NZ Centre for Political Research

Support for [Australia's] Rudd Government has slumped in country areas in the past two months, with experts pointing to the emissions trading scheme (ETS) for Labor's crashing popularity in the bush.

Senior lecturer in politics at Monash University, Dr Nick Economou, said the dramatic swing back to the Opposition in rural seats would most definitely be as a result of the Government's climate change and emissions trading policies.

He said rural voters like farmers and miners were very knowledgeable about the impacts of an emissions trading scheme and the shift in polls in recent weeks should send a stark warning to the Government.

--Lucy Knight, Stock & Land News, 28 August 2009

ETS - Energy Tax Swindle
https://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/flint ... on-the-ets
by David Flint
August 25, 2009

A double dissolution could be a referendum on the ETS

Whenever I see the climate change minister on television, I feel like a kulak. To give her the benefit of the doubt, I assume she really believes that what she is proposing is in the public interest. I suppose that even the Bolsheviks believed they could actually run agriculture better than the kulaks, but their overriding interest was control, and neutralising, if necessary liquidating, their opponents, particularly their class enemies. Then they could begin on one another.

Now I don’t think for a moment that Ms. Wong is into liquidations, but the ETS will mean an unparalleled peacetime surrender of economic control to -and a vastly increased income for - the Federal government. The result will be a damaged economy as businesses move offshore, with new taxes, higher prices for consumers and the loss of jobs. Yes, quite a few carpetbaggers will profit, and I suppose there will be more chances for politicians, apparatchiks and their spouses to go into so called businesses as renters, consultants and lobbyists. So we’ll be told over and over about “business” being behind the ETS.

If you belong to the West’s fastest growing religious denomination, the AGW’s – the Anthropogenic Global Warmers - the enactment of this legislation will produce some warm inner glow. But other religions don’t expect to lay waste to the economy, so why should the AGW’s?

But even if you are the most devout AGW and actually believe everything that St. Al Gore says, you know the ETS will not do anything at all to contain or reverse global warming.

Surely no one now believes that were Penny Wong able to take an enacted ETS to Copenhagen, anyone other than fellow denominationalists and the media would take any notice. Certainly the main global emitters would not. The EU will of course pretend, by some creative accounting, to show how they are painfully reducing their emissions. I suppose it will be a similar exercise to that of the Sainted Al Gore, who buys offsets to reduce his obscenely gargantuan footprint.

The ETS is of course nothing more than an Energy Tax Swindle. So how is it that the polls still show support for it among the general public?

It is because our mainline media has decided that their first duty is no longer to do what The Times long ago declared it to be: "The first duty of the press is to obtain the earliest and most correct intelligence of the events of the time, and instantly, by disclosing them, to make them the common property of the nation.”

That is old fashioned. As Paul Kelly said in 1992 about the constitutional debate, the media has a vested interest in change. But what sort of change?

In any event in presenting the news about the referendum, the mainstream media campaigned vigorously for a Yes vote. John Howard sees this as at least a significant part of the reason for the people saying No. The fact is the media – the mainstream media- have very little credibility on political issues. That does not unfortunately mean that they cannot influence the vote.

Bernard Golberg, the author of the best seller Bias, says it’s not the media’s role to effect change. It’s not even to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable, which is taken as gospel in American mainstream newsrooms. It’s to report the news, not advocate for causes.

The point is that very little information about the ETS is trickling down to the public. Given that most of them get their news from the evening TV, and if they work in an office a glance at the web, this is not surprising.

When the ETS was rejected in the Senate, it was done against film of power stations belching forth not “polluting” carbon dioxide but steam. No information was given out as to the consequences on viewers of the likely tax, price and employment consequences of the ETS, or what effect it would have on global warming, if indeed global warming does exist.

Incidentally I refuse to fall for the AGW sleight of hand in renaming global warming as “climate change.” This was done because their premise that the planet was warming is now in some considerable doubt. That the media actually go along with this 1984 style change of name or its predecessor is similar to referring to the accused in a Soviet trial as “an enemy of the people.”

The ETS is vastly bigger than the GST, which was not too difficult to understand. The opposition should not forget that the Howard government almost lost the 1998 election over that.

The fault that any vote in the next election may not be informed about the ETS is not only the media’s. The parliamentary Liberal Party has completely mishandled the issue.

They should, rather than offering their own ETS, oppose it and campaign on the consequences for the nation and for individuals if we adopt the government’s ETS, which is at least unwise and at worst sinister. It is all very well to point out the last Liberal government had a plan for an ETS in the future, but that was only because they were in such a state of panic about the coming election.

Signalling in advance that that they will let the government have its way when the issue is brought back to the Senate is not only a tactical error. (After all what general would actually tell the enemy what he is going to do?) It was wrong in principle. The position which Barnaby Joyce and the Nationals are espousing is the one which all of the Coalition should endorse.

If there were a double dissolution the Opposition should then be able to make it a referendum on the ETS. Even the most biased media would then be unable to avoid the points in issue, just as they could not in 1999.

The media would then be obliged to present some of the arguments against not only the ETS, but about the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming itself.

The ETS is against the interests of all but a minority of Australians. It offends the very principles of liberalism. This is not the time for some abject surrender.

