Dear Kim
Thank you for your interview with Paul Callaghan about global warming this morning. I am a general medical practitioner with an interest in energy matters and global warming. I am an amateur, and whilst I strongly believe in what I say, I don't ask you to believe what anyone says about global warming, including me - with the internet there is a vast resource that any interested party can access and make up their own mind about the issue. In which case, why believe Michael Crichton, who like me is a doctor, or used to be, and also a complete amateur in regard to global warming? His book "State of Fear" is a work of fiction, and should be treated as such.
If you have time visit this address, http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74 on the Real Climate web site, which is run by entirely professional climatologists and scientists - they have set up this site entirely to counter the very successful lobby that debunks global warming. This site counters all Michael Crichton's arguments. I ask you who should you believe, a group of experienced and knowledgeable scientists, or a work of fiction, however deceptively well annotated?
The criticism of the use of "computer modelling" to try and gain information on global warming is specious. The simple fact is that we don't have a spare world, existing in some parallel universe, on which we can do our experiments. We are living in a vast experiment. It is as if Svante Arrhenius (the Swedish chemist who wrote his first papers on the possibility of anthropogenic global warming in the late nineteenth century) had managed to succeed in getting the world to conduct some vast, and uncontrolled experiment on the world - "I have calculated that the world will warm up by 3 degrees Celsius if we were to double the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere - let's go and do it, and see if it confirms my theories". I mean, if anybody had seriously proposed such a deliberate course of action, Kim, you would be the first to think they were mad, yet this is exactly what we are doing through sheer carelessness. Computer modelling is the only way we can try to verify some of our scientific predictions. In the sense that many such models follow very well what has actually been happening in the world, there is a good deal of confidence that these models are reasonably robust.
As to the last part of your interview, when you got Paul to admit some sympathy with politicians in their plight, I must protest, I have no sympathy at all. Our politicians and business leaders and the many people in public life who should know better, are no better than rank cowards in facing what is likely to be the biggest challenge ever facing humanity. Their leadership is the same kind of leadership that took countless millions to slaughter in the First World War. Think about this Kim. We are talking about the possibility of a profound and irreversible change in our climate (at least in the next 10,000 years - for this is how long any induced climate change will take to fully settle), the exact nature and severity of which we cannot adequately assess. Whilst many self-interested parties are happy to suggest that global warming may not be as bad as expected, there is an exactly equal chance that global warming will be worse than expected, this is just science and the mathematics of statistics. That people can somehow balance the health of the entire planet against a supposed financial disadvantage suggests a grotesque impairment of a sense of proportion, and a pathological and profoundly immoral unconcern for our future generations.
And exactly what would be the cost? Read this alarming headline from the Scotsman business sectionhttp://business.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1821742005, "Global Warming's US$18 trillion cost". Goodness, you'd say, there's no way we could afford $18 trillion. Yet read the article, the actual predicted cost is a reduction of global growth by 0.5% per annum for five years. In fact the cost is trivial, about $600 per capita per annum for five years, a tiny amount of forecast growth, eminently affordable even to a Scot. And yet our humanity, our precious, greedy, stupid, self-centred, short-sighted, rapacious and ignorant humanity is not even prepared to pay this tiny sum to allow our children to inherit a world worth living in. Kim, it is quite evident to me that the world, or at least the humanity which resides there, is insane. There can be no other explanation for our species headlong charge to oblivion. We deserve everything that's coming to us, the only problem is that our children and their children don't.
Yours faithfully,
Dr John K Monro
PS. As I have been proof reading this letter, the thought occurred to me that it is a pity that we couldn't send all humanity for a few weeks sightseeing on the barrenness of the Moon or Mars. When our beautiful blue planet is reduced to the size of ten cent coin, brilliant against the infinite blackness of space, then that might bring home to humanity the uniqueness and the unfathomable preciousness of the Earth which sustains us. Our Earth provides us with air to breathe, water to drink, land to farm, stars to study, gold for our rings, roses for our gardens, fish for our table, stone for our houses, clay for our sculpture, forest for our legends, rivers to cross, mountains to climb, silver for our flutes and sand for our toes to sink in. It provides us with our lives, our history and our future,Ê our reason for being. There is literally nothing else in the whole universe more important than our home, yet humanity values it as worth less than US$3000 per person.
