CSC: NZ must not volunteer for another Kyoto


by Hon Barry Brill

There are implications for New Zealand arising from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) that will get down to business for the 16th time in Cancun, Mexico next week [this week – Ed]. While packing their bags for their departure on Monday, the New Zealand Ministers, Tim Groser and Dr Nick Smith, need to pause to consider what will be in the best interests of we Kiwis whom they will represent. They know already, in advance, that no decisions of any consequence will emerge from Cancun. Rather than seeking to bask in international acclaim by supporting tiny steps toward an uncertain and not yet fully understood destination, they should lead a call for a review of the science to determine, once and for all, whether there are valid grounds for the computer-modelled hypothesis of dangerous warming being caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases.

Unless and until science can definitely confirm that hypothesis, there is no point in allowing money to continue dominating the agenda, as the 193 countries in attendance try to reach consensus on a Long-Term Co-operative Action (LCA) agreement to reduce greenhouse emissions.

More importantly for New Zealand, the meeting will also address a proposal that the Kyoto Protocol Annex 1 nations (Kyoto Countries) be charged with financial responsibility for further emission reductions after the Protocol expires in December 2012.

Of the 38 Kyoto countries which originally ratified the Protocol, the European Union signed collectively on behalf of itself and its 27 members. Six of the remaining ten are also from Europe. Only a handful of non-European countries volunteered – Russia, Canada, Japan and New Zealand.

Unusually, the Protocol allows all 27 full members of the European Union to be treated as a single bloc or bubble, so that the allocation of country commitments is an internal EU matter. The Protocol represents the high-water mark in achievement of the EUs slogan of ever closer union and has special political importance. The EU also operates the region-wide ETS, which is one of its most important governance functions.

How Al Gore got carbon trading

The selection of 1990 as the Base Year for calculating allowable emissions ensures that Kyoto obligations rest very lightly on Europe. In 1990-91, Soviet-style governments were deposed all over Eastern Europe, leading to closures of vast swathes of inefficient high-emission industries. At the same time, the coal industries of Western Europe collapsed in the dash for gas made possible by the 1991 arrival of pipelines from the North Sea gasfields. Because of these historical happenings, a 1990 Base Year allows Europe to bank ample carbon credits to carry them through the original Kyoto Protocol commitments.

The Protocol was the outcome of a mammoth negotiation in Kyoto in December 1997. The breakthrough came when US Vice President Al Gore agreed to 1990 being accepted as the Base Year in return for the EU withdrawing its opposition to trading of carbon credits. Russia was also a party to this Grand Bargain, when assured of its right to sell the massive volume of hot air carbon credits earned by its industrial closures in the early 1990s.

As the three parties – EU, USA and Russia – accounted for more than 70% of global emissions in 1997, it was agreed that the Protocol would come into effect when it was ratified by countries responsible for 55% of global CO2 emissions.

After the US Senate voted 95-0 for a resolution opposing any Kyoto agreement, President Clinton did not pursue US ratification. Australia also declined (until it changed its position in 2007). But the 55% target was reached in early 2005, and the Protocols 2008–12 commitments then came into effect.

No-win situation either way

Helen Clarks Government ratified the Protocol in 2003, on the basis of calculations by the Hon Pete Hodgson that New Zealand would earn a windfall of about a billion dollars during the 2008-12 Commitment Period. Five years later, a subsequent Minister announced forlornly that we would lose approximately a billion dollars. The current Minister, Hon Nick Smith, having paid out $1.6 billion dollars from ETS taxpayers to forest owners, believes the country will be in credit at the end of 2012, but could be in trouble if there should be any future Kyoto commitment taking us beyond 2020.

Is there any reason why New Zealand should support Kyoto Two?

First, lets be clear that this is a no-win negotiation. If we accept future commitments, we add real contingent liabilities to the New Zealand balance sheet but, in return, we will not receive any assets (contingent or otherwise) or income of any kind.

