The article that follows, about New Zealand's "idiotic" carbon tax, was published in last Sunday's Sunday-Star Times. Written by a regular contributor, Frank Haden. Now I don't always agree with Frank's articles, but sometimes I find he makes very good points, so I generally at least look forward to reading something worth-while and interesting, even if I don't agree with him. However this article had me steaming. It wasn't just that on this important matter we fundamentally disagree, I am happy to read reasoned debate from knowledgeable people, fairly put, even if I would not agree with the premise proposed. But while Frank's article certainly displayed little reason and still less knowledge, it was more the dismissive tone, the wilful ignorance, the parochialism and selfishness of his opinion that got my blood boiling.
Anyway, I have carefully typed up Frank's article, though it was painful to do so, this is part of my continuing sacrifice for the planet. Unfortunately I omitted to copy the title of the article and I cannot now recall the exact wording, but it did use the word "idiotic" to describe Labour's carbon tax, (which is why I used the word "idotic" in my reply.) Here is Frank's article:
Don Brash has scored shrewdly with his promise to dump Labour's absurd carbon tax when National becomes the government........ His assurance will be a hit with voters wondering how they will afford the steep increase in their energy costs announced by Labour as it seeks to lead the world in the politically correct pursuit of the "clean, green" image.
....... Brash will also gain electoral traction from his promise to withdraw New Zealand from the Kyoto treaty unless climate science becomes more convincing and all the countries that matter have joined it.
.......Kiwis are not fools. We don't see why we should tear our hair and rend our garments in penance when our per capita greenhouse emissions are only half those of our major trading partners, Australia and the United States. '
.......New Zealanders are asking why their country has to be the first to impose a carbon tax on its citizens. Labour's surprising decision to do so made headlines last week in Britain, where it was described as an experiment that would be watched closely by bigger countries. We are the guinea pigs.
.......The truth is, we don't need a carbon tax. It is little more than a measure of how obsessed the government is with global warming.
.......A sceptic might suggest Cabinet ministers have seen the movie The Day After Tomorrow once too often. These gullible fellows should do a bit of research. They would find out it is the atmosphere's water vapour, not the tiny percentage of increasing carbon dioxide the doomsayers are making such a fuss about, that caused most of the greenhouse warming.
....... In any case, as National points out, we have more than enough carbon equivalent forestry credits to meet our Kyoto commitment period target for reducing carbon emissions without resorting to a carbon tax.
....... It is also worth noting that we are the only southern hemisphere country that has volunteered to be bound by Kyoto. Clever us.
....... More significantly, the science behind fashionable claims about human activities contributing to global warming is growing more suspect by the day.
.......Respected climatologists who have raised significant doubts on the extent of warming, what is causing it and whether anything can be done about it, are involved in a publishing fracas. They say the magazines Science and Nature have silenced debate by refusing to publish analysis showing many distinguished scientists dissent from the global warming line.
....... Climatologists worldwide are divided on the extent to which carbon emissions can be blamed for the small amount of warming that has taken place. It would be a different matter if they agreed. But for every so-called expert who brandishes spreadsheets and graphs printed out from esoteric and unreliable computer modelling, another climatologist disagrees. This one says, OK, so there's a bit of warming, but the earth's temperature has been fluctuating for millions of years, and we have no scientifically acceptable evidence on how far we are to blame for this lot. Also, there are no reliable indications that reducing carbon emissions, at crippling cost to progress, will cut warming significantly.
....... When there is so much uncertainty about how far the climate will change with without man-made emissions, it is irresponsible for any New Zealand administration to take the lead in self-punishing commitments. It is equally reprehensible for Labour to accept unquestioningly the scenarios promoted by the untrustworthy International Panel on Climate Change.
....... As National also points out, Labour has no reason to believe its carbon tax would cut energy consumption. It is far more likely to follow the fuel tax increases of the recent past in having no effect whatever. People will go on using the same amount of energy, grumbling about the higher price and trying to offset the extra burden it will impose on our ability to compete internationally.
....... Labour is also culpable in basing the tax's predicted increase in costs on carbon credits valued at $15 per tonne of emissions. It own publicity admits this could rise to $25 a tonne, increasing the extra burden on energy users by two-thirds.
.......We are vulnerable here at the edge of the world, scraping by on tiny margins in our subsidy-free international trading, competing with countries that protect their producers with subsidies, quotas and tariffs.
.......Yet the Labour mandarins have decided to lead the way, ignoring the fact that Australia, the United States and China are not making similar sacrifices.
.......To continue bowing to the Kyoto restrictions when the countries we deal with carry on emitting carbon dioxide as usual because they don't want to upset their industries and don't believe the prophets of doom, would amount to taking a national pay cut for PC reasons.
....... National will have wide appeal to voters with its responsible policy of doing no more that what it calls "our fair share", and no more quickly than our trading partners.
So I wrote Frank a letter back. I admit it probably wasn't the best letter I have ever written, but it was sent to Frank on Sunday evening, as an immediate riposte seemed in order. But on the other hand, it wasn't the worst letter either, and certainly made the point, if it was read, of course.
