Chart o’ the day: Not on target

Written By: - Date published: 11:01 am, September 20th, 2011 - 74 comments
Categories: ETS - Tags:

This graph is from the review of the Emissions Trading Scheme. A few points to note:

  • Net emissions rise when the pine forests planted in the 1990s are felled and then fall as the next generation of trees mature are replanted, before starting to rise again with the next round of deforestation beginning in the middle of the century.
  • The ETS actually does make a difference, a big one – over half a billion tonnes of CO2 emissions less than without it which equates to tens of billions in savings for the country in carbon credits, not to mention helping to slow climate change.
  • But this is the weakened National ETS, with the $100 billion worth of subsidies to polluters by 2050. Remember, National promised to reduce emissions to 50% of current levels by 2050. They won’t even come close.

– Dean

74 comments on “Chart o’ the day: Not on target ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. queenstfarmer 1
    20 September 2011 at 11:44 am

    The ETS actually does make a difference, a big one – over half a billion tonnes of CO2 emissions less than without it

    I presume you mean that between now and 2050, NZ might produce a cumulative, additional 500 million tonnes of CO2 (ie over the full 39 years).

    Just last year, China alone produced 7,700 million tonnes of CO2. So without an ETS (assuming the above – happy to be corrected), over the next 39 years NZ would save about 6.5% of what China pumps out in a single year, merely at its current level. On an annualised basis, that is 0.16% of what China alone produces. With all the coal plants etc coming on line in China, you can be that figure will be much less.

    You call that a big difference? I beg to differ.

    • Colonial Viper 1.1
      20 September 2011 at 11:59 am

      qstf according to your logic we can shit on our environment and our people to the nth degree and it won’t make any difference because China and its billion point four people will average it out.

      What you forget is the mindset that we carry around as a society, and as individuals.

      • Joe Bloggs 1.1.1
        20 September 2011 at 12:08 pm

        Nup Viper you’re misattributing and your logic is flawed…

        QueenStreetFarmer is simply pointing out that as far as contributions go the potential savings generated by NZ over 39 years amounts to something akin to the size of a mayfly on the rump of a rather large elephant.

        Logically, in order to make a big difference one would start with controlling the elephant before swatting mayflies

        • Puddleglum 1.1.1.1
          20 September 2011 at 12:45 pm

          This is odd.

          When it comes to New Zealand’s public debt, the argument often run by the right is that, even though private debt (the ‘elephant’) is the main problem, cutting public sector debt and doing next to nothing to hold back private sector debt (e.g., through a CGT) is still a ‘good strategy’.

          Yet, when it comes to something far more serious in its consequences (the planet), the logic reverses. No point in doing anything if you can’t control the elephant. 

          I think it needs to be pointed out that innovation tends to come out of constraint – not out of limitlessness. NZ could fashion its economy into something robust and innovative by exercising a little self-discipline. 

          • queenstfarmer 1.1.1.1.1
            20 September 2011 at 1:07 pm

            You seem to be running the argument that NZ should financially hamstring itself to encourage innovation in green technology. Well the US has just undertaken a massive exercise, spending billions of “stimulus” dollars to kick-start green tech. It has been a massive disaster. The technology isn’t there, the demand isn’t there – though of course it will be in future.

            And this is putting aside the fact that the ETS won’t make any difference in reality.

            • Colonial Viper 1.1.1.1.1.1
              20 September 2011 at 7:48 pm

              Well the US has just undertaken a massive exercise, spending billions of “stimulus” dollars to kick-start green tech. It has been a massive disaster.

              Ahem.

              The disaster was not the green tech.

              The disaster was typical US style crony corporate capitalism.

            • Pascal's bookie 1.1.1.1.1.2
              20 September 2011 at 8:00 pm

              “Well the US has just undertaken a massive exercise, spending billions of “stimulus” dollars to kick-start green tech. It has been a massive disaster.”

              Really?

              “Massive” sounds like an objective sort of thing, but of course it’s relative.

              The US economy is certainly massive in comparison to ours. But how many billions would amount to a “massive exercise” of stimulus in the US economy? I’d say it would have to be some hundreds of billions at a minimum, to be reasonably described as ‘massive’ in that context.