The NZIER-Infometrics modelling undertaken for the ETS Select Committee made it quite clear that future Kyoto commitments could only be met by buying foreign carbon credits, and the sole issue is whether the financial pain will be lethal or merely excruciating.

Secondly, if we were to sign up again, we would be the only Kyoto Country outside of Europe. The USAs chief negotiator, Todd Stern, has stated repeatedly that Kyoto has no future, and the USA wont touch it. Canada, Japan and Russia have all made it very clear that they wont be there next time, and they will probably be joined by Australia.

Even the EU itself is equivocating, saying it was taken for granted at Copenhagen, and wont agree to a second Kyoto unless developing countries offer something in return.

Thirdly, another Kyoto would be a red herring little more than a distraction from the serious issue of a universal LCA. The future Kyoto Countries include none of the top ten current emitters, and none of the top ten fastest-growing emitters. Why would New Zealand invest serious money in a treaty which leaves 84% of global emissions untouched?

All pain, no gain

What can Kyoto 2 offer from a greenhouse mitigation viewpoint? Kyoto 1 held the promise that it might slow global warming by four years out of the next hundred (with very favourable assumptions). As New Zealands emissions amount to only 0.2% of global totals, its voluntary acceptance of further financial commitments could buy the planet less than a days grace – next century! How could the Minister justify this?

Finally, Kyoto was always a grossly unfair arrangement. It is based on the assumption that rich countries should carry the whole burden because they can well afford to absorb higher energy costs. Flattered at being thought rich, New Zealand was fitted with much more onerous commitments than Germany, UK, Norway, etc. Many other richer countries such as Singapore, UAE, South Korea, and Hong Kong (not to mention USA) have no commitments at all.

By almost any measure, this country has already gone way beyond its fair share of the global cost of mitigating greenhouse emissions. The cabinet paper presented by Hon Nick Smith in September 2009 stated that New Zealand should have much lower reduction targets than most other developed countries on an equal cost basis:

This is because the equal cost approach reflects New Zealands higher population growth rate, lower mitigation potential and lower GDP per capita, when compared with the average Annex I country. Based on the current targets announced by Annex I countries, of 15% below 1990 levels, the equal cost approach would imply a target for New Zealand of 15% above 1990 levels.

Successive governments justified ETS legislation by reference to our Kyoto obligations, and there is now a temptation to use our ETS to justify further Kyoto obligations. Thankfully, governments are too smart to be caught by that sort of circular reasoning. Arent they?

Hon Barry Brill, OBE, is a former Minister of Science & Technology and former Minister of Energy. He is currently chairman of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition.

Views: 118

31 Thoughts on “CSC: NZ must not volunteer for another Kyoto

  1. If you can see this so clearly, Barry, why can’t other politicians see it equally clearly? Or do they get a kick out of ‘bigging themselves up’ (as my English friends would say) by chucking mountains of the Revenue dollars at the UN for no good purpose, Revenue dollars that hard-working Kiwis had to pay? The Japanese have walked away from Kyoto (as far as we can tell at this moment), the Canuks have dumped the whole AGW idea and some American senators are petitioning Miz Clinton to get back the money they have chucked at the UN to pay for goodies in ‘developing’ nations so it is obvious to me that the wheels are at last falling off the alarmist trolley. We are freezing here in the UK, up to our knees in global warming, but the Coalition politicians here seem hell-bent on economic suicide and madly in love with wildly unproductive windmills. Thank God the Brits cancelled our British identity back in the sixties, so being British in the wider world doesn’t have to embarrass us over this fiasco, although it seems that those who ratified the Kyoto thing on our behalf and dreamed up the mad ETS scheme are a big enough embarrassment, I guess.
    Anyway, more power to your elbow, Barry. I dips me lid to your attempts to restore democracy and sanity.

    • Alexander,

      Interesting comments, and thanks for your support.