The Liberal leaders should take fright neither from the opinion polls nor from the near unanimity of the mainstream media. Instead they should take a lead from the Nationals and those on their back bench who are enunciating precisely what is really in issue in this debate. And it has nothing to do with halting global warming.

Dear Muriel Newman

Thank you for your email of 31 July 2009 regarding New Zealand’s 2020 target for greenhouse gas emissions. Your submission has been noted.

I have received a wide range of submissions from around New Zealand, including those from the public, business, farmers and scientists. The government has considered public feedback and scientific, economic, environmental and foreign affairs advice in order to determine a 2020 emissions target policy. On 10 August 2009, prior to the United Nations climate change negotiations in Bonn, the government announced New Zealand’s 2020 emissions target of between 10 and 20 percent below 1990 levels. This target range is conditional on a comprehensive global agreement being secured that sets the world on a pathway to limit temperature rise to not more than 2°C and has effective rules for forestry and the carbon market.

The government is actively working to secure an effective global agreement on climate change to succeed the Kyoto Protocol after 2012. It is important that New Zealand commits to doing its fair share to reduce global emissions in a manner that does not incur disproportionate economic costs, (relative to other countries).

For more information on New Zealand’s 2020 emissions reduction target, please visit the Ministry for the Environment’s website at www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/climate/nz ... index.html.

Yours sincerely
Hon Dr Nick Smith
Minister for Climate Change Issues

Don Nicolson: Better technology is the answer
4:00AM Friday Aug 21, 2009

Could greenicide enter the English lexicon as a corruption of that all-defining slogan, clean and green?

When politicians and lobby groups are stuck for an answer, clean and green is trotted out as a reason to justify anything and everything. Yet isn't clean and green really about agriculture?

Most farmers are clean because of high standards of farm management. Most farmers are green because farms are our offices as well as our homes. The vast majority of New Zealand's farmers take environmental management very seriously.

Yet clean and green has been corrupted into greenicide, being the adoption of green policies at any cost.

Take Greenpeace's Sign-On campaign, for example. It calls for a 40 per cent reduction in New Zealand greenhouse emissions by 2020. Except the unpromoted reality is that it's more like 64 per cent, given we traipse all the way back to 1990. Sign-On expects people to suspend commonsense, basic economics or any semblance of logic. Just sign on to commit greenicide.

That's what starlets like Lucy Lawless, Keisha Castle-Hughes and the left's favourite businessman, Sir Stephen Tindall, want us to do. Except it doesn't seem to apply to them, given how they make or made their money.

For hard-working families, Sign-On means losing your job, turning off the heating and giving away the car. That might get people to a 64 per cent reduction but it isn't living, is it?

That's the fatal flaw in setting any target to cut emissions. People may sign on with good intentions but does that change behaviour? Are New Zealanders using more or less electricity after this year's earth hour?

Humans, you see, instinctively yearn for more and more, which is how Sir Stephen made his many millions from The Warehouse. What happens if you overlay that instinct on a global population that will grow by 3.3 billion people by 2050? Logic tells us where global emissions will head and it won't be downwards.

Yet climate variation is real and billions more human beings will build pressure. But the cause isn't necessarily the emissions we make as living organisms, but the goods and services each and every future human will consume of the environment - starlet and businessman included.

In the face of a 49 per cent increase in the earth's population, reductions can't work and won't work. That's being honest and realistic.

It's not being defeatist, but calls for a more sensible response than the negative, apocalyptic future extolled by Greenpeace and its Malthusian acolytes.

Things are never as good or as bad as they first seem - they are just what they seem. The convenient truth is that humans evolve.

Technology will enable humans to prosper and grow and that's a positive and realistic vision of the future farmers support.

Controlling emissions demands an investment in science research and technology. This reconciles a basic human yearning "for more" without killing our planet.

It's also why Thomas Malthus' theory has been proven wrong time after time. Progress is optimistic, yes, but so is being realistic about the means to achieve that better tomorrow. There is science we can only dream about today that will become available in 10, 20 or 40 years' time.

That's why the Kyoto Protocol and Copenhagen negotiations seem more like a big jobs scheme. Too much spending is on policy, appearance and spin, not nearly enough is spent on solutions.

While it may surprise some, Federated Farmers backs the Skeptical Environmentalist, Dr Bj rn Lomborg, in calling for research and not taxes.

If New Zealand put 0.05 per cent of gross domestic product into research instead of the emissions trading scheme, it would pump $87.5 million into climate variation research. In the United States, that figure would be some $11 billion and globally, over $34 billion would be raised.

The amount raised also illustrates New Zealand's very small part in a much bigger global picture. New Zealand doesn't produce 99.8 per cent of global emissions.

New Zealand can lead internationally on research without killing the economy.

The heroes aren't the doom merchants who tell us how to live, but the scientists and farmers who enable us to live and prosper. Greenicide is not the solution.

* Don Nicolson is the president of Federated Farmers.

