With only a couple of days to the government’s big emissions trading announcement, the media are getting all excited. Colin James in the Herald grumbles about the lack of consultation and the need to build a consensus outside of Parliament, and then switches tack to suggest that the really important negotiations are to do with what follows Kyoto. Rod Oram in the Sunday Star Times suggests (rather more cogently) why there’s hope of action by the US, Australia and China. The Press, meanwhile, fears that some power companies might make windfall profits under emissions trading (step forward Meridian), and predicts that forestry could be the next big thing.
Shop’n’save
An excellent, thought-provoking article by Mark Lynas in yesterday’s Guardian [UK] examines the greening of the High Street that is transforming British shopping. Lynas points out many of the inconsistencies inherent in green consumerism, and then asks the big question:
At the heart of green consumerism lies a single unanswered question: can ever-increasing resource consumption be truly reconciled with the ecological constraints of a fragile planet?
Tesco supermarket boss Terry Leahy thinks so, and is making his company as green as a supermarket can be, but this doesn’t impress some environmentalists. George Monbiot, ever the master of the pithy phrase, sums it up:
“No political challenge can be met by shopping.
More ice/less ice
More on the Arctic melt: the National Snow and Ice Data Centre updates its commentary on this year’s record ice minimum. As of yesterday, the five day moving average of ice was still moving downwards, but slowly. Their comment on the North West Passage is interesting.
The main, deep channel of the Northwest Passage (Lancaster Sound to M’Clure Strait) has been open, or nearly ice-free, for about five weeks (since August 11, approximately). Of note is the northernmost ice edge ever recorded, at 85.5 degrees North, near the 160 degrees east longitude line.
Meanwhile, the RV Polarstern (see pic), near to completing a voyage through the Arctic as a contribution to International Polar Year, reports that large areas of this year’s ice have only been 1m thick – a 50% reduction on only 6 years ago. When the ship got close to the pole, it started raining. Ursula Schauer wrote (in early September):
A whole day of rain within 150 km of the North Pole came somewhat as a surprise! For the past few weeks, one low-pressure system after another has continuously carried warm air from northern Siberia (15°C at the Lena estuary!) towards the central Arctic Ocean. In this way the sea ice disintegrates more and more right before our eyes.
Meanwhile, I’ve bet Stoat (aka William Connolley) that 2008 will beat 2007’s record low. But only £10…
The not-so-lucky country
The New South Wales government has decided that Sydney’s current water restricions are going to be permanent, because climate change projections suggest long term reductions in rainfall [Daily Telegraph(AU), ABC]. Meanwhile, CSIRO has released a report suggesting that three of the city’s great beaches could be lost to sea level rise. The Daily Telegraph reports:
[Waverley mayor George] Newhouse launched a climate-change marker today at North Bondi Children’s Pool, which he said was forecast to be under water by 2030. The marker indicates to beach visitors the predicted water height by 2100. “At Bondi, Tamarama and Bronte, we will just lose the whole beach and at other beaches like Collaroy and Narrabeen (in Sydney’s north) we will see houses falling into the water,
“Global warming heroes” ride on
Federated Farmers president Charlie Pedersen (our second Pedersen of the day — see ice post below) uses the opportunity of an opinion column in the Herald today to run his NZ farmers are “global warming heroes” PR once more round the block.
Surely it would be better for the global environment if these inefficient food producers scaled back their food production, and instead bought more food from New Zealand. It seems obvious that increasing greenhouse gas emissions in New Zealand to produce more food is, overall, a better way to curb climate change. The whole world would be better off. So the next time you hear someone having a go at New Zealand farmers stuffing up the climate, challenge it. Remember, compared with subsidised, inefficient farmers in most other countries, New Zealand farmers are climate change heroes.
Charlie gets the basics of his argument right: food miles are a blunt tool, NZ farmers are — in world terms — relatively low-carbon producers of food, but his main point is both subtle and debatable. Buying NZ farm produce instead of more local, but higher carbon food would result in a net reduction in global emissions — if it were likely to happen. It isn’t. The “local food” movement (evidenced by the huge growth in farmer’s markets around the world) is about more than just carbon emissions. Consumers buy local because they like to support their local producers, and celebrate fresh seasonal produce. It’s a food and lifestyle movement, not a green ideology. It’s not going away, and whether our farmers like it or not, NZ is not local to anywhere other than itself.
The “subsidised, inefficient farmers” Charlie’s busily bagging will respond by reducing their carbon footprints, and improving their international carbon competitiveness. Our farmers need to be proactive, and do the same if they want to maintain their sales in export markets. It’s a commercial necessity. Sitting on your carbon laurels is not good policy.