      We watch Britain’s woes and shake our heads in wonderment. The country we once called “mother” is self-destructing, with obscenely inadequate power generation plans, ridiculous, dogma-driven, long-term forecasts from the Met Office and an adolescent attitude to spending all possible present and future cash to feed the global warming myth, knowing it supports only carbon trading (like the lottery, under a spell of striking it rich) and a dreamy emancipation of the third world. All paid from the efforts of hard-working ordinary people. You’ve had strong hands at the tiller for a while; now you need sensible ones.

  2. Mike Jowsey on 04/12/2010 at 8:34 am said:

    Thanks Barry for a good clear outline of the Kyoto history and issues. Especially revealing about Gore’s involvement early on, setting the foundation for his current exorbitant wealth.

    Here is Smith’s response to a question in the House on 27th October:
    9. Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) to the Minister responsible for International Climate Change Negotiations: Will New Zealand support a legally binding agreement to cut global greenhouse gas emissions at the Cancun climate change conference this December; if not, why not?

    Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Acting Minister responsible for International Climate Change Negotiations) : Yes, that is this Governments ambition. This was the position at Bali, at Copenhagen, and it will also be so at Cancun. However, all indications are that this is unlikely to be achieved at Cancun, but New Zealand is ready and willing to make as much progress as is possible.

  3. Richard C (NZ) on 04/12/2010 at 10:49 am said:

    “By almost any measure, this country has already gone way beyond its �fair share� of the global cost of mitigating greenhouse emissions”

    Also misdirected research methinks.

    Andy has, on the Energy and Fuel thread, discovered that the spectroscopy of methane has been misinterpreted so funds pledged at COP15 have been applied to animal research when instead they should first be 100% sure of the heating effect of methane by intensive spectroscopy and physics study (yeah right).


    There is also still the problem of Prof Sir Peter Gluckman, chief science advisor to Prime Minister John Key.


    Scientists warn of climate future shock

    Sat, 04 Dec 2010 9:00a.m. – TV3


    An obvious example is climate change, a major focus of the conference. Mr Lowe explains that as the world’s temperature creeps up, melting Arctic ice releases methane, a greenhouse gas – causing more warming. As the ice caps get smaller and more of the world’s surface becomes ocean, less solar radiation is reflected back into space, and more of it is absorbed – causing further warming, and so on.

    Scientists refer to such sequences as ‘feedback loops’, and the particular complexity of the world’s weather systems – with its thresholds, feedback loops and global scale – can easily confuse those who are not climate scientists.

    Prof Sir Peter Gluckman, chief science advisor to Prime Minister John Key, says this complexity is contributing to a public misunderstanding of climate change.

    “A lot of the scientific criticism has come from people who have not necessarily worked in complex systems, and have come from a different domain, trying to take something apart.”

    Sir Peter says the blogosphere, and the traditional media – which in its pursuit of ‘balance’ can be flawed in its presentation of scientific consensus – is also fuelling a debate which shouldn’t really exist.

    “There is no way for people to filter what is informed from uninformed information,” he says.



    Comments are allowed at the TV3 article – so don’t be shy.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 04/12/2010 at 12:15 pm said:

      Blam! Kapow! Climate Scientists in Verbal Brawl

      December 03, 2010

      Blam! Kapow! Smack! The bell has rung for the latest round of climate talks, but the battle continues among climate scientists too, making only one thing truly clear — the science of global warming simply isn’t settled.

      Continues………(featuring Prof Don Easterbrook)

  4. Andy on 04/12/2010 at 11:23 am said:

    Maybe Dr Vicki Pope (of the UK Met Office) will sort it all out when she arrives at Cancun.
    That’s right, the same Met Office that was forecasting a mild winter for the UK.

    But wait, there’s more. Dr Pope is stuck at Gatwick Airport, snowbound!

    • Richard C (NZ) on 04/12/2010 at 11:54 am said:

      So now we can add

      “unusually dry and mild winter”


      “barbecue summer”

      This is too much fun.

