuff is not our direct concern (20% global GDP loss, ?% of temp increase, ?.?m rise in sea level).
The basic facts are helpful: Emitting matter into earth water or air at a faster rate than can be neutralised naturally is damaging. We should be asking questions of politicians how such activity is impacted by the (dis)incentive structures created by thier policies.
But individually, our level of responsibility is directly indicated by our actions as consumers. When we buy we endorse a mode of production. Sure the Govt “incentive structures” endorse certain modes of production over others, but they’re all designed for us, the goggle eyed consumer.
Climate change sucks. No doubt about it. But the more we do thats out of whack with the planet on a day to day basis the more we take the power to fix the problem out of our own hands (yes, it is in our hands). Power to the individual (bruv, that should resonate with you).
Its the small things that count. Just like wind energy is part of the solution, quitting the gym and walking to work is part of the solution. A push mower is better than a motor mower, toothbrush better than electric, tap beer better than bottled, etc, etc.
We have choices. We simply need to exercise them with some the intelligence that we have in abundance.
I’ll stop now.
October 31st, 2006 at 8:42 pm
Frog
Please keep us posted with regard the Greens appeal to British Greens, Dairy Crest, and enviro groups over our negative food miles publicity.
Good to see a pro-active response - it’d be nice to see some transparency from up norf.
Cheers
M
October 31st, 2006 at 10:34 pm
Hmm, re what the Greens should do … no doubt officials at EECA or MfE and other agencies have their wish-lists. As Jeanette and her office works with EECA, no doubt the Greens would get some idea re energy wish-lists and form their own view on them.
From my own individual perspective (without having read “Turn down the heat” yet!), I’d suggest outlawing any new coal fired electricity generation for a start. Govt could take more active shareholder interest in SOE generators to ensure they operate in an environmentally sound way. Strong requirements in Building Code. Massive investment in rail and encouragement for freight to switch to rail. Vehicle efficiency standards and sales/registration taxes based on fuel efficiency. Restrictions on carparking developments. Require any new major roads to be built with separate cycle lanes. Require Transfund (or whoever) to allocate a higher % of their funding to public transport, walking and cycling initiatives, and require them to get these fast tracked. Require shops’ customers to be given info about environmental impacts of products e.g. CO2 emissions in production, before purchase, e.g. on product. Encourage/require people to reduce, reuse, recycle more. Policy to strengthen Waste Minimisation Act (assuming this will be passed in some form). Maybe require every shopping mall to offer reduced rental to a second hand store, so people see it and don’t forget.
If anyone wants to find out how much energy is used in NZ to make various types of materials/products, some info is on the EECA database at
http://www.eeca.govt.nz/enduse/index.aspx . I think that paper is not quite 10% of the total. (I don’t buy newspapers any more.)
October 31st, 2006 at 10:38 pm
A UN carbon tax on international shipping?
Yes indeed, BJ! But this must come AFTER an international tax on all air transport (passenger and freight).
Obviously, taxing land-based transport is much harder, because that mostly occurs within one country’s frontiers. But that’s the key to “food miles”.
Jeeves :
and it is a bit rich given the subsidies throttled down farmers’ throats in Europe and the USA to use this to justify exclusion from their markets.
To me the food miles arguement is yet another crappy argument by the West to shit on the third world WRT the WTO agriculture talks.
I take issue with this… Re-localizing the economy is a Green fundamental. Here in France, we are self-sufficient in agriculture, and most of the food I eat originates within 20 miles of where I live. If agriculture had not been protected, this would not be the case : we would presumably be eating low-quality imported industrial food from Romania and the Ukraine. Free trade favours agro-industrial conglomerates. Intelligent protectionism allows peasant farmers to exist.
And yes, the Third World gets it in the neck. Not principally because they are denied export opportunities, but because their peasant farmers are wiped out by subsidised exports from (among other places) France. I strongly oppose this.
But don’t put everyone in the same bag. The “Food miles” argument is NOT being used by WTO negotiators against the Third World. They don’t need fancy moral arguments, they just use brute force to impose leonine treaties. “Food miles” is being used as a consciousness-raising thing by those who want to see ecological sustainability.
And if a food-mile tax meant that there were no more air-freighted Kenyan green beans on sale in my supermarket in midwinter, then frankly I won’t miss them. Would that damage the Kenyan economy? If so, it wasn’t a sustainable economic activity anyway.
October 31st, 2006 at 10:46 pm
Big Bro :
New Zealanders collectively are 11th worst polluters on the planet on a per capita basis. Your personal consumption outweighs that of a large number of Chinese or Indians.
But you’re right. Nothing you can do individually will make any difference. Why should insignificant, piddling little you bother to do anything ?
By the same token, I don’t suppose you bother to vote. Which is a good thing, in your case.
October 31st, 2006 at 11:07 pm
Hey Alistair - steady on! I imagine that there are quite a few people in NZ who have asked the same question as big bruv - at times myself I think that people working on this in NZ must think that their time might be better spent in another country, where their work can make a bigger difference. Eg given our relatively high percentage of hydro electricity here, perhaps NZ could send some people with relevant expertise to train/help people in China to implement its recently announced huge funding plan for renewable energy?? (Just a speculation on my part.) Perhaps Denmark can send some wind energy experts to help grow the industry in China. Again speculation from me. Perhaps this is what various companies will effectively be doing at some stage.
On an individual consumer level, the question becomes more acute again, but I think that it has been well answered by postings above.
November 1st, 2006 at 7:52 am
Alistiar and others.
I can assure you that I do vote and as I have said before on this forum I do have an interest in some of the Green party policies, however I refuse to be bullied into accepting something (Global warming) without indisputable fact, as yet nobody can provide that.
For all those who support the theory (most have a vested interest) there are many (usually far better qualified) who claim it is rubbish.
I also fail to see how taxing something is going to stop it producing green houses gasses, but then perhaps this is the reason for the beat up in the first place.
One more thing Alistair….does this debate have to lower itself to the level of personal abuse?..one of the things I like about the Greens (and this is not common with those from the left) is that in general you can have a debate with out irrational personal attacks.
November 1st, 2006 at 9:25 am
Big Bruv
> I refuse to be bullied into accepting something (Global warming)
> without indisputable fact, as yet nobody can provide that.
I can’t imagine where you’re getting your information from, but it’s obviously not scientifically literate.
> For all those who support the theory (most have a vested interest)
> there are many (usually far better qualified) who claim it is rubbish.
