Written By: - Date published: 10:52 am, November 26th, 2008 - 56 comments
Categories: climate change, economy, john key, national/act government -
Tags:
The UK has announced plans to increase departure tax from its airports for flights outside Europe to pay for offsetting their carbon emissions. This is part of the worldwide response to climate change – countries are making emitters pay and even aviation, which is excluded from Kyoto, is now being targeted (quite rightly too, it is one of the fastest growing emission sources).
Of course, that’s bad news for New Zealand tourism. Over quarter of a million people visit New Zealand from the UK each year. Adding hundreds of dollars to the cost of their ticket will decrease their numbers and leave them with less to spend here.
So, what should we do about it? Our one bargaining chip is a clean, green image. If we could show that we have a strong emissions reduction programme, we could argue that tourism to New Zealand is overall very low on carbon – people might burn a lot of fuel getting here but little once they are here. It’s kind of like our argument against food miles – sure, it means burning some fuel to transport our lamb around the world to Britain but we emit less greenhouse gas producing it than UK farmers and, overall, we’re more environmentally friendly. Of course to make that argument, National/ACT would have to show they are committed to tackling greenhouse gas emissions. Since they are going to have a select committee to investigate whether everyone else is wrong and climate change is (in Key’s words) “a hoax”, that will be a difficult argument to make.
So, our one shot at some kind of exemption from this tax has already been sabotaged by Key’s incompetent handling of climate change; his failure to understand it is now a foreign relations and trade issue, not just a way to shore up support from ACT, the farmers, and business. But then he’s gone and made it worse. When you are a little country and you want a big country to not do something bad to you, you have to remind them what a good little country you are, what good friends you are (like Clark did last year when our special visa status was under threat). What you don’t do is mouth off that you worry it will have a “contagion effect“, as if British policy is a virus that might infect other countries, as if countries responding to climate change is the new communist domino effect. And you don’t have your spokesperson call it “protectionism“, one of the dirtiest words in international relations.
Those inept comments have sunk any slim hope we might have had of getting an exemption from the departure tax.
Test number 2 for Key, fail.
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
RL
Continuing our discussion from earlier….
“If a medical researcher came to you and said, “I’ve got this brand new drug I want you to try. The lab tests suggest that it is toxic as hell, but we’re not sure what the effect on a real human is. Nobody has ever tried it before, and we don’t know what effects it will have, how severe they may be, nor when they may occur. And if something does go badly wrong, you’re on your own. Here sign this disclaimer form please’.”
Of course I wouldn’t go anywhere near it – drugs go through a considerable testing period prior to being used in humans – animal studies to determine toxicity and effects on reproduction, then on through testing in small human cohorts prior to large trials prior to registration by a regulatory authority.
In relation to the climate change issues and how to manage them we’re stuck with a situation where we’re hamstrung as to knowing the size of the human effect on climate change, our ability to moderate the effect and this best ways to achieve that moderation – if the climate change issue was as simple that we face when assessing whether a new medication is safe and efficacious or indeed as simple as the issues we faced with CFCs I believe we’d be in a far better position in knowing how to move forward.
Of course I wouldn’t go anywhere near it
Same here. I’ll not try and score a point off the the obvious.
All comparisons are flawed in some fashion, but the point of this one is to personalise the risk. The problem with climate change is that for most people the consequences are “sometime in the future, and maybe not to me”. The point of a medical trial is “Hell it is ME that he is gonna inject with that crap!”
drugs go through a considerable testing period prior to being used in humans
And this is a very good point, that the comparison shows up. The other problem with climate change is that we don’t get to do any trials, or animal testing. It’s a one way, once only mystery tour we are all on, with no getting off.
I believe we’d be in a far better position in knowing how to move forward.
Fair enough in the sense that I think you intended it. But climate change is the result of what we are already DOING as a race. If you’re speeding at 100mph towards what looks like a brickwall, there are many possibilities. The wall might really be polystyrene bricks, the car might run out of gas, a mirage might be making the wall appear closer than it seems, the speedo could be grossly uncalibrated, a hidden ramp might pop up from the road just as we reach it and launch us safely out of the way. All these are imponderables that we cannot yet decide about for certain.