Since writing this article, I came across the statistic that every day something like $1.5 trillion dollars sloshes across the world in speculative and investment money. Less than a fortnight's such money would equal $18 trillion. This fact makes the absurdity of the arguments that dealing with global warming is too costly even more blatent. It would be true of course that there is a large part of the world's population that has no money at all and this makes the figures rather more onerous - if the richest 1 billion of the population were to pick up the tab, this is equivalent of $18,000 per person over five years. To put this in a New Zealand perspective it is about 15% of our GDP over five years. Certainly this amount of money isn't trivial, but then neither is it disastrous. If you have read elsewhere on my site, circumstances are going to pertain that will require us to make this sort of investment whether we like it or not. And what is particularly wrong is to consider this expenditure as a mere cost, and completely disregarding the return on this investment, which will be huge, not just in social and environmental benefits, but in economic and monetary gains also.
Letter to Dominion Post sent 26 Nov 2005 and published 8 Dec 2005. This letter was written after I had read an article in the business section of the Dominion Post, it was originally published in the Times in the UK. You can read the original article here http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8209-1884206,00.html
The Editor,
Dominion Post,
Wellington.
Dear Sir / Madam,
Your Saturday business section contained a salutary article originally published in "The Times" about the UK's energy problems, particularly gas, but as gas generates a lot of electricity, impacting highly on this resource also. There are major concerns that this winter will see energy shortages. The article states "The easy conclusion is that Britain's short-term deregulated gas market isn't working....... Britain sought to build a free deregulated energy market in a single European state. The daydream of aÊ sheltered market of perfectly priced megawatt hours is ending fast"...... "pipe line monopolies are making gas very expensive" and the article ends: "We thought we were clever dismantling British Gas, replacing a lumbering giant with a score of small but cunning gas shippers, fighting for customers. No-one imagined they would end up fighting giants for access to gas." Substitute New Zealand for Britain and consider how even more futile the attempt to set up a similar energy market was here, a far more isolated island with a population less than Yorkshire's. As in Britain, our market reforms have been an epic failure; the sooner the government regains control and re-incorporates the big producers and transmission companies under its ownership, the better.
Yours sincerely,
I don't think I need to add too much explanation. Elsewhere in this site I have excoriated the market-driven energy reforms of the eighties and the ninties. Our inability as a sovereign nation to understand that the market should be our servant, not our master, is a reflection of a naivety that is truly numbing. As a sovereign nation we have it in our power to direct the market to a renewable and sustainable energy future, the power to direct the market to long-term and integrated planning and we have the power prevent profiteering. That we do none of these things is an craven abrogation of political and economic responsibility both to our present generations but, even more so, generations to come.