The people who do the actual climate research go into column ‘a’. They publish papers in peer-reviewed journals, where it is scrutinised for flaws. The people who generally don’t do the research and don’t try to get published in anything credible, but get really good funding from Exxon Mobil, go into column ‘B’.
Man-made global warming is a well-established fact, like cigarettes causing lung cancer. Move on.
> I also fail to see how taxing something is going to stop
> it producing green houses gasses
As a trivial example, see how fuel-efficient cars are in the US (low petrol tax) compared to Europe (high petrol tax). Or see what happens to sales of cigarettes as tobacco taxes rise.
November 1st, 2006 at 9:55 am
Phil - with regards to other policies your health spokesperson terrifies me. Nightmare scenario would be her and Tony Ryall given *any* access to those portfolios. Bring on the dark ages
November 1st, 2006 at 10:57 am
Don’t curse the Comalco smelter! Unlike it’s sister plant in Wales, which is nuclear powered, Tiwai is powered by Meridian Energy’s Manapouri hydro scheme. Most smelters in the world, like the new ones in China, are coal fired. This is about as clean an aluminum product as you can get, at least from the smelting standpoint. Closing the smelter will collapse the Southland energy market, as there are too many constraints in the grid that prevent the juice from getting exported north. The price will bottom out completely, further eroding any position renewables could hold in the energy portfolio. We should be looking at ways to feed the monster that is Tiwai with yet more clean and renewable energy that also allows it to stay competitive with the Chinese nasty smelters.
November 1st, 2006 at 12:18 pm
caraka:
While accepting the “too many constraints on the (National) grid”, as relevant to the use of Manapouri power, ultimately we will have to make BIG changes in our ways of thinking and doing things.
I have nothing against the smelting of aluminium for our needs, but in my long experience “need” is a very expanable word!
I think of Tiwai Point every time I see the stacks of aluminium cans for single serves of beer, coca cola etc in the SuperMarket or on the back of HUGE trucks that transport them around the country. I look in amazement at my local community’s weekly rubbish and “recycling” bins stacked along the streets on collection day. The residents get the “feel good” effect of the fact that stuff “will be recycled”. Few have thought of the logistics of this. (Our household has put out one rubbish bag this calendar year … a second one may possibly make it before 31/12.)
I remember the pre plastic (!) era where (for example) strong reuseable standard bottles were available throughout the country for various purposes (milk, beer, softdrinks, medicines, etc etc.) At that time building materials (for example) were made to last, and within renovations were reused rather than “dumped”.
Humans have a history of coming up with “new ideas”. Unfortunately in Aotearoa/NZ “business people” are free to increasingly accept the “new ideas”, and now it is the norm for us to accept the made-not-to-last products from other societies without being required to think of the implications for this place at this time and into the future.
“Times they are a changing” … and we as individuals and as a community need to come to terms with global warming and its implications for EVERYTHING we decide to do. (Relevant to that: Our household has been worlking on reducing the need for / use of electricity and our monthly power bill now averages around $50 per month … if others, in every sphere, did likewise how many coal fired power stations would we “need”?
November 1st, 2006 at 12:57 pm
Baz
I am more than willing to debate the motor industry with you anytime, for you to suggest that the fuel efficiency in the US and Europe is solely to do with tax is bending the truth, having worked and lived in both places I can assure you it has as much to do with the distance people must travel as it does with fuel efficiency/ tax.
Your Exxon example only confirms my suspicions, anybody who has the temerity to disagree with the global warming theory must be funded by Exxon in your eyes, that sounds a lot like the irrational attacks comrade Klark and co are mounting on the Brethren.
I along with many others from the center right are of the opinion that taxing anything in the name of global warming is just another way the left can steal more money from me on a weekly basis.
There are many things that concern me in this world, the possibility of climate change is one of them, however for some to suggest that it is the number one problem facing the world today is just wrong.
November 1st, 2006 at 1:23 pm
big bruv Says:
I along with many others from the center right are of the opinion that taxing anything in the name of global warming is just another way the left can steal more money from me on a weekly basis.
The Greens don’t see eco-taxes as additional taxes. Green Policy is to introduce eco-taxes, but they will be fiscally neutral, since they will be offset by making the first $5000 of income tax-free. See the Green Party Eco-tax reform policy.
What’s more, a successful eco-tax means less pollution and waste, which means less of taxpayers’ money will need to be spent on cleaning up that pollution and waste and treating the health problems that are consequent upon this.
November 1st, 2006 at 1:52 pm
Toad
Thanks for the party political broadcast..lol..you have explained the reasoning for eco taxes (the fact that I do not agree is not the point) what you have not done is tell me how these taxes will lower/stop green house gas emissions, as much as you might hope an eco tax will do as you suggest it is yet to be proven.
The wealthy are still going to drive cars, the wealthy are still going to avoid public transport like the plague, and lets be honest most of the people in NZ do not live anywhere near something that could be reasonably described as an adequate public transport system, all your $5000 tax free policy will do is force those who can least afford it to spend more on fuel.
Poor people (and yes I have been in that boat) will not look at this as being “fiscally neutral” they will look at the few extra $ in their wallet as a chance to fend off the repo man for an extra week.
In a trading country like ours we cannot afford to lose any advantage (or handicap ourselves) in the global market, if we implement carbon taxes we risk losing the few remaining markets we have in the world to those countries who are not hampered by carbon taxes.
November 1st, 2006 at 2:03 pm
Big Bruv
> for you to suggest that the fuel efficiency in the US and Europe is
> solely to do with tax is bending the truth
You misquote me: I never said ’solely’. Other factors (such as political will, subsidies, tax breaks, consumer awareness etc) clearly come into play. But all things being equal, a higher price paid at the pumps leads to more efficient cars, more car-pooling, greater use of alternative means of transport, less suburban sprawl, etc.
> Your Exxon example only confirms my suspicions, anybody
> who has the temerity to disagree with the global warming
> theory must be funded by Exxon in your eyes
You really should keep up on your news. Over the years ExxonMobil have distributed millions of dollars to dozens of groups with the sole intention of rubbishing global warming. These aren’t groups doing research: this is entirely disinformation. And ExxonMobil aren’t the only company doing this, even if they’re the worst.
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=2612021&page=1
There *are* active climate scientists who don’t receive petrochemical dollars and deny man-made global warming, but very few left and they’re not submitting papers. This places them very much in a fringe position, and their pronouncements should be weighed up accordingly.
Man-made global warming is a well-established fact. Move on.
> I along with many others from the center right are of the
> opinion that taxing anything in the name of global warming is
> just another way the left can steal more money from me on
> a weekly basis.