              Likewise for “massive disaster”. What does that mean? As disastrous for the US books as the unfunded wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Or perhaps GWB’s tax cuts? If it was less ‘disastrous’ than those events, then calling it a “massive disaster” would mean that those events were what? Unthinkable calamities? Horrors from the dark that mortal men know not what of?

              I’m sure you have some reasonable and sober link that justifies your massive rhetorical flourish.

              I’d be enormously interested in casting an eye over such. I’ll just die if I don’t get to see it.

              • queenstfarmer …
                20 September 2011 at 8:35 pm

                I’m not sure what you’re asking for here – justification that the biggest stimulus in history can fairly be called “massive”?

                • Pascal's bookie …
                  21 September 2011 at 7:10 am

                  Your claim was that there has been a massive exercise of green tech stimulus and that it has been a massive disaster.

                  Now you seem to be saying that the whole stimulus package could be described as massive, not just the green tech compnent of it. Was the green tech component bigger or smaller than the taxation aspect of the stimpak?

                  In any case, your sophistry is showing.

                  • queenstfarmer …
                    21 September 2011 at 9:09 am

                    The entire stimulus is the biggest in history, and the green tech component is also the biggest of its kind in history. You seem not to know the basic background to all this. You might want to do your own research before jumping back in.

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      21 September 2011 at 9:23 am

                      More sophistry. You claimed that there had been a massive green tech stimulus that had been a massive disaster.

                      Now you are saying that the overall stimulus was massive, and the the green tech aspect of it was the biggest ever, (which doesn’t make it massive in terms of the US economy, or massive in terms of stimulus), and still haven’t given me anything to back up the massive disaster claim.

                      It’s obvious you can’t back either of your initial claims about ‘massive’ up, so you are shifting the goal posts and claiming I need to do research about the new goal posts.

                      You pretty much suck at this qs.

                      BTW, did you used to comment here under another handle, your style is very familiar.

                    • queenstfarmer …
                      21 September 2011 at 10:41 am

                      ^ Nothing inconsistent with anything I have said. There has been a massive green stimulus, the overall stimulus was massive, and it has been a disaster (whether it is a disaster is clearly opinion, which I share). I have already posted links. There are many more, but when I posted links proving you wrong when you scoffed at the suggestion that the “-gate” suffix would be applied to the solar company, you dismissed the sources off hand.

                      No, I have never posted here under any other handle. I’m sure the person with a similar style is a very wise and smart person.

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      21 September 2011 at 11:18 am

                      Good lord.

                      I wasn’t scoffing at the idea that ‘gate’ would be affixed. That’s like scoffing at the idea that FOX would be up in arms. Of course right wingers will be beating up the story and saying all sorts of things.

                      You really are all about sophistry aren’t you. It’s all about what people say, and not about what anything means.

                      That’s not wise, it’s pathetic.

                    • bbfloyd …
                      21 September 2011 at 1:48 pm

                      queeny… you assume the right to shift your arguments to suit your agenda, and seem not to understand why you get called out on it…. why don’t you go and ask someone with some real brains to explain to you why that happens…..

                    • Bazar …
                      22 September 2011 at 3:31 pm

                      QFarmer, thanks for your putting the time in to debate these left wings, its nice to see someone with a sane head debate for common sense.

                      I used to do it here, but frankly it wore me out.
                      Still as thanks for your work, i’ll rebuff floyd.

                      Here floyd, for your easy peruse, is a simplified transcript of this thread:

                      QFarmer: We aren’t big enough to make a differance, isn’t worth hamstring our economy
                      Viper: Huuur Duur
                      Blogs: Quiet Viper
                      Pugglegum: Right wingers are hypocritical; We’d also be better off if we had a handicap to encourage innovation.
                      QFarmer: The US spent billions to kick-start green tech and its been a disaster
                      Viper: HUUUUR DUUR
                      Puddlegum: It wasn’t a disaster, the US is so large, its only a small disaster when put in perspective.
                      QFarmer: So you’re saying it wasn’t a huge disaster then?
                      Puddlegum: The green investment was only a small part of the huge investment.
                      QFarmer: It was still the largest investment in green technology ever
                      Pascal: Links or it didn’t happen
                      QFarmer: I already have elsewhere
                      Pascal: You’re pathetic
                      Floyd: You keep changing your arguement QFarmer, i think you’re too stupid to hold a real debate.

