Urgency of need to lower emissions fast escalates as Arctic warming four times faster than rest of globe; 2050 net zero target now less relevant than 2030; That means more focus on methane for NZ
I really wish moving away from the coast would do it. Unfortunately, if we don't reduce our emissions promptly feeding ourselves is going to become increasingly difficult, extinction of a huge range of species including the pollinators we rely on to grow many crops. Plus wars over water (see France and its drying up rivers). The climate crisis is the most complex and multifactorial issue we have ever faced, which is part of the reason we are making a hash of it.
Yes that is probably true. So what I mean is that it will be easier to prepare for that loss then to get corporate government to make the necessary changes. I don't like it but have little hope after 30 years of wishful thinking
Thanks JP F. Unfortunately, there'll be a big fight over who will pay for the sea walls and managed retreat. Owners of beachfront and flood plain property will argue they had no idea and it's not their fault they overpaid for their land. Big risk is moral hazard and the poor being forced all over again to pay for the rich's property gains.
Hi Bernard - we constantly talk about attacking supply of coal and oil, but not so much about users. It’s hard to get fully onboard to disruptions to the food supply when we still have private jets, leisure helicopters, luxury yachts, jet skis, leisure travel in general. It feels like we haven’t distinguished between our ‘wants’ and our needs. People need food. Maybe we all go vegetarian but perhaps start by banning private jets, and work down from there.
Sometimes it feels like the drug war, where we try and blame Colombia for the growing, without looking first at our consumption.
Thanks Sam. There is a lot of magical thinking involved. And a lot of politicians are happy to stoke those magical fires because it works to get them elected in the short run, and sadly, there's still lots of voters (and some politicians) who believe it.
Different subject: Bernard, can we email directly, or would you prefer all questions to come via Substack? I would like to know your latest feelings on use of Direct Monetary Financing, especially now that that QE was mucked up and overdone. Thx.
Thanks Cliff. Any email is fine and these comment threads are fine. I always read and try to respond in a timely fashion. I think Direct Monetary Financing works for truly across-the-board temporary cash transfers to consumers when there is a depression and deflation in place or threatening. Doing it after 15 years of money printing to pump up asset prices for asset owners and to rescue banks is a bad way to start this. It sparked inflation and wrecked the social license for independent central banks. They should have paid the money to everyone in QE for the people, rather than QE for asset owners.
Morning, Bernard - many thanks for another great Dawn Chorus. I’m a bit surprised that you have only just received the memo about methane. Rod Carr (a fellow economist) did a lot of explaining before and after the first CCC report about the amplifying effect of methane. He talked in terms of stocks and flows, which may have turned some people off, though it played well at the NZIER annual dinner just before the report came out.
Apart from that, all good.
Suggest you talk to my niece, Dr Belinda McFadgen, at MfE, who has been working hard on the first Climate Adaptation Report, released a fortnight ago. Her Masters (from Amsterdam) was on European Water Policy and her PhD (also Amsterdam) on related topics but focused on the process of policy development, so you can ask her a subsidiary question or two about Three Waters - she has not been working on that since she came back to NZ a couple of years ago, but she will doubtless be insightful.
Great tip Anne. Have been watching and thinking about it for a while. Sometimes useful to have a news hook to hang these things on. Thanks for the tip about Belinda! cheers
Kia ora Bernard, thank you for looking through the lens of climate change. In response to your plea for suggestions of lines of inquiry in relation to transport - I would love to see you do a piece on the proposed amendments to the Local Government Act 1974 as proposed by the Minister of Transport. Perhaps this is already on your list to cover off.