Transferring tax from income onto fossil fuels is more of a centre-right position than a left position (if European conservatives and The Economist are anything to go by). Not dealing with CO2 emissions is now relegated to a neoconservative fringe.
November 1st, 2006 at 2:27 pm
Baz
“There *are* active climate scientists who don’t receive petrochemical dollars and deny man-made global warming, but very few left and they’re not submitting papers. This places them very much in a fringe position, and their pronouncements should be weighed up accordingly.”
I detect an underlying hatred of big business here, you are far to quick to label anybody who does not agree with you as a lackey of Exxon, there are plenty of people who do not believe the global warming theory, are you suggesting that all of them are mad?
I respect and enjoy your commitment, in NZ that is a rare thing, just look at the whole deal first, I am still open to being convinced this is a major problem, what i am turned off by is extremism from both parties in this debate.
November 1st, 2006 at 4:07 pm
big bruv says:
“… I am still open to being convinced this is a major problem, what i am turned off by is extremism from both parties in this debate.”
The problem with communicating with you is the HUGE distance between your “reality” and that of the Greens on this site. Many of us have followed the science and were “convinced there was a major problem” years (and in some cases, decades) ago.
Where were you all that time? What was your focus?
If you really do want to know about Global Warming do some serious reading on the subject. If you don’t, you’d do better to take your predictable “arguments” elewhere.
November 1st, 2006 at 4:07 pm
Big bruv -
I suggest you have a look at the next frog posting, on “How to talk to a climate skeptic”, and the link therein.
November 1st, 2006 at 4:10 pm
> you are far to quick to label anybody who does not agree with
> you as a lackey of Exxon
No, just people in the dozens of PR groups they fund: did you read the link?
> There are plenty of people who do not believe the global warming
> theory, are you suggesting that all of them are mad?
Please name me some active climate scientists who don’t believe in global warming and don’t get paid by fossil fuel companies. There’s almost none left.
> what i am turned off by is extremism from both parties in this
> debate
Which parties are you talking about — scientific? Political? Media?
In scientific circles there’s no more debate than there is on the germ theory of disease.
November 1st, 2006 at 4:19 pm
Prim
Why the hell would I want to read anything that instructs me on how to talk to a sceptic?, I (and I would hope you) would weigh up the facts on both sides and carefully consider the information before making up my mind.
I am bloody dubious about anything that tells me how I should talk to a group that does not share my views, I am not afraid of people who do not share my opinion as I have usually sorted it out in my own mind and can debate the issue myself.
November 1st, 2006 at 4:27 pm
eredwen Says:
November 1st, 2006 at 4:07 pm
big bruv says:
“… I am still open to being convinced this is a major problem, what i am turned off by is extremism from both parties in this debate.�
The problem with communicating with you is the HUGE distance between your “reality� and that of the Greens on this site. Many of us have followed the science and were “convinced there was a major problem� years (and in some cases, decades) ago.
Where were you all that time? What was your focus?
If you really do want to know about Global Warming do some serious reading on the subject. If you don’t, you’d do better to take your predictable “arguments� elsewhere.
Wow!!!
So if I refuse to agree with you then I should not pollute the place with a differing opinion?, are you really that afraid of somebody who has yet to make up his mind on this subject? did you really expect me to blindly believe everything on this site without thinking for myself?
Did it not cross your mind that one of the reasons I come here is to read the views of the greens (the more balanced views anyway) on this subject.
You mentioned the world communicating, from the tone of your post it would seem that you are not interested in communicating at all; you seem to want people to come here for indoctrination
November 1st, 2006 at 4:46 pm
Big bruv - if you truly intend to read and make up your mind - then I suggest you do so. Not sure why you are spending so much effort debating at this stage.
November 1st, 2006 at 6:37 pm
big bruv:
The appropriate language of “debate” is neutral and consists of well presented ideas couched in “emotionally neutral” language. Your language on this blog is often “aggressive”. This stirs up emotions that detract from the debate. (In this regard your posts stand out among the general tone of frogblog.)
If you seriously want to be part of the debate here, I suggest that you read back through the posts of others that you didn’t like, and then re-read what YOU wrote that caused them to write in the manner they did.
I suggest that you tone down. Otherwise you are wasting your time here (and ours!) Assertive is good. Aggressive is counterproductive!
(I write this as a Green who is also as a very experienced tertiary teacher of Communications English.)
eredwen
November 1st, 2006 at 7:51 pm
Don’t expect reason from the Greens, big brov.
You are correct. NZ policies make so little difference it isn’t worth counting. We could pollute at ten times the rate we do and still not make the slightest bit of difference globally. We are insignificant. Tiny. A drop in the ocean.
Our economy depends on tourism, agriculture and export.
That is the inconvenient truth NZ Greens must face.
November 1st, 2006 at 10:13 pm
PeterExitsLeft says:
” Don’t expect reason from the Greens, big brov” …
“We could pollute at ten times the rate we do and still not make the slightest bit of difference globally.”
Presumably every individual on the Planet, every small group on the Planet, could say the same?
Logically (from this reasoning) no one is responsible for climate change therefore no one need do anything about it.
I hope “the Greens” have grasped the “reason” in this!
I suspect that PeterExitsLeft would call it “individual responsibility”.
November 1st, 2006 at 10:31 pm
Big Bruv - Don’t BS here either ace. It wasn’t raining when Noah build the Ark and indisputable facts don’t come out of scientific studies, they come out of religious dogma and you know that as well as anyone here. You are one of an incredibly small minority now still in denial about the facts. Enjoy the solitude. You’ve been abandoned by the Economist, by the World Bank, by Easterbrook … and I could go on for a LONG time. People are starting to understand the problem… when you decide that you are also a people we will all become happier.
Added to Eredwens EXCELLENT argument PeterExitsLeft, is the fact that if we here in New Zealand are not among the leaders, with our massive advantage in renewable resources per capita, there will be fewer willing to put themselves to the considerably tougher task faced by the USA or China or the EU or Japan.
If we become a negative example, we fail twice.
respectfully
BJ
November 2nd, 2006 at 4:12 am
Just letting you know of some post stern report news from Ireland. For those of you who have been to Ireland/U.K in recent years you have no doubt heard of Ryanair. The budget airline, offering tickets in the range of £0.01 to £1 flights before tax (if you book far enough in advance and dont travel in the weekend). Well they have just rubished demands by the U.K to implement a ‘green tax’.