  5. Richard C (NZ) on 04/12/2010 at 2:32 pm said:

    “CSC: NZ must not volunteer for another Kyoto”

    Delicious irony isn’t it – that Japan is bailing out.

    Should invoke morosity on “The Climate Show” and Hot Topic.

    An opportunity for schadenfreude just too good to pass up.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 04/12/2010 at 2:45 pm said:

      James Delingpole is not letting the chance go by.

      Signs that show Man Made Global Warming is Definitely Still Happening

      As your boiler breaks down, your pipes freeze, your car won’t start, your Ocado delivery fails to arrive, your train is cancelled, your neck is broken after slipping on black ice and you lie in an emergency ward waiting for a doctor to turn up only to learn that they’re all off today because of the weather, you might be forgiven for thinking that all this has something to do with global cooling, changes in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, and the decline in sunspot activity perhaps auguring a new Maunder minimum.

      But you couldn’t be more wrong.

      “It’s all actually a sign that man made global warming is very much a live issue and that there’s more of it happening than ever,” says a top scientist, who holds the British record for securing grant-funding for global warming research projects so he must know what he’s talking about. “Look at the Met office,” the scientist goes on. “They’ve just told us that 2010 is the hottest year since records began in 1850 and even though the stupid Central England Temperature record tells us something quite different and even though the year hasn’t actually finished yet they must know what they’re talking about and they definitely can’t have fiddled the data because the Met office is part of the government and they wouldn’t lie or get things wrong which is why that barbecue summer was such a scorcher.”

      The big problem is, the scientist said, is that the public are really stupid. They think just because Dr David Viner of the Climatic Research Unit said in the Independent in 2000 that soon there’d be no snow because of global warming, when what he actually meant was that soon there’d be lots of snow and that this would be “proof” of global warming. The interviewer just missed out the word “proof” that’s all because journalists are lazy that way.

      Then the scientist issued a cut-out-and-keep guide of Signs That Show Man Made Global Warming Is Definitely Still Happening And That Cancun Won’t Be An Almighty Flop.

      1. Warm weather

      2. Cold weather

      3. In-between weather.

      4. Dark skies at night

      5. Light skies in the morning

      6. An unpleasant moist/damp/wet sensation when it rains

      7. Ice appearing when the temperature drops below zero

      8. Clouds rolling across sky in all sorts of funny shapes, some days like cotton wool, other days in streaks, and on some days not there at all.

      9. Ursine subarboreal toilet activity

      10. Strong new evidence of ultramontane sympathies at the Vatican

    • val majkus on 04/12/2010 at 9:27 pm said:

      The BOM’s David Jones (he of the BOM that NZ is getting NIWA’s audit done by)
      Reader Tony picks up another line of Jones suggesting that the weather is like a Rorschach blot to him that he always interprets as “warming!”:

      From the quoted World Today transcript:

      DAVID JONES: You know, the huge fires in Russia for example clearly have a climate change component to them.
      Oh really? The following historical correspondence is a translation from the original Russian-language source (found via a comment at WUWT) which shows there is nothing new, or climate change related, about fires and droughts in Russia (apologies for length):

      1298: There was a wholesale death of animals. In the same year there was a drought, and the woods and peat bogs burnt.

      1364: Halfway through summer there was a complete smoke haze, the heat was dreadful, the forests, bogs and earth were burning, rivers dried up. The same thing happened the following year . . .

      1431: following a blotting out of the sky, and pillars of fire, there was a drought – “the earth and the bogs smouldered, there was no clear sky for 6 weeks, nobody saw the sun, fishes, animals and birds died of the smoke.

      1735: Empress Anna wrote to General Ushakov: “Andrei Ivanovich, here in St Petersburg it is so smoky that one cannot open the windows, and all because, just like last year, the forests are burning. We are surprised that no-one has thought about how to stem the fires, which are burning for the second year in a row”.

