I post copies of some interesting interviews from National Radio here in New Zealand. I don't know if they are copyrighted, I post them here because of their general interest and importance, and I hope that this is acceptable. They are important because they cover some very difficult environmental issues, which are global in nature, but viewed from a New Zealand perspective.

Water Issues in New Zealand.

The first radio item appeared on the "Sunday" programme, April 2nd, 2006. The presenter is Chris Laidlaw, and we have to be grateful here that this intelligent and humane man has been keen to present these issues to the New Zealand public. I don't know what the audience for "Sunday" is, but it is a pity such thoughtful programming does not appear on TV. (Though John Campbell does do his best in his short time slot at 7 pm on TV 3). This first interview is about water problems in New Zealand, particularly the Canterbury plains, where 80% of New Zealand's irrigation water is used. Most New Zealanders probably give little thought to New Zealand's water supply, after all isn't the country clean and green? But the eastern parts of New Zealand have much less rainful than most of the rest of the country, and summer, and winter, droughts are not at all uncommon. But add to this natural dryness, global warming, with a persistence of westerlies, increasingly intensive land use, particularly in Canterbury the conversion of dryland farming to dairy farming, increasing population, and many other water users such as vinyards, horticulture and orchards, you have a recipe for severely over-stretched and limited water supplies. Further global warming could well see continued significant snow loss in the mountains, and an even more acute failure of summer water. The difficulty of finding now water from wells even for domestic supplies, and wells having to be sunk to 54 metres instead of 14 metres, you would seem to find the same short-sighted and greedy use of a common resource that blights many other countries. It is all very well for the commentator to say that dairy converions and irrigation are bringing in an extra billion dollars of exports. The simple reply to this is "for how long?"






Interview with Lord Oxburgh, retired CEO Shell, UK.


Lord Oxburgh attended the recent climate change conference in Wellington. He was interviewed by Chris Laidlaw 2/4/06. The interview covered a number of interesting topics related to global warming. The interview starts with Lord Oxburgh admitting that the science of global warming is now beyond doubt, the uncertainty being the speed at which it which it will affect us. How long have we got? He claims if we get emissions under control by 2050 then we should be able to avoid the worst effects, for instance melting the arctic sea ice. I would strongly dispute this, we have nothing like this long to get emissions "under control", a nebulous and undetailed figure. By 2050 even keeping emissions to what they are now, will see the melting of the arctic ice.

His comment that politicians have not been willing to take global warming seriously, because the warnings about our climate and environment have come over many years from the Greens and the "Loony Left", and as such have provoked a knee-jerk reaction from the right which scorns everthing these groups stand for, is correct. Right wingers hate, just hate, to have to admit that Greepeace and all those woolley cardiganed tree-huggers were right all along. We have the same thing here in the National Party and Peter Dunn and his ilk. Lord Oxburgh's praise for Tony Blair is totally misplaced. Chris stating that Peter Hodgson regretted he couldn't get the carbon tax through - rubbish, he didn't even try.

He is also correct that business and industry need leadership and regulation and a sense of direction from politicians, so they can sensibly plan for the future. This is something entirely lacking in New Zealand. Business and industry would be perfectly happy to build renewable energy resources, as long as they know what they are required to do, and that they are all treated equally. But this has not yet registered with our politicians, and our big business still lives in the last century.

Then we go on to biofuels. We have 600 million vehicles in the world, the idea that we can afford to fuel them all on biofuels is absurd. If you read my posting about BP , you will see my reply to BP's proposal that 16% of the world's agricultural land be committed to biofuels. Apart from being absurd, with 9 billion mouths to feed, it is immoral. There is no way that biofuels can in any way substitute for other than a small proportion of transport fuels. There certainly are major improvements that can be made in car efficiency, and it is worth visiting the Rocky Mountain Institute internet site to read about this.

He was also correct to point out each country will need to make use of the energy sources that suit it best. Although he said solar power was not so good here as say in sunnier countries, in fact, in the form of solar hot water heating and passive solar house and building design, it does in fact have a major future in reducing our energy demands.