From: j.monro@mac.com
Subject: Carbon tax
Date: 16 May 2005 1:55:56 AM
To: frankhad@xtra.co.nz
Cc: letters@star-times.co.nz
Frank Haden
Columnist
Sunday Star Times
Dear Frank,
I can't begin to express my anger at your idiotic article in this week's Sunday Star. Having started my letter to you thus, you probably won't read any further, but if you do here are some thoughts, replying to points made in your article, in the order they appear.
1. ".... voters wondering how they will afford steep increases in energy costs ....."
Well, Frank, whether the populace like it not, or you like or not, energy costs are going to rise a lot more then the paltry and trivial amount caused by the carbon tax, which will be equivalent to about 6c per litre of petrol . I wrote a letter a few months ago to the Dominion newspaper, suggesting that we should increase petrol prices by at least 50c, though I think a dollar might be even better. We are approaching, either now, or in the next few short years something called peak oil. (Whilst peak oil isn't global warming, per se, our profligate use of oil for transport is one of the major drivers of global warming). This means that all energy costs will rise a great deal (with oil over US$100 per barrel) and some energy sources, such as petrol, might even not be available at all. We are a small country on the arse end of the world, and might find accessing this diminishing pool of oil and natural gas very difficult. We have at the most a few short years to wean ourselves off our profligate use of oil and natural gas, and pricing is probably the easiest and simplest way to do this, though I have also urged the government to take other, more direct, action. . We are with Australia and America one of the worse abusers of this resource, our infatuation with the motor car and in particular, big, gas guzzling motor cars and 4WDs is on a par with both those countries, and our record in energy efficiency is equally appalling. In the next few years it is likely the cost of our oil imports will rise from about 1 billion dollars annually. to about 3 billion dollars or more. This is going to prove a impoverishing drain on our finances, particularly as our balance of payments deficit is already alarming. This tax increase on our most polluting energy sources will be a welcome addition to our fight to diminish our reliance on oil, and improve the efficiency with which we use it. The only problem is that it isn't a big enough increase in itself.
2. " our per capita greenhouse emissions are only half those of our main trading partners Australia and America"
Well Frank, you are telling a fib. Our greenhouse emissions per capita are less than America's, but then America is the worst offender. We are the world's fourth worst emitter of greenhouse gases per capita, at about 85% of the US and Australian figures, twice those of Japan and three times that of Sweden. What would be true is that our CO2 emissions are substantially less, much of our greenhouse emissions being due to our cattle and sheep farming, and in that regard, you would be right, our CO2 emissions would be about half those of Australia and America. However we are substantially increasing the proportion of OC2 in our emissions, particularly in our inefficient transport and in electricity generation. It is this increasing reliance on fossil fuels for transport and electricity which is a major concern. In addition our forestry "sink" is diminishing with ever decreasing planting of forests.
http://www.climatechange.govt.nz/about/emissions.html
But fourth in the world is abysmal, and we are duty bound to do everything we can to deal with this.
3 " why our country has to be the first in the world to impose a carbon tax on its citizens"
Sorry, Frank, wrong again. Whilst it is true that this is the first tradable carbon tax regime, as envisioned by Kyoto, many other nations have had all sorts of restrictions on carbon emissions and taxes related to these. The EU has an emissions trading scheme, and excise duties on some polluting energy sources are common in many countries. Some of the counties involved are Denmark, Sweden, France, Germany and the UK, interestingly all with higher per capita incomes than NZ. In addition most of the other Kyoto signing members will be introducing similar legislation shortly.
4. "New Zealanders are asking why there country has to be the first to impose a carbon tax"
Yes, many New Zealanders are delighted that we are the first and are saying, "great, but why has it taken so long?"
5. "these gullible fellows should do a bit of research"
Frank, the only person here that should be doing some research is you. You are obviously completely ignorant about carbon dioxide, water vapour and climate change. When the esteemed scientific advisor to the UK government, Sir David King, says that global warming is much more serious than terrorism, when the Pentagon, for God's sake, have been advising the US president to take global warming more seriously, the Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change have no doubt, you should take note, and if you would care to read this article, it explains what scientific consensus there is on this subject
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
Like any any scientific theory or investigation, measurements are open to debate. The simple fact is that the vast majority of climate scientist believe that anthropogenic climate change is happening, where the debate is the amount of this and the speed of this. There are a number of sceptics, notably Bjorn Lomborg, but his findings have been very well critiqued in the Scientific American. There was an original, widely reported critique of Bjorn Lomborg's book, The Sceptical Environmentalist, which Lomborg then replied to. Here is a reply to Lomborg's own reply!
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00040A72-A95C-1CDA-B4A8809EC588EEDF&sc=I100322
Of course, Frank, you may be right, and the whole thing is some enormous practical joke foisted on humanity by thousands of scientist all acting in concert, but you know, Frank, I don't believe this. Here are hundreds, thousands of highly qualified professional climatologists and paeleoclimatologists, geologists and others telling us very clearly, consistently and increasingly urgently that we have problem. There is something seriously wrong with your sense of proportion if you are prepared to gamble the health of the planet on the say-so of a few, well publicised sceptics, and to be so dismissive of the overwhelming weight of evidence on the other side. .
