Govt opts for weak climate change target

44 comments on “Govt opts for weak climate change target ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Mike 1

   27 July 2009 at 7:14 am

   Some great spin there that the media is uncritically repeating.

   National is presenting the cost of reducing emissions on a per person basis, when the principle behind the ETS is that the polluter pays for their pollution. Costs of compliance with the scheme will not be evenly spread over the NZ populace.
   American studies have shown that putting a price on carbon is actually a net benefit for those on below-average incomes.
2. mickysavage 2

   27 July 2009 at 7:54 am

   The report RNZ this morning that NZ forests are larger than expected (link is at http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/stories/2009/07/27/1245bca65557) means that the Greenpeace target is easier to reach and it is more difficult to explain why such a weak target is being put into place.

   I presume that this current data means that Smith’s continuous claims that under Labour the size of all forests had decreased is, to put it mildly, incorrect. Can we expect an apology?
   • andre 2.1

     27 July 2009 at 9:04 pm

     No you are wrong! From the MAF forestry facts & figures. Age class profile of all NZ plantation forests:

     Ages 11 – 15 years = 440,000 hectares
     Ages 6 – 10 years = 320,000 hectares
     Ages 1 – 5 years = 220,000 hectares

     Who was in government the last five years again? Can we expect an apology
3. illuminatedtiger 3

   27 July 2009 at 8:01 am

   I don’t understand why people are expecting so much from a government of climate change deniers.

   “CO2 is a misunderstood nutrient”

   “Climate Change is a complete and utter hoax.”
4. Sting 4

   27 July 2009 at 8:21 am

   The CC delusion is the utter hoax pushed along by lefty fear mongers.It’s so cold this morning Jack Frost has frozen the old computer.
5. BLiP 5

   27 July 2009 at 8:31 am

   Perhaps its time we used a little of their own tactics (ie bullshit, jellybeans and obfuscation) back at them?

   Here is a secrety filmed segment from the briefing given to Nick Smith prior to his decision to ignore the wishes of New Zealanders concerning what they want the John Key National Government Inc to do on their behalf concerning the future of the planet.

   (RedLogix – you might be especially interested bearing in mind your comment re engingeering vs economics.)
6. lprent 6

   27 July 2009 at 8:54 am

   I see that Sting doesn’t understand what the word change means. If you stuff extra energy into a chaotic system it means that weather gets different at local, regional, and global. To try and derive climate from a morning frost is like reading the outcome of battle in the entrails of a goat.

   It simply indicates a fool governed by superstition
   • Eddie 6.1

     27 July 2009 at 9:01 am

     I haven’t checked but I’m pretty sure Sting is our old friend D4J
     • Tim Ellis 6.1.1

       27 July 2009 at 9:51 am

       Yes, I think you’re right Eddie. Both me and I think Felix “hi dad”ed him last week.
       • The Voice of Reason 6.1.1.1

         27 July 2009 at 11:14 am

         Careful, Tim. “Both me and I think …”

         Could be seen as confirmation by some around here that yours is a composite name used by a team of monkeys randomly pounding on a bank of typewriters in the hope of coming up with Shakespeare or even harder, a justification for Key’s inaction.

         Pip Pip!
         • Tim Ellis 6.1.1.1.1

           27 July 2009 at 3:17 pm

           TVOR, it should have read: Both I, and I think Felix, …
   • djp 6.2

     27 July 2009 at 11:39 am

     I understand…

     It used to be called Global Warming… but now is called Climate Change to make it un-falsifiable

     ps. Captcha is “Changing” how about that eh
     • Bright Red 6.2.1

       27 July 2009 at 12:22 pm

       It hasn’t been referred to as global warming in the scientific literature for decades.

       Originally, they talked about the ‘greenhouse effect’ (if I recall correctly that term was coined in the 1930s, although the science had been posulated from the 19th century), the basic science of which was well understood by the 1950s then attention turned to the real-world consequences.

       The term ‘global warming’ came into use because that’s the basic result of the greenhouse effect, the globe warms, but was replaced because it is a bit misleading – it suggests the only outcome of the greenhouse effect is the world gets hotter.