*Chief executive Michael O’Leary described recent demands by UK
lawmakers and environment campaigners for the airline industry to
face new taxes to help fight climate change as ‘the usual
horseshit’*
Furthermore,
*O’Leary claimed aviation accounts for only 3pc of global
greenhouse gas emissions*
and,
*’If people are really serious about tackling the minuscule
emissions from the aircraft industry, they should be looking at
airlines still using old gas-guzzling aircraft,’*
The final statement reflects similar sentiments to the ones expressed earlier in this thread about NZ’s impact on the global environment. However minor a group is that pollutes, it all adds up. Air travel still causes harm… but the statement is right there is a large element of consumer choice in making sure you dont travel with ‘gas guzzling airlines’. Maybe we need to know which airlines ‘they’ are?
pdublly
November 2nd, 2006 at 8:07 am
BJ
I can’t tell you if it was raining when somebody called Noah supposedly built an ark as I was not around at that time, it sounds like you might have been, I hope you gave the silly bugger a hand….BTW..what is a cubit?
I am not sure how you can claim that I am in a minority, I speak to a wide range of people every day and have yet to meet anybody who feels it is the number one problem facing the world today.
I admire your passion I just dislike the way you exaggerate the facts.
November 2nd, 2006 at 8:57 am
Big Bruv
> I speak to a wide range of people every day and have yet to
> meet anybody who feels it is the number one problem facing
> the world today.
Does this mean that you discuss the relative rankings of the world’s problems with a wide range of different people every day? And is there a reason you haven’t asked anyone here?
November 2nd, 2006 at 11:04 am
Come on Baz..I am hardly going to get a balanced view of things from this site.
I like to read as much as I can on the subject, take the views from the left and the right (who interesting enough are as passionate about the global warming issue as you are) and then decide for myself.
As it happens I have yet to read ONE article that is not slanted one way or another, somewhere in the middle is the truth, as yet I have not found it.
As for my discussions….most of the people I talk with rank global warming well down the list of problems facing the world, they (and I) are far more worried about Terrorism, Hunger, Sanitation, Aids, and the like.
November 2nd, 2006 at 12:46 pm
Big Bruv
To sum up what you’ve said:
* nobody you’ve asked ranks AGW as an important issue
* you don’t solicit the opinions of people who you consider have an unbalanced view. Which presumably means a different view to your own?
> As it happens I have yet to read ONE article that is not slanted
> one way or another, somewhere in the middle is the truth, as
> yet I have not found it.
Now that *is* a curious thing to say. It seems you’re trying to determine the truth of a scientific theory by reading politically-biased sources. Why don’t you try reading scientific publications?
This issue has been settled within the scientific community for 15 years. It should now be beyond politics. You can argue about the best way to tackle anthropogenic global warming, but it’s happening. Accept it and move on.
November 2nd, 2006 at 2:03 pm
Baz:
” This issue has been settled within the scientific community for 15 years. It should now be beyond politics. You can argue about the best way to tackle anthropogenic global warming, but it’s happening. Accept it and move on.”
Very well said!
November 2nd, 2006 at 3:57 pm
indeed!
November 2nd, 2006 at 4:00 pm
Baz and eredwen
That sounds disturbingly like an instruction!.
The issue is far from settled, there is still a good deal of debate in the scientific community (I know as I have read a lot of it)
However my original point still remains, I can see no reason we as a country should handicap ourselves (through taxes and major alterations to our standard of living) while the major polluters of the world continue on their merry way.
November 2nd, 2006 at 4:39 pm
Big Bruv
> The issue is far from settled, there is still a good deal of debate
> in the scientific community (I know as I have read a lot of it)
Kindly point us to some evidence to support that claim: a paper published in a peer-reviewed journal, for example.
November 2nd, 2006 at 5:04 pm
In the meantime, “… the Stern review suggests that the economic benefits of early action to curb greenhouse gases would far outweigh the costs – by eventually as much as $2.5 trillion a year.” (I quote from material at frog’s link.) No doubt actions taken in NZ can contribute to that global benefit.
NZ action can also benefit NZ. I think it likely that there will be business opportunities in curbing greenhouse gas emissions. Arguments which discuss only costs may be a little one-sided.
November 2nd, 2006 at 5:16 pm
Big bruv -
As you may be aware, the Clean Development Mechanism is available under Kyoto Protocol. The CDM can reward those who invest in GHG-reducing projects in poorer nations. The idea possibly being that projects in those countries may in some cases be able to get more bang for bucks in terms of greenhouse gas emission reductions, and investment in those projects should be encouraged and rewarded. The KP offers flexibility to pursue such options.
November 3rd, 2006 at 12:12 am
Do humans always have to have doom and gloom at the forefront of their beliefs? Global warming is going to cost 2.5trillion… if we dont act. The world is acting! arnold schwarzenegger, kyoto, stern report, greening of the political parties in England, NZ (blue greens), hybrid cars, renewable energy (wind, solar), the list goes on and on. These things have already changed public opinions (the public have an opinion) and therefore we are already negating effects on a future world that hasnt had time to pan out yet. I know the human race can survive global warming, although, I fear for many of the worlds species that can not adapt because of our actions.
History never repeats is a fallacy. The threat of communism/terrorism or nuclear winter/GLOBAL WARMING and no doubt bird flu has a counterpart from a couple of decades ago (more recently was SARS). My point is there is always something to worry about. There always will be.
More often than not, worry is nothing more than a waste of time. It doesnt achieve anything, actions do. And besides maybe we dont need to tax anything that creates carbon. Maybe we wont be creating more carbon soon, http://www.steorn.net/frontpage/default.aspx Currently everyone is pretty skeptical about this, but maybe there is a free source of energy. Forget about cold fusion, that doesnt work, steorns invention hasnt been proved not to yet, so I am hopeful (and vey very excited).
pdublly
November 3rd, 2006 at 7:49 am
The more I read on this subject the more I come to the conclusion that it is nothing but an excuse for the left to steal more of my money, the ironic thing about this of course is these taxes will only hurt those who can least afford it.
Kyoto is a waste of time, and our government was stupid in signing the agreement, unless you can convince the US, China, India and Aussie to sign up then it is useless.
November 3rd, 2006 at 9:05 am
big bruv:
I have this picture of big bruv sitting there holding on tight to his “money” in case anyone comes to take it … as low-lying New Zealand disappears under the rising sea levels.
November 3rd, 2006 at 9:39 am
Big Bruv
> The more I read on this subject the more I come to the
> conclusion that it is nothing but an excuse […]
Perhaps you also feel that the laws of thermodynamics are an infringement on your rights, but it doesn’t falsify them.