Another climate skeptic, Michael Crichton, a novelist, who's science extended to recreating dinosaurs from dinosaur DNA trapped in mosquitos in amber, wrote State of Fear, which humbugged climate warming. Read this reply
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/global_warming/page.cfm?pageID=1670
or try this one:
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/global_warming/page.cfm?pageID=499
6 "they say that magazines such as Science and Nature have silenced debate by refusing to publish analyses showing distinguished scientific dissent from the global warming line"
They say? Who says, Frank? Do you mean one of the pseudo-scientific web sites or other agencies funded by such institutes as the Cato institute in the USA, or funded to the tune of US$8 million by Mobil, and the many other right wing, pro big business and Republican concerns, especially in the USA.? Are you remembering, Frank, that when Sir David King came out with his concerns, he was refused permission by his bosses, the UK government, to talk to journalists and other agencies in case he should upset the Bush administration? Or have you seen reports that scientist working for the American Fish and Wildlife service have been directed to alter their findings to lessen protection plants and animals? Or did you know that the Bush administration had the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) extensively rewrite a
2003 draught on global warming and then drop all mention of global warming completely? And indeed a whistle blower at the agency confirmed that the Bush administration is ignoring evidence about global warming to placate business and oil companies? Or what about the sixty pre-eminent scientists including twenty Nobel laureates, who openly criticised the Bush administration for distorting and ignoring scientific advice. This included F. Sherwood Rowland, a Nobel prize winner for his studies of ozone in the atmosphere, who was particularly critical of the administration's approach to climate change, he said the consensus of scientific opinion about global warming is being ignored and that government reports have been censored to remove views not in tune with Bush's politics. Did you know these things, Frank? Do you know that the US car makers are suing the State of California to get them to stop introducing tougher vehicle emissions laws? Did you know that Frank Luntz, a presidential and congressional strategist, on the growing problem of climate change, said: "Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community," he advised members of Congress and the administration. Thus, 'you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty the primary issue in the debate.' It sounds, Frank, that they are succeeding with you.
7 "but for every so-called expert who brandishes his spreadsheets ......... another climatologist disagrees.
Sorry, Frank, another untruth. The simple fact is that by far the majority of reputable climate scientists do recognise global warming due to carbon dioxide accumulation as a real and potentially devastating phenomenon.
Here is a list of some of these people.
http://www.conference-board.org/utilities/pressDetail.cfm?press_ID=2465
Or go to this page and click on Annual Report 2004, and download this document from the Union of Concerned Scientists
http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/report.cfm?publicationID=1025
This talks about global warming, renewable energy, clean air, and other environmental issues. Here they state "Yet the White House not only irresponsibly ignores the international scientific consensus but also censors its own scientists when their public statements and writings reflect that consensus."
And, Frank, how dare you label such professional people "so-called experts" Who the hell are you, Frank, to be so churlishly dismissive of some of the best scientific minds in the world? They are experts, because unlike you they do know what they are talking about, and you would be well advised to listen to them.
8 "it is irresponsible for any New Zealand administration to take the lead in self-punishing commitments"
Frank, this lead is the first sign of a revolution in our society, one that will leave people like you, far, far behind. I am proud New Zealand is taking the lead. And what on earth do you mean by self-punishing.? How is it self-punishing to be taking a moral and ethical position in regard to our environment and the future of humanity on this planet? Global warming is just one of innumerable ecological issues facing us, that if we don't take action now, will doom our society to great difficulty and possibly great suffering. Have you read the millennium ecological report (The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment) ? If not, and I don't suppose you have, I suggest you visit this site, and learn something. Look at second page and see and understand the expertise and knowledge of those people trying desperately to tell you something. Are you open minded enough, Frank, to take some of this on board?
http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/products.aspx
Also read the book "Collapse" by Jared Diamond, or the book "The Short History of Progress" by Ronald Wright. Learn something about what happened to previous societies and how they collapsed, and get worried for our own.
There is no or almost no cost to changing the way we live. Renewable energy resources promise bountiful power at great environmental gain and no economic cost. The report from the UCS, which you have just downloaded, explains the economic advantages and gains from commitment to a renewable energy policy. Frank, not only are you wrong about global warming, you are wrong about the scientists who are warning us about this issue, and you are wrong about the economic costs of dealing with this. There are no costs, just savings, savings on our environment, on our health, and on our economy.
9 "ignoring the fact that Australia, the USA and China are not making similar sacrifices"
Australia and the USA can go to hell, and perhaps they will. The simple fact is that the entire rest of the developed world have signed the protocol and will be instituting similar measures as us. Australia and the USA are on an unsustainable road to economic and environmental disaster if they don't clean up their act. In a few years, the lack of oil and gas will force them to change their behaviour, and at an incredible economic cost, whereas the rest of the world, having undertaken at least some of the necessary measures and having a more sustainable economy, will be able to weather the storm much better. And as for China, how mean and parochial can you be, Frank? China is a developing economy, and its CO2 emissions even now, are on a per capita basis, less than one fifth ours. And even China is recognising the problem, they are going all out on hydro-power , nuclear power (though of course there are major environmental issues related to these) and wind power. They are polluting their cities so much with coal fired generation, that they have realised this can't go on.