      1831: Summer was unbearably hot, and as a consequence of numerous fires in the forests, there was a constant haze of smoke in the air, through which the sun appeared a red hot ball; the smell of burning was so strong, that it was difficult to breathe.

      The years of 1839-1841 were known as the “hungry years”. In the spring of 1840, the spring sowings of corn disappeared in many places. From midway through April until the end of August not a drop of rain fell. From the beginning of summer the fields were covered with a dirty grey film of dust. All the plants wilted, dying from the heat and lack of water. It was extraordinarily hot and close, even though the sun, being covered in haze, shone very weakly through the haze of smoke. Here and there in various regions of Russia the forests and peat bogs were burning (the firest had begun already in 1839). there was a reddish haze, partially covering the sun, and there were dark, menacing clouds on the horizon. There was a choking stench of smoke which penetrated everywhere, even into houses where the windows remained closed.

      1868: the weather was murderous. It rained once during the summer. There was a drought. The sun, like a red hot cinder, glowed through the clouds of smoke from the peat bogs. Near Peterhoff the forests and peat workings burnt, and troops dug trenches and flooded the subterranean fire. It was 40 centigrade in the open, and 28 in the shade.

      1868: a prolonged drought in the northern regions was accompanied by devastating fires in various regions. Apart from the cities and villages affected by this catastrophe, the forests, peat workings and dried-up marshes were burning. In St Petersburg region smoke filled the city and its outlying districts for several weeks.

      1875: While in western europe there is continual rain and they complain about the cold summer, here in Russia there is a terrible drought. In southern Russia all the cereal and fruit crops have died, and around St Petersburg the forest fires are such that in the city itself, especially in the evening, there is a thick haze of smoke and a smell of burning. Yesterday, the burning woods and peat bogs threatened the ammunitiion stores of the artillery range and even Okhtensk gunpowder factory.

      1885: (in a letter from Peter Tchaikovsky, composer): I’m writing to you at three oclock in the afternoon in such darkness, you would think it was nine oclock at night. For several days, the horizon has been enveloped in a smoke haze, arising, they say, from fires in the forest and peat bogs. Visibility is diminishing by the day, and I’m starting to fear that we might even die of suffocation.

      1917 (diary of Aleksandr Blok, poet): There is a smell of burning, as it seems, all around the city peat bogs, undergrowth and trees are burning. And no-one can extinguish it. That will be done only by rain and the winter. Yellowish-brown clouds of smoke envelope the villages, wide swaithes of undergrowth are burning, and God sends no rain, and what wheat there is in the fields is burning.

    • Andy on 05/12/2010 at 9:45 am said:

      I found out via Delingpole’s Facebook page that the UEA are taking a Press Complaints Commission case against him for an article he wrote recently.

  6. Andy on 05/12/2010 at 10:04 am said:

    It looks like the wheels are really falling off the wagon now.

    Cancún climate talks in danger of collapse over Kyoto continuation

    • Latin America outraged at foot-dragging by rich
    • Wealthy countries say little chance of deal now

    • Richard C (NZ) on 05/12/2010 at 12:14 pm said:

      Andy, have you contacted Adrian Vance?

      I’m on a mission to get some graphics, plots, articles that describe in laymans terms the spectroscopy and heating effect (or lack of) that Adrian points out.

      on November 30, 2010 at 7:31 pm Adrian Vance

      The IR wavelength range thought to heat the atmosphere is between 0.7 microns and 15 microns. In that range methane has negligible absorption, that on the order of nitrogen a gas classified as “transparent” to atmospheric heating IR.

      Thomas at HT made a bland statement re methane. The science must be settled in his mind.

      Thomas December 5, 2010 at 9:19 am

      Hydro plants are not such a clear cut thing. Drowning a valley will release vast amounts of CO2 as plants and topsoil decompose. Later these lakes become Methane emitters.