You say that you have read a lot of debate on the issue in the scientific community, but you haven’t replied to my request to supply some evidence. To make it easier for you, just give us a link to a secondary source — perhaps a popular scientific periodical like New Scientist or Scientific American.
November 3rd, 2006 at 9:54 am
There is one thing I agree with Mr Bruv with, which is on the topic of carbon taxes. These are simply a revenue gathering exercise for some beneficiary, as untimately, you can’t swap piles of money for climate change: the money system and climate systems have no exchange where both parties are present. All that happens is some party loses money, and some party gains money, and all the while the planet loses. The theory is that money can act as a lever to influence carbon production, but thats just pipe-dream territory.
But, of course, in a few years time, peak oil will influence production of carbon far more.
The other issue is that I’m watching all these Green folk throwing stones with righteous and gay abandon whilst living in a glass house. It wasn’t so long ago that the Greens were against Project Aqua, conveniently forgetting that every KWh not generated from hydro is a KWh generated from burning fossil fuels, and thus generating CO2.
November 3rd, 2006 at 9:55 am
pdublly
Everyone’s skeptical about this for a reason. This is just the latest in a long line of free energy scams.
http://www.randi.org/jr/2006-08/082506yet.html#i1
If you want to invest in it, can I interest you in a perpetual motion machine?
November 3rd, 2006 at 10:39 am
eredwen Says:
November 3rd, 2006 at 9:05 am
big bruv:
I have this picture of big bruv sitting there holding on tight to his “money� in case anyone comes to take it … as low-lying New Zealand disappears under the rising sea levels.
And paying more tax is going to stop the rising sea levels?…and it is MY money, I worked for it.
On that subject…any idea when the greens are going to pay back the money they stole?
November 3rd, 2006 at 10:49 am
Just to reiterate, the Greens do not support an increase in taxation to save the planet they support a fundamental shift in taxation away from income taxes towards carbon taxes. On average this will be fiscally neutral. Most people will pay a similar amount in tax as before (although obviously there will be winners and losers).
And the Greens did not steal any money, they put in an invoice to Parliamentary services that was approved as kosher and then at a later date the goalposts were moved and the country as a whole decided that such spending was not kosher. It can not in any way be described as “theft”.
November 3rd, 2006 at 10:51 am
dbuckley, big bruv - you are both quite wrong. The entire reason for putting a tax on something like carbon emissions is to force the economic system, the CAPITALIST system, to take notice of it and put the invisible hand to work at making it better. That is the entire reason. If you examine the Green’s tax proposals you’d see that we are interested in putting a cost on the use and abuse of the commons. If you can think of a BETTER way to do that we’ll happily listen and include your ideas. It isn’t even a matter of “more” tax with us, as we happily allow for things like income or sales taxes to be reduced to make the change revenue neutral.
ciao
BJ
November 3rd, 2006 at 11:04 am
big bruv
You may be reading a heck of a lot, but I can assure you that it has very little to do with the scientific concensus. There’s a web of denial sites supported by XOM. There’s the Libertarian reflexive resistance to anything that requires or involves government intervention supporting some of them as well. Finally the number of actual climate scientists who actually disagree with the premise of anthropogenic global warming is quite small, to the point of being near vanishing.
Since this is about science, let us hear your explanation for the CO2 increase. Let us hear your explanation of the warming of the ocean and the air. Let us hear your explanation of how all this will NOT be bad news for a population that is already unable to feed itself properly.
You give us your theories and we will see how long and how well they stand up to reason. The global-warming meme has stood long enough and powerfully enough to be a well established and workable theory. Like Evolution it is only a theory, but like Evolution, it has had many tests and survived them all, always improving.
I know you don’t like it. But we’re the ones trying to change it. Maybe you should think about which side you really want to be on.
BJ
November 3rd, 2006 at 11:12 am
dbuckley:
I agree heartily that
“untimately, you can’t swap piles of money for climate change”
and that
“All that happens is some party loses money, and some party gains money, and all the while the planet loses..”
However I disagree with your assessment of the Greens’ opposition to Project Aqua.
The Greens have certainly NOT lost sight of the fact that “every KWh not generated from hydro is a KWh generated from burning fossil fuels, and thus generating CO2.”
The harnessing of Hydro is a complex problem: eg: where and how it is harnessed, how long the transmission lines will need to be and the resultant problems of this (including SERIOUS WASTAGE), what else is affected by a proposed scheme, etc etc and (especially) the full range of alternative generation for each situation.
At this time, one of our first tasks as a “Nation” must be to to look very seriously at our USE of electricity and at (well thought out) ENERGY SAVING by ALL users.
When we have got that right THEN is the time to assess all our generation alternatives, including a whole range of local small alterrnatives.
Wind energy is still in its infancy. Tidal and Wave energy from the sea (in and around Cook Strait has EXCELLENT potential) …
November 3rd, 2006 at 11:40 am
stuey Says:
November 3rd, 2006 at 10:49 am
And the Greens did not steal any money, they put in an invoice to Parliamentary services that was approved as kosher and then at a later date the goalposts were moved and the country as a whole decided that such spending was not kosher. It can not in any way be described as “theft�.
stuey
If it was not theft then why was retrospective legislation required to legalise the “theft”?
It is bad enough that the greens want to impose taxes by stealth (carbon tax) but to blatantly steal money from me and then attempt to “spin” your way out of it is shocking.
The goal posts were not moved, as far as I am aware the AG warned all parties that they were at risk yet most chose to ignore him, at least the moari party, the Nats, and Act have paid it back.
I want my money as soon as possible please, then perhaps we can convince comrade Klark to pay for Herceptin and save a few Kiwi lives.
November 3rd, 2006 at 11:48 am
BJ
As I have said before I admire your passion, but as long as you insist on labeling everybody who does not agree with your “theory” as puppets of Exxon then you lack credibility (in my eyes).
You assume that none of us can think for ourselves, you are obviously so passionate about this that you refuse to acknowledge there are normal sane people who are yet to be convinced and even that there are some of us who wonder if there is an ulterior motive.
A few years ago there was a world wide panic about Y2K…planes were going to fall out of the sky, all of our PC’s were going to shut down and be rendered useless, our communications networks and emergency services were going to be thrown into disarray etc…none of that happened of course and you have to wonder how the world was taken in by this con job.
BTW…How do I get my hands on some of the billions from Exxon?