       In fact, the climate system becomes more energetic – that means more heat but also more storms, more severe weather events, changing climate patterns. The atmosphere overall is warming and most places will experience that as hotter, less stable weather but in localised areas it may cool (Northern Europe if the Atlantic conveyor is disrupted, for example). Hence, ‘climate change’.
7. Tom Mathews 7

   27 July 2009 at 9:32 am

   I agree that we should try to reduce carbon emissions – I’m less sure of what ideological imperative those non-partisan research institutes have. I also think we’re all being a little naive assuming that only those bad polluters will pay – very few taxes have 100% incidence on producers, for the simple reason that they become part of cost, and businesses don’t tend to sell goods at below cost. A cap and trade scheme would definitely affect people that drive more, and so forth. But it would affect all of us pretty heavily, even if we don’t own any factories ourselves, because we use the things that they make.
   • Draco T Bastard 7.1

     27 July 2009 at 11:17 am

     So, some things will be priced off the market?
     • Tom Mathews 7.1.1

       27 July 2009 at 4:50 pm

       Presumably, although that’s really the point.
8. Lanthanide 8

   27 July 2009 at 9:49 am

   “Anyway, it’s deceptive to talk in ‘per person’ terms because the costs are borne by polluters, not everyone equally.”

   Everyone is a polluter. If you use electricity or petrol, you are a polluter. If you use goods and services provided by someone who does use electricity or petrol, then you are also a polluter.

   So yes, the costs are borne by everyone, however those costs may not be borne equally by everyone.
9. Tim Ellis 9

   27 July 2009 at 9:53 am

   I think it’s refreshing that the government identifies the costs in real terms to consumers. It’s all very well to have nifty Greenpeace campaigns, but unless they are open about the impact on the ordinary cost of living of New Zealanders by adopting their targets, it’s not really giving us much perspective.
   • Draco T Bastard 9.1

     27 July 2009 at 11:19 am

     They are open about it – they’re also open about the cost if we don’t do anything which is much higher.
     • Tim Ellis 9.1.1

       27 July 2009 at 3:25 pm

       That’s funny, DTB. I haven’t seen all of the ads, admittedly, but I haven’t seen any of them that say that individuals will lose $60 a week through a 40% reduction.
   • Macro 9.2

     27 July 2009 at 9:26 pm

     But what are the real costs of the govts inaction Tim? There are very real costs to all NZers if we continue with our doing nothing policy. These costs are not spelled out by the Govt, and they are considerably more than the “worst case” scenario presented by Nick Smith which assumes that no one converts land from agriculture to forestry – and that the cost of 1 ton of carbon is at the highest levels of $200 – $400 per ton. But what of the cost to NZ of constant deep depressions with large scale flooding, and long drought in canterbury and the hawkes bay,(yes the two are consistent and predicted with climate change) a rise of at least 600mm in sea level by 2100, and probably higher if the world continues with business as usual. And not to forget tokalua all inhabitants of which are NZers only 4 m above sea level at its highest – doomed to obliteration. And the list goes on.
     The fact of the matter is that we – ie NZers and the developed world have been living unsustainably for quite some time. There are about 6 billion people in the world at present and about 6 billion hectares of usable land. NZers lifestyles on average use about 8 hectares of land per person (the 4th highest in the world). A person in Afganistan uses about half a hectare. Now I’m not suggesting that we all become peasants. But we are going to have to pay for our profligate life style at some time in the future. Just as we are going to have to pay back all that money private NZers have borrowed from overseas to buy houses or the latest TV.
10. Bill 10

    27 July 2009 at 9:55 am

    No Worries.

    “America (…) virtually blinding itself to climate change by cutting funds to the environmental satellite programmes(…). A report by the National Academy of Sciences this year warned that the environmental satellite network was at risk of collapse.

    In February, a Nasa satellite (…) crashed near Antarctica only three minutes after lift-off.

    The satellite would have measured carbon emissions at 100,000 points around the planet every day, providing a wealth of data compared to the 100 or so fixed towers currently in operation in a land-based network

    June’s land and sea surface temperatures were the second hottest on record, and scientists are predicting this will be the warmest decade in recorded history. The last major El Niño was in 1998, the hottest year in recorded history”

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/26/climate-change-obama-administration
11. Bill 11

    27 July 2009 at 10:02 am

    Meanwhile, the next bubble to bring us bust is predicted to be carbon trading. Whoop. Do bubbles get bigger before popping in hotter environments or something?

    A must read on Goldman Sachs and The Great American Bubble Machine by Matt Taibbi.
12. Redbaiter 12

    27 July 2009 at 10:07 am

    Guyon Espiner raised the false issue of NZ being penalised in world trade for failing to introduce cap and trade polices-

    1) Such penalties are prohibited by the WTO.

    2) When Labour pushed trade with the Chinese Generals, the mantra from the left was trade is trade and policies are policies.