      The key to communication of the obscure heating mechanism of CH4 (or CO2) is simplified graphics. Trenberth has shown that oversimplified graphics are even better.

      Searching Google Images with – “atmospheric absorption bands” turns up some plots

      The best I can think of is a graphic similar to the H20/CO2 “window”, which I haven’t got ready access to at present (and should). I recall seeing a plot that had 2xCO2 shown in red on an H2O IR absorption window but can’t remember where I saw it.

      There’s this


      CO2 is a bit player in Global Warming

      And this

      And this

      An easily linked graphic like that would aid communication tremendously and would kill two birds with one stone (CO2, CH4). It is also at the very nub of AGW that warmists avoid as much as possible – they prefer pictures of cooling towers and polar bears perched on melting ice flows.

      The next step would be a graphic that shows how CO2 and CH4 molecules re-emit radiation (and modify wavelength) and the difference in heating effect of that radiation compared to solar. The warmist graphics have animations of molecular vibration and re-emittance but studiously avoid wavelength and heating effect.

      I have not kept this stuff front of mind because 1) I fixate on heat, and 2) AGW is not something I dwell on due to the element of daftness. So I need to assemble an arsenal (war chest) of this type of graphic for clear communication.

      Richard T’s “Like diamonds, CO2 is for ever” post started down this track but the real issue is the spectroscopy and molecular level activity.

      Lets get expert.

    • Andy on 05/12/2010 at 8:09 pm said:

      Andy, have you contacted Adrian Vance?

      Short answer, no.

      But it is on my list to do so. I need to read up on CH4 first. This is a very interesting avenue, of special interest to NZ.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 10/12/2010 at 1:47 pm said:

      After looking at methane (and carbon dioxide), I’ve made this conclusion:-
      Nick Smith advised the Cancun conference that “New Zealand has no objection in principle to a second commitment period”

      “That is why in Copenhagen we launched the Global Research Alliance on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases and why we welcome the 29 countries who have joined us.”

      Except MAF (Alliance Secretariat) won’t divulge the research allocations and spending so far – “a matter for domestic processes at the moment” apparently, so we don’t know where the $45m pledged at COP15 is going.

      And now that CH4 levels have plateaued, methane emissions are no longer an issue worth considering.

      Baring Head CH4

      NZ Ministry for the Environment (NIWA – Baring Head CO2 CH4)

      Global tropospheric methane

      Carbon dioxide levels are no longer in lockstep with temperature so CO2 isn’t a problem either.

      So there’s no need to extend the Kyoto Protocol Nick Smith.
      And I’m posting it everywhere I can – every commentable post at NZ Herald, Pastural Farming and here for starters.

      I’ll put it up where ever else there’s the chance it will get read, so any tips as to a topical blog post or news article Andy? Anyone?

    • Andy on 10/12/2010 at 3:14 pm said:

      The methane graphs that you posted, Richard, are very interesting, because they show strong intra-annual cycles.

      Is this due to the effects of warmth or sunlight? I am not sure.

      We clearly have an issue to deal with here, because NZ seems to have manufactured a problem (CH4) that no one else is even considering a this stage.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 10/12/2010 at 6:34 pm said:

      I’m wondering whether the first tranche of the $45m is being directed at animal nutrition (yield) with lip service to CH4. That would explain MAF coyness..

      I restrained myself from pointing out to the MAF contact that from the outside, all we can see is MAF officers on travel junkets (Banff, Canada – nice) with no accountability. I’ll give it some time, but questions are begging.

      Re the CH4 plots.

      The Ministry for the Environment has the audacity to display the CO2 and CH4 plots on their website. The important thing is not the strong intra-annual methane cycles (Mauna Loa shows the same for CO2), but that CH4 has plateaued (it’s not a problem) and CO2 is not correlated to temperature (it’s not a problem either).