So all in all, a bit of a curate's egg, this interview, some good points and some bad thinking. But worth listening to all the same. At least the debate is widening and becoming more serious, and more seriously listened to by those who previously thought global warming was science-fiction invented by scientists wanting to earn research grants. However the basic, and overriding, problem remains, which is that blind faith in technology to deal with global warming, oil depletion and all the other environmental issues pressing on us, so we can continue to build our shopping malls and motorways, fly to Thailand for a week by the sea-side, buy our TVs from China, and oranges from Florida. . Whatever we do, don't make us have to examine how we, as a human species, are destroying the planet that feeds, clothes and protects us. Just a bit of corn oil here, a bit of carbon sequestration there, some lighter cars, some new regulations, a few windmills, and a softly-softly, don't rock the boat policy over the next fifty years, that'll fix things just fine. Read "Revenge of Gaia" or "A Short History of Progress" or "Collapse" and understand that nothing but a revolutionary change in our understanding of the nature of our relationship with our planet will have any hope of saving humanity.




Insight, "Sunday" National Radio Sunday 2/4/06

The first of two parts on global warming. This starts with an examination of global warming science, and the IPCC, and how to deal with the more contentious issues by Dr Kevin E Trenbirth.The organisation NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) in the US has been shown to be downplaying the science of global warming, for political reasons, and there is some discussion about the arguments in regard to global warming.

Next comes a message from Gary Taylor, chairman of the Environmental Defence Society, excoriating the New Zealand government's pathetic record in climate change. "We are drifting back to the peleton" says Chris; rubbish, says Gary, we were never ahead of the peleton, and good for him, some signs of intelligent life in regard to global warming in New Zealand. Gary is personally extremely disappointed by the government's reneging on the carbon tax, and he doesn't believe the politicians couldn't get this through if they had tried. He says, here we have the "conservative" party still denying global warming. It's seen as a "boutique issue on the side", the subject needs to be lifted up the priority list. (It needs to be seen as the number one, number two and number three issue, with oil depletion number four, overpopulation number five, ecological damange number six, and nuclear weapons number seven. Somewhere after these issues there'll be some room for health, tax and crime.) He mentions the Green Party as putting anything serious forward in regard to climate change. We need leadership from the very top, and compares our PM very unfavourably with Tony Blair, but here I have to depart from ..... as Tony Blair is more hot air than white-hot action. I must say I found Chris's interview questions somewhat disappointing. He seemed far too keen to keep reputting the question about the science of global warming, the disagreement, the scepticism. Chris, you kept getting the same answer, the science of global warming is proven and is a problem, and it's getting more acute and Chris, New Zealand has never been in the peleton, and we are falling ever further behind. As Gary says, we are moving to a carbon constrained future, we must put a price on carbon in the economy, and let the market find the most effective way of finding our way to a carbon-free future.

Dr Paul Callaghan comes next. He is director of Materials Science, in Victoria University, Wellington. Initially a sceptic in regard to anthropogenic global warming, he read Michael Crichton's "State of Fear". It was a scepticism about the science in the book, that made Paul study much more closely what climate science is and how it works. You could say it was Paul's own road to damascus. Paul now aligns himself entirely with those who have a major concerns with global warming. Chris in his interview though said something really strange, in that he stated that the politicians in New Zealand are all in agreement about global warming, but in his earlier interview with Gary Taylor, Chris was told that Nick Smith, the National Party spokesman on climate change, and the whole National party is still in a state of global warming denial. Come on Chris, concentrate! Paul says that policies may only come about when some really catastrophic climate events occur such that the world cannot deal with. It's a pity though for those that will be affected by this catastrophe. But Chris, wake up, your last words are "no need to panic, undue alarmism can cause difficulties, but the fact is that it is here, and it won't go away" Reassuring words, and ok, panic is not helpful, but goodness, you have been hearing all the news - what is happening is dire and worrying, inaction is no longer an option.