10. "bowing to Kyoto restrictions..... taking a national pay cut"
Rubbish, Frank. We are not bowing to anyone. This a freely undertaken agreement by our government which, for once, is actually looking to the future. The Kyoto protocol is just the beginning, just the first tentative step in a journey which will take us to a much more major and fundamental change in human society and our relationship with the planet. The estimated cost to us is about 0.03% of our GDP. Are your really so bereft of concern for your children's future that you are not even prepared to pay that paltry sum to make a start on this exciting and liberating adventure? This truly will be our generation's chance to contribute something revolutionary to society, so if you don't want to be part of it, get out of the way, or get trampled.
11 "our fair share"
Frank, have your brains developed beyond those of a ten year old? What has "our fair share" got to do with saving the planet? This simple fact is that these islands, blessed as they are with a relatively small population, wealthy, and benefiting from a benign climate, should be leading the way. Iceland, one of the coldest and most inhospitable places on earth on which to live, has already signalled its intention to be the world's first nation to run its economy on entirely renewable energy. At the last count, Iceland's per capita income was about US$30,000 per capita , ours about US$20,000 per capita. Perhaps Icelanders can teach people in this country something about how stay wealthy, and they could start with you, Frank.
Frank, your "article" was a childish diatribe against all those thousands of concerned scientists and millions of concerned and thoughtful individuals in this country and around the world. In this diatribe your revealed your profound ignorance of what global warming is, your contempt for the major environmental issue of the day, and worse, your contempt for our world and our children's future. If I could, if I thought that people like you were going to carry the day, I would stop the world, and get off, and find another world, more benign and far-sighted. Or, much more preferably, I would stop the world and push you and your kind off - go and crap on another world, please (except that would be a bit mean on the other world). But, unfortunately for both of us, we are stuck here, and there's damn all I can do about it. But I will tell you this Frank, as long as we share this planet, I will fight you every inch of the way. I am not going to allow you, or people like you, to bequeath to my children an unsustainable future and a ruined planet.
Yours, disgustedly,
Dr John K Monro
67 Waipapa Rd
Hataitai
Wellington 6003
Ph 04 386 2441
PS I will be copying your article out and my letter and posting them on my internet site, http://homepage.mac.com/j.monro
PPS I shall be sending a copy of this letter to the Sunday Star-Times. I know it's far too long to publish, but they may or may not be interested in this reader's reactions to your diatribe. They might publish the last paragraph?
There are millions of references on global warming on the internet, so have a search in Google. But there are a few I would like to mention, as they have a specific bearing on the New Zealand situation.
This is a well written article about global warming, and explains very lucidly how even the present elevation of carbon dioxide levels will continue to have consequences for our planet and our descendents for thousands of years.
Mt Hood in Oregon
I chose this picture because Jared Diamond talks about the retreating snows of Oregon in his book, Collapse.
I chose this picture because Jared Diamond talks about the retreating snows of Oregon in his book, Collapse.
This snow loss is quite observable in a person's lifetime. The snows are melting in Kilimanjaro, Greenland, Alaska, the Alps, the US, South America, the Himalaya, the Antarctic peninsula, the Arctic Ocean. But read up about Kilimanjaro, the sceptics say the snow loss is due to local conditons, a drying spell from 120 years ago, deforestation, not global warming. Check glacier melt in the Alps, sceptics say due to urbanisation and the city heat effect and pollution. Check the sceptics in the Antarctic, it's getting colder there, not warmer (strange how the ice seems to melt the faster in the colder weather). It is truly wondrous how many local effects are going on all round the world at the same time! Why can't the sceptics take an intellectually rather easier route - that there is a pattern to this worldwide snow and glacier loss, it's called global warming, and this is superimposed on local effects. The consensus scientists understand and admit to this, but it's a pity that the sceptics can't without the whole basis of their theories melting away like the ice in the Arctic.
A Bit More than a Week Later
Not having heard from Frank after a week or so, I sent him a somewhat more friendly letter. Firm, but not so vituperative, extending the hand, if not of friendship, at least of communication. This was my letter:
From: j.monro@mac.com
Subject: Global Warming
Date: 27 May 2005 7:44:57 PM
To: frankhad@xtra.co.nz
Subject: Global Warming
Date: 27 May 2005 7:44:57 PM
To: frankhad@xtra.co.nz
Dear Frank,
I am sorry you got a mouthful of invective in my last e-mail, but I was extremely cross at your article on global warming. However I have realised that this is not the best way to engage in constructive (?instructive) dialogue though I do not apologise for the e-mail, any more, I imagine, than you will apologise for your article.
