Category: Climate politics

With friends like these…

Airconcover.jpg Next week sees the publication of Ian Wishart‘s latest book, Air Con — The Seriously Inconvenient Truth About Global Warming. After trying to trash Helen Clark in Absolute Power, proclaiming the end of Western civilisation in Eve’s Bite and arguing a creationist line in The Divinity Code, Wishart has latched on to global warming. And just in case there’s any doubt about his position, here are some quotes from the blurb on the back cover:

The UN, Mikhail Gorbachev, Jacques Chirac, and other world-government wannabes are plotting to establish nothing less than a global, bureaucratic-centralist dictatorship under the pretext that it is necessary to ‘Save The Planet’. Ian Wishart’s book demonstrates that there is not the slightest scientific reason for the new, quasi-religious belief that The Planet needs Saving. The new religion is merely an excuse for world government. World government will not, repeat not, be democratic government. […]

I commend this timely book, which makes the scientific arguments comprehensible to the layman. Those who read it will help to forestall the new Fascists and so to keep us free. – Lord Christopher Monckton, Viscount of Brenchley, former adviser to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher

Wishart clearly believes that a recommendation from the potty peer is going to help him sell copies. It may (in certain limited circles) — but it does nothing for his credibility (nor does his mangling of Monckton’s title). And who’s this?

The book is brilliant. The best I have seen which deals with the news item side of it as well as the science. He has done a very thorough job and I have no hesitation in unreserved commendation. It has come along at the time we most need it and I hope it is published and publicized widely.

Back in March, Wishart was touting Air Con in comments to one of Bomber Bradbury’s posts at Tumeke!, and trotted out the above quote to show how esteemed his book was amongst experts — but was coy about identifying the author. And now we know why: the purple prose was penned by none other than Vincent Gray, diligent proofreader of so many IPCC reports. Someone guessed correctly at the time… I wonder who that was? 😉

I will be reviewing Air Con in coming weeks. Something to look forward to, perhaps…

McKibben in Wanaka

mckibben.jpg American environmentalist, writer, educator and founder of 350.org Bill McKibben is in New Zealand this month, and will be speaking at Wanaka’s Festival of Colour on Wednesday 29th April. Bill will be on stage for two sessions at the Infinity Crystal Palace, the first of which — at 10-30am on the impacts of global warming — will also feature me: Bill’s covering the big picture, and I’m providing the local colour. It’s an honour to share the stage with Bill, and I’ll be in the audience for his afternoon gig (2-30pm), where he’s going to address how we can deal with the problem. I hope I’ve finished Deep Economy by then…

Shaking the money tree

pine.gifNZ Incorporated has moved from a Kyoto deficit to a surplus, according to the 2009 Net Position Report [PDF] released today. A reduction in agricultural emissions due to the 2007/8 drought, and an upwards revision in forest carbon have produced an expected surplus of 9.6 million tonnes of carbon over the first Kyoto commitment period: 2008-12, worth $241 million at Treasury’s current carbon price of $25.

Announcing the figures, environment minister Nick Smith commented:

It is good news that we may exceed our Kyoto target but we need to be cautious of these projections given their volatility. It is difficult for the Government to make sound climate change policy when projections have ranged from a 55 million tonne surplus in 2002 to a 64 million tonne deficit in 2006 and when the figures over the past year have varied by 31 million tonnes equivalent to $787 million.

The volatility of the figures certainly doesn’t help the budget process, but has nothing whatsoever to do with making “sound climate change policy”. If you dig around a little in the FAQ [PDF], you find that the government’s only contribution so far has been to increase our liability as Section 2.3 on p2 points out:

Total energy and industrial emissions projections for 2008-2012 have not changed from the 2008 projection. There are reductions in the projected emissions from energy due to lower than projected energy demand during 2008, and the expected effects of a continued recession. However, these have been offset by the effects of removing the Biofuels Sales Obligation and the Renewables (Electricity) Preference, and a small increase in fugitive emissions from greater geothermal electricity generation.

The other fly in the ointment is that although the national carbon account may be positive, that does not necessarily mean that the government will avoid having to buy emissions unit on the international market. A key feature of the current ETS design is the “grandfathering” of heavy emitters by giving them allocations of free units to cover a large chunk of their emissions, and this could lead to the government having to buy units overseas, as Section 5 of the FAQ makes clear:

The net position is a simple balancing of New Zealand’s units assigned under the Kyoto Protocol (Assigned Amount Units (AAUs) and Forestry removal units) against our projected obligation under the protocol. ETS accounting considers how those units will be devolved domestically to participants, and balances up the flows of units from the Crown account. This means that under the net position New Zealand could have a surplus of units, but due to a generous allocation of units under the ETS, the Crown may still need to purchase units from overseas. The ETS accounting is a prediction of what units the Crown will receive from the sectors that have obligations under the ETS, and a prediction of allocation of units to sectors within the scheme. The two sets of accounting are very different as different sectors come into the ETS at different times, and have differing levels of allocation, while under the net position accounting, all of ‘New Zealand Inc.’s’ emissions are accounted for from 2008.

