Some good news

WindturbineTwo items of good news from the US this week. Good because they confirm that the Obama Administration is serious about its intention to move to renewable sources for energy, and particularly good in the boost they give to wind generation.  

President Obama gave an unequivocal speech to a wind tower construction facility in Iowa on Wednesday.  He’s not buying the notion that climate change must be put to one side while the economic crisis is addressed (John Key take note):

Continue reading “Some good news”

Not getting windy in Waipara

WindturbineMainpower’s consent application for a wind farm on the Mt Cass ridge above Waipara (and on my skyline) has been turned down [HDC news, PDF of judgement, earlier posts: one, two, three.]. The commissioners found that arguments that the Mt Cass ridge was a site of nationally significant ecological value outweighed the benefits of the renewable energy generated and jobs created. Mainpower managing director Alan Berge was “deeply disappointed”, according to The Press, but conservationists were predictably pleased (I know a few who’ll be celebrating tonight). It remains to be seen whether Mainpower will either appeal the decision, or prepare a revised scheme that takes into account the commissioners findings. On my quick reading of the judgement, it looks as though they might have been able to consent a scheme which took better account of the ridge layout, avoiding sensitive areas, and which was more definite about the types of turbine to be used and the turbine sites. One of Hot Topic‘s regular readers, Andrew H(urley), the project manager, will no doubt keep us informed.

Getting windy in Waikato

WindturbineThis column was published in the Waikato Times on 31 March. Windfarms in the Waikato. There’s a nice alliterative balance to the words, as well as the promise of economic and employment benefits. But don’t count on them yet. Not only does a project have to undergo a long consent process and survive any apppeal, but once that hurdle has been surmounted the current economic factors obtaining have to be weighed and timing carefully considered. We inch towards the final commitment.

Continue reading “Getting windy in Waikato”

It’s too late

Lovelock.jpgThe Sunday Times has published a second extract from James Lovelock’s new book, The Vanishing Face of Gaia: A Final Warning, covering his distrust of renewable energy, and his promotion of nuclear power as a key part of adapting to climate change. It’s an interesting read, worth it because it forces us to confront the received wisdom — but I think it’s where Lovelock is at his weakest. ST columnist Camilla Cavendish has an extended review of the book in her column this week, and tends to agree.

[Bob Mould]

Star witness

homer.jpgThe Environment Court is currently hearing the appeal against consents granted for Meridian Energy‘s Project Hayes windfarm in Central Otago — and has been forced to sit through some evidential nonsense from climate cranks. Auckland property developer Roch Sullivan joined the appeal last year, and announced that he intended to bring some leading climate cranks to give evidence. Last Friday it was Chris de Freitas’ turn and he did our plucky little NZ cranks collective proud, as the Otago Daily Times reports under the headline “Professor denies greenhouse effect“:

Prof de Freitas, of the University of Auckland, said there was no evidence to suggest carbon dioxide was the major driver of climate change. “Climate is not responding to greenhouse gases in the way we thought it might. If increasing carbon dioxide is in fact increasing climate change, its impact is smaller than natural variation. People are being misled by people making money out of this,” Prof de Freitas said.

He said mild warming of the climate was beneficial, especially in a country such as New Zealand, which had a prominent agricultural industry.

“One could argue that carbon dioxide is quite beneficial. There may be benefits of wind farming that I may not be aware of, but there is no data to show benefits in terms of mitigating potential dangerous changes in climate by offsetting carbon dioxide,” he said.

No evidence to suggest carbon dioxide was the major driver of climate change? I think the good professor is somewhat understating the case — at the very least, being economical with the truth. How a respected academic can ignore 150 years worth of physics and four successive IPPC reports is a matter that might be of interest to psychologists (perhaps even his head of department), but it gets better.

Prof de Freitas admitted there was debate about climate change, when questioned during cross-examination by Central Otago District Council lawyer Graeme Todd. “The debate centres on causes. There is a possibility climate change could be impacted by human beings, but it is not a significant impact,” he said.

In response to a question by commissioner Alex Sutherland, Prof de Freitas said the jury was out on climate change, and preemptive action could be dangerous. “There’s no basis for alarm. We might be shooting ourselves in the foot if we act on what turns out to be a bubble-less pot,” he said.

The jury is still out, not on the reality of climate change, but on whether so misrepresenting the evidence amounts to a contempt of court. The duties of an expert witness before the Environment Court include:

5.2 Duty to the Court

5.2.1 An expert witness has an overriding duty to assist the Court impartially on relevant matters within the expert’s area of expertise.

5.2.2 An expert witness is not an advocate for the party who engages the witness.

Since de Freitas’ areas of expertise include tourism, climate in caves, and suitable clothing for Canadian winters, it appears he is somewhat overstating his expertise in daring to advise the court in those terms. I do hope the judge is lenient, for his sake. Or perhaps de Freitas simply wishes to be acknowledged as an inexpert witness…

[Neko Case]