Emissions targets need to be realistic, says Smith

Climate Change Minister Nick Smith
Climate Change Minister Nick Smith
Attempting to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent by 2020 would cause too much economic hardship, Climate Change Minister Nick Smith said today.

The signal from Dr Smith came as he also reported that new data showed New Zealand had sufficient forests to offset increases in emissions since 1990 to meet Kyoto Protocol obligations.

Estimates of New Zealand's Kyoto liability have bounced around wildly from profits to multi-billion dollar payments due to different calculations.

The new satellite images show that New Zealand has enough trees to meets its current obligations.

Appearing on TVNZ's Q&A programme today, Dr Smith had his eye on what will happen when the Kyoto agreement expires and a new deal comes into place after 2012.

Dr Smith said while decisions were yet to be made, targets of around 40 percent by 2020 in comparison to 1990 were neither achievable nor affordable.

Asked if a 40 percent reduction would have too great an economic impact, Dr Smith said it would.

Today Dr Smith released an economic analysis that predicted economic costs of $600, $1000, $1400 and $3000 per capita per year for 2020 emissions targets relative to 1990 levels of plus 15 percent, 0 percent, minus 15 percent and minus 40 percent.

A minus 40 percent target is being promoted by Greenpeace, but Dr Smith said this would cost $15 billion a year by 2020 and even the current emissions trading scheme (ETS) in legislation would push up power prices by 10 percent and petrol by six cents a litre.

The Government says it will set a target before an international meeting of climate change negotiations on August 10.

National campaigned on a 50 percent cut by 2050, which would equate to about 15 percent by 2020.

Dr Smith said he hoped new legislation amending the ETS would be "sealed" before countries met in Copenhagen to discuss climate change policy.

Labour's climate change spokesman Charles Chauvel said it was better to be bold than to be timid when setting the carbon pollution reduction target.

"Any economist will tell you that it's hard to predict what costs will be in 11 years' time, so I take the institute's [NZ Economic Institute of Research] numbers with several grains of salt," Mr Chauvel said.

"What is certain is that, with our carbon pollution emissions rising rapidly, and with other countries committing to action, New Zealand can't afford to look complacent by failing to set a serious reduction target."

Dr Smith said New Zealand did have to do its part in dealing with the "biggest environmental challenge of our generation", but targets and policy had to be realistic and achievable.

He also today released a land use analysis report which used satellite images to calculate forest cover.

Under the Kyoto agreement forests planted since 1990 offset increases in emissions since then.

There had been concerns that fewer trees and higher emissions would leave New Zealand with a billion dollar Kyoto liability.

Dr Smith said the report was good news.

"The Government has been cautious over New Zealand's Kyoto balance and future targets because of the billion dollar plus variations each year in the estimate of forest areas.

"The satellite data is good news in that it accurately confirms the area of post-1989 forests is sufficient to offset New Zealand's increase in emissions and meet our Kyoto obligations in the first commitment period from 2008 to 2012."

Half full, half empty, or just a mug?

It depends how you look at it. Nuclear and coal make lousy fuel, not nearly as transportable. Nuclear makes electricity, for a short while - it's subject to the Hubbert Curve too.
It won't be dismantling, so much as recycling. Lots of cars and no fuel. Lots of roading and no bitumen. Lots of supermarket shelves and no plastic.
Of course, we should just carry on as we are, silly me....

Sigh

Then, you google 'peak oil update, June 09', either from the wikipedia megaprojects, or from The Oil Drum.
With that graph underwriting your rate of activity, you will indeed reduce your emissions.

So, petroleum isn't available for vehicle transportation etc. That takes care of 20%.
Those that can will switch to burning coal - see India and China for examples and US in near future if they don't go nuclear.
I have a great life - more free time than almost anyone I know - and if everyone used the power my house does, the country would get by on one Benmore penstock. It can be done, and will be forced on everyone anyway.
That's great, for you. Won't be much free time for leisure when we are all working 12 hour days back on the farm. Excuse me for not wanting to buy into your green dystopia.
We can and should do better with how we produce and use energy. Dismantling the nation in order to do so isn't the way to go about it.

Maths and reality

First, you get to learn about percentages. 60% of 120% is not 40% of the original 100%.
Then, you google 'peak oil update, June 09', either from the wikipedia megaprojects, or from The Oil Drum.
With that graph underwriting your rate of activity, you will indeed reduce your emissions.
If a person bought a blacksmith business in 1938, I would say you could expect them to lose. Corner stores and small service-stations ditto, in more recent times. Why, pray tell, is dairy farming - or anything - immune? Just because you didn't see it coming, doesn't mean it wont. There was denial, dissonance and disbelief on board the Titanic, none of which affected the sinking one jot.
We could have slowed the machine earlier, but those in the position to do so, politicians, media, business, did not do so. We will now hit the wall, a rapid change that folk like me don't think the social fabric will weather.
I have a great life - more free time than almost anyone I know - and if everyone used the power my house does, the country would get by on one Benmore penstock. It can be done, and will be forced on everyone anyway. Best embrace what you can't change.
Your money or your life.....hang on, let me think about that? Yeah, right.

But how to get to 40% below 1990 levels...?

Here's NZ's current emissions profile: http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/climate/nz-2020-emissions-target/html/index.html

1. Agriculture methane 30% 2. Transport 20% 3. Agriculture nitrous oxide 16% 4. Stationary energy 15% 5. Electricity generation 9% 6. Industrial processes 6% 7. Waste 2%

Emissions levels have increased 20% since 1990. Therefore, to get to 40% below 1990 levels, we need to cut 60% of emissions. How? We're an agricultural economy. 46% of our emissions result from related activities. So, let's eliminate all transportation and get 20% reduction. Let's close down all the power stations and switch everything to wind and solar power. That gets us to 44%.

Since that makes it almost impossible for industry to function, that gets you 6% more for free. We're still going to have to shoot one cow in 3 to get to the 60%. And New Zealand is what - 0.2% of world emissions? What was your plan again? I'm all for sustainable living, just not in favour of inflicting hardship on others for no reason.

The species arrogance continues

But not for very much longer. Mother Nature - the real world = never gave two figs for 'economic' anything, and she is currently reduced to one fig. Nick Smith's wish not to impact economic activity - that man-made contrivance which requires exponential increases in activity to keep truckin'- is stupid, ignorant, and ultimately irrelevant. This is like worrying about those deckchairs, Nick. Get a lifeboat, our kids will be in trouble, and directly through your own greed, and your representation of others greed. Essentially, this represents the attitude of a selfish generation, and won't be debated in public because most of out media are also of that selfish generation. Our current levels of existence are a one-off, and a short-lived one-off at that. It's only 100 years since Bleriot and the Wright Brothers and Henry Ford. We don't have another - exponential use says we have less than 18. EROEI (energy return on energy invested) says even less - we've picked the low hanging fruit (the easiest extracted resources) it all gets harder, more expensive, and closer to a lost-energy game, from here. Meaning Nick Smith's dream is a loser before he even starts.

ODT/directory - Local Businesses

CompanyLocationBusiness Type
Southern Pearl Natural Spring WaterDunedinCatering
Michael Ovens ArchitectDunedinArchitects & Architectural Designers
The Laptop Company (SI) LtdDunedinComputer Services
HCD Flow TechnologyDunedinRetail Engineering