This New Scientist video is a superb illustration of the tough emissions targets the world needs to be thinking about. More details in the NS story here. The basic premise is that if we take a 2ºC target seriously, then we have to limit our total emissions to 2050 to about 750 billion tonnes of carbon. Then divide that up by the current population of the world, and allocate countries a carbon budget, based on their population, that they can burn by 2050. Not good news for big emitters like the US, which would burn its total budget in about 12 years at current rates. As the presenter suggests, this is only a thought experiment not a model for policy, but it provides a realistic context for policy making. Required viewing.
Category: Climate politics
National’s nine ways to stuff up: Oram on climate policy in NZ
Rod Oram’s column in yesterday’s Sunday Star Times so perfectly captures my own feelings on the government’s proposed watering down of the emissions trading scheme that I asked Rod if he would allow me to post it here as a guest blog. I’m glad to say he agreed…
To understand how the government is destroying the Emissions Trading Scheme, it’s important to remind ourselves why we need an ETS in the first place.
Governments representing a majority of people on the planet believe climate change is happening. So they’re taking steps to reduce their nation’s emissions of greenhouse gases. Some have entered into international commitments to do so. Many more will do so in coming years.
In 1997, New Zealand committed to cut its emissions during 2008-12 to its 1990 levels. However, they are currently 24% above. So the National-led government has upped the ante with two new targets: a 10-20% reduction below 1990 levels by 2020 and a 50% reduction by 2050.
To achieve them, we need to invest heavily in new energy and carbon efficient technology for electricity generation and transport and processes in industry and agriculture. And we need to maximise the potential for our forests to act as profitable carbon sinks.
To do that we need to:
Continue reading “National’s nine ways to stuff up: Oram on climate policy in NZ”
Climate change policy myopia
This is a guest post by associate professor Ralph Chapman, senior researcher Andy Reisinger, professor Jonathan Boston and senior associate Judy Lawrence from Victoria University of Wellington. It’s a succinct explanation of how and why the government’s climate policy is wrong-headed and ineffective, and is required reading for anyone following the policy debate in NZ. It first appeared in the Dominion Post on Sept 18th.
The deal between National and the Maori party over the emission trading scheme raises serious questions about strategic policy making in New Zealand. The agreement has positive features – a price on carbon will apply from mid-2010 in some sectors – but it raises major concerns about the capacity of our democratic institutions to serve the common good of New Zealand and avoid capture by vested interests.
The deal rests on four myths about climate change policy.
Oxfam: poor countries need funds to adapt
Climate change is already having disproportionate effects on the populations of many poor developing countries, a situation which will only get worse as the global temperature rises. Such countries do not have the resources to develop the adaptation measures they are going to need. Nicholas Stern devoted considerable attention to this question in The Global Deal, where he called for funding from the rich countries additional to their normal aid commitments (such as they are) to assist with the adaptation measures the poor developing countries will have to put in place.
Oxfam has now entered the fray with a report Beyond Aid: Ensuring Adaptation to Climate Change Works for the Poor, insisting that a small proportion of industrial nations’ GDP be devoted to investment in adaptation in poorer countries. 0.1 percent is the proportion they think necessary. And it must be additional, not sneakily transferred from existing aid assistance. Â
Continue reading “Oxfam: poor countries need funds to adapt”
Big wind could wean China off coal
At least some Americans and Chinese are getting together to work on climate change. A team of researchers from Harvard University and Beijing’s Tsinghua University have been conducting a serious investigation into China’s wind power potential. Their work was the cover story for the Sep 11 issue of Science (sub required) and is reported in  the Harvard Gazette.  MIT’s Technology Review also carries a useful report. Â
 “The world is struggling with the question of how do you make the switch from carbon-rich fuels to something carbon-free,†said lead author Michael McElroy, Gilbert Butler Professor of Environmental Studies. “The real question for the globe is: What alternatives does China have?â€