But a sane man would first of all take his foot off the gas.
Yes your analogies are all very good – but the critical issues remain that with or without human activities we will have climate change – the amount of climate change that is caused by human activity is still open to debate as is which human activities are responsible for climate change and how is the best way to mitigate those activities.
I’d also disagree strongly with your second point that “the other problem with climate change is that we don’t get to do any trials, or animal testing. It’s a one way, once only mystery tour we are all on, with no getting off.”
We certainly should be able to develop more elaborate models and testing rather than implementing catch all regulations which may have little or no effect.
And if the improvements to energy use and diminished polution make our patch a better place to live in, this must be good for the future. If in doing so climate change is diminished on the way, then it must be a win/win position for everyone. Isn’t it?
HS – Stop the presses he’s engaging for the first time in months. Your missing the basic point that climate change in the past can often be correlated with changes in CO2 levels. Where’s Lprent to school you.
[lprent: I haven't read back that far yet. Of course I am a bit biased with the earth science background and a partner off filming a sinking island in PNG...]
HS – I found a graph for you.
We certainly should be able to develop more elaborate models and testing rather than implementing catch all regulations which may have little or no effect.
Well so far all the models we do have are not looking good. It would be like Labour being 10% behind at 9:30pm on election night with 85% of the votes and still hoping that the last votes to be counted all go their way. It’s not impossible, but statistically unlikely and is an unreasonable scenario to go announcing that you have won the election on.
Equally possible is that some entirely new insight or piece of data might completely change our view of the science and the models. But again that is an imponderable; you have to work with the information you have, not what you would wish you had.
Nor is it likely even that no matter how good the models get, that they will ever be able to predict in a deterministic fashion exactly what the planet’s future climate will be like. What they will do is give a range of outcomes and assign probabilites to them… but weather and climate is inherently stochastic. There is no, will be no certainty on what the effects will be.
On the other hand we do know 100% for certain what the cause is. Billions of tonnes of excess anthropogenic fossil carbon in the atmosphere.
I’ve got this one last constructive thing to offer. I read somewhere a while back, that all of the excess CO2 in the atmophere could be sequestered (ie captured) if all of the arable land in the world increased the depth of it’s topsoil layer by just 0.2mm per year. In some ways this whole issue could turn out to a land management problem.
Perhaps the biodynamic orgaics guys are right after all.
Redlogix – All over the world we have loss of topsoil due to agriculture. The dust bowl is a perfect example. That’s where GE comes in. Herbicide resistant crops can be low till or no till it would be a great environmental boon if this was adopted more widely. It’s pretty big already, but Europe is dragging its feet on GE and we have to play along if we want to be able to export to those countries. Support of GE crops may not only be good for the envrionment but if developed nations spent aid money (like they’re burning through money now on bailing banks) on a green revolution in Africa we could kill two birds with one stone.
Is this the same clean, green image that labour have been ruining for the last 9 years with one of the highest carbon growth rates in the developed world SP?
Labour = all talk and no action on climate change for 3 terms but now after just 2 weeks in power we get “sabotaged by Key’s incompetent handling of climate change” surely you are taking the piss now?
mike – It’s called economic growth. Something you righties seem to be obsessed with, but know little about nor how to bring about.
QtR, the rest of the world made much more of the boom times than NZ did, that’s why we went down in the OECD rankings. Another labour failure…
QtR That is one cool graph. I wish G was still around to see it.
Is there an article to go with it?
hs: Of course there are non-anthropogenic effects. They’re always with us. But show me where the causal effect that could have caused a greater than tripling in C02 level in the last 50 years with a slow buildup over that period. You’d have to point to a Deccan traps or the end-Permian level of effect before you see similar levels of atmospheric change globally. Of course they probably happened in a somewhat longer time frame. Certainly you can’t point to the obvious evidence of C14/C16 ratios showing that most came from old carbon. But hey – you can believe what you want
It is always fun looking at mass extinctions. This time I suspect that only one species may have a problem.There simply isn’t aren’t enough hydrocarbon deposits accessible to cause a real problem for the biosphere. Unless of course you’ve developed a culture that has depended on a relatively constant climate for the last 10k years. However I’d suspect that developing a silicon successor would be a really good idea about now. Well at least if you want to preserve our culture(s) for prosperity. Perhaps my wingnut troll emulation program will live on to display the culture of the humans to later evolved species. Yeah right – that’d make a good tui ad.
