- Date published:
3:00 pm, May 18th, 2016 - 37 comments
Categories: climate change, ETS, farming, global warming, national, science - Tags: climate change, climate cheats, Emissions Trading Scheme, global warming, science
In theory our government loves science (good for the economy you know). In practice it ignores or attacks science if the evidence is inconvenient to its ideology. Dita De Boni has a good piece on this today:
We love us some science (as long as it supports our vested interests)
Perhaps what I’m trying to say here is that frequently, research shows that handing over the control of our natural resources to large industries – industries that quite often have ministers on speed-dial – leads to a higher chance that natural resource will be exploited for profit, and that situation courts environmental disaster.
When said disaster eventuates, one of the most common reactions amongst both Government and lobbyists protecting said industries is to trash the science behind such findings.
Look, call me a conspiracy theorist if you want. Perhaps that’s true. It’s just that this week, when I read about the fact that half the fish caught in our waters go unrecorded – either not declared or dumped out to sea – and that reports done within the Ministry of Primary Industries (MPI) had stated the same thing (and never seen the light of day), I thought to myself, “oooh, here comes a good science trashing by seafood industry lobbyists and the Government!”
I was not disappointed. The Government’s Nathan Guy questioned the science, as you’d expect, calling himself “sceptical” of the claims and stating New Zealand had the best marine management system in the world.
Just to clarify, he’s sceptical of claims made by a collaboration of 400 international and local researchers over 15 years using stock assessment reports, peer-reviewed literature, unpublished reports, and information obtained under the Official Information Act, as well as 308 confidential interviews with industry experts and personnel with first-hand knowledge of fishing and reporting practices – combined with official catch data.
It’s a pattern we’ve seen before so it should not come as too much of a surprise. We were told that scientists warning of our polluted waterways were full of baloney, essentially, as well as being politically motivated. That the country’s top scientists working as the Royal Society of New Zealand to produce reports on climate change, warning of serious problems if we do not move to a low carbon economy, provided merely a “useful resource” upon which to move at some imaginary future date. …
Here’s some more science for the government to hate on:
Paris climate agreement cannot be met without emissions reduction target for agriculture
New study finds current interventions only achieve 21-40 percent of goal
Scientists have calculated, for the first time, the extent to which agricultural emissions must be reduced to meet the Paris climate agreement’s plan to limit warming to 2 degrees Celsius in 2100. They estimate that farming must reduce non-CO2 emissions by 1 gigaton per year in 2030. The analysis also revealed a major gap between the existing mitigation options for the agriculture sector and the reductions needed: current interventions would only deliver 21-40 percent of mitigation required.
The authors warn that emission reductions in other sectors such as energy and transport will be insufficient to meet the new climate agreement. They argue that agriculture must also play its part, proposing that the global institutions concerned with agriculture and food security set a sectoral target linked to the 2°C warming limit to guide more ambitious mitigation and track progress toward goals. …
This is an important message which the Nats will do their utmost to ignore (if they can) or attack (if they must). You will recall of course that they have left agriculture out of their review of the emissions trading scheme. Not that it matters much I guess, since our actions under the scheme have been largely fraudulent anyway.