November 3rd, 2006 at 11:55 am
big bruv said…
“..then perhaps we can convince comrade Klark to pay for Herceptin and save a few Kiwi lives…”
this morning i reported on a major breakthrough in the treatment of breast cancer…
(which tends to reinforce the stance of the health dept(whoever)..not to fund herceptin…)
a london hospital has developed a new ’super-cocktail’ of drugs that they are reporting a 100% success rate with..
whereas ..with herceptin…there is a best-case scenario of a 20% ‘cure’ rate…
and no..that cocktail of drugs does not contain herceptin…
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 3rd, 2006 at 11:59 am
hmmm..!..is bre*st on yr list of banned/moderated words..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 3rd, 2006 at 12:02 pm
or was it something i said..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 3rd, 2006 at 12:50 pm
Big Bruv
>BJ
>
>As I have said before I admire your passion, but as long as you
>insist on labeling everybody who does not agree with your “theory�
> as puppets of Exxon then you lack credibility (in my eyes).
You seem to be getting confused, old chap. I was the one in this thread who pointed out that Exxon (among others) funds bogus groups to distort the science. This is well documented, and I provided a link, which I suspect you didn’t follow. And talking of links, we’re still waiting for your evidence that the scientific community is abuzz with climate change denial.
Go on, prove us all wrong.
November 3rd, 2006 at 1:11 pm
BJ
Somebody here (it may have been you but I am not sure) admitted that global warming is still a theory, of course they are correct in that assumption.
Given that FACT it is somewhat difficult to prove or disprove anything don’t you think?
Remember, for many years men of “science” scoffed at anybody who said the world was anything other than flat…..were they also funded by Exxon?
November 3rd, 2006 at 1:17 pm
A 4-step argument:
People tend to vote Green or actively learn about green issues, and hence visit this webpage, out of a concern for the environment and sustainablity, or a dislike of inequality and injustice….
…and this concern probably stems from (among other things) a high degree of empathy and care for other people….
…and in turn these psychological traits also manifest in an amazing willingness to engage in patient discussion with even the slowest, most stubborn, uninformed, arrogantly-confident-but-ignorant contributors to this blog…
….which I think is to some extent a waste of really intelligent people’s time!
Eredwen, bjchip, Baz, remember that making political change involves, at the end of the day, a headcount. Spending time as ‘big bruvs’ personal librarian, tutor, and unpaid research assistant is not really the best use of your time, because he isn’t exactly low-lying fruit on the tree of potential converts to voting green (he’s also unripe, and still a little bitter).
The ‘war of ideas’ on environmental issues is slowly being won, but not by engaging trolls. With respect, although I really enjoying reading your comments, I think your valuable time is better spent on those people not on the far reaches of the ‘willingness-to-engage-and-learn’ spectrum.
And big bruv, if you aren’t being paid to do what you do, then you should be!
November 3rd, 2006 at 1:21 pm
Big Bruv
So if we bust our butts and hold the carbon within limits and nothing happens you’ll claim that there was nothing to it ?
Since I worked on some of the code that was involved in the Y2K thing (not too much but enough), I know that the problems were fixed ahead of time because it was predicted by us tech types, flagged and then addressed. The non-event was a non-event because foresight works where the invisible hand gets burned. Greens look ahead. Capitalism has no means of looking ahead. The invisible hand is… well… just a hand. It can kill, but it cannot see.
Set up an ambiguously named conference and invite a couple of the denial types to speak at your conference. The checks will almost certainly follow.
BJC
November 3rd, 2006 at 1:27 pm
I agree with Tom.
What to do about this situation?
November 3rd, 2006 at 2:20 pm
Big Bruv
your confusion of the colloquial usage and scientific usage of the word “theory” makes me suspect you’re not as scientifically well-read as you claim to be. That and the fact that you’ve evaded providing any evidence that anthropogenic global warming is unproven.
Go on, I’ve called your bluff three times now: please show us the evidence that leads you to state that it’s unproven. You made the claim, it’s up to you to substantiate it.
Tom et al
I’m not out to convert Big Bruv. Maybe at some point he’ll ask himself “why can’t I provide good evidence what I claim?”, and then maybe realise that scientific truths aren’t determined by ideological beliefs, but I wouldn’t bet money on it.
November 3rd, 2006 at 2:33 pm
- “The global-warming meme has stood long enough and powerfully enough to be a well established and workable theory.”
It certainly been around long enough, but for the last few years the wheels have been coming off.
The original myth - based of course on the hockeystick - was that there had been a sharp and unnatural increase in temperature in the last 150 years or so.
Such a claim relied on a Stalinesque airbrushing from history of natural climate events like the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period.
The hockeystick is now in the rubbish bin and we can see that there is no reason at all to assume that recent warming is anything but a largely natural phenomenon. Whatever contribution anthropogenic CO2 has made to the temperature it is too small to be reliably distinguished from the background noise of natural climate variation.
So, yes, the theory is still around, but it is only plausible as a mere shadow of its original self. Worrying about the effects of anthropogenic CO2 is rather like worrying about the effects of second-hand smoke - it simply reveals that capitalism has delivered a standard of living such that people have the luxury of fretting over inconsequential nonsense.
As for the Stern report, it appears to be a real hatchet job which uses worst-case scenarios from useless computer climate models as its working assumptions, and grossly exaggerates the supposed damage of each ton of CO2. This from a review by Lomborg in the Wall Street Journal:-
“The most well-recognized climate economist in the world is probably Yale University’s William Nordhaus, whose “approach is perhaps closest in spirit to ours,” according to the Stern review. Mr. Nordhaus finds that the social cost of CO2 is $2.50 per ton. Mr. Stern, however, uses a figure of $85 per ton. Picking a rate even higher than the official U.K. estimates–that have themselves been criticized for being over the top–speaks volumes.”
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009182&mod=RSS_Opinion_Jour nal&ojrss=frontpage/
Lies, damned lies, and global warming statistics, eh?
For a much better analysis, this by Nigel Lawson (PDF):-
http://www.cps.org.uk/cpsfile.asp?id=641
Meanwhile, I read that China is building 560 coal-fired power-stations for the year 2012.
This is excellent news. It shows that the standard of living for hundreds of millions of people is being transformed for the better. Cause indeed for celebration!
November 3rd, 2006 at 2:41 pm
Tom
I understand your point and agree with it except for this. He and his ilk will happily overwhelm an open board like this and somehow think they’ve won… but worse than that, the honest traveller, wandering into the blog, will think they’ve won as well. I’ve seen it happen. Not with climate but with neocons back in the states. Each bit of nonsense illogic needs to be boinked on the head.