Greenhouse Gas Reduction—2020 Target

3. Hon RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: Why did he reject Treasury advice that an appropriate 2020 target for New Zealand’s emissions would be 15 percent above 1990 levels rather than the 10 percent to 20 percent below 1990 levels that he announced last week?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues) : Firstly, I do not consider that a target of 15 percent above 1990 levels would have been internationally credible. The range amongst the targets tabled in negotiations by developed countries is minus 30 percent from Norway through to 0 percent by the United States. Positive 15 percent would be untenable. Secondly, it would have been inconsistent with National’s election mandate. On climate change, we campaigned on New Zealand not being a laggard nor being a world leader, but doing our fair share. Our 10 percent to 20 percent target is consistent with that. Thirdly, Treasury’s proposal was to exempt forestry from the target. It is the Government’s view that if we can get correct the parameters of the policy, we can get significant plantation forests planted, and can make a significant contribution towards New Zealand making the minus 10 percent to 20 percent target.

Hon Rodney Hide: Does the Minister agree with the Treasury analysis that in choosing a 2020 emissions target he is imposing higher costs on New Zealand than those of our trading partners, and, indeed, as Treasury shows, causing three times the damage to New Zealand growth, jobs, and incomes compared with the damage caused by Australia’s target, and 10 times the damage of the US’s target?

Hon Dr LOCKWOOD SMITH: The economic analysis that was provided noted that the cost to the New Zealand economy of our 10 percent to 20 percent target would be very similar to the cost of the Australian target of 15 percent to 25 percent. The reason I recommended a target range very similar, in economic cost terms, to Australia’s is that I think it is fair, with the degree of integration between the New Zealand and Australian economies, that we take a similar burden on this important issue.

Moana Mackey: Has the Minister seen the comment from the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that New Zealand’s high conditional emissions target is “disappointing and inadequate”, and why does the Government continue to discourage the development of low-carbon sectors in the New Zealand economy by viewing climate change policy as a trade-off between the environment and the economy, a position that the head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has labelled a “fallacy”?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: With all due respect, I disagree. [Interruption] Let me put it in context. Do I think it is possible to reduce emissions significantly without cost? The frank answer is I do not.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Does the Minister still endorse the statement made by his colleague Tim Groser that the response to our climate change targets at Bonn was “uniformly positive”; if so, how does he square it with the comments of Dr Pachauri, the chief scientist of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, that New Zealand’s goals are “disappointing and inadequate” and that we “clearly need a much greater level of ambition”?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I totally support it, and it is consistent with the communications I have had with a range of countries about the target that New Zealand has set. I simply say to members opposite from both the Green Party and Labour that when they were in charge of this country our emissions grew by 14 percent. We could have tabled a much more ambitious target if, in fact, the previous Government had made some policy on climate change, rather than talking big and doing absolutely nothing.

Hekia Parata: Tēnā koe, Te Mana Whakawā. What has been the trend in New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions in recent years, and how has it impacted on New Zealand’s ability to set an ambitious target for a post-2012 deal?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: New Zealand can reduce its net emissions by either reducing gross emissions or planting trees. In the 1990s New Zealand’s emissions grew by 10 percent, but, thankfully, 600,000 hectares of trees were planted. During the course of the last Government gross emissions grew by 14 percent, and not only were no trees planted but there was significant deforestation. It is noteworthy that if the previous Government had, over the same number of years, constrained emissions to the same rate as had occurred in the 1990s—10 percent—and had planted trees at the same rate as in the 1990s, New Zealand’s emissions today would be 14 percent less. Lo and behold, members opposite now complain that we are not setting a more ambitious target.

Moana Mackey: Has the Minister received any indication from any of his ministerial colleagues that they will resign if they do not get their way on this issue?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No.

Hekia Parata: Is it correct that New Zealand is the only country that is including agricultural emissions?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No. Every country has to account for its agricultural emissions on the same basis as New Zealand is, under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and also under the Kyoto Protocol. Countries are free to implement their own domestic policies to reduce emissions, and most countries for which agriculture contributes a small proportion of their emissions have not included it. That means other sectors of the economy must carry the cost. The problem for New Zealand is that agriculture contributes such a large portion of our emissions that excluding it from our domestic policy puts a higher burden on the rest of the economy.

Hon Rodney Hide: Does the Minister agree with a former National Energy Minister, the Hon Barry Brill, who in today’s New Zealand Herald commented on the Government’s targets for climate change that “The cost is appalling. Why aren’t we rioting in the streets? Even now, we can’t afford decent healthcare, education, prisons, so where we will we find another $6 billion per year? How can a family of four find an extra $112 per week after tax?”; or does he think that such costs are acceptable?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: There has been significant public debate about the level of cost. There are people who have argued it is $112 per week; I do not agree with that figure. The Government believes that a reasonable figure—and it comes from a study—is about 30 bucks a week for the average New Zealand family. That is a significant amount, but it is my view that it is the contribution that New Zealanders need to make in respect of climate change policy.

Barry Brill: Do we need to be world leaders if it means bankruptcy?
Thursday Aug 20, 2009

Helen Clark's Government wanted New Zealand to be a "world leader" in cutting emissions of greenhouse gases. Now the new Prime Minister has surprised supporters by taking on the same ambition.

The National Party campaigned on a promise to reduce our greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by 2050 - a cut of 46Mt (million tones of CO2-equivalent) from 2008 levels over a period of 40 years. But Mr Key now says his Government will aim to reach more than half the 2050 goal in just 10 years.