But I really would urge you, Frank, to reconsider your position. In some ways you are right, the Kyoto Protocol is an imperfect and inadequate tool for dealing with global warming. But it is a start, and we had better start here then start nowhere. But it also obvious from your article that you don't yet believe there is such a thing as global warming, or if you do, that it will not be as bad as many people are suggesting it will be, or even if it is, there isn't much we can do about it, or even if we could, it would be too expensive to do so.
Frank, these are arguments well, well worn. There are the arguments used all the time by those who don't wish to hear. For the most part they are well-off people, business men, corporate executives and politicians from the right of the political spectrum. Their numbers too include a few scientists, though very few climate scientists, and others who one could call "contrarians". I would respect these people more if they could, themselves, produce independent investigations and evidence that would disprove global warming. But unfortunately they never do. Almost all the "science" involved in the "contrarian" viewpoint is not original, it is a critique of already published research or calculation. Very rarely are the measurements themselves questioned. The critique is occasionally well informed, but mostly it isn't. In addition, climate scientist themselves are often able to critique the critique very effectively, except we mostly don't hear this. But this is being quite kind to most "contrarians", most of who don't even bother to use science, but use emotional language, obfuscation and denigration as their main weapons.
There are a number of internet sites that I would urge you to visit.
The first of these is http://www.realclimate.org This site is run by professional scientists. It is the best site on the internet for a detailed explanation of what is going on. They have spent a lot of time and energy setting this up. The reason is that they are so fed-up by the misrepresentation of scientific data by global warming deniers, that they have decided to have a site, with thorough scientific discourse, as an independent resource for the interested lay person or journalist. Some of the site is difficult to follow, but if you persevere, you will understand most of what is being said. On this site, if you scroll down the home page, you will come to a heading "Water Vapour: Feedback or Forcing?" Click on this to be taken to a detailed examination of the issue of water vapour, something that you mentioned in your article. It is quite definite, Frank, that water vapour has nothing to do with global warming, per se. The reason is that water vapour is a follower in warming, not a leader. Whilst it certainly is the major global warming gas, say 80%, it is not what is causing increasing global warming. The article says why.
Another site to visit is this :http://www.pewclimate.org/press_room/speech_transcripts/transcript_swiss_re.cfm This is a transcript of a speech to a meeting in New York in 2002. I think this speech is a very good summary of the present difficulties we face. The Wall Street Journal published an editorial about global warming, which, from the sound of it, contains much the same sort of criticism of the science and politics of global warming that you were writing about; Eileen Claussen, director of the Pew Centre makes some telling comments about this editorial. Since the speech was given, many more companies in America and many States are now taking the issue of global warming much more seriously . So even if America is not being led from the top, there are many, including a good number of republicans, who are taking the issue of global warming much more seriously.
Frank, do you ever check out the BBC News site - http://news.bbc.co.uk There are often articles about global warming here, in fact there were two videos from Greenland recently, you may need to search the BBC site to find them.
In my first e-mail to you I gave you lots of other links which would be well worth chasing up.
I would urge you Frank to check some of these things out. Once you have done so I am quite convinced that you will see rather more of what is going on. Yes, there are uncertainties, but these uncertainties are not as enormous as critics of global warming science make out. We have to rely on computer modelling, we don't have a spare planet on which to experiment - we are living in an experiment - as a species we are performing a vast experiment on our planet - there is no going back on this experiment. The science of global warming, whilst imperfect and complicated, is much easier to understand than relativity or quantum mechanics, yet you don't go around saying "so-called" experts such as Einstein or Bohr or Rutherford.
But I must add that there are two major issues that I must protest to you about. First, the cost dealing with or ameliorating global warming. What I cannot understand is how you think there is any cost at all. We waste our precious resources like there is no tomorrow. We wasted Maui gas, if we had used this wisely and efficiently we would still have half the gas field left. We waste at least half our petrol in inefficient vehicles, poor public transport and sprawling suburbs. We waste gas in inefficient power generation. We waste power in inefficient homes, with poor insulation, inefficient appliances, lack of passive solar heating design, etc. The cost of this waste is truly appalling. Over a few years our oil imports are predicted to increase from $1 billion to $3 billion, and probably more. We can't afford this, in fact we never could, and is one of the reasons why countries like Sweden and Denmark, who take energy efficiency seriously, are so much wealthier than ours. We are literally burning money, billions of dollars worth. Now if you wish to continue this then this is your prerogative, but don't then tell me that dealing with global warming is going to cost too much.
Secondly is the precautionary principle. You are entitled to disagree with global warming scientists, but when the weight of evidence is so large against you, you are not ethically or morally allowed to disregard it. We are, after all, talking about the health of our Earth, and our descendant's future. If the precautionary principle applies anywhere, doesn't it apply here? I truly cannot begin to understand what it is that makes you so resistant to taking action, and more than that, is making you try your hardest to stop other people doing so. As I said in my first e-mail, there is something grotesquely out of proportion in your reaction to this problem. A minor inconvenience as against the health of the planet that sustains us.
Yours sincerely, etc.