      From CO2 Science:-

      “we feel confident in suggesting that if the recent pause in CH4 increase is indeed temporary, it will likely be followed by a decrease in CH4 concentration, since that would be the next logical step in the observed progression from significant, to much smaller to no yearly CH4 increase.”

      “So what has been responsible for the recent dramatic slowdown — and possible ultimate cessation — of the post-Little Ice Age upward trend in the air’s CH4 concentration? We believe that some significant portion of the welcome development can be attributed to the cumulative effect of a number of indirect impacts of the concomitant increase in the air’s CO2 concentration, as described in several of our Subject Index Summaries”

      See Subject Index Summaries links on source page.

      “Other phenomena are undoubtedly helping to reduce the air’s methane concentration as well; and it will be exciting to see, in the days and years ahead, if their combined influence will actually lead to a sustained downward trend in the concentration of this important greenhouse gas. Such a result would be like having one’s cake and eating it too; for it would enable the planet to reap the great biological benefits that come from atmospheric CO2 enrichment without creating a significant net increase in the atmosphere’s greenhouse effect.”

      Clearly, methane is now not a problem and the govt should not allocate anymore funding to research it or to sponsor travel to exotic locations for MAF officers.

      But if they’re just researching animal nutrition – fine, just stop the travel junkets.

      The same can be said for CO2.

      I’m putting similar comments at Pastural Farming

      But haven’t provoked a response yet – maybe over the weekend, but it’s a quiet site (worth a look though)..

  7. val majkus on 05/12/2010 at 1:56 pm said:

    Global Warming… no Global Cooling… no Global Warming…NO, IT’S COOLING!
    Global Cooling:
    “The discoveries of changes in the sun’s heat and the southward advance of glaciers in recent years have given rise to conjectures of the possible advent of a new ice age.” Time Magazine, September 10, 1924.

    “MacMillan Reports Signs of New Ice Age” The New York Times, September 18, 1923

    “The possibility of another Ice age already having started… is admitted by men of first rank in the scientific world, men specifically qualified to speak.” The Los Angeles Times, June 28, 1923

    Global Warming:
    “Gaffers who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right… weather men have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer.” Time Magazine, Jan. 2, 1939

    “America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-Year Rise” The New York Times, March 27, 1933

    “Permafrost in Russia is receding northward up to 100 yards per year.” Time Magazine, 1951

    “Winters are getting milder, summers drier. Glaciers are receding, deserts growing.” U.S. News and World Report, Jan. 8, 1954

    Global Cooling…. Again?
    “Scientists Ponder Why World’s Climate is Changing; A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable” The New York Times, May 21, 1975

    “Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another Ice Age.” Time Magazine, June 24, 1974

    “North Atlantic sea temperatures declined, and shipping routes were cluttered with ice. Furthermore, the permafrost in Russia and Canada was advancing southward.” The New York Times, December 29, 1974

    “There is very important climatic change going on right now… It is something that, if it continues, will affect the whole human occupation of the earth—- like a billion people starving. Fortune Magazine, from Reid Bryson, February 1974

    Back to Global Warming…..Confused Yet??
    “About 10 million residents of Bangladesh will lose their homes and means of sustenance because of the rising sea level, due to global warming, in the next few decades.” Al Gore, from ‘Earth in Balance” 1992

    “Billions will die,” says Lovelock, who tells us he is not normally a gloomy type. Human civilization will be reduced to a “broken rabble ruled by brutal warlords”, and the plague-ridden remainder of the species will flee the cracked and broken earth to the Arctic, the last temperate spot, where a few breeding couples will survive. The Daily Telegraph, February 2, 2006

    check it out with links at

  8. Andy on 05/12/2010 at 8:26 pm said:

    What possible outcomes are likely for NZ?

    It looks quite likely that the Cancun talks will fail to come up with any agreement. The EU block is in total financial and political disarray. Who knows where they, or their carbon schemes will be in a year or two.

    Will Australia push through an ETS?