Because technologies to reduce agricultural emissions have not yet been developed, the most expensive and painful time to reduce gases will be in the early part of the 40-year period. The next generation of New Zealanders will have a range of new methods and improved science from all over the world. Why try to do most of the job before this knowledge becomes available? A Gold Medal for New Zealand?

While we have undertaken a 10-20 per cent decrease from 1990 levels, the largest emitter, the United States, is aiming for a zero decrease - if their Senate approves legislation. Canada is targeting a 3 per cent decrease and Japan 8 per cent. Australia's plans seem likely to be voted down by their Senate.


The 27 EU countries picked up a huge advantage from the choice of 1990 as the base year, but their combined goals looking forward are reductions of 15 per cent (mid-point). Russia is aiming at increases of 24 per cent. New Zealand outpoints them all by targeting forward reductions of 32-42 per cent.

On its website, the Ministry for the Environment points out that the reality is even worse, at the level of individual New Zealanders. A target of 10 per cent below 1990 levels equates to a 35 per cent per capita reduction in emissions from 1990 to 2020. A target of 20 per cent below 1990 levels equates to a 42 per cent per capita reduction in emissions from 1990 to 2020.

It gets worse - 20 per cent below 2008 levels equates to a 64 per cent per capita reduction in emissions from 2008 to 2020.

So, our country is a clear contender for the Gold Medal in the Copenhagen stakes. How embarrassing for all the industrialised countries that an agricultural country should lead the way.

How much is this ambition going to cost? The best answer is "nobody knows" because it depends on unknowns - especially the future international price of carbon offsets.

Is it capped? No - it could conceivably cost us our entire Gross National Product. How did the Government "balance the environmental and economic factors", if it doesn't have figures? Well, despite earlier promises, there has never been a quantified cost-benefit study.

But the Prime Minister has assured us that the best available guess is that we'll all be out-of-pocket by $27 per week per head by the end of the decade. This cost will start building up from now, and will continue forever.

This cost is appalling. Why aren't we rioting in the streets? Even now, we can't afford decent healthcare, education, prisons, so where will we find another $6 billion per year? How can a family of four find an extra $112 per week after tax?

The bill of $6 billion per year is more than 5 per cent of the country's GNP. We are told we need to incur this cost because it will be good for trade in an indirect sort of way.

But the cure is worse than the disease when the cost is greater than all our earnings from meat and wool exports, or equal to 60 per cent of our annual dairy exports.

While it is understandable that the Ministry for the Environment favoured this decision, the Treasury apparently advised that we couldn't possibly pay for such a commitment. There are rumours politicians ignored a Treasury recommendation of a 2020 target midpoint of plus 3 per cent.

Nobody has asked Kiwis how much of their income should be directed to attempts to change the climate. But that question was tested in a US survey conducted by the Economist which "found that 62 per cent of Americans want carbon curbs, but only 30 per cent would pay even $175 a year for them and only 7 per cent would pay $770".

If Americans jibbed at $175 per household, we can expect that (poorer) New Zealanders will have trouble at about $150 per household per annum. One can only assume that an annual bill of $5600 for a household of four would fast usher in a change of government.

New Zealand's promises in Copenhagen won't have any material impact on efforts to change the world's future climate. However, there will be endless meetings, where every country will pressure every other country to accept a bigger share of the burden.

Going into this sort of negotiation, most countries start with a low bid. Our Government's tactics of tabling a massive opening bid - one we can't afford - will have competitors scratching their heads. I predict it will become a case study in business schools and negotiating classes around the world.

* Barry Brill has a lengthy involvement in energy policy matters, including as Energy Minister in the 1978-81 National Government, chairman of the NZ Gas Council, NZ Electricity Supply Assoc, Power NZ, and director of Petrocorp, and EMCO.

CARBON FUTURES AREN'T THE FUTURE
By Alan Oxley, Forbes.com, August 12, 2009

This week climate change negotiators are meeting in Germany to review a 260-page document, which U.N.
officials hope will be crafted into a new treaty to reduce carbon emissions and adopted by world leaders at
Copenhagen in December. At the center of this proposal is a strategy for governments to raise money by
creating a large global market for carbon credits.

The Chicago Futures Exchange already operates a small market for carbon credits. Prices are low, around
$1 a ton. Though the market now operates mainly for companies eager to boast a low carbon footprint,
boosters eagerly talk about greater interest and future prices as high as $40 a ton.

But be wary. Experts predict that no new treaty will be inked at Copenhagen. Policy makers have little
inclination to hike energy costs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the midst of an economic crisis.

Moreover, the idea is seriously impractical.

Environmental NGOs like Greenpeace and the WWF are campaigning for a $160 billion market in carbon
credits, the proceeds of which are to be directed to developing countries to entice or bribe them to reduce
their own emissions.

Poor countries already receive about $105 billion in aid every year. Given widespread doubt about the
effectiveness of this existing aid, no government, least of all the U.S. Congress, would agree to more than
double that amount--especially since China would significantly benefit from such a transaction and, last
time we looked, it is loaded to the gills with finance.

As for the aid at hand, a quarter of the $160 billion raised annually from this emissions trading would be
earmarked for poor countries with forestry. But there's a catch. Nations would only receive these funds if
they agree to use forestlands to farm carbon instead of timber or other crops. The World Bank is telling the
developing world that emissions farming would generate better returns. That's just not true.