                      To me this shows why i stopped bothering with this site, you provide sound logic and you’ll get shifty responses, and if you pursue those responses you’ll get called out on it, even if you’re in the right.

                      It reminded me of a saying my sister said. “Never argue with an idiot, they’ll only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience”.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  21 September 2011 at 7:43 am

                  I’m not sure what you’re asking for here – justification that the biggest stimulus in history can fairly be called “massive”?

                  The only truly massive stimulus Obama conducted in the last 3 years was US$12T (or more) injected into the banking and shadow banking systems.

                  Actual ‘real’ industry got fuck all in comparison.

            • Puddleglum 1.1.1.1.1.3
              20 September 2011 at 8:09 pm

              Qsf, economies – being in the real world – are ‘hamstrung’ as a matter of course. Japan has no oil, Singapore has no land, European countries lacked labour (hence immigration), New Zealand lacks …

              ‘Necessity is the mother of invention’ and all that. It’s not the end of the world to work under constraints – even self-imposed ones, when they are imposed for good reason and with an eye to the future. Health and safety regulations are a ‘constraint’, labour laws are a ‘constraint’ – yet most developed economies have these self-imposed ‘constraints’. It makes those economies, and the people in them, envied by people in other economies.

              Short term thinking is just that. It doesn’t prepare you for the long haul. Countries are, presumably, concerned about the long haul – companies (or at least the capital upon which they depend), typically, less so. 

              • vto …
                20 September 2011 at 8:14 pm

                I don’t think the three of you will get much of an answer out mr queen street this late at night – he is a farmer after all. Though I never seen where that farm is..

              • queenstfarmer …
                20 September 2011 at 8:37 pm

                Having no land or oil is, usually, not by choice. Imposing self-inflicted taxes that harm the economy, is by choice.

                • McFlock …
                  20 September 2011 at 9:28 pm

                  What about self0-imposed skill shortages caused by stuffing apprenticeships and burdening the educated with student loans that will be evadable, or more easily paid back, if you leave the country?

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  21 September 2011 at 12:14 am

                  The costs are there – it’s just that the idiots like you are trying to ignore them. That’s the whole point of the ETS – to put the costs on businesses that are presently avoiding them (economics calls it “externalities”) which means that the community will end up paying for them.

                  It’s completely insane to argue the non-existence of something that has been proven to exist.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  21 September 2011 at 12:42 am

                  Having no land or oil is, usually, not by choice. Imposing self-inflicted taxes that harm the economy, is by choice.

                  Short term pain for long term pain. Think about it.

                  Economic growth must be decoupled from carbon emissions.

                  Don’t keep putting your foot down on the pedal even as the cliff gets closer, faster. Get it?

                  • Bazar …
                    21 September 2011 at 8:38 am

                    No, its a case of short term pain WITH long term pain, or just long term pain. (thats assuming you believe carbon causes global warming)

                    Even if NZ was carbon neutral tomorrow onwards, we wouldn’t even affect the global carbon output beyond a statistical anomaly.

                    Racing to be so carbon friendly can have adverse results as well…
                    The kyoto treaty has shown such wonderful promise in getting industries to reduce commissions… of course a lot of those regulated industries just started outsourcing to china instead which has NO regulation on industries.

                    The result was more overall pollution due to the lower pollution standards/requirements in china.

            • AAMC 1.1.1.1.1.4
              20 September 2011 at 8:52 pm

              This chart puts their investment in green tech into perspective.

              http://m.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2011/09/solyndra-vs-military-boondoggles

      • queenstfarmer 1.1.2
        20 September 2011 at 1:00 pm

        Just making the point that an ETS won’t make much of a difference to the environment while the major (make that gargantuan) emitters are carrying on as usual. It will be negligble, if anything. That is a fact – nothing to do with mindsets.

        • Pascal's bookie 1.1.2.1
          20 September 2011 at 8:02 pm

          Obviously what we need to do is break up all the big countries into little countries of around 4 million people each.

          Then no one will have to do anything.