Stop Press 11th Dec 2005 An article in today's Sunday Star-Herald examines the electricity market. It is stated that "the Electricity Commission is to conduct the first major review of New Zealand's deregulated electricity market, which will probe flaws in its structure, as well as soaring power prices and power company profits." Brian Leland, a well known energy commentator is quoted "the electricity market was not giving New Zealanders what they wanted - an economical and reliable supply of electricity. It was not giving long-term price signals needed to match the 10-year period between conceiving and building new power stations. And it was not giving the country dry-year power security without the need for extensive intervention." Anyone having read a number of my postings on this internet site, would know that I have been saying such things for some years. Better late than never. But of concern, in this same article, our present (and new) Minister of Energy, David Parker, is reported as saying that he had an open mind on whether the reforms had delivered. "That is something I will be considering in coming months,". Well minister, I don't know where you've been living in the last ten years, but you must be the last person in New Zealand to have "an open mind" about these reforms. Ask any consumer, you know, the other 4,100,000 people in New Zealand, and they'll tell you clearly and congently, these reforms have been a failure. A few years ago we used to hear comments or excuses that the ordinary domestic consumer would have higher bills, as they used to be subsidised by the business sector. But now the business sector itself is screaming out at you - "These reforms are not working". To be honest, I haven't got that much sympathy for the business sector, for while they thought they were getting some benefit from the reforms they didn't seem to care much about the domestic consumer, but now the boot's on their foot as well, as it were, they are complaining long and loud. Obviously David Parker hasn't been reading my correspondence to previous ministers of energy, it might have prepared him for what is coming. As I have many times stated elsewhere, energy issues are going to define politics, economics and society in the first half of this coming century, and David is going to be occupying a very hot seat indeed. His comments don't auger well for the future.
Letter to the Dominion Post, sent 2/12/05, but not published, yet. It was sent in response to a leading article about China's envrionmental mess, and its secrecy in regard to this; for instance the spill of benzene into the river at Harben, and in regard to bird flu. If you have read elsewhere on my site I have major economic and moral concerns in regard to New Zealand's seeking to have a free trade deal with China. Apart from New Zealand's close economic ties with Australia, a perfectly natural arrangement of similar nations, with close physical, cultural and economic ties, the only other country that New Zealand currently has a free trade agreement with is Singapore. It would seem that New Zealand is beginning to make a specialty of forging close economic ties with repressive regimes that like executing people. It was only a few days ago that Nguyen Tuong Van was hung, and we learn that Singapore has the world's highest rate of capital punishment, with a mandatory death sentence for drug offences. Even our earnest wish to enter a free trade agreement with the USA would be with another country that likes executing people. In checking the internet for background information I found this site, http://www.bilaterals.org , which is a clearing house for information on bilateral trading agreements. There is a pertinent article relating to the FTA with Singapore here.
The Editor,
Dominion Post
Wellington
New Zealand.
Dear Sir / Madam
Your leader of the 1st December (Time for China to Clean up its Act) was a timely reminder of the dark and secret machine that is China. Why then do I seem to be the only person in New Zealand concerned about the ethical issues related to a free trade agreement with this country? China is a totalitarian state where dissent is ruthlessly suppressed, where 10,000 people are executed each year, where torture is a routine part of police investigation, where many newspaper reporters are imprisoned, where a sovereign nation, Tibet, is subjugated and where war-like threats are made against Taiwan (both proving it doesn't pay to be a small country too close to China), where child labour is commonplace, and where environmental destruction proceeds at a pace probably without precedent in human history. What we are seeing in New Zealand's unprincipled seeking of a Free Trade Agreement with China is the capitalist's ever more desperate search for the big fish to land, but when it is a minnow seeking to land a shark, it is the minnow that is likely to be eaten.
Yours faithfully,
Dr John K Monro
Letter to the Dominion Post sent 2/12/05, in regard to the Ministry of Transport's briefing paper to scrap petrol duty for road use, and move over to road user charges, related to distance driven, as presently paid by diesel fuelled vehicles. The reason is that as the number of fuel efficient cars rises, less revenue is paid by smaller vehicles, and there was a particular concern in regard to hybrid vehicles.
The EditorÊ
Dominion Post
Wellington
Dear Sir / Madam
Recently the transport ministry has proposed introducing road user charges for all vehicles, the reason proffered that it's unfair that owners of small, efficient vehicles should pay less road tax than other car users. Apart from the absurdity of penalising citizens who are trying to save the planet (and our oil import bill), and when it would be far simpler to increase petrol tax, let's look at some figures by examining a Daihatsu Mira vs. a Mitsubishi Pajero.