According to a new study by World Growth International, the returns from developing forestlands are at
least four to eight times greater than farming carbon. And since forestry directly and indirectly contributes
up to about 7% of the national economy of forest-rich, tropical, developing countries, these anti-forestry
initiatives threaten to significantly impede their chances to create new jobs and wealth.

The World Bank's stated mission is to reduce poverty. Yet, by encouraging poor nations to select the
lowest-yielding option, its anti-forestry campaign directly conflicts with that core principle.

The organization's environmental economists argue that if governments create a large global market for
carbon credits, the carbon stored in the trees would become more valuable and, therefore, entice poor
communities to farm the carbon instead of the tree. The World Bank has garnered several hundred million
dollars to encourage and equip developing countries to get into this game, despite the improbability of
agreement on a global emissions trading market.

The touting of "easy money" has already had unhappy results. Last week, for example, the government of
Papua New Guinea (PNG) closed its official office for climate change. That's because the country's climate
change director had been circulating certificates for rights to allocate carbon, even though there's no law in
the country that creates such rights. There had been reports of multimillion-dollar sales to companies set up
in Australia to make these trades. And hustlers had been selling permits (along with large paper bags) for
$500 a pop to locals to collect carbon dioxide from the air and deliver it to the climate change office.

These kinds of policies come at the expense of both the planet and the poor. As such, the World Bank,
Greenpeace, WWF and other groups presently pushing for a global carbon market should pause and
reassess their plan.

If our true intent is to protect global forest biodiversity and enable poor countries to become economically
self-sufficient, then we need to encourage a more serious and nuanced approach: allowing sustainably
managed forestry.

Some sort of global compact on climate change will be agreed upon sometime in the next decade. But don't
waste any money on global carbon futures--they are unlikely to be a part of it.

Alan Oxley is chairman of World Growth International, a U.S.-based free-market non-governmental
organization, and the author of a new report on how forestry can reduce poverty. He formerly served as
chairman of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the predecessor to the World Trade
Organization.

The article posted below,was written by Dr Patrick Michaels, the past president of the American Association of State Climatologists. He calculates the actual impact on global temperature if the U.S. were to meet its 2050 target of 83% less than 2005 levels, finding that the actual impact on the climate would be to reduce temperatures by less than three-thousandths of a ºC per year, a number that is scientifically meaningless!

In other words, such targets have no effect on world temperatures, but would have a devastating impact on economies and living standards.

Dr Michaels concludes, “This is the type of information that we should be provided with. And, as we have seen here, it is not that difficult to come by. The fact that we aren’t routinely presented with this data, leads to the inescapable conclusion that it is purposefully being withheld. None of the climate do-gooders want to you know that what they are suggesting/demanding will do no good at all (at least as far as global warming is concerned).”

What You Can(‘t) Do About Global Warming
Dr Patrick Michaels

We are always hearing about ways that you can “save the planet” from the perils of global warming—from riding your bicycle to work, to supporting the latest national greenhouse gas restriction limitations, and everything in between.

In virtually each and every case, advocates of these measures provide you with the amount of greenhouse gas emissions (primarily carbon dioxide) that will be saved by the particular action.

And if you want to figure this out for yourself, the web is full of CO2 calculators (just google “CO2 calculator”) which allow you to calculate your carbon footprint and how much it can be reduced by taking various conservations steps—all with an eye towards reducing global warming.

However, in absolutely zero of these cases are you told, or can you calculate, how much impact you are going to have on the actual climate itself. After all, CO2 emissions are not climate—they are gases. Climate is temperature and precipitation and storms and winds, etc. If the goal of the actions is to prevent global warming, then you shouldn’t really care a hoot about the amount of CO2 emissions that you are reducing, but instead, you want to know how much of the planet you are saving. How much anthropogenic climate change is being prevented by unplugging your cell phone charger, from biking to the park, or from slashing national carbon dioxide emissions?

Why do none of the CO2 calculators give you that most valuable piece of information? Why don’t the politicians, the EPA, and/or greenhouse gas reduction advocates tell you the bottom line?

How much global warming are we avoiding?

Embarrassingly for them, this information is readily available.

After all, what do you think climate models do? Simply, they take greenhouse gas emissions scenarios and project the future climate—thus providing precisely the answer we are looking for. You tweak the scenarios to account for your emission savings, run the models, and you get your answer.

Since climate model projections of the future climate are what are being used to attempt to scare us into action, climate models should very well be used to tell us how much of the scary future we are going to avoid by taking the suggested/legislated/regulated actions.

So where are the answers?

OK, so full-fledged climate models are very expensive tools—they are extremely complex computer programs that take weeks to run on the world’s fastest supercomputers. So, consequently, they don’t lend themselves to web calculators.

But, you would think that in considering our national energy plan, or EPA’s plan to regulate CO2, that this would be of enough import to deserve a couple of climate model runs to determine the final result. Otherwise, how can the members of Congress fairly assess what it is they are considering doing? Again, if the goal is to change the future course of climate to avoid the potential negative consequences of global warming, then to what degree is the plan that they are proposing going to be successful? Can it deliver the desired results? The American public deserves to know.