Changes to our streets and increased investment in public transport and active modes of transport have the potential to reduce our emissions hugely. I am afraid there will be a lot of push back on the proposed amendments by those who want investment only in motor vehicles, and who see these proposals as being "anti-car" - when in reality the changes will make it easier for drivers by reducing congestion. The vast majority of the media seem to push a pro-car, anti-bike and anti public transport investment agenda, which can be very disheartening for those of us that are excited about the possibilities that would result from increased investment in these things. Tim Adriaansen puts it nicely here. https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/15-08-2022/aucklands-best-chance-to-fix-its-clogged-transport-system A Newshub article about our low rates in cycling spurred a lot of hateful Facebook comments, as well as many people who said they would cycle more often if it was safer to do so.
I know I am mostly likely preaching to the converted here, but I would love to see more articles about the positive changes that are possible in Aotearoa when we look at shifting away from private motor vehicles as our default mode of transport.
We'll see how that goes. Here's how the likely Transport Minister (after the election) Simeon Brown described it. “Today’s ‘Reshaping Streets’ announcement from the Government is a radical proposal that reveals Labour’s deeply ingrained anti-car ideology,” Mr Brown says. Detail here. https://www.national.org.nz/labour_is_coming_after_your_car_and_street
People have little to no choices in a poor country. It is encumbant on the Government to ACT now using its majority to get vital infrastructure and support for those who are adversely effected and most vulnerable to systems collapse by whatever means that occurred NOW. Community gardens and secure tenure appropriate shelter (movable tiny homes if necessary) to be produced en masse) for those landless or having to relocate for safety, weather or any other reason and even to access the support they need. Education, health etc etc. The changes needed are profound and it’s ONLY those doing and voicing things voluntarily, not those being paid to do it, who a effective. Every place needs markets and everyone needs money especially carers and those looking after others domestically like children. Walkable neighbourhoods and safety with food and energy security are critical now. Solar will have to be universal and power renationalised because we the public have literally paid for the building of the network and Government is allowing Corporations and companies to be subsidised by taxpayers again and leave us with a degraded system that does not provide adequately for extra demand.Provision of resources is going to have to be produced locally including the likes of building resources which let’s face it we have plenty of. Using our collective balance sheet to do all this is the only viable option and is an obligation of Government given what they’ve done. The clock is running down for anything constructive to occur because I doubt there’s doing to be a majority like this for any Government again and decades and decades is simply too long and time we don’t have now. In rural areas (although in city spaces walking, riding, trams, light rail etc are all options) cars and machinery are a must so we need to be making our own clean versions and discouraging imports. There doesn’t seem to be much investment into this manufacturing space within NZ either which is also going to have to happen in industrial zones as land is regenerated and sustainable communities developed. What are they waiting for … it could hardly get worse or more obvious and yet there is a complete leadership vacuum.
Thanks Henrietta. Great tip and I agree. Most of the mainstream media are supportive, except for Mike Hosking and Bernard Orsman, but the bulk of the public and the opposition are opposed. Labour is aware of it and has been reluctant to argue strongly for it. I have never seen the PM Jacinda Ardern argue strongly and publicly for more cycling and walking in place of cars.
Here is a chart identifying the latitudinal location of the global temperature anomalies for the period identified. Most of the anomaly variance is in the Arctic, and as yet no-one can fully explain why this is occurring. Air ingress from lower latitudes is a prominent factor. Further, if you look at the linked article in Bernard's post, you will see that it is in the Arctic autumn, winter and early spring, when the suns energy in that region is at its lowest, that the higher temperature anomalies occur. This is completely the opposite of the CO2 theory.
Here is an interactive chart for both the Arctic and Antarctic sea ice extent by year. You will see that there is no problem with sea ice in both regions. Note that the Arctic minimum and the Antarctic maximum sea ice extent are within day of each other.
Polar bear numbers are at a record high in most regions of the Arctic, and thrive in lower sea ice conditions when it is easier for them t punch through the ice, or just get access into the Water. Dr Susan Crockford a polar bear specialist is a great place to start. https://polarbearscience.com/
The link refereed to in Bernard's post is about models related to forecasting what may happen.