In other words, if their loud ignorance is not met with equally voluminous error-corrections, the masses will perceive their errors in any of the public forums, as truth.
Bad enough that each one of them has more time on his hands than any 10 actual scientists can collect between them.
I still reckon that the libertarian ideology is behind a lot of the “green baiting” that’s done here.
How ’bout it Big Bruv… are you a libertine ‘er libertarian? Both ? Neither?
No offense meant, but I am curious now about the frequency with which this stuff comes coupled together.
respectfully
BJ
November 3rd, 2006 at 2:47 pm
BJ
Given your naked hatred of “Capitalism” I am not surprised that you are all for eco taxes, I suspect you and I are about as far apart as possible on most political issues….I think we are probably wasting each others time really, I am never going to support a socialist agenda, I don’t care what Trojan Horse it comes hidden in.
Baz
I said I read some reports, you many have noticed that the global warming “theory” is not top of mind for me, it is something that I am interested in learning about but I can assure you that I have far more important things to worry about.
November 3rd, 2006 at 2:50 pm
One more thing Baz.
I have not “claimed” anything when it comes to the global warming theory, for you to suggest that I have is a blatant lie, is this the way you always deal with “non believers”?
November 3rd, 2006 at 3:03 pm
> but for the last few years the wheels have been coming off.
Hello in there Mouldwarp. Tell me, what colour is the sky in your world?
Global warming is fact. The majority of the public and media accept it. Give it up.
Oh yes, and the former chief economist at the World Bank has a bit more credibility than a middling statistician or Nigella Lawson’s dad.
November 3rd, 2006 at 3:08 pm
Big Bruv
My my, you do have a thin skin for one with a sharp tongue. Your quote was:
> The issue is far from settled, there is still a good deal of debate
> in the scientific community (I know as I have read a lot of it)
Now prove it. No more evasion, show us your evidence.
November 3rd, 2006 at 3:52 pm
Baz
Seriously, what would be the point?..anything I did find and post would only be funded by Exxon.
Why are you so afraid of those who have a differing opinion or those who have yet to be convinced?
I have nothing to hide nor do I have any vested interest in this one way or another (although if Exxon are reading this a few gizillion could sway me)
Many years ago my Grandmother tried to convince me that the world was going to end and that if I did not attend church I would not be saved.
As my nature is one that questions everything I decided to do a little research into this religious theory, now as we all know there are also some very committed people involved in the religious world but for all of their dedication and blind faith I could not ever accept what they had to say.
November 3rd, 2006 at 3:55 pm
Baz,
- “Global warming is fact. The majority of the public and media accept it. Give it up.”
I don’t think anyone disputes global warming. It’s identifying the contribution of the various drivers which is the issue. And I don’t think the public looks behind the headlines when it comes to this issue. I know I didn’t for a long time. Like most people I just assumed that the science was sound and that it was a reliably proven fact. When I actually started to delve into it a bit more I was pretty shocked to find just how poorly the argument was supported.
As for the media, forget it. You may recall the recent report by the National Academy of Science on the subject of the hockeystick. In actual fact the report most certainly *did not* confirm the team’s claim that recent temperatures are the warmest they’ve been in a millenia. Instead, it said that all we know for sure is that it’s the warmest it’s been since the recent Little Ice Age, which is something of a no-brainer. Yet this finding was twisted and spun by all the media in such a way that we had headlines everywhere saying that the NAS panel had confirmed the hockeystick.
- “Oh yes, and the former chief economist at the World Bank has a bit more credibility than a middling statistician or Nigella Lawson’s dad.”
Is that it? Just an argument from authority? Aren’t you at all interested in evaluating it for yourself? Aren’t you interested that this report totally invalidates itself by applying an assumed social cost of a staggering $85 a ton? Aren’t you interested that the report relies itself on “predictions” from climate models which are themselves useless?
November 3rd, 2006 at 3:57 pm
I presume you say Nigel Lawson’s lecture is a “much better analysis” because it matches your worldview, not because it is a good analysis. I think it manages to repeat about 10 of the standard myths/errors.
1) “no further global warming since 1998″
see: Warming Stopped in 1998 http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/04/warming-stopped-in-1998.html
2) “(It was during this phase that alarmist articles by Professor James Lovelock and a number of other scientists appeared, warning of the onset of a new ice age.”
see: They Predicted Cooling in the 1970’s
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/they-predicted-cooling-in-19 70s.html
3) “Another uncertainty concerns the extent to which urbanisation has contributed to the observed warming.”
see: Warming is due to the Urban Heat Island Effect
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/10/26/224634/48
4) “the mediaeval warm period, when temperatures were probably at least as high as, if not higher than, they are today”
see: The Medieval Warm Period was just as warm as today
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/medieval-warm-period-was-jus t-as-warm.html
5) “It [hockey stick] has now been comprehensively discredited.”
see: The Hockey Stick is Broken
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/03/hockey-stick-is-broken.html
sorry that’s all I have time to do, I have to do some work.
November 3rd, 2006 at 4:03 pm
Big Bruv
> Seriously, what would be the point?..anything I did find and
> post would only be funded by Exxon.
Is this an admission that you have no credible evidence?
At least show us your sources.
November 3rd, 2006 at 4:31 pm
Mouldwarp
We’ve been through this.
Where is the CO2 coming from now? Remember my question to you last time we went round this shrub? You still can’t answer it. Nor can you answer the question in terms of the CO2 driver to climate being required to achieve the sort of warming we can measure even now. No.
However, I have an easier question…
… are you a Libertarian?
I am trying to work out if there is really some casual link between the two positions (as I have sometimes posited)… without being insulting at all I am curious. Moreover, if you are indeed a Libertarian I’d like to hear your own ideas about how the two things might be related. Sorry to be nosy, and if you feel part 2 is too intrusive don’t answer. Real curiousity trumps rancor every time.
Besides…. I am sure we get to insulting later.
BJ
November 3rd, 2006 at 4:49 pm
Mouldwarp
> I don’t think anyone disputes global warming. It’s identifying the
> contribution of the various drivers which is the issue
I missed off anthropogenic… add that to my statement.
> Is that it? Just an argument from authority?
I’m sure most of us are familiar with the tactics Lomborg uses. Let me know when he goes back to submitting his work for peer review so that it can be checked for errors.
Regarding the Lawson piece, I got as far as him doubting the anthropogenic component of global warming and switched off. Seeing an ex-chancellor explaining his doubts about AGW is as painful as reading Check Norris’ opinions on why evolution is false.