In lieu of full-out climate models, there are some “pocket” climate models that run on your desktop computer in a matter of seconds and which are designed to emulate the large-scale output from the complex general circulation models. One of best of these “pocket” models is the Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse-gas Induced Climate Change, or MAGICC. Various versions of MAGICC have been used for years to simulate climate model output for a fraction of the cost. In fact, the latest version of MAGICC was developed under a grant from the EPA. Just like a full climate model, MAGICC takes in greenhouse gas emissions scenarios and outputs such quantities as the projected global average temperature. Just the thing we are looking for. It would only take a bit of technical savvy to configure the web-based CO2 calculators so that they interfaced with MAGICC and produced a global temperature savings based upon the emissions savings. Yet not one has seemed fit to do so. If you are interested in attempting to do so yourself, MAGICC is available here.

As a last resort, for those of us who don’t have general circulation models, supercomputers, or even much technical savvy of our own, it is still possible, in a rough, back-of-the-envelope sort of way, to come up with a simple conversion from CO2 emissions to global temperatures. This way, what our politicians and favorite global warming alarmists won’t tell us, we can figure out for ourselves.

Here’s how.

We need to go from emissions of greenhouse gases, to atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, to global temperatures.

We’ll determine how much CO2 emissions are required to change the atmospheric concentration of CO2 by 1 part per million (ppm), then we’ll figure out how many ppms of CO2 it takes to raise the global temperature 1ºC. Then, we’ll have our answer.

So first things first. Figure 1 shows the total global emissions of CO2 (in units of million metric tons, mmt) each year from 1958-2006 as well as the annual change in atmospheric CO2 content (in ppm) during the same period. Notice that CO2 emissions are rising, as is the annual change in atmospheric CO2 concentration.


Figure 1. (top) Annual global total carbon dioxide emissions (mmt), 1958-2006; (bottom) Year-to-year change in atmospheric CO2 concentrations (ppm), 1959-2006. (Data source: Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center)

]If we divide the annual emissions by the annual concentration change, we get Figure 2—the amount of emissions required to raise the atmospheric concentration by 1 ppm. Notice that there is no trend at all through the data in Figure 2. This means that the average amount of CO2 emissions required to change the atmospheric concentration by a unit amount has stayed constant over time. This average value in Figure 2 is 15,678mmtCO2/ppm.


Figure 2. Annual CO2 emissions responsible for a 1 ppm change in atmospheric CO2 concentrations (Figure 1a divided by Figure 1b), 1959-2006. The blue horizontal line is the 1959-2006 average, the red horizontal line is the average excluding the volcano-influenced years of 1964, 1982, and 1992.

You may wonder about the two large spikes in Figure 2—indicating that in those years, the emissions did not result in much of change in the atmospheric CO2 concentrations. It turns out that the spikes, in 1964 and 1992 (and a smaller one in 1982), are the result of large volcanic eruptions. The eruptions cooled the earth by blocking solar radiation and making it more diffuse, which has the duel effect of increasing the CO2 uptake by oceans and increasing the CO2 uptake by photosynthesis—both effects serving to offset the effect of the added emissions and resulting in little change in the atmospheric concentrations. As the volcanic effects attenuated in the following year, the CO2 concentrations then responded to emissions as expected.

Since volcanic eruptions are more the exception than the norm, we should remove them from our analysis. In doing so, the average amount of CO2 emissions that lead to an atmospheric increase of 1 ppm drops from 15,678 (the blue line in Figure 2), to 14,138mmtCO2 (red line in Figure 2).

Now, we need to know how many ppms of CO2 it takes to raise the global temperature a degree Celsius. This is a bit trickier, because this value is generally not thought to be constant, but instead to decrease with increasing concentrations. But, for our purposes, we can consider it to be constant and still be in the ballpark. But what is that value?

We can try to determine it from observations.

Over the past 150 years or so, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 has increased about 100 ppm, from ~280ppm to ~380ppm, and global temperatures have risen about 0.8ºC over the same time. Dividing the concentration change by the temperature change (100ppm/0.8ºC) produces the answer that it takes 125ppm to raise the global temperature 1ºC. Now, it is possible that some of the observed temperature rise has occurred as a result of changes other than CO2 (say, solar, for instance). But it is also possible that the full effect of the temperature change resulting from the CO2 changes has not yet been manifest. So, rather than nit-pick here, we’ll call those two things a wash and go with 125ppm/ºC as a reasonable value as determined from observations.

We can also try to determine it from models.

Climate models run with only CO2 increases produce about 1.8C of warming at the time of a doubling of the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. A doubling is usually taken to be a change of about 280ppm. So, we have 280ppm divided by 1.8ºC equals 156ppm/ºC. But, the warming is not fully realized by the time of doubling, and the models go on to produce a total warming of about 3ºC for the same 280ppm rise. This gives us, 280ppm divided by 3ºC which equals 93ppm/ºC. The degree to which the models have things exactly right is highly debatable, but close to the middle of all of this is that 125ppm/ºC number again—the same that we get from observations.

So both observations and models give us a similar number, within a range of loose assumptions.