This did prompt a reply, short, and to the point:
From: frankhad@xtra.co.nz
Subject: Re: Global Warming
Date: 29 May 2005 4:40:55 PM
To: j.monro@mac.com
Subject: Re: Global Warming
Date: 29 May 2005 4:40:55 PM
To: j.monro@mac.com
Hello...as I tell everyone who disagrees with my views on the extent, cause and significance of global warming, there is no consensus, so we must all agree to disagree.
Cheers
Frank Haden
Hmm, not a great deal of dialogue here. And Frank, you're just not listening. There is a consensus. A very strong and reliable consensus. I think that was what I was trying to tell you. But there is no-one as deaf as those that will not hear. No point in wasting time with Frank any longer. I think my last letter to him was a good one, but he obviously isn't even bothered, facts are quite awkward things when they get in the way of an ignorant opinion.
(Added 30/7/05) And following on from facts getting in the way of an ignorant opinion, this web page reprints a Guardian article about Global Warming and David Bellamy. Now I like David Bellamy, he is a typical example of the great English eccentric, it's good to see that this quaint English tradition continues. David Bellamy is a well known botanist, but he has recently strayed into the the global warming debate as a very strong sceptic, and he is using his popularity to publicise his opinions. This article though does a very nice little investigation of David Bellamy's claims that 555 of 625 glaciers monitored by the World Glacier Monitoring service have been growing since 1980. Worth reading. It is worth adding here the comment at the end of the article It is hard to convey just how selective you have to be to dismiss the evidence for climate change. You must climb over a mountain of evidence to pick up a crumb: a crumb which then disintegrates in the palm of your hand. You must ignore an entire canon of science, the statements of the world's most eminent scientific institutions, and thousands of papers published in the foremost scientific journals. Perhaps Frank Haden might peruse this sometime.
New Zealand's failure to meet its targets and obligations (Added 24/6/05)
In the last week or so we have now had some bad news. Far from receiving carbon credits of about $500 million from the Kyoto protocol we find ourselves in the position of loosing about about $500 million from increases in fossil fuel burning (mainly transport) and low forestry plantings, a turn-around of $1 billion, a significant sum to a country with a population of just four million ($250 for every man, woman and child) . To anyone who has read these pages, or taken an independent interest in what is happening in New Zealand, this should be no surprise. But it doesn't relieve the sheer frustration of seeing these figures, predictable as they were. The reaction of the minister, Pete Hodgson, is typical. Rather than admitting his own responsibility he seeks to deflect it on his ministry advisors; he has been reported as being "annoyed about the billion dollar bungle, being let down by his advisors and officials in the ministry". Sorry Peter, the buck stops with you. His attitude is laid back, anodyne, disinterested. He just doesn't get it, even now. There is still time to turn this around, because we have until 2012 to do this. But his reaction to these figures, and his past history of almost complete intertia bodes ill for our Kyoto commitment. If anything should put a rocket up his bottom, this should be it, but the nearest Pete gets to a rocket is the grass it is stuck into. This is a copy of a letter I have sent to him.
Rt Hon Pete Hodgson
Minister of Transport and Convener of Ministerial Group on Climate Change
Parliament Buildings
Wellington
Dear Pete,
I note, without much surprise, that New Zealand is likely to fail to meet its Kyoto Treaty obligations, and as a result instead of a net gain of approximately $500 million, there will be a net loss of approximately $500 million, i.e. a net loss of $1 billion. I read also that you were annoyed with your ministry for getting its estimates so far out. I think this is unfair on your ministry, who I assume are only acting on the leadership of the politicians of the day. You will know that I have been writing to you about energy matters for several years, and the main thing that concerned me was the lack of urgency and leadership in regard to energy, global warming, oil depletion and Kyoto. I have berated you for not taking stronger action on gas-guzzling vehicles, with higher petroleum taxation, import duties on 4WD and inefficient vehicles. I have also mentioned high immigration putting stress on our infrastructure and of course I have been a strong proponent of wind power and power efficiency measures. Today I read oil prices are up to almost $60 and I don't see how you can steadfastly refuse to agree that "peak oil" is imminent. The simple fact is, Pete, that the failure of your government, and many other governments around the world, to show real leadership in these issues is the prime cause of this situation.
For instance, there is a proposal to generate power from coal at the old Marsden B power station. If you had any serious intent to honour and meet the Kyoto commitments you would have long ago instructed the company to not explore this any further, as coal generation is not part of your plan for power generation. As it is there has been a lot of expense, worry for local residents and now legal and resource consent issues which could all have been avoided. I have several times suggested that the government should pass legislation that ensures all new power generation must be by renewables. You say that is not feasible, but the simple fact is that our increasing use of fossil fuels in power generation, along with our profligate use of oil for transport, is one of the main reasons we are likely to fail to meet our Kyoto targets. If the likely cost of this failure is going to be over $1 billion, then I think you are economically and morally obliged to introduce such legislation.