    3) Labour gave no mind to trade penalties when they banned nuclear ships.

    Guyon Espiner is not a journalist. He is IMHO, an evil propagandising leftist shill posing as a journalist. People like Espiner are of the kind that allowed Adolf Hitler to rise to power. The evil we must all fight against is totalitarianism. Espiner promotes it.
    • lyndon 12.1

      27 July 2009 at 7:53 pm

      http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_E/envir_e/envir_e.htm
    • Macro 12.2

      27 July 2009 at 9:29 pm

      Australia – fireblight – wto
      don’t be stupid RB countries can do anything they want and the wto can do stuff all about it.
13. Zorr 13

    27 July 2009 at 10:25 am

    I know I shouldn’t reply to Redbaiter, but as far as point #1 goes I have seen a lot of evidence from Paul Krugman and a few other economists providing the evidence that such trade tariffs can actually be legitimate under the WTO if implemented with the right “wording”.

    I will go and dig through my RSS history and see if I can find the specific posts as evidence a little later today but currently meant to be working… >_<

    (Also, apologies if this is a double post. Sometimes my net screws up)
14. Zorr 14

    27 July 2009 at 10:44 am

    Right, just found the two posts.

    The main one is this one. It includes a link through to the actual details. Also this one provides a little light reading and some further information and links.

    Enjoy.
15. jagilby 15

    27 July 2009 at 1:16 pm

    “There’s a paper out on the costs of 15% reductions from Infometrics and NZIER. The cost of $3,000 per person a year seems a lot but it’s based on little better than guesswork by organisations with an ideological imperative”

    Can someone from the left then please compile some detailed “guesswork” into the cost and methods in which we will get to 40%?

    If 40% is necessary to avoid a CO2 induced apocolypse can you at least provide some constructive means in which to achieve this other that offered by 350 Aotearoa:

    “Explain that it’s not up to any one group to identify where the emission cuts are going to be, but that it will require a collaborative effort between Government, community and business.”

    Well isn’t that great. So… just throw a figure at government and basically tell them to sort it out… host some talkfests, organise a few hui. That’ll do it.

    I tried to have an informed discussion about the alternatives for electrcity generation a couple of days ago and basically every alternative was pie in the sky…
    1. tidal by 2020 – cost prohibitive and plant generation capabilities not at required scale;
    2. geothermal – resource simply unavailable;
    3. wave generation – cost prohibitive, plant generation capabilities not at required scale, consent issues;
    4. reduction in demand side – current demand growth is estimated by MED to be 2% p.a., just reducing this to nil by 2020 would require a massive shift in social behaviour over a decade given migration/population growth. In short… highly unlikely. Draco, if you come back with the whole “just make sacrifices” argument I may have to shove an Banjo down your throat (before I lose the provocation defence) – where, exactly (in a detailed breakdown), are YOU PERSONALLY going to make to 60% reduction in your current demand to get back to 40% of 1990 levels?

    So where to then? Even if I am somewhat skeptical of the religion (yes, I will call it that), I am all for sustainable living…A major wind project is basically in my backyard and I realise this is a compromise between having my cake and eating it too (which is far from what my left-leaning neighbours think!).

    Building Rome in a day is a great concept on paper. However, I think that if you are going to debate these things and throw numbers on the table you have to have at least the beginnings of a plan to do achieve it (and a hint of realism).
    • jagilby 15.1

      27 July 2009 at 1:49 pm

      The silence is deafening.
    • jarbury 15.2

      27 July 2009 at 3:33 pm

      Clearly cuts in CO2 emissions from power generation and agriculture will be difficult. As far as I know there is more potential for geothermal though, and tidal may become feasible if the cost of thermal generation goes through the roof due to an ETS.

      Which leaves us with transport. The government could embark on trying to reduce the CO2 emissions of our transport sector by investing in public transport, walking & cycling measures and providing real incentives for electric cars (like a subsidy for purchasing them, not just an offset on RUCs).

      Oh that’s right, we have Steven Joyce as our Minister for Trucking. He’s going to allow bigger trucks on the road and take money away from public transport to throw at new state highways.
      • jagilby 15.2.1

        27 July 2009 at 4:24 pm

        1. Potential for geothermal generation is only estimated to be 365MW at high confidence by 2015…. that’s only approxmiately 1 year’s growth in demand. Contact has delayed its investment in the 220MW Te Mihi geothermal plant because of current economic conditions. Te Mihi was originally due for commission in 2011.