          • queenstfarmer 1.1.2.1.1
            20 September 2011 at 8:38 pm

            No-one has to do anything now.

            • Colonial Viper 1.1.2.1.1.1
              21 September 2011 at 12:45 am

              One reason being is people like you making excuses for NZ to stay timid at the back of the pack.

              Let’s show the world some clean green leadership mate.

            • bbfloyd 1.1.2.1.1.2
              21 September 2011 at 1:57 pm

              if we don’t have to do anything now, then we have the ideal govt to achieve that… johnny sparkle and the bowlegged sisters quartet are experts at doing nothing….

              i have to assume you hate your children, and resent the fact that there will be a whole new generation following that… but don’t worry too much, because the “do nothing” approach will ensure that there may not be too many pesky descendents to follow……

              cockroaches, on the other hand, will become hugely successful…. warms the heart to think humanities legacy will be carried forward in such an efficient manner….

              as long as they keep the rats from the halls of power, then it will be great…..

            • Macro 1.1.2.1.1.3
              21 September 2011 at 10:17 pm

              Again qsf you need to keep up with what is ACTUALLY happening:
              “New research, to be published in the journal Climatic Change in November, suggests humankind may have to remove carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere on a vast scale if emissions keep rising after 2020.”
              http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/20/us-carbon-climate-idUSTRE78J3IK20110920

    • mik e 1.2
      20 September 2011 at 11:49 pm

      QSFChina’s New coal plants are more modern more efficient and are replacing outdated inefficient plants.China is putting huge money into modernizing its energy production .As well as there steel production adapting NZ pollution control technology in their steel plants.They are not standing still they Know what the customer wants and will move heaven and earth to get that customer. Pity our farming sector doesn’t take the same approach it usually takes our farmers 20 or 30 years to wake up before they do whats needed by then its to late China Germany etc will own all the farms.

  2. infused 2
    20 September 2011 at 12:16 pm

    I’ll give a shit about an ETS in NZ when other countries that actually matter get behind it. NZ outputs %0.2 of all carbon world wide.

    That sums it up for me really.

    Lets kill our economy so we feel a little better inside.

    • Macro 2.1
      20 September 2011 at 12:21 pm

      Your argument is analogous to a thug kicking someone who is down – I’ll stop kicking when someone else does! Bastard!

      • infused 2.1.1
        20 September 2011 at 12:23 pm

        Yeah, no.

        You are trying to fix a problem that can’t be fixed until countries at the top of the chain do something. Until they do, it’s a waste of time, more so money.

        • Macro 2.1.1.1
          20 September 2011 at 12:52 pm

          Didn’t think you had the moral capacity to understand what I was saying. Unfortunately I’m not mistaken. Your morality is solely based on the ten commandments written in the gospel of the “hidden hand”. Those who worship money will ultimately pay for it.
          When the seas are 1-2 m higher by the end of this century and ave global temps head even more higher because of a lack of will by current western govt’s I’m sure you grandchildren will bless you for it.

        • Macro 2.1.1.2
          20 September 2011 at 4:52 pm

          So those who want to delay – are really asking for more of this!

    • Lanthanide 2.2
      20 September 2011 at 12:24 pm

      Maybe having a local ETS will encourage innovation in technology here, which could be exported to other countries earning us huge revenue while also reducing their greenhouse gas output immensely?

      We should be at the forefront of agricultural research. Having an ETS that encourages green agricultural research seems like a good nudge in the right direction.

      • queenstfarmer 2.2.1
        20 September 2011 at 1:12 pm

        The US has spent billions to encourage green technology, it has been a disaster. Would it be any different here?

        Research is happening and innovation will continue around the globe, and of course a breakthrough could happen here. NZ should do what it sensibly can. But I don’t see an ETS giving NZ any appreciable advantages, while potentially harming the entire economy for no sensible reason.

        • Macro 2.2.1.1
          20 September 2011 at 4:33 pm

          “The US has spent billions to encourage green technology, it has been a disaster. Would it be any different here?”

          Well that’s your perception of reality – Others actually see it differently.

          As for the “disaster”. One solar company that pursued a non-silicon based pv solution that goes bust because the price of solar electricity falling is hardly a “disaster”. It’s what happens in the market place, or are you not aware of that?