That's a nicely written piece by Melanie Newfield on methane. Unfortunately, for NZ's case, it leaves out some very valid points. Methane from any source, for climate purposes, can be viewed as like water into a bathtub, and water out. If the flow in is greater than the decomposition outflow, the 'bathtub' of methane grows and increases the warming effect. But NZ's contribution to its 'bathtub' from farming has not grown measurably for 30 years: we are not currently increasing this problem. The bathtub still needs draining but it's not a 2030 issue for farming in common sense terms. I paste in the key explainer from Keith Woodford - his blog is excellent on agriculture -- this is under dairy.
"With methane, scientists know that the flow of methane into the atmosphere from New Zealand ruminant animals is close to what it was 30 years ago. As a consequence, and linked to the scientific knowledge that about eight percent of methane molecules decompose each year, an approximate balance in the atmospheric ‘bath tub’ has been reached and the atmospheric cloud of NZ pastoral-sourced methane is close to stable. Hence, this argument goes, New Zealand’s agriculturally-sourced methane is contributing to further global warming in a minimal way."
Thanks Clive. But those emissions need to fall urgently if we're going to make a difference. Accepting the status quo is to accept a cooked planet. Are you really comfortable giving that excuse to your kids?
Good grief Bernard, I've just spent an enjoyable evening watching the football summaries from European leagues, switched on my computer and find this unreasoned and offensive message. For a minute I thought maybe Extinction Rebellion had hacked your system.
I wrote about methane emissions, which are not rising in terms of their global warming impact, explained why and provided an academic reference. I commended the report you adduced. What is rising, from agriculture, is nitrous oxide, which does hang around in the atmosphere as long as CO2. Most of this emanates in NZ from cow urine via bacteria in the soil, and its quantity has risen 50% since 1990. Reduced to the misleading (for methane) GWP100 common denominator, nitrous oxide is an almost 300 times greater warming agent than CO2 and is the agricultural emission that really needs action, as like our CO2 emissions, it is rising each year in its warming effect. Legislation now in place requires its emissions to fall 10% by 2030, as it does for methane.
The GWP100 'equivalising' formula for different GHG gasses, to pretend that methane's impact can be compared to CO2, was proposed by politicians originally and opposed by scientists and practical people. This way of saying 'agriculture is responsible for 49% of NZ's GHG emissions' does not acknowledge the 'bathtub' effect I wrote about. As we all know, NZ's farmers are among the world's smartest, and they have managed to avoid being fooled by this politically expedient measurement practice. He Waka Eke Noa fortunately avoids this and is based on the science.
There is inadequate public focus on nitrous oxide (from cow urine mostly), which is really hard (read expensive) to deal with. It can be massively cut with cow barns, which are coming in here but cost upwards of $1 million. Instead of subsidising EVs as the Govt is doing, which makes no difference to CO2 emissions in total, because what EVs don't burn, someone else can, it would be more sensible to subsidise cow barn building and expertise, where the ETS doesn't apply. GHG science is in good shape, but much of our policy, the ETS excepted, is grossly wasteful and ineffective.
I would be interested for you to dig in a bit more about what the opposition say when they want to reverse Labour's climate policy's, in favor of the ETS, which can do all of the 'heavy lifting'. Coming from a place of ignorance with ETS, could a super-charged ETS actually do all the heavy lifting, while all other policies are dialed back?
Also, did ACT say they will get rid of ETS? Wonder how that would play out in a coalition negotiations.
Bernard is right. The ETS has been in place during a period of steadily rising emissions. It has been tinkered with too much and has too many exemptions to be effective. I used to work in Forestry Policy where the Min was terrified the rising price of NZUs (carbon credits) would make sheep and beef farming obsolete in place of pine trees. With big emitters receiving free credits to stay in NZ (like Rio Tinto) and Agriculture exempted it will only ever make a small difference to our emissions profile. At this point every lever needs to be pulled without exception. Buckle up everyone for a bumpy ride.