        2. Problem with transport is that it only accounts for 20% of NZs emissions… even if we got rid of it all we’d still have to erase an additional 40% off our emissions profile to get it to 40% of 1990 levels.

        Also what would you have us do with transport? Electrify the Auckland rail network? Light rail? Endorse hybrid/electric cars?… guess what… that increases demand for electricity generation plant, so what sources are we going to rely upon?

        Unless you can clear things up, to me it seems as though the transport/electricity generation argument is pretty circular unless we all get on bikes which, athough a great utopian ideal (I do love my bike!), is not going to happen.
        • jarbury 15.2.1.1

          27 July 2009 at 5:15 pm

          This whole “oh it’s too hard” attitude is pretty frustrating actually. Figures out today on the growth of our forests over the past 18 years indicates that we’re about level with 1990 levels in terms of net CO2 emissions. And that’s what matters here – net emissions. The amount of CO2 we pump out minus the amount that we suck back in through additional tree planting.

          There’s a really good blog post on “No Right Turn” today about this issue. And I’ll quote the important bit:

          How much of a difference does the exclusion of forestry make? The Business Council for Sustainable Development points out that the report itself notes that MAF predicts that a $20 / ton carbon price would in the long term lead to increased planting of 100,000 hectares per year, sucking 30 MTCO2-e (around 50% of 1990 emissions) out of the atmosphere by 2020.

          While we will need to reduce gross emissions in some way, we can probably achieve most of a net emissions target by planting more trees.

          And in regards to transport, yes we do need to increase our renewable energy generation to fuel future electric trains/trams/etc.
          • jagilby 15.2.1.1.1

            27 July 2009 at 5:30 pm

            “This whole “oh it’s too hard’ attitude is pretty frustrating actually.”

            And that is really the crux of this issue. It is hard. If is was easy then it wouldn’t be as much of an issue as it is.

            Hey, I like the idea of big bold targets, but in any robust debate you need to have answers to some pretty pertinent questions…. you’re not always preaching to the converted… these are the types of questions that need answering and the types of considerations that need to be considered.

            My point is that when you put 40% on the table as a value and organise a massive PR campaign around it then you have to have your ducks in order and a plan – that plan has to address some pretty fundamental questions and considerations that you’re likely to face.

            My job involves having a fairly indepth knowledge of energy, transport and finance. Championing environmentalism and poverty, as I’ve tried to show, cannot be thought of as mutually exclusive objectives. A big bold target for climate change is undoubtedly going to have a MAJOR effect on anyone who is just making ends meet as it is.

            “While we will need to reduce gross emissions in some way, we can probably achieve most of a net emissions target by planting more trees.”

            We sure can, but we also have to have the incentives there for people to plant trees – I think that was lost on the last government. As far as commercial forestry goes, if you plant trees (or have already planted trees), then in most cases you’ll want to cut them down as they mature and replant… making allowances in an ETS framework for that intial motivation to plant is key in any forestry considerations.
      • jagilby 15.2.2

        27 July 2009 at 4:45 pm

        You are right though with regards to tidal.

        If the cost of thermal generation, post ETS, drove the electricity price path to sufficiently high levels then, and only then, could, COULD tidal become an option. My point is that the point where tidal becomes an option may be mean that the price path would have to rise to a significantly higher level than it would otherwise without an ETS. At what point does the price path increase really start to impinge on those at the lower end of the socio-economic spectrum (or for that matter drag those in the middle-class down to the lower end)? Do we really want the price path to hit levels where tidal power becomes viable?

        In any case, by the time:
        1. The ETS is finalised;
        2. The ETS effects the price path sufficently to raise it to a level where tidal becomes viable;
        3. A generator makes the decsion to invest;
        4. Consent is gained; and
        5. Construction is completed and plant commissioned.
        We are going to be well and truely beyond 2020.
        • Macro 15.2.2.1

          27 July 2009 at 9:36 pm

          The conversion of unproductive farmland to forestry will go a long way to assist NZ towards making the 40% reduction. This was UNCOSTED by the report – despite putting a price of $200-400 per ton on carbon! Clearly the report was produced to put as BAD a picture on the face of things as it could.
    • Murray 15.3

      27 July 2009 at 3:36 pm

      I agree, a cautious approach is better then blindly following a proposal just because its put up by greenpeace.
      A proposal that could turn NZ into a third world country
    • Draco T Bastard 15.4

      27 July 2009 at 4:32 pm

      Already at less than 60% of my 1990 demand so what ever gave you the idea that I would need to cut my current demand down by 60% to get to 40% less than 1990 levels?