          • queenstfarmer 2.2.1.1.1
            20 September 2011 at 5:25 pm

            I wasn’t even thinking of the solar company scandal. The green jobs programme was a failure before that – here’s an article from no less than the New York Time from a month ago:

            Federal and state efforts to stimulate creation of green jobs have largely failed, government records show… “Companies and public policy officials really overestimated how much consumers care about energy efficiency,” said Sheeraz Haji, chief executive of the Cleantech Group, a market research firm…. “The demand’s just not there to take this to scale,” said Fred Lucero, project manager at Richmond BUILD…

            And if that’s what the New York Times is saying, you can imagine how much worse it really is.

            • Macro 2.2.1.1.1.1
              20 September 2011 at 6:11 pm

              “scandal” Your words qsf. Not mine. So a company goes bankrupt. That’s a scandal?
              As for the burgeoning energy inefficiency of the USA … Well what do you expect with boneheads like the GOP putting their oar in every which way they can. With no legislation to either encourage or impel companies towards more efficient energy use – the practice will always be to use the least cost alternative – especially the alternatives like oil coal and gas which have largely externalised costs – Costs to be picked up by everyone else – like you and me.
              Now if you were to instance China as a country and an economy – you would find that that country is moving rapidly towards increasing energy efficiency. But that’s a MANAGED economy and that won’t do will it!

              • queenstfarmer …
                20 September 2011 at 6:21 pm

                So a company goes bankrupt. That’s a scandal?

                No – you need to read up. The scandal is the fact that the Govt loaned hundreds of millions of dollars with no apparent oversight or checks on what the company was doing with it, despite having Board representation. The FBI has been to executive’s homes. The President is severely embarrased and even Democratcs are bailing from this. It is a total scandal (soon to be something-gate, no doubt).

                • AAMC …
                  20 September 2011 at 10:24 pm

                  “It is a total scandal”

                  I’ll post a comparison with the real scandal here, in case you didn’t see it above QSF

                  http://m.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2011/09/solyndra-vs-military-boondoggles

                • Macro …
                  21 September 2011 at 11:48 am

                  No qsf you need to keep up! And don’t believe everything you read on Right wing blog sites.
                  There are more politically inspired witch hunts in that god forsaken sick society called the USA than you can poke a stick at! I have not heard of one such “investigation” that has revealed anything of substance. Every “investigation” has ended up exonerating those under investigation. And in one such instance the instigators themselves are now under investigation for political interference. It’s McCarthyism all over again! This time instigated by the oil barons and the ultra right wing nutcases who will stoop to nothing in their efforts to avoid facing the obvious. – Western and Developed nations HAVE TO STOP BURNING FOSSIL FUELS.
                  Just because someone in the USA has the influence to instigate a FBI investigation does not make it a “scandal”. In many cases the scandal is that the investigation is initiated in the first place!

            • mik e 2.2.1.1.1.2
              20 September 2011 at 11:55 pm

              The republicans pulled funding on R&D . R&D doesn’t give you immediate returns and rarely do the initial steps prove profitable especially in our instant reward society.MSM media is not interested right now in the US . Any left wing policy is put down. But when the Arab spring is over you can bet oil prices will sky rocket and green initiative will be back on the agenda.

        • MrSmith 2.2.1.2
          20 September 2011 at 5:41 pm

          “The US has spent billions to encourage green technology, it has been a disaster. Would it be any different here?”

          Q/ST just making shit up won’t cut it, I couldn’t care less about the US but you will have to provide us with some facts, Billions, how many Q/ST? Disasters more than two please? Would it be any different here? I won’t even bother!

          The US position on climate change has been laughable but their politicians have a huge problem, in so far as half the country are still waiting for the second coming, plus there endless warmongering, we don’t have that excuse, so saying we can’t lead is just spin, you know it’s the party/Farmers line Q/St and you have swallowed it, but your not fooling anyone here except yourself.

          • queenstfarmer 2.2.1.2.1
            20 September 2011 at 6:14 pm

            See my post above Mr Smith – linking to a New York Times article stating that “Federal and state efforts to stimulate creation of green jobs have largely failed”. And there are many, many more articles far more critical than that. Let me know when (if) you cease to be in denial.