Rory, I recently submitted in person on the Emissions Reduction Plan to the Environment Select Committee. It was interesting to see those who would be in charge of climate change under a different government in action. It didn't fill me with confidence. Stuart Smith and Scott Simpson from National are techno-opti mists who seem to think we can innovate our way out of these problems. Simon Court (ACT) seemed to think the market would sort it all out and wasn't use of the term "climate emergency" overcooking it a bit. A government made up of these numpties is unthinkable.
One thing many folks are saying is that it is a surprise how fast the climate is changing and surprised at the level of damage caused and I think that comes from a fundamental misunderstanding about the language scientists use.
I'm not a climate change scientist, I'm a plant molecular biologist, so I'm not an expert in this field but I am reasonably well read through articles on climate change in the journals Science, Nature, PNAS and many science podcasts and newsletters etc
One thing that's clear to me is that when climate change scientists are writing and talking they are using the conservative cautious language that all scientists use (we're used to be wrong so we are used to using weasel words and language that allows for being wrong)
So when a scientist says something is of interest or of some concern, then it means something huge and and massively worrying is almost certainly happening - but they'll never use "ordinary" language to say that.
The problem of course is the media and ordinary folks hear the weasel words and the passive voice and think "oh that doesn't sound like it's an urgent problem"
So the upshot is for most folks and the media - yeah the speed of change and the harm being caused is a surprise - but for scientists reading and listening to what the climate change experts are saying it's no surprise - they've been saying it's a freaking shitstorm coming and coming fast - but they just haven't said it with those words
All that is to say leaving real change until 2040 is kinda pointless because by then nothing we do will be able to stop the catastrophe
Thank you for this informative comment. It fits with what I have read about the language in IPCC reports being moderated due to the influence of the various governments who are involved with the IPCC. My particular worry is how non-linear the changes are, e.g. the UK heatwave this year seems to have increased quite a lot compared to the change over the previous 3 to 5 years.
Absolutely. That's one of the reasons I cover climate change as one of my core three: housing affordability, climate change and child poverty. All three crises can be solved by building new warm, dry, carbon zero homes near walkways, cycleways and busways on former roads. Cheaper, faster, cleaner, healthier and more productive.
And how much do you think private jets contribute to global warming vs those of mainstream carriers? Do you think those Chilean grapes in the supermarket paddled across the Pacific?
That's quite good. But again will take way too much time. Just think of the consenting. And could be inflationary if the sector is working at full capacity. Actual debt issuance and a bipartisan long term plan would be much better to ensure the industry trusts that Govt is ending boom/bust and can start investing in tech, skills and industry efficiency.
Bernard, are there any plans for green bonds to help fund cycleways, solar panels, dense housing etc? It would be a great way for cashed up boomers to pay it forward for future generations.
I don't understand how consenting has anything to do with financing the project. Direct Funding could be ready to go when the project is ready. And of course you wouldn't do it if the sector was at capacity (and could not increase its capacity), to avoid inflation.
re: normal debt issuance, why would we have to pay interest to private banks to make the industry trust the process? Surely there is an alternative to avoid that high cost.
Lastly, what do you think about using Direct Funding for the Three Waters infrastructure, estimated to cost up to $185 billion over the next 30 years?
I will file this with all the other articles I have going back to the early 80s telling us we had less than 10 years until climate apocalypse
And each subsequent decade there had been evident ecological deterioration . . . equaled only by a determination to defer and deny.
Mate the apocalypse is here and now!!
Patrick Medlicott
The UK and Europe heatwaves do reinforce this comment.
Same as, same as. Rich white elderly asset owners are still deniers or obfuscators. We only have 8 years! But what about my parking!!
Patrick Medlicott
It will be easier to just prepare for the higher sea level than getting anyone to agree to drastic changes
I really wish moving away from the coast would do it. Unfortunately, if we don't reduce our emissions promptly feeding ourselves is going to become increasingly difficult, extinction of a huge range of species including the pollinators we rely on to grow many crops. Plus wars over water (see France and its drying up rivers). The climate crisis is the most complex and multifactorial issue we have ever faced, which is part of the reason we are making a hash of it.