    Does NZ’s ETS have any political mileage on a world stage?

    My guess is that we’ll be saddled with this thing forever, as it’s too hard to undo, with a truckload of complex legislation for no financial or environmental gain.

    Meanwhile, we continue to borrow $250 million a week, and risk losing more of our skilled workforce across the ditch.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 05/12/2010 at 8:48 pm said:

      Loans on easy terms (up 75% forgiven) from EU

      Insurance funds from UK

      Get stuffed from JN

      Baaa from NZ

  9. Clarence on 09/12/2010 at 11:28 pm said:

    Today, Nick Smith advised the Cancun conference that “New Zealand has no objection in principle to a second commitment period”. This was after every other non-European Annex 1 country (except Australia) had stated very clear objections.

    He also pointed out that New Zealand was the only non-European country to adopt an ETS.

    And this is from the Government elected on a promise to do no more than its “fair share”.

  10. Andy on 10/12/2010 at 8:35 am said:

    Jo Nova has some interesting news too.

    The UN wants nothing less than 1.5% of our GDP.

    That’s $212 billion from the USA every year ($2700 per family of 4).

    That’s $32 billion from the UK every year ($2000 per family of 4).

    That’s $13 billion from Australia every year ($2400 per family of 4).

    • Richard C (NZ) on 10/12/2010 at 11:46 am said:

      Hey Groser – don’t give 1 cent to the UN Green Fund

    • Andy on 10/12/2010 at 12:20 pm said:

      Shub has another post up on REDD

      We should remember that Nepstad, cited in the article, was the scientist at the heart of the Amazongate affair, the dubious science that underpins the WWFs claims to the Amazon.

      WWF have stitched up about $60 billion in carbon credits by promising not to cut down the Amazon, so they are very keen indeed to see the REDD scheme go ahead.

      Booker’s article on this is here:

      Our “leaders” are stitching up one of the biggest scams on the planet, at our expense.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 10/12/2010 at 1:36 pm said:

      Look at those billions.

      What we don’t see is a definition of “wealthy country”

      If indebtedness and the ability to repay is taken into account, the list of wealthy nations would look entirely different to what’s generally accepted – USA would be at the bottom.

      Those billions also make “Exxon gave $10m to the sceptics” look pathetically moronic.

      If the UN and WWF can be cut out of the loop – fine, otherwise:-

      NO REDD, NO REDD, NO REDD………..

  11. Richard C (NZ) on 11/12/2010 at 11:35 am said:

    Progress but agreement unlikely at Cancun – Smith

    10:48 AM Friday Dec 10, 2010 – NZH

    Climate talks in Mexico won’t reach an agreement but significant progress is being made on core issues, Climate Change Minister Nick Smith says.

    New issues around fresh water and fossil fuel subsidies, the latter dialogue led by International Climate Change Negotiations Minister Tim Groser, are also now part of the mix at the United Nations talks in Cancun.

    The goal of the talks is a new 190-nation deal to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which obliges almost 40 developed nations to cut greenhouse gas emissions by at least 5.2 per cent below 1990 levels by 2008-2012.

    Last year’s talks in Copenhagen made little progress. The major dispute is that developed countries want emerging economies to also commit to emissions cuts, while developing countries, led by China, insist the developed world must first deliver results.

    “There will not be a final agreement but there will be significant progress around many of the core issues,” Dr Smith said this morning.

    He was hopeful that a binding treaty could follow on from the talks. New Zealand will sign up to emission reduction commitments but only if other developed countries make similar pledges and if forestry rules are acceptable.

    “The talks are in a very constructive mode and recovering from the train wreck of Copenhagen. We are making good progress on some of the issues that are important to New Zealand particularly around the issue of forestry.

    “Those rules are just so important for New Zealand and recognising the carbon that is stored in wood products makes a very significant difference and provides some real opportunities for New Zealand.”

    The Government wants to be able to lock up emissions where wood is