To me, this likely failure to meet our Kyoto obligations is proof positive, if any were needed, that your government's policies in regard to energy efficiency, renewable power generation and immigration have been entirely inadequate. You yourself have stated that we need an extra 150 MW of power generation every year. You must realise that this figure is horrendous and completely unsustainable. It is Alice Through the Looking-Glass stuff, just like the Red Queen we are running ever harder and harder to stay in the same place. It means that every two years we must install a wind farm the size of the one proposed for Makara to ensure sufficient electricity supply for our country. Where exactly are these facilities to go? How are we going to pay for them? If you propose gas to make up this shortfall we have known reserves for only ten years, if we try to increase gas generated electricity output it won't even last that long. You have also stated that the government won't support nuclear power. Whilst nuclear power may have to be considered in some populous northern countries, you are right, the last thing this country needs is a nuclear power station.
However, there is still time to turn things round, but you have to take on an urgency and commitment that you have so far failed to demonstrate.
1 Ask the cabinet to approve a single minister to look after energy, transport and the climate. This minister must be committed to renewable and sustainable energy resources, to public transport and energy conservation. He, or she, must be willing to face the criticism and undermining of such policies by entrenched business and political interests, the dinosaurs and ostriches of our society.
2 A duty on all imported second-hand vehicles according to their estimated fuel consumption. e.g. the bigger 4WD should face a duty of say $2500.
3 A variable road taxation depending on fuel consumption in g/km. This will more fairly tax diesel vehicles which presently don't pay enough tax
4 An increase of the taxation on petrol by about 50c per litre and other measures to improve transport efficiency, such as incentives for car sharing, reduced speed limits, etc.
5 The commitment of this country to a multi-billion dollar investment in rail, light suburban rail, and public transport, by diesel buses, trams or, as in Wellington, trolley buses.
6 A multi-billion dollar program of home insulation to include floors, roofs and walls, estimated cost about $3000-$5000 per property, total cost for 500,000 of the worst homes about $1.5 - $3 billion.
7 Installation of solar hot water heating - see Green Party site
8 Much stricter energy efficiency standards for all new buildings, commercial and private. Including high insulation standards, mandatory solar hot water heaters, encouragement of the use of heat pump technology, and mandatory design for passive solar heating.
9 A simple law to be passed to state all new power generation by renewables
10 Reduce high immigration levels, we should try to hold the population steady at its present level while we sort out these issues. Later, this policy could be re-examined.
11 Be honest with the public. Their expectations are quite out of kilter with the realities of the situation. They are falling for the old tax-cuts bribe and the simplistic and discredited policies of the nineties. They need to understand that if they wish to preserve any semblance of their present standard of living that tax cuts are not an option, and that major, previously neglected, infrastructural investment is urgently needed.
All the above I have written to you about previously, but I restate them as a simple list which is quickly scannable. Anything less than action of this degree is inappropriate for the urgency of the situation we, and the rest of humanity, now finds itself in.
Thank you for your attention.
Yours faithfully,
I haven't yet recieved a reply. Perhaps what bothers me most of all about this mismanagment is the ammunition it gives to opponents of the Kyoto protocol who are numerous on the right of the political spectrum and in most of the business community in New Zealand. They have a lot of power and influence, and this is a godsend for them. They can say "told you so" all the way to 2012. And whilst I don't agree with these reactionary politicians, I can join them in saying "told you so". But of course this isn't of much use - we now have to deal with matters as they are, not as they should have been. But to the right, rather than seeing Kyoto as the great business and social opportunity that it is (see my reference to the corporate leaders group in the UK, above), it might induce them to think of withdrawing from the Kyoto protocol.
I went last week to a very interesting meeting in the Law School here in Wellington, and a lecture given by Phillipe Sands, who was invited to give a memorial lecture, but, fortuitously, is also promoting his book, Lawless World, about the American administration's failure to comply with, and undermining of, established international law. Phillipe Sands is a professor of international law, and has quite a lot to do in setting up the Kyoto protocal and other international environmental legislation. I am in the process of reading this and I will write a review later. However, I had the opportunity of talking briefly with Phillipe after the talk, and I asked him specifically about this Kyoto protocol matter in New Zealand, and what would be the possible consequences of a withdrawal from the protocol by, say, a National led administration. He was quite emphatic - the answer is that it would cost a lot of money. It is almost certain that countries that had signed up to the protocol would discriminate on goods and services produce by non-signatories, by introducing restrictions or carbon duties on these. They are allowed to do this. The consequence of this is that no country will be able to escape the consequences of this protocol. It makes more sense to me to invest sufficient resources now into avoiding the likely consequences of failling to meet the protocol targets rather than loosing money further down the track for no gain at all.
This is what Jeanette Fitzsimons has said about this matter, copied from the Green Party internet site:
16th June 2005
New Zealand's carbon emissions between 2008 and 2012 are not set in concrete, says Green Co-Leader Jeanette Fitzsimons.
The Convenor of the Ministerial Group on Climate Change, Pete Hodgson, today released an update on New Zealand's projected net carbon emissions for 2008-2012. Using new calculations methods, it is being predicted for the first time that New Zealand will miss its 2012 'Kyoto target' - to return C02 emissions to 1990 levels - by 36.2 million tonnes.
"This gloomy forecast is one that we are more than capable of avoiding," said Ms Fitzsimons, the Greens' Climate Change Spokesperson.