Yes that is probably true. So what I mean is that it will be easier to prepare for that loss then to get corporate government to make the necessary changes. I don't like it but have little hope after 30 years of wishful thinking
Thanks JP F. Unfortunately, there'll be a big fight over who will pay for the sea walls and managed retreat. Owners of beachfront and flood plain property will argue they had no idea and it's not their fault they overpaid for their land. Big risk is moral hazard and the poor being forced all over again to pay for the rich's property gains.
Hi Bernard - we constantly talk about attacking supply of coal and oil, but not so much about users. It’s hard to get fully onboard to disruptions to the food supply when we still have private jets, leisure helicopters, luxury yachts, jet skis, leisure travel in general. It feels like we haven’t distinguished between our ‘wants’ and our needs. People need food. Maybe we all go vegetarian but perhaps start by banning private jets, and work down from there.
Sometimes it feels like the drug war, where we try and blame Colombia for the growing, without looking first at our consumption.
Thanks Sam. There is a lot of magical thinking involved. And a lot of politicians are happy to stoke those magical fires because it works to get them elected in the short run, and sadly, there's still lots of voters (and some politicians) who believe it.
Different subject: Bernard, can we email directly, or would you prefer all questions to come via Substack? I would like to know your latest feelings on use of Direct Monetary Financing, especially now that that QE was mucked up and overdone. Thx.
Thanks Cliff. Any email is fine and these comment threads are fine. I always read and try to respond in a timely fashion. I think Direct Monetary Financing works for truly across-the-board temporary cash transfers to consumers when there is a depression and deflation in place or threatening. Doing it after 15 years of money printing to pump up asset prices for asset owners and to rescue banks is a bad way to start this. It sparked inflation and wrecked the social license for independent central banks. They should have paid the money to everyone in QE for the people, rather than QE for asset owners.
Morning, Bernard - many thanks for another great Dawn Chorus. I’m a bit surprised that you have only just received the memo about methane. Rod Carr (a fellow economist) did a lot of explaining before and after the first CCC report about the amplifying effect of methane. He talked in terms of stocks and flows, which may have turned some people off, though it played well at the NZIER annual dinner just before the report came out.
Apart from that, all good.
Suggest you talk to my niece, Dr Belinda McFadgen, at MfE, who has been working hard on the first Climate Adaptation Report, released a fortnight ago. Her Masters (from Amsterdam) was on European Water Policy and her PhD (also Amsterdam) on related topics but focused on the process of policy development, so you can ask her a subsidiary question or two about Three Waters - she has not been working on that since she came back to NZ a couple of years ago, but she will doubtless be insightful.
Contact me offline for more
Great tip Anne. Have been watching and thinking about it for a while. Sometimes useful to have a news hook to hang these things on. Thanks for the tip about Belinda! cheers
Kia ora Bernard, thank you for looking through the lens of climate change. In response to your plea for suggestions of lines of inquiry in relation to transport - I would love to see you do a piece on the proposed amendments to the Local Government Act 1974 as proposed by the Minister of Transport. Perhaps this is already on your list to cover off.
Changes to our streets and increased investment in public transport and active modes of transport have the potential to reduce our emissions hugely. I am afraid there will be a lot of push back on the proposed amendments by those who want investment only in motor vehicles, and who see these proposals as being "anti-car" - when in reality the changes will make it easier for drivers by reducing congestion. The vast majority of the media seem to push a pro-car, anti-bike and anti public transport investment agenda, which can be very disheartening for those of us that are excited about the possibilities that would result from increased investment in these things. Tim Adriaansen puts it nicely here. https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/15-08-2022/aucklands-best-chance-to-fix-its-clogged-transport-system A Newshub article about our low rates in cycling spurred a lot of hateful Facebook comments, as well as many people who said they would cycle more often if it was safer to do so.