Now we have what we need. It takes ~14,138mmt of CO2 emissions to raise the atmospheric CO2 concentration by ~1 ppm and it takes ~125 ppm to raise the global temperature ~1ºC. So multiplying ~14,138mmt/pmm by ~125ppm/ºC gives us ~1,767,250mmt/ºC.

That’s our magic number—1,767,250.

Write that number down on a piece of paper and put it in your wallet or post it on your computer.

This is a handy-dandy and powerful piece of information to have, because now, whenever you are presented with an emissions savings that some action to save the planet from global warming is supposed to produce, you can actually see how much of a difference it will really make. Just take the emissions savings (in units of mmt of CO2) and divide it by 1,767,250.

Just for fun, let’s see what we get when we apply this to a few save-the-world suggestions.

According to NativeEnergy.com (in association with Al Gore’s ClimateCrisis.net), if you stopped driving your average mid-sized car for a year, you’d save about 5.5 metric tons (or 0.0000055 million metric tons, mmt) of CO2 emissions per year. Divide 0.0000055mmtCO2 by 1,767,250 mmt/ºC and you get a number too small to display on my 8-digit calculator (OK, Excel tells me the answer is 0.00000000000311ºC). And, if you send in $84, NativeEnergy will invest in wind and methane power to offset that amount in case you actually don’t want to give up your car for the year. We’ll let you decide if you think that is worth it.

How about something bigger like not only giving up your mid-sized car, but also your SUV and everything else your typical household does that results in carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels. Again, according to NativeEnvergy.com, that would save about 24 metric tons of CO2 (or 0.000024 mmt) per year. Dividing this emissions savings by our handy-dandy converter yields 0.0000000000136ºC/yr. If you lack the fortitude to actually make these sacrifices to prevent one hundred billionth of a degree of warming, for $364 each year, NativeEnergy.com will offset your guilt.

And finally, looking at the Waxman-Markey Climate Bill that is now being considered by Congress, CO2 emissions from the U.S. in the year 2050 are proposed to be 83% less than they were in 2005. In 2005, U.S. emissions were about 6,000 mmt, so 83% below that would be 1,020mmt or a reduction of 4,980mmtCO2. 4,980 divided by 1,767,250 = 0.0028ºC per year. In other words, even if the entire United States reduced its carbon dioxide emissions by 83% below current levels, it would only amount to a reduction of global warming of less than three-thousandths of a ºC per year. A number that is scientifically meaningless.

This is the type of information that we should be provide with. And, as we have seen here, it is not that difficult to come by.

The fact that we aren’t routinely presented with this data, leads to the inescapable conclusion that it is purposefully being withheld. None of the climate do-gooders want to you know that what they are suggesting/demanding will do no good at all (at least as far as global warming is concerned).

So, if you really want to, dust off your bicycle, change out an incandescent bulb with a compact fluorescent, or support legislation that will raise your energy bill. Just realize that you will be doing so for reasons other than saving the planet. It is a shame that you have to hear that from us, rather than directly from the folks urging you on (under false pretenses).

maybe we need to reintroduce an Upper House to act as a watchdog on Parliament. New Zealand always had an Upper House until it was abolished in 1951.

AUSTRALIAN SENATE KILLS EMISSIONS TRADING SCHEME BILL
The Sydney Morning Herald, 13 August 2009
<http://www.smh.com.au/environment/global-warming/senate-kills-emissions-trading-scheme-bills-20090813-eiyc.html>
Phillip Coorey

The Senate has defeated legislation to establish an emissions trading scheme, forcing the Government to negotiate with the Opposition or persist with its bill with the threat of an early election.

Just after 11am, the Opposition, Greens, and the independents, Nick Xenophon and Steve Fielding, voted to defeat the package of 11 bills that sought to establish a scheme from 2011 onwards.

The Greens say the Government's 2020 emissions reduction targets - between an unconditional 5 per cent and a highly-conditional 25 per cent - are too timid.

The Coalition and independent senator Nick Xenophon want the Government to consider an alternative scheme, based on a model they commissioned from Frontier Economics.

Family First's Steve Fielding is yet to be convinced human activity is causing global warming.

In the end the Senate voted 42 to 30 to reject the bills.

The Government must now wait three months before reintroducing the same legislation.

If the bills are rejected a second time, Labor will have a trigger to dissolve both houses of Parliament and call an early election.

Before the vote, Climate Change Minister Penny Wong called it a "day of reckoning" on climate change.

"This is a reform that is long overdue, that is in the national interest, that both major political parties said they would implement when they went to the last election," she said.

In summing up the Government's case before the vote, Senator Wong said: ''This bill may be going down today but this is not the end. We will press forward, we will press on with this reform for as long as we have to.

''We will bring this bill back before the end of the year."

Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull said he was willing to negotiate amendments to pass a scheme in the event the Government reintroduces the bills.

But his party room is divided and he faces a tough test ahead, even though he has majority support to negotiate.

SCENARIOS: WHERE TO NOW FOR AUSTRALIAN CAP AND TRADE, ELECTIONS?
Reuters, 13 August 2009
<http://www.reuters.com/article/newsMaps/idUSTRE57C0FL20090813>

CANBERRA (Reuters) - Australia's carbon trading laws were defeated in parliament's upper house Senate on Thursday, leaving the government's plan to curb greenhouse-gas emissions in disarray and raising speculation of an early snap election.