1) Fuel consumption. Mira 5.5 ls/100km, Pajero 13 ls/100 km - a 2.4:1 tax payment "advantage" for the Pajero
2) Space on the road. Mira 5 sq m., Pajero 9 sq m, a 1.8:1 advantage for the Mira
3) Damage to the road (proportional to the fourth power of the axle weight). Mira axle weight 375 kg, Pajero 1,100 kg, a 3:1 ratio, to the fourth power becomes a 81:1 advantage to the Mira.
4) 1.8 x 81 /2.4 = 60 times advantage to the Mira.
5) Assuming $6000 road charges for the Pajero per annum, a fair charge for the Mira would be $100.
6) Conclusion - The Ministry of Transport doesn't care for maths or the environment.
Yours faithfully,
2) Space on the road. Mira 5 sq m., Pajero 9 sq m, a 1.8:1 advantage for the Mira
3) Damage to the road (proportional to the fourth power of the axle weight). Mira axle weight 375 kg, Pajero 1,100 kg, a 3:1 ratio, to the fourth power becomes a 81:1 advantage to the Mira.
4) 1.8 x 81 /2.4 = 60 times advantage to the Mira.
5) Assuming $6000 road charges for the Pajero per annum, a fair charge for the Mira would be $100.
6) Conclusion - The Ministry of Transport doesn't care for maths or the environment.
Dr John K Monro
A more detailed examination of this Ministry of Transport proposal needs to be made. First, exactly what are they worried about? "New hybrid cars can use nearly 40 per cent less petrol than conventional cars - and their owners pay much less fuel tax as a result. This is expected to cut into the Government's coffers ". Uh? I can't find figures for hybrid vehicle imports to New Zealand, but if it is more than 500 p.a. I would be very surprised. Contrast this with imports of new and used passenger vehicles of about 200,000 p.a. including, as I have indicated elsewhere, at least 36,000 used and inefficient 4WD vehicles. So we are seeing calls for Road User Charges because 0.025% of vehicles are 40% more efficient? i.e. a reduction in petrol tax revenue of 0.01%? When hybrid vehicles approach 50% of total sales, then, and only then, will there be any need to consider some changes in road revenue collection. Under present government policies this will be light years away. Despite the ever threatening "Peak Oil" scenario, and global warming, our government haven't got a clue how to deal with this. One of the first things any sensible administration would do would be raise petrol taxes, up to more European levels. This would bring in much needed revenue, and would be the single most effective incentive to encourange fuel efficiency in private transport.
In the meantime, there are some rather serious issues. I have covered this elsewhere, but to briefly reiterate. Our oil import costs have risen over the last few years from about NZ$1 billion to NZ$4.1 billion, and are destined to rise further. Our car ownership is the world's highest, (yes, higher than the USA). In mileage per vehicle driven we are fifth worse in the world. We have much lower petrol prices than much wealthier European countries. We use, for instance, nearly twice as much petrol per person as they do in Denmark. We continue to drive lots of large 4WDs and other big cars. We are going to fail to meet our Kyoto targets badly. This is not surprising, the government's committment to Kyoto has been lazy, lukewarm, uninformed and passive, and it continues to be so. We have had two generations of failure investing in public transport, urban design and in curtailing urban sprawl.
The absolutely last thing this country needs is a tax or revenue system that actively discourages people using fuel efficient vehicles. Such a road user charge to make things "fairer" is not only plainly wrong, as described in my letter above, it is also so galactically stupid as to make even a Vogon shake his head, if a Vogon has a head. Such proposals must come from some sort of "Deep Thought, NZ Transport Version" where, mortally deprived of the necessary RAM and transistors, such policies are born. This gloriously perverse scheme joins other such glorious New Zealand perversities as taxing pension contributions at source, and then wondering why people aren't saving for their retirement, or allowing tax relief on interest payments and no capital gains taxes on housing investments, and then wondering why New Zealanders have this strange attachment to housing investment.
i