I know I am mostly likely preaching to the converted here, but I would love to see more articles about the positive changes that are possible in Aotearoa when we look at shifting away from private motor vehicles as our default mode of transport.
While we're on it, lots of "strongly agrees" in response to this online survey could help us see some of these positive changes take place https://www.nzta.govt.nz/about-us/consultations/reshaping-streets-consultation
We'll see how that goes. Here's how the likely Transport Minister (after the election) Simeon Brown described it. “Today’s ‘Reshaping Streets’ announcement from the Government is a radical proposal that reveals Labour’s deeply ingrained anti-car ideology,” Mr Brown says. Detail here. https://www.national.org.nz/labour_is_coming_after_your_car_and_street
People have little to no choices in a poor country. It is encumbant on the Government to ACT now using its majority to get vital infrastructure and support for those who are adversely effected and most vulnerable to systems collapse by whatever means that occurred NOW. Community gardens and secure tenure appropriate shelter (movable tiny homes if necessary) to be produced en masse) for those landless or having to relocate for safety, weather or any other reason and even to access the support they need. Education, health etc etc. The changes needed are profound and it’s ONLY those doing and voicing things voluntarily, not those being paid to do it, who a effective. Every place needs markets and everyone needs money especially carers and those looking after others domestically like children. Walkable neighbourhoods and safety with food and energy security are critical now. Solar will have to be universal and power renationalised because we the public have literally paid for the building of the network and Government is allowing Corporations and companies to be subsidised by taxpayers again and leave us with a degraded system that does not provide adequately for extra demand.Provision of resources is going to have to be produced locally including the likes of building resources which let’s face it we have plenty of. Using our collective balance sheet to do all this is the only viable option and is an obligation of Government given what they’ve done. The clock is running down for anything constructive to occur because I doubt there’s doing to be a majority like this for any Government again and decades and decades is simply too long and time we don’t have now. In rural areas (although in city spaces walking, riding, trams, light rail etc are all options) cars and machinery are a must so we need to be making our own clean versions and discouraging imports. There doesn’t seem to be much investment into this manufacturing space within NZ either which is also going to have to happen in industrial zones as land is regenerated and sustainable communities developed. What are they waiting for … it could hardly get worse or more obvious and yet there is a complete leadership vacuum.
Thanks Henrietta. Great tip and I agree. Most of the mainstream media are supportive, except for Mike Hosking and Bernard Orsman, but the bulk of the public and the opposition are opposed. Labour is aware of it and has been reluctant to argue strongly for it. I have never seen the PM Jacinda Ardern argue strongly and publicly for more cycling and walking in place of cars.
Arctic Amplification
Here is a chart identifying the latitudinal location of the global temperature anomalies for the period identified. Most of the anomaly variance is in the Arctic, and as yet no-one can fully explain why this is occurring. Air ingress from lower latitudes is a prominent factor. Further, if you look at the linked article in Bernard's post, you will see that it is in the Arctic autumn, winter and early spring, when the suns energy in that region is at its lowest, that the higher temperature anomalies occur. This is completely the opposite of the CO2 theory.
https://149366104.v2.pressablecdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/ceres-decadal-temperature-trends-20171.png
Here is a chart with history of the temperature above 80N latitude.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
Here is an interactive chart for both the Arctic and Antarctic sea ice extent by year. You will see that there is no problem with sea ice in both regions. Note that the Arctic minimum and the Antarctic maximum sea ice extent are within day of each other.
https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/
Polar bear numbers are at a record high in most regions of the Arctic, and thrive in lower sea ice conditions when it is easier for them t punch through the ice, or just get access into the Water. Dr Susan Crockford a polar bear specialist is a great place to start. https://polarbearscience.com/
The link refereed to in Bernard's post is about models related to forecasting what may happen.