Climate Change Minister Penny Wong said the government would submit the package of 11 bills to the Senate a second time before year-end. Thursday's vote was defeated by 42 to 30, meaning the government needs seven more votes to get the plan through.

If the laws are rejected a second time after three months, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd could call a snap election on climate change, rather than wait for the next regular election, due in late 2010.

Here are some of the options for the government.

HOLD FIRM, SET UP EARLY ELECTION TRIGGER

The government can send the bills back to the Senate any time. But if it waits three months to push a second vote, Rudd will have the trigger for an early double-dissolution election of all 76 Senators and 150 members of the lower House. Opinion polls suggest Rudd would easily win an election fought on climate change, with an enlarged majority.

To qualify as an election trigger, the legislation must be exactly the same as the package defeated on Thursday. That means Rudd must decide whether to submit the same package, or allow changes and negotiate amendments with the opposition. Rudd may be forced to decide whether an election trigger is more important to him than the emissions-trading laws. If he wins an election, Rudd could then pass the package through a special joint sitting.

The earliest the Senate could vote a second time, and still qualify as an election trigger, would be November 16.

A DEAL WITH OPPOSITION ... UNLIKELY

The government could sit down with the opposition and make changes to its emissions scheme to allow the laws to pass. But any agreement looks unlikely, as the opposition says it does not want to debate the bills again until after global climate talks in Copenhagen in December.

But Opposition leader Malcolm Turnbull desperately wants to avoid an early election on climate, as his party is split on the issue. He has put forward his own broad proposals, and says he is willing to negotiate amendments to allow the scheme to pass.

Turnbull wants more compensation for the coal industry, electricity generators and exporting companies, and wants agriculture to be permanently excluded from the emissions trading system. He also wants to guarantee that industry compensation will match or be better than the United States is proposing under laws currently being hammered out in the U.S. Congress.

A DEAL WITH GREENS, INDEPENDENTS ... DIFFICULT

The government's only other hope of passing the laws is to negotiate with the five Greens and two independents, who themselves pull in different directions. The Greens want deeper cuts in greenhouse emissions, and they have already written to Rudd proposing a deal.

But the government is unlikely to commit to any deeper target. And even if it wins support from the Greens, it still needs the two independents. One of those independents, Steve Fielding, does not believe human activity is responsible for global warming and he is unlikely to support any carbon trade laws.

Emissions target biggest challenge yet for NZ Inc

In financial terms the challenge to reduce New Zealand’s emissions by 10 to 20 per cent below 1990 levels is the largest we have ever faced, the Employers & Manufacturers Association (Northern) says.

“At an average 15 per cent reduction, the cost of $30 per week per head amounts to $6.7 billion each and every year, said Alasdair Thompson, EMA’s chief executive.

“This is more than the total of all our lamb, beef and other meat exports. It represents about 60 per cent of our total dairy exports.

“The challenge for New Zealand is as big, or bigger than when the UK entered the European Common Market (EU).

“Its the price we are being told in effect we need to pay - nearly five per cent of GDP - to retain access to world markets, mostly for our agricultural products.

“A good part of the $6.7 billion a year is expected to be spent by government to purchase carbon offsets on the international market.

“If the final figure is a 10 per cent reduction on 1990 levels, the actual cut required is 30 per cent from current emission levels.

“If the final figure is 20 per cent, the reduction required is 40 per cent from current levels.

“These cuts have to be achieved in just 10 years, which is too short a time for new energy efficient technology to help out much. By 2050 though, new technology will likely be developed to provide considerable help.

“A 50 per cent cut by 2050 is therefore more achievable than 10-20 per cent by 2020.

“A commitment of this magnitude will severely restrict future options such as making tax cuts or changing other policies.

“The New Zealand 2020 target compares with the USA (0 percent), Canada (3 percent), and Australia (4-14 percent though not final).

“All New Zealanders will meet this cost, not business, and little has been done so far to educate our people on how they can reduce the costs they will have to bear.”

2020 EMISSION REDUCTION TARGET CHALLENGING

The Greenhouse Policy Coalition says an emission reduction target of between 10% and 20% below 1990 levels is ambitious and has the potential to be costly for business and consumers, so it is essential that the target is conditional on a comprehensive global effort to reduce emissions.

Catherine Beard, executive director of the Greenhouse Policy Coalition says economic analysis undertaken by the government shows that a 15% reduction in emissions from 1990 levels by 2020 will cost each New Zealander $1400 a year, or $5,600 in reduced income per household of 4.

“The only way these costs can be reduced is if all our major trade competitors take similar action to reduce emissions, including the large developing countries that currently do not have emission reduction targets.”

“If all countries are facing similar costs, then the risk of our firms becoming uncompetitive diminishes.”

Catherine Beard said the other factor that will be important in reducing the cost to New Zealand will be how many trees are planted between now and 2020, which will be needed to replace all the trees that will be harvested about that time.

“The major challenge we face in reaching this target is a growing population, a high percentage of emissions from agriculture and transport and not enough time for new low carbon technology options to kick in.”

For Further information contact;
Catherine Beard
Executive Director
Greenhouse Policy Coalition