This week climate minister Nick Smith and international negotiator Tim Groser start their 2020 emissions target roadshow, ostensibly taking the pulse of the nation on the question of what target New Zealand should commit to in the run-up to Copenhagen in December. Much of the argument will undoubtedly centre around the costs of taking action. The government has already signalled it won’t commit to targets likely to damage the economy, but there is a bigger question to consider — what emissions cuts does the world have to consider in order to avoid the worst effects of climate change, and how should New Zealand play its part? Any cost to the NZ economy is only a small part of that overall equation, and (arguably) not the most important. I want to examine what “the science†is telling us about a global goal and how we get there, and what that means for New Zealand. The leaflet produced to accompany the consultation process is pretty feeble in this respect, so I make no apologies for going into some detail here.
Category: Climate science
Copenhagen 5: inaction is inexcusable
The fifth section of the Copenhagen congress synthesis report  asserts that inaction is inexcusable. It calls for a combination of mitigation and adaptation strategies.  There is little that will not be already familiar to those who follow such matters, but the importance of the report is that it articulates a consensus of many professionals and carries a consequent authority. The intention is to give policy makers an up-to-date picture of the means open to us to deal with the reality ahead and to declare them adequate when properly integrated.
Copenhagen 4: equity issues
The fourth section of the Copenhagen congress synthesis report is firmly in the realm of policy. Addressing climate change involves ethics.  Unequivocally the report asserts that serious equity issues should inform the fight to restrain global warming and enters into detail in identifying them.  For one thing the climate is not changing uniformly around the world and the human effects are unequal. Profoundly unequal, for example, in the impacts of climate change on health. The poor, the marginal, the uneducated and the geographically vulnerable are at greatest risk of injury and death. In general, developed countries are most responsible for climate change up to now while developing countries suffer the majority of the impacts. Any lasting and widely accepted solution to the climate change challenge should recognise and account for these equity dimensions in negotiations and agreements.
Hit the road, Nick
Climate minister Nick Smith and international negotiator Tim Groser have published the schedule for their recently announced consultation exercise on a 2020 emissions target for New Zealand. The hastily arranged exercise (announced only last month, and a surprise to many) has already drawn calls for an interim target of 40% by 2020 from the recently-formed NZ Climate Action Partnership and Greenpeace. In an interesting development, Carbon News is reporting that Green Party climate change spokeswoman Jeanette Fitzsimons has floated the idea that NZ could adopt a split target — setting separate 2020 targets for carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and methane:
Fitzsimons says that with the technology not yet available to reduce methane emissions from farmed animals – responsible for half of New Zealand’s total greenhouse gas emissions – this country should be thinking about setting separate targets for carbon, nitrous oxide and methane for 2020.
“If we set an overall target that is mainly determined by the difficulty of reducing agricultural emissions, it looks to the rest of the world like we are doing nothing,†she said.
It’s an interesting concept, at the very least, though I have to say I’m not keen on giving agriculture a wholly free ride. Federated Farmers like to insist that the “technology is not available”, but there are a range of options farms can use to reduce emissions, from the use of nitrification inhibitors to better handling of manure (not to mention shifting to low-carbon crops or carbon farming).
Full details of the public meetings below the fold. I’ll be making an effort to attend the Christchurch meeting next Wednesday evening.
TV3 needs to take stock
TV3 news hit one of its lows last night. Reporter and presenter Samantha Hayes was in Aitutaki in the Cook Islands for the visit of Greenpeace’s ship the Esmeralda on its Pacific climate impact tour, with Sign On ambassador Keisha Castle Hughes on board [Greenpeace release]. I was watching the news item with interest when I thought I heard the reporter saying “while the science is far from settled…â€. Since my hearing is not reliable I checked on the TV3 news website. I had heard aright. Here is the full sentence: “While the science is far from settled, Greenpeace is convinced that Aitutaki is on the front line of climate change.â€