Regards
That's a nicely written piece by Melanie Newfield on methane. Unfortunately, for NZ's case, it leaves out some very valid points. Methane from any source, for climate purposes, can be viewed as like water into a bathtub, and water out. If the flow in is greater than the decomposition outflow, the 'bathtub' of methane grows and increases the warming effect. But NZ's contribution to its 'bathtub' from farming has not grown measurably for 30 years: we are not currently increasing this problem. The bathtub still needs draining but it's not a 2030 issue for farming in common sense terms. I paste in the key explainer from Keith Woodford - his blog is excellent on agriculture -- this is under dairy.
"With methane, scientists know that the flow of methane into the atmosphere from New Zealand ruminant animals is close to what it was 30 years ago. As a consequence, and linked to the scientific knowledge that about eight percent of methane molecules decompose each year, an approximate balance in the atmospheric ‘bath tub’ has been reached and the atmospheric cloud of NZ pastoral-sourced methane is close to stable. Hence, this argument goes, New Zealand’s agriculturally-sourced methane is contributing to further global warming in a minimal way."
https://keithwoodford.wordpress.com/2022/06/29/wrestling-with-methane-metrics/
I have supplied the link because it explains in more detail the complex issues around methane for the world and NZ.
Thanks Clive. But those emissions need to fall urgently if we're going to make a difference. Accepting the status quo is to accept a cooked planet. Are you really comfortable giving that excuse to your kids?
Good grief Bernard, I've just spent an enjoyable evening watching the football summaries from European leagues, switched on my computer and find this unreasoned and offensive message. For a minute I thought maybe Extinction Rebellion had hacked your system.
I wrote about methane emissions, which are not rising in terms of their global warming impact, explained why and provided an academic reference. I commended the report you adduced. What is rising, from agriculture, is nitrous oxide, which does hang around in the atmosphere as long as CO2. Most of this emanates in NZ from cow urine via bacteria in the soil, and its quantity has risen 50% since 1990. Reduced to the misleading (for methane) GWP100 common denominator, nitrous oxide is an almost 300 times greater warming agent than CO2 and is the agricultural emission that really needs action, as like our CO2 emissions, it is rising each year in its warming effect. Legislation now in place requires its emissions to fall 10% by 2030, as it does for methane.
The GWP100 'equivalising' formula for different GHG gasses, to pretend that methane's impact can be compared to CO2, was proposed by politicians originally and opposed by scientists and practical people. This way of saying 'agriculture is responsible for 49% of NZ's GHG emissions' does not acknowledge the 'bathtub' effect I wrote about. As we all know, NZ's farmers are among the world's smartest, and they have managed to avoid being fooled by this politically expedient measurement practice. He Waka Eke Noa fortunately avoids this and is based on the science.
There is inadequate public focus on nitrous oxide (from cow urine mostly), which is really hard (read expensive) to deal with. It can be massively cut with cow barns, which are coming in here but cost upwards of $1 million. Instead of subsidising EVs as the Govt is doing, which makes no difference to CO2 emissions in total, because what EVs don't burn, someone else can, it would be more sensible to subsidise cow barn building and expertise, where the ETS doesn't apply. GHG science is in good shape, but much of our policy, the ETS excepted, is grossly wasteful and ineffective.
Hi Bernard
I would be interested for you to dig in a bit more about what the opposition say when they want to reverse Labour's climate policy's, in favor of the ETS, which can do all of the 'heavy lifting'. Coming from a place of ignorance with ETS, could a super-charged ETS actually do all the heavy lifting, while all other policies are dialed back?
Also, did ACT say they will get rid of ETS? Wonder how that would play out in a coalition negotiations.