      No longer own a car and walk most places – take a bus if I need to go further.
      No longer smoke
      Don’t drink anywhere near as much
      Cut back meat and dairy in my diet
      No longer replace clothing every 6 months. The sweatshirt I have on is over ten years old.
      I only buy power saving light bulbs

      You see, I don’t consider cutting back as a sacrifice. I realized a long time ago that I don’t need or want most of what modern society seems to think I should need or want.

      As for the issue of cutting back society wide. Well, we could put in some standards such as requiring energy efficient light bulbs, that’s right, we did that but the NACT government repealed it.
      We could put in more public transport but NACT decided we needed more inefficient roads instead (not that the previous government were covered in glory there either).
      We could put a moratorium on build thermal power stations, that’s right, we did that too but the NACT government repealed it.
      We could put a large amount of money into R&D to cut down agricultural emissions, that’s right, we did that as well but the NACT government repealed it.
      We could have an emissions trading scheme where we cap emissions @ 1990 levels and then decrease the amount of permissions sold over time. Oh, wait – NACT repealed that as well.

      You see, we were already doing what was needed but NACT repealed it. It isn’t hard to get emissions down and I doubt if it would make that much difference to living standards – hell, they may even go up as unneeded crap is removed from the market.
      • jagilby 15.4.1

        27 July 2009 at 5:06 pm

        “Already at less than 60% of my 1990 demand so what ever gave you the idea that I would need to cut my current demand down by 60% to get to 40% less than 1990 levels?”

        Ahhhhhh…. because we are already 20%-25% above 1990 levels already and on our current path (growth in demand etc) we will have to reduce it even further. That’s where I got that idea from.

        “I don’t consider cutting back as a sacrifice”

        I’ve taken all those same measures myself (my 10 year old sweater is also so styley that I don’t even consider it a sacrifice to wear it haha).

        With all due respect those measures you have taken will get you no where near where you need to be. By no means am I suggesting this, but I would think to reduce your consumption to the required level you would also probably have to consider:
        1. What heating sources you have in your home?;
        2. Will you cut meat and dairy completely out of your diet?;
        3. Do you get your power only from Meridian (considering it is the only carbon neutral generator)?;
        4. Have your hot water cylinder only on for 1 hour a day?
        5. Get a low pressure shower head?
        6. Do you have a compost heap (still methane emissions from that I would assume)?
        That’s only the beginning. You’d have to do far, far more.

        Do I think there should be a compulsion to do any of these things, NO. Will I do a lot of them myself, probably not (actually realisically I’ll never give up meat or dairy, get a low pressure shower head or for that matter subsidise Meridian’s highly inefficient business practices). And I am someone who is aware of the difference they will make… educating the ignorant masses is the only way this will work and even then it’s realistically not going to happen before 2020 regardless of who is in power.
        • jagilby 15.4.1.1

          27 July 2009 at 5:16 pm

          Oh and you’d probably have to add to that list:
          1. Never, EVER, under any circumstances fly ANYWHERE or use imported goods.
16. gobsmacked 16

    27 July 2009 at 3:22 pm

    Nick Smith spells it out:

    “Let me be clear: Doing nothing is no longer an option,” he said.

    “The time has come to do as little as possible.”

    (as reported superbly by Lyndon Hood … )

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0907/S00296.htm
    • jagilby 16.1

      27 July 2009 at 4:10 pm

      That’s great that he said that… so what do you propose we actually do?
17. mike 17

    27 July 2009 at 8:31 pm

    As part of the lefts plan to keep everyone poor this alarmist climate change stuff fits the bill nicely. Pity it’s not vote winner……a bit like poor old Goffy in a way
18. Pascal's bookie 18

    28 July 2009 at 10:55 am

    National blogging treasure Keith Ng ate Nick Smith’s lunch.

    When the report said that “40%” would cost $15b, it meant that if our carbon credit allocations were reduced by 40%, and our emissions level was unchanged, then it could cost New Zealand the equivalent of $15b.

    So the cost that Smith talks about is categorically NOT the cost of cutting New Zealand’s emissions.

    It is the opposite. It is the cost that New Zealand could face if we DON’T cut our emissions. Every unit of emission that we reduce now is a unit that come off this “$15 billion” price tag that Smith talks about.

    So that 60 dollar a week price is the potential cost of doing nothing. I sure hope the media pick up on this. ‘Minister flat out 100% turnabout wrong’ is usually a good story

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS