Cathrine Dyer & Bernard Hickey chat about the week's big climate news, including the growing impacts of weather events, alongside the non-stop stream of non-solutions to global warming
Thanks as usual Bernard and Catherine. I also read and noted in the Chat that article by George Monbiot. I hate to wish ill on people but maybe if those analysts who write and deliver those IAM's suffered due to a catastrophic climate event, it might get them to pull their finger out and properly identify the risks so organisations can take proper action. Sigh!
Perceptionware, George has coined a good term there, hope it sticks. It is quite incredible how readily these saviour technologies get regurgitated and proliferated by all kinds of sources. Even the IEA website is guilty of it. But who doesn't want to hear that miracle technology will save us, or in other words, that we can continue status quo with our lifestyles and consume our way to sustainability?
Bernard, you asked if there was a way that the Govt could just rely on doing a bit more on forestry and Cathrine pointed out that the Govt had not been signalling the case for an acceleration of planting and if anything it had been signalling a slow down of reliance on planting. I'd just add that it's essentially too late to reach for tree planing to fill the 2030 NDC gap, simply because new afforestation is not going to absorb much carbon at all by 2030. Basically, carbon uptake is an S shaped curve, starting slowly for a few years, then accelerating, and finally tailing out. By 5 years (2030) not a lot of carbon is being absorbed and it won't count much when we tally it up and compare it with our NDC commitment.
But what NZ can do instead is reduce its gross carbon emissions -- and it can make much better progress on this by 2030.
Maybe the problem that Hon Simon Watts is hinting at, or kite-flying about, is just a problem of persuading his colleagues in Cabinet that they actually have to (and can) do something in transport, energy, industry and power sectors to cut emissions rapidly.
Thanks as usual Bernard and Catherine. I also read and noted in the Chat that article by George Monbiot. I hate to wish ill on people but maybe if those analysts who write and deliver those IAM's suffered due to a catastrophic climate event, it might get them to pull their finger out and properly identify the risks so organisations can take proper action. Sigh!
Perceptionware, George has coined a good term there, hope it sticks. It is quite incredible how readily these saviour technologies get regurgitated and proliferated by all kinds of sources. Even the IEA website is guilty of it. But who doesn't want to hear that miracle technology will save us, or in other words, that we can continue status quo with our lifestyles and consume our way to sustainability?
Very alarming stuff, Bernard and Catherine, but thank you for bringing it to us - much appreciated !
Bernard, you asked if there was a way that the Govt could just rely on doing a bit more on forestry and Cathrine pointed out that the Govt had not been signalling the case for an acceleration of planting and if anything it had been signalling a slow down of reliance on planting. I'd just add that it's essentially too late to reach for tree planing to fill the 2030 NDC gap, simply because new afforestation is not going to absorb much carbon at all by 2030. Basically, carbon uptake is an S shaped curve, starting slowly for a few years, then accelerating, and finally tailing out. By 5 years (2030) not a lot of carbon is being absorbed and it won't count much when we tally it up and compare it with our NDC commitment.
But what NZ can do instead is reduce its gross carbon emissions -- and it can make much better progress on this by 2030.
Maybe the problem that Hon Simon Watts is hinting at, or kite-flying about, is just a problem of persuading his colleagues in Cabinet that they actually have to (and can) do something in transport, energy, industry and power sectors to cut emissions rapidly.
Ralph Chapman