Short answer is more is needed than ETS, even one that includes everyone and stops giving free passes to a bunch of people and stuff. Here's a good explainer from Marc Daalder from last year. https://www.newsroom.co.nz/nz-cant-decarbonise-with-just-one-policy
Bernard is right. The ETS has been in place during a period of steadily rising emissions. It has been tinkered with too much and has too many exemptions to be effective. I used to work in Forestry Policy where the Min was terrified the rising price of NZUs (carbon credits) would make sheep and beef farming obsolete in place of pine trees. With big emitters receiving free credits to stay in NZ (like Rio Tinto) and Agriculture exempted it will only ever make a small difference to our emissions profile. At this point every lever needs to be pulled without exception. Buckle up everyone for a bumpy ride.
Rory, I recently submitted in person on the Emissions Reduction Plan to the Environment Select Committee. It was interesting to see those who would be in charge of climate change under a different government in action. It didn't fill me with confidence. Stuart Smith and Scott Simpson from National are techno-opti mists who seem to think we can innovate our way out of these problems. Simon Court (ACT) seemed to think the market would sort it all out and wasn't use of the term "climate emergency" overcooking it a bit. A government made up of these numpties is unthinkable.
Hi Bernard
One thing many folks are saying is that it is a surprise how fast the climate is changing and surprised at the level of damage caused and I think that comes from a fundamental misunderstanding about the language scientists use.
I'm not a climate change scientist, I'm a plant molecular biologist, so I'm not an expert in this field but I am reasonably well read through articles on climate change in the journals Science, Nature, PNAS and many science podcasts and newsletters etc
One thing that's clear to me is that when climate change scientists are writing and talking they are using the conservative cautious language that all scientists use (we're used to be wrong so we are used to using weasel words and language that allows for being wrong)
So when a scientist says something is of interest or of some concern, then it means something huge and and massively worrying is almost certainly happening - but they'll never use "ordinary" language to say that.
The problem of course is the media and ordinary folks hear the weasel words and the passive voice and think "oh that doesn't sound like it's an urgent problem"
So the upshot is for most folks and the media - yeah the speed of change and the harm being caused is a surprise - but for scientists reading and listening to what the climate change experts are saying it's no surprise - they've been saying it's a freaking shitstorm coming and coming fast - but they just haven't said it with those words
All that is to say leaving real change until 2040 is kinda pointless because by then nothing we do will be able to stop the catastrophe
Thank you for this informative comment. It fits with what I have read about the language in IPCC reports being moderated due to the influence of the various governments who are involved with the IPCC. My particular worry is how non-linear the changes are, e.g. the UK heatwave this year seems to have increased quite a lot compared to the change over the previous 3 to 5 years.
Absolutely. That's one of the reasons I cover climate change as one of my core three: housing affordability, climate change and child poverty. All three crises can be solved by building new warm, dry, carbon zero homes near walkways, cycleways and busways on former roads. Cheaper, faster, cleaner, healthier and more productive.
And how much do you think private jets contribute to global warming vs those of mainstream carriers? Do you think those Chilean grapes in the supermarket paddled across the Pacific?
2030 is too close for prevention, maybe governments should be focusing on mitigation as well.
Thank you. How about Direct Financing for funding infrastructure? That is not inflationary.
That's quite good. But again will take way too much time. Just think of the consenting. And could be inflationary if the sector is working at full capacity. Actual debt issuance and a bipartisan long term plan would be much better to ensure the industry trusts that Govt is ending boom/bust and can start investing in tech, skills and industry efficiency.
Bernard, are there any plans for green bonds to help fund cycleways, solar panels, dense housing etc? It would be a great way for cashed up boomers to pay it forward for future generations.
I don't understand how consenting has anything to do with financing the project. Direct Funding could be ready to go when the project is ready. And of course you wouldn't do it if the sector was at capacity (and could not increase its capacity), to avoid inflation.
re: normal debt issuance, why would we have to pay interest to private banks to make the industry trust the process? Surely there is an alternative to avoid that high cost.
Lastly, what do you think about using Direct Funding for the Three Waters infrastructure, estimated to cost up to $185 billion over the next 30 years?