On a side note, the majority of your links are from, shall we say, sites that you are predisposed to believe, but lack credibility outside their core audience. If you want us to read something, give us something a site that’s more neutral, and if it’s discussing a scientific (or historical or mathematical or…) issue, it should be backed up with peer review.
> Like most people I just assumed that the science was sound
> and that it was a reliably proven fact. When I actually started
> to delve into it a bit more I was pretty shocked to find just
> how poorly the argument was supported.
As with Big Bruv: please show us your evidence.
November 3rd, 2006 at 5:06 pm
Baz
No it is not…credible evidence depends on your political slant, as you seem to rubbish anybody who does not agree with you as a puppet of Exxon I repeat that there is little point in me posting anything arguing against the theory.
I ask you again…why are you so afraid of opinions that do not match yours?
November 3rd, 2006 at 5:24 pm
Tom:
Thank you for your usual excellent analysis of the situation!
The sceptic inside me is well aware of “try ons”, but I do tend to give people “the benefit of the doubt”. (It seldom works! )
My school teacher homily on “appropriate behaviour” is an optional extra.
It probably goes down like a lead balloon, but one never knows!
I notice our current trolls are happily rearranging and repeating their various mantra, having completely “ignored” your post … and mine!
eredwen
November 3rd, 2006 at 7:56 pm
Big Bruv
> No it is not…credible evidence depends on your political slant
So you’re saying that the truth of a piece of evidence depends on your political belief?
What I infer from your odd statement is that the evidence comes from biased sources that people not sharing your ideology aren’t inclined to believe. And here was me giving you the benefit of the doubt about actually reading the science.
How about posting something politically neutral? Anything?
> as you seem to rubbish anybody who does not agree with you as a puppet
> of Exxon
There you go again (as dear old Ronnie would say). “Exxon have paid millions of dollars for climate science disinformation” is not equal to “anybody who does not agree with me is a puppet of Exxon”. Perhaps Mouldwarp can give you lessons in logical fallacies?
For the record, I’ll believe anything with evidence.
> I ask you again…why are you so afraid of opinions that do not match yours?
I’m most interested in yours, and from which source it’s coming. Give us a link, unless you want to post another evasion along the lines of “you wouldn’t believe it anyway” or “I don’t have the time” (which I guess would have been your next evasion, had I not mentioned it).
My guess after so many evasions: you have no credible evidence.
November 3rd, 2006 at 10:35 pm
Big Bruv -
I am sorrowed greatly to be so misunderstood. I do not hate capitalism. It has a respected and respectable place in society, it is quite effective and efficient when true costs are known and reflected in the systems it is suitable to govern. It is however, only ONE tool and I would not wish to use it to navigate the future. Nor would I leave it alone in control of the economic well being of the undeserving poor.
They exist you know. People who have through no failing of their own lost everything. Also existent are the people who rort the current system without scruple.
As for the Green agenda, I expect you do perceive socialism there and you’d be right. However, that isn’t why we want the basis of the taxes changed and you will find revenue neutrality is quite acceptable. What we want is to make the use/abuse of the commons cost something. We can all dicker around the price which is tough to set since it comes due in 30-40 years, no immediate way to reckon it. The point is that it has a good chance of helping.
Nope, I do not hate Capitalism. I hate to see it misused, but I don’t hate the system. I am simply aware of its limits and its dependencies.
respectfully
BJ
November 4th, 2006 at 8:19 am
eredwen: I hear what you are saying, and understand these issues appear to be complex, but the world doesnt work they way we want it to. At the time of Aqua there were exactly two choices: EITHER more hydo KWh, OR more “business as usual” KWh, which means fossil. There is nothing complex about that. Its a “you’re with the carbon or you’re aginst the carbon” decision. Binary. Very simple.. The Greens chose to support the path of more carbon. The Greens chose to support saving the environment, whilst chosing not to support the Environment
The fact the Greens said they wanted a third way is all very intetresting, but ultimately irrelevant, the third way was not on the table. There were only two options.
November 4th, 2006 at 10:27 am
Seriously, what would be the point?..anything I did find and post would only be funded by Exxon.
Perhaps this should serve as a hint that the denier sites have an agenda of their own?
I don’t doubt that some of them come by their scepticism honestly, nor do I doubt your own is unfunded by XOM … yet
I promise you faithfully that in my further answers to you I will not bring up the funding issue. We’ve hammered it. XOM is supporting a lot of the major centers of denial, but there is no reason to ascribe cause and effect to this. There may well be some honest scepticism out there. It is however, very thin on the ground in the scientific community.
My point is that the scientific objections have been raised and answered, new experiments proposed, additional data gathered, and it all always points the same way. If you have some site that poses specific objections to the science to date, then show us what those objections are and we will show you where the scientific responses are.
As for the politicizing of this, it’s been politicized ever since Bush ordered the climate change “alarmists” muzzled…
Another reason things are politicized here of course, is that this blog is a “Green” blog. We have a political viewpoint. It isn’t exactly a secret. You want to argue or question real scientists I suggest realclimate.org.
Finally of course, in terms of politics, there is the fact that “reality has a well-known liberal bias” (anybody know who said that first?)
I still wonder about the libertarian - climate-change-denier linkage. Is it real? That is my first question here.
It seems peculiar that the fundamental error of libertarian philosophy, to trust individuals (and hence the artificial individuals that are corporatiions), is tied to this refusal to acknowledge that the human species is overwhelming the planet in a way that cannot last. I think most Greens/socialists don’t trust ANYONE.
Communists of course, trust the state.
When the species is culled and cut back, will the survivors (if there are any at all) remember the hubris of this era? Our records are fragile in geological terms. Perhaps we will only survive well enough to repeat the errors again.
respectfully (cause I reckon you’re honest with us here BB)
BJ
November 4th, 2006 at 11:34 am
DBuckley has a point about the resistance to Aqua… and there are some legiitimate questions that could be raised about whether our position there was more pyhrric than preservational. Harping on transmission losses misses the point that there are ALWAYS transmission losses… because you can’t build a huge hydro plant in central Wellington or central Auckland (or COULD you? What are the tides like on either side of that narrow strip of land? Likely not enough head but… )
The general point however, is that distributed production is nice but costs in terms of efficiency of resource use in producing the actual panels and generators and storage and …. replicating it a million times for every plot in NZ. Transmission losses exist and must be accomodated, and rejecting a resource on that basis is simply false reasoning.
Whether Aqua might have solved more problems than it made is still open to debate, but the point is