            As for the money, this headline gives a clue:
            $38B loan program not giving much bang for buck – CBS News

            I like this quote:

            “There are good reasons to create green jobs, but they have more to do with green than with jobs,” Princeton University economics professor and former Federal Reserve vice chairman Alan Blinder has said.

            Sums it up well – the far-Left here (the Greens) are pretending that “green mandates” will effectively grow the economy. They won’t – the evidence is in.

            • MrSmith 2.2.1.2.1.1
              20 September 2011 at 6:25 pm

              “Let me know when (if) you cease to be in denial.”

              Q/St from your link: said Sheeraz Haji, chief executive of the Cleantech Group, a market research firm. “People care about their wallet”

              The article in the NYT Q/st that’s if you read it, wasn’t nearly as negative as you make out either considering the US are in recession with unemployment over 10%, I haven’t got time to read the CBS link but here are some figures for you.

              The world economy last year worth US$61.96 trillion Q/St, Stern report estimates Climate change could cost between 5-20% so 3 to 12 trillon or simplified for you between three thousand billon and twenty thousand billon, makes your few billon look like small change Q/St, but you don’t care do you, because you will be dead soon, but we have a responsibility to the children and those that will live after we are long dead.

              • queenstfarmer …
                20 September 2011 at 7:41 pm

                You said I was “making shit up”, so I posted a NYT article confirming what I said, and confirming you are wrong. Pretty simple really.

                • mik e …
                  21 September 2011 at 12:01 am

                  Short term short sighted thinking .Just about every new technology we have ever used started with a lot of failure.Even right wing economists agree there is no low hanging fruit any more and it will take years of high spending R&D to make forward progress. National have cut R&D in this country and messed it around for cheap political gain.

            • Puddleglum 2.2.1.2.1.2
              20 September 2011 at 8:22 pm

              Correct me if I’m wrong (please), but it looks to me that the ‘green stimulus’ was almost the direct opposite of a self-imposed constraint – what I was talking about in my responses to you up above.

              Penalising fossil fuel use is a different mechanism from simply putting aside large amounts of money for ‘green initiatives’.

              Notice that the reason, so far as I can tell, that the stimulus ‘flopped’ is that it remained cheaper to go for the fossil fuel alternatives – oil use was still too cheap, comparatively.

              Now, I’m no expert on the ETS – my gut is to go with a carbon tax (but I haven’t put the ‘brainpower’ – yet – into carefully thinking it through). But isn’t its supposed ‘mechanism’ precisely that it makes things more expensive for CO2/methane/etc. emitting industries?

              Has the US tried something like that to stimulate ‘green jobs’? I don’t think so.

              • queenstfarmer …
                20 September 2011 at 8:45 pm

                Yes there are many different “levers” and methods. Eg: Has the US tried something like that to stimulate ‘green jobs’? I don’t think so.

                They have. For example they were the first (I think?) to introduce their particular car emmission standards that penalised poor-mileage cars. Since then car efficiency has improved. The extent to which A led to B is something that I’m sure economists & politicians will argue about, although Obama recently lowered (or delayed) the latest round of standards, much to the annoyance of the environment lobby.

    • Blighty 2.3
      20 September 2011 at 1:02 pm

      The EU has one as do many other countries and China is about to introduce one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_tax

  3. outofbed 3
    20 September 2011 at 12:59 pm

    I thought we had one of the highest emission rates per capita in the world?
    Great if we had the lowest eh? I could kinda see lots of benefits to that. We cold run a 100% clean Green Campaign perhaps (might have to get the cow shit out of the rivers first though)

  4. Steve Wrathall 4
    20 September 2011 at 5:43 pm

    Macro, re your YT video of “scientist” K Trenberth. This is the same Trenberth who in private admits “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t”.

    So when even the so-called experts on whose authority we are being bullied into putting the world on an energy diet, doubt their prophesies. I refuse to join you on your guilt-trip of anguish about rising emissions of a gas vital to life itself.

    • Draco T Bastard 4.1
      20 September 2011 at 6:14 pm

      This is the same Trenberth who in private admits…

      Link to a credible source (ie, not any of the denier sites which have been proven to be lying (all of them)).