In other words, if the ETS Review proceeds with the expected softening up of the scheme for big emitters and agriculture, even if our national carbon account performs well the government could still end up shelling out taxpayer funds in subsidies to major corporates.
There’s a lot of material to plough through in the report, but here’s an interesting point that should make some of our farming advocates squirm: a chunk of the reduction in agricultural emissions — 4.1 mT, worth $100 million — comes from accounting for the use of nitrification inhibitors and emissions from urine and dung. So much for agriculture not being able to do anything to reduce emissions…
[Update: No Right Turn digs into the methodology changes behind the new figures, DPF at Kiwiblog posts an incredibly facile take on the issue, Business New Zealand want to use the new numbers as an excuse to do nothing (why am I not surprised?), while the Green Party want the government to commit to a 2020 target.]

[Youssou N’Dour & Peter Gabriel]

Hows about telling a story

NZETS.jpgPeter Dunne’s assurance that the ETS Review process won’t turn into a re-examination of climate science is set to run into a few problems. Looking through the full list of submitters who will make oral presentations to the committee (below the fold), I count no fewer than eleven (plus one “possible”) who will or have already argued the crank position — and remarkably, that includes two Hungarian scientists (Miklos Zagoni and Ferenc Miskolczi) who assert that the greenhouse effect doesn’t work the way we think it does, and that global warming is therefore not a problem — even though their views, and “calculations” have been extensively debunked. M&Z are effectively on the furthest reaches of the climate crank fringe, and yet they’ve been invited to give “evidence” to the ETS Review. I wonder who wangled that little feat, and if the chairman realises what he’s got in store?

You can watch Miskolczi and Zagoni in action in Heartland’s 2008 crankfest “proceedings“. Rabett Run and others comprehensively rebutted the Miskolczi paper last year, and even the ever-welcoming Heartland didn’t ask M&Z for a repeat performance this year. So why are they turning up in New Zealand? It appears that Zagoni is in Australia visiting relatives, so perhaps he’s just arranged a holiday for himself and his friend Ferenc to coincide with his submission date (set for May 4th). What a lucky coincidence! I wonder if they have had any help with their airfares? That would seem like a fair question for someone on the committee to ask, if they want to get to the Heart of why their valuable time is being so egregiously wasted.

The ETS Review crank list in full:
Bryan Leyland, Carbon Sense Coalition (Australia), Centre for Resource Management Studies (aka Owen McShane), Dr Ferenc Miskolczi, Dr Kesten Green, McCabe Environmental Consultants(*), Miklos Zagoni, NZ Centre for Political Research, NZ Climate Science Coalition, Dr R M Carter, Vincent Gray.

NZ attendees at Heartland conferences (2008 and/or 2009) underlined. Muriel Newman’s NZ CPR was one of this year’s “sponsors”, but she didn’t have to fork out any money for that privilege, just proselytize. (*) Not known. To see full list of submitters making oral presentations click on “now read on…”.

Continue reading “Hows about telling a story”

Don’t look back in anger

cindy.jpgWith the Bonn meeting over and a huge amount of negotiating still to do, Hot Topic’s woman at the table, Cindy Baxter, gives her impression of the state of play — and she’s not a happy bunny…

I’m getting angry now.

I’ve just spent nearly two weeks in Bonn watching the train wreck of the climate negotiations as delegations stuck in their corners, most especially the officials from the industrialised world.

At one point, in a developing country move led by the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), there was some great draft text for the Kyoto Protocol parties — calling for developed countries to cut emissions by an aggregate of at least 45% by 2020 which might (might) keep the carbon loading in the atmosphere below 350 ppm. Might I say because even that’s not for sure at all. The text was supported by almost every member of the 130-strong developing country “G77” + China, with the notable exception of a few OPEC countries. It simply “noted” that this was what had to be done – and that figures like this need to be on the table.

But in the end even this note went west, with the NZ delegation joining the fight against it, and the result was agreement to discuss the developed country aggregate target next time, in June. Erm, that’s what they were supposed to do this time. So much for our concern in this part of the world for our pacific neighbours.

The only real numbers in the entire meeting were the calculations on the current aggregate 2020 target, based on submissions or announcements made by the developed world to date. Greenpeace crunched the figures and it wasn’t pretty. 4% to 14% by 2020 at 1990 levels. That’s it. Pathetic. New Zealand, of course, didn’t have any targets at all to contribute to the table, but you can rest assured it would fall in the lower half.

New Zealand kept bleating about its problems — I had a conversation with one NZ delegate who was terribly pleased with himself about the adoption of a 450 ppm carbon loading limit. What, I asked, would NZ do to keep us to this? Certainly removing any reference to a strong aggregate target would be counterproductive to that. He went into a rant about how the whole world has to act together. The old “you first” charade. Never mind that the western world is historical responsibility for causing this problem in the first place.

What has to happen to move it forward? Clearly massive ice shelf break ups in the Antarctic won’t do it. We need real leadership and it ain’t gonna come from our lot, any time soon. These officials, who’ll all be back in Bonn in 6 weeks time, need very clear direction from their bosses, from the world’s leaders.

Obama wants an end to our dependence on fossil fuels. That sort of statement is a good start — although the weirdness of the US system means that he can’t introduce his own legislation and has to rely on a difficult congress to make it happen. As Alden Meyer of the Union of Concerned scientists told journalists one day at a press conference “let’s call the US target a moving target. And it’s moving in the right direction.”

Leaders have to step up and direct these officials to move — and move faster. We can’t glue the Wilkins ice shelf back on. We can’t make it rain in Australia, or anywhere else for that matter. But we can change the politics. These guys need to feel the heat. Otherwise we all will.

[Oasis]