Does that suffice QtR?
LPrent – That’s good, though we well maybe in the midst of a mass extinction event now, regardless of global warming. The article is just the Climate change article. I wish the righties would read that as an introduction to the topic before coming over here and labouring the same points.
OK Redlogix, QtR, lprent and others; you’re preaching to the converted as far as anthropogenic warming goes (in this case).
But in the context of SP’s post everyone seems to be ignoring the elephant in the room: that a long-haul flight is the single most “carbon intensive” act that most people will commit in their lifetime (excluding coal-miners and oil pumpers).
Based upon most of the numbers I have seen a long haul flight produces TONNES of CO2 per passenger. A return trip to NZ could emit as much CO2 per passenger than they might normally emit in a whole year. Google is your friend here. 5-10 tonnes of CO2 depending on whose figures you use.
Why are we bemoaning that Key has not convinced Brown to back down on his air-travel carbon awareness scheme? It’s a argument that is bound to lose (in the context of global warming).
No surprise that Frogblog has left this one alone.
International tourism to NZ is a massive polluter. Probably close to the worst in the world and will far overshadow any green efforts of the travelers while in NZ (if there are any at all).
jbc: I don’t care much either way. I don’t travel out of the country and haven’t since 1991. I’m not interested in getting in a cattle truck and sent to
the workseurope. As far as I’m concerned silicon comms is more than adequate.But I’d be fascinated to see what the response is to your statement. It is moderately accurate from what I understand.
BTW: were you planning on staying there?
“I wish G was still around to see it.”
Please, not even in jest! He wouldn’t understand it anyway.
lprent: I sometimes stretch towards hyperbole to make a point – but in this case I think the numbers for air travel CO2 are grim enough as they stand
I’m genuinely keen to hear an argument for the case too. The Jatropha nut jet fuel trial is the closest thing I’ve heard to a positive point – but that’s a long way from delivering. It would be interesting to see how long-haul tourism compares with other NZ industry in terms of carbon output per dollar of economic benefit / jobs etc.
On staying here: my mind is still busy dreaming in NZ and I’m looking forward to becoming re-acquainted at some stage. Being away for 8 yrs brings the good (and not so good) into focus – on both sides.
Keys been in office for how long and you guys are stating he is responsible for air travel taxes in Britain (bet they dont prop up T5……)?
BTW, Brown will be ousted within the next 12 months when the high street employers fall over post xmas.
Gordo’s gratuitous vote buying budget is a masterpiece of leftist propoganda that will have no real beneficial effect for the citizens.
higher standard,
implementing catch all regulations
excuse me, but is the problem for you the ‘catch all’ or regulations persé..? also, if not catch all then who ought be subject to regulation..?
jbc: Catching up on comments
The air travel is a big out putter of CO2 and a few other gases of interest.
But it is like everything else – a matter of scale. If there are say 15 million cars that produce 10% of the CO2 of a single passengers return plane trip to the UK each year – then you’d need to have the equivalent of 1.5 million return trips to the UK each year to be equivalent to cars… Same for heating, air-conditioning etc etc. The question is where do you get the biggest return (in drops in total emissions) for the dollars spent/lost.
Aircraft would be high on my list because the engines are big plant that are basically already designed to run on a range of fuels or are relatively cheap to upgrade so that they are. Scales again – refurbishing a smaller number of engines compared to upgrading a countries car or truck fleet. Besides aircraft jet turbines should be capable of running on anything with short carbon covalent bonds (in theory).
However insulating homes to a great standard would be even higher. It is a long-term passive investment that has multiple benefits, and would have a hell of an effect on total emission for far longer. Cars are usually off the road in 10-20 years. planes in 20-30 years, but housing is 60 years plus.
Looking at CO2 reductions is really an area that NPV calcs would excel at. They usually going to show that some projects are far more effective over the long term than others.
BTW: I will think of you while I’m sweltering in the kiwi summer. Of course I would be impolite to say how…..