Cathrine Dyer & Bernard Hickey chat about the week's big climate news, including research on methane's contribution to climate change, and Air NZ becoming the first airline to abandon targets and SBTi
This week's Climate Wrap was particularly interesting.
As an academic and formerly a policy adviser I have been annoyed for years at the willingness of some advisers to pander to ministerial pressure by giving dodgy scientific interpretations that conveniently make it easier for our businesses in NZ to keep on doing what they know to be wrong, or at least risky.
Of course, business pressure on governments is pretty much irresistible, but when scientists get drawn in to backing up dodgy political premises such as "no net warming" from methane, we have a problem.
As Dyer and Hickey say, the science tends to catch up with that, but by then a lot of damage can be done.
And Reisinger is right -- the judgements about policy on these matters must take into account factors such as international equity and that NZ is a relatively wealthy nation. The take-out for me is that NZ should cut its methane faster than it is now doing, and the Shindell paper is helpful in making that clear.
Could you please explain what portion is methane to carbon dioxide in global warming potential. What damage can be a portioned to each? Is the portion of methane tiny compared to carbon dioxide even though is more harmful but with a shorter life? Can you please explain why the timing of reducing methane is important? Thanks - long term subscriber.
Yes, of course you are absolutely right! Sometimes the brain just misfires....
This week's Climate Wrap was particularly interesting.
As an academic and formerly a policy adviser I have been annoyed for years at the willingness of some advisers to pander to ministerial pressure by giving dodgy scientific interpretations that conveniently make it easier for our businesses in NZ to keep on doing what they know to be wrong, or at least risky.
Of course, business pressure on governments is pretty much irresistible, but when scientists get drawn in to backing up dodgy political premises such as "no net warming" from methane, we have a problem.
As Dyer and Hickey say, the science tends to catch up with that, but by then a lot of damage can be done.
And Reisinger is right -- the judgements about policy on these matters must take into account factors such as international equity and that NZ is a relatively wealthy nation. The take-out for me is that NZ should cut its methane faster than it is now doing, and the Shindell paper is helpful in making that clear.
Ralph Chapman, Professor (adjunct), VUW
Guy, You're correct, I noticed that too.
I'm sure Cathrine meant 'positive feedback' in the technical sense, i.e. methane begets warming which begets more methane etc.
But certainly the effects are negative in the sense of adverse impacts!
Ralph
Hi Bernard and team.
Keep up the fantastic work.
Could you please explain what portion is methane to carbon dioxide in global warming potential. What damage can be a portioned to each? Is the portion of methane tiny compared to carbon dioxide even though is more harmful but with a shorter life? Can you please explain why the timing of reducing methane is important? Thanks - long term subscriber.
There are some great explanations and charts in this piece written by Reisinger for the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment (PCE) back in 2018: https://pce.parliament.nz/media/ojzbobxh/contribution-of-methane-emissions-from-nz-livestock-to-global-warming.pdf. Also, some great charts posted by Christina Hood to Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/christina-hood-71a1b024_a-week-ago-i-posted-a-graph-showing-new-zealand-activity-7215983878312771584-zDxv?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop (see link in comments to previous chart for key).