"It hasn't actually happened yet. Right up to 2012 we have the opportunity to avoid the cost to our economy and climate of allowing these predictions to come to pass.
"The assumptions underpinning the Government's estimates are very pessimistic.
"A huge rise in emissions from transport is the main driver of the new figures. This is based on rising numbers of both vehicles and kilometres travelled. However, I don't believe their assumption that the price of oil will fall to $30/bbl and stay there until 2012. Many experts are predicting oil shortages and huge price rises before that. The price of oil will affect how much people use.
"But we must not leave it to the market, in the form of the price of petrol, to tell people that they will not be able to afford to run their new cars. We need energy efficiency standards for cars now. Not just labelling, as the Minister is offering some time in the future, but standards. Cars are still being imported that use three times as much fuel as they need to. That must stop.
"We need to spend less on building new roads and more on public transport and rail. It will save us hundreds of millions of dollars in the long run.
"Another major prediction we can avoid is the claim that there will be no improvement in New Zealand's energy efficiency. We need to improve the efficiency of all our buildings; we will save money in the process. We need to accelerate the development of solar and wind energy. And we need to develop a wood-for-energy programme that will soak up carbon and replace some fossil fuel.
"As the Pentagon has stated, climate change is a bigger threat to global security than terrorism. We need to be part of the global action to restrain it. The Kyoto-nay sayers need to realise that no other country ratified the Protocol because they thought they were going to make a profit out of it. All were committed to making some changes for the sake of the climate; we need to be prepared to do that too" said Ms Fitzsimons.
It is staggering to learn even now, with oil prices approaching $60 per barrel, that estimates of fuel consumption in transport are based on $30 p.b. to 2012. The only conceivable way that oil could cost that little over this time is if there is a major world-wide and profound economic depression. If that is included in the forecast, then I think we should be let in on the secret. Where do these folk keep their brains? There is a vacuum in their reasoning and intellect of interstellar proportions. If that is the sort of advice that Pete Hodgson has been getting, then maybe after all he does have some right to be exasperated, but Pete, you are a sentient human being, what about the vacuum in your head? This is a copy of the leader in the Dominion Post of today, 24/6/05.
Hot and bothered about Kyoto
24 June 2005
So Climate Change Minister Pete Hodgson is annoyed about the billion-dollar Kyoto bungle. Well, guess what? He's not half as annoyed as voters are going to be when the consequences of the miscalculation start to bite, The Dominion Post writes in an editorial.
Instead of pocketing a $500 million windfall through selling carbon credits to bigger polluters, New Zealand is going to have to spend $500 million buying credits from other countries or take stronger than anticipated steps to reduce carbon emissions, such as restricting the importation of older, used Japanese cars.
Mr Hodgson, without actually saying so, has managed to convey the impression that he has been let down by officials who underestimated the strength of the New Zealand economy and overestimated the number of CO2-absorbing trees that could be counted when calculating its obligations under the protocol.
Ministerial colleagues Steve Maharey and George Hawkins have managed to convey similar impressions when taxed about publicly funded twilight golf courses, hip-hop study tours, and the problems with the police emergency call system.
But there comes a point at which ministers have to take responsibility for what is going on in their departments. In this case, Mr Hodgson appears to have been too willing to accept advice from officials that fitted with his party's view of the world. As a man of science, the former vet should have been more aware than most of the impact even small changes in assumptions can have on final outcomes. He should have tested those assumptions vigorously, particularly given the stream of contrary advice from business groups and farmers.
Instead, he has consistently ridiculed anyone who has dared suggest the protocol could end up costing New Zealand money and jobs both likely outcomes given that businesses will face costs not borne by their Australian rivals because Australia has refused to sign the protocol. Responding 3-1/2 years ago to ACT criticisms of the protocol, Mr Hodgson said New Zealand stood to make a couple of hundred million dollars from the agreement: "Would they set fire to a $200 million cheque?" Subsequently, the anticipated gains from the agreement rose even further before plunging into the red last week.
Mr Hodgson maintains that the supposed economic benefits were one of only five reasons for ratifying the protocol. The others were of greater import and remain valid today. Climate change poses a direct threat to New Zealand's environment, way of life and economy. Unless there is a concerted global effort to limit emissions, New Zealand and its agricultural base will be hit hard. He may be right. There are still scientists who dispute the notion of global warming, but the international consensus is that human activity is heating the planet's atmosphere and that, if allowed to continue unchecked, it will dramatically alter the environment over time.
However, New Zealand should enter such arrangements with its eyes open and the public should be informed of the potential costs as well as benefits, not soft-soaped with glib assurances that do not stand the test of time.
Once again, New Zealand appears to have been let down by a minister more intent on scoring political points than advancing the national interest.
This is a very fair leader, the language is somewhat more measured than mine, but the underlying serious tone is not disimilar, and needs to be taken on board by the government. I have just written a letter about tax cuts and the need for major infrastructural investment but I won't publish it here until it is published in the paper or I know it won't be. I have also nearly completed another article, going into tax and expenditure issues more thoroughly, which I will be posting shortly.