    • One Anonymous Bloke 4.2
      21 September 2011 at 7:24 am

      I can’t believe someone is still trolling this denialist garbage.
      This is what Trenberth was discussing.
      …sigh…

      • Macro 4.2.1
        21 September 2011 at 10:14 pm

        Wrathall is in complete denial and will unfortunately remain so. Nothing anyone here, can say, or demonstrate, would alter his complete conviction and unwavering belief in his own brilliance and certainty. Frankly it’s a waste of space even replying to him – but your reference to the true matter in hand is valuable to the casual reader.

  5. Afewknowthetruth 5
    20 September 2011 at 6:43 pm

    The acknowledged upper limit for maintenance of the climate stability that permits civilisation to continue to exist is 350ppm. (That figure may in fact be on the high side, since the historic norm that allowed agriculture to come into existence was around 280ppm.)

    We are currently at 390ppm, i.e. 40ppm above the ‘safe’ limit. When the leaves start to drop in the northern hemisphere the next surge in atmospheric CO2 will take place, taking us to around 396ppm early in 2012.

    There is considerable debate concerning the meltdown of the Arctic Sea in 2011. Although the extent is marginally above the all-time low recorded in 2007,

    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

    the density of the ice is arguably somewhat lower than in 2007.

    The Sun seems to be finally coming out of the unusually long minunum in its cycle. Although relatively tiny, the increase in activity will be more ‘grist to the mill’.

    Acidification and the general assault on the oceans by fishing and petroleum interests are forecast to generate largely dead oceans within two decades.

    Peak Oil occurred around 2005-2006, and we are now in the early stages of collapse of present economic arrangements. The collapse will gather speed between 2012 and 2015, as we slide down the oil depletion curve, and present economic arrangments will be pretty much ‘all over’ by 2020.

    The decrease in Global Dimming that will accompany delcining industrial activity will undoubtedly have a dramatic effect on insolation and will cause a surge in positive feedbacks.

    The big unknowns are how much longer the European banksters can hold their Ponzi scheme together and how much longer the US can continue to function (with the vast majority of states and municipalities now insolvent and incapable of carrying out even basic maintenance on roads and bridges). And then there is Texas, of course, which is currently experiencing environmental meltdown.

    http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/

    ETS is delusional nonsense, completely disconected from reality. However, it will make some short term profits for a few banksters before everything collapses.

  6. Puddleglum 6
    20 September 2011 at 8:33 pm

    “ETS is delusional nonsense, completely disconected from reality. However, it will make some short term profits for a few banksters before everything collapses.”

    Yes, that’s my worry. I remember listening to the radio back in the 90s (late at night, driving home from work) and the neoliberals were the ones pushing for a CO2 market (ETS). That was hotly contested by those who wanted either a carbon tax or, simply, agreed planned reduction in oil use – i.e., more direct regulation.

    Now, the ETS seems to be defended by the same people (or at least political positions) that argued against such schemes previously. Staunch right wingers, meanwhile, seem to be talking about doing nothing (so they’ve moved position, too). The political sand has shifted in a mere 10 or 15 years.

    I’m going to have to get on top of the history and details of all of this. 

  7. grumpy 7
    21 September 2011 at 11:05 am

    If NZ go it alone with an ETS (without the major polluters China, Russia India etc), we will be both paying the ETS AND paying to mitigate the effects flowing on from the major polluters.

    In effect paying at least twice!!!

    • thejackal 7.1
      22 September 2011 at 7:45 pm

      And if we don’t have an ETS and China, Russia and India etc don’t either, we will still have to pay the mitigating costs from the effects flowing on from the major polluters. It will be normal taxpayers meeting those costs instead of the industries creating pollution.

      We wont be able to take advantage of our forests and already strong renewable energy sector from hydro and trade with the countries that are involved. Having a strong ETS means we protect our environment and have a stronger trading position if we meet our quotas within the first commitment period 2008 to 2012 and beyond.

      So either the taxpayer and environment pay or we have an effective ETS and ensure our emissions are reduced and all make money at the same time. I really fail to see any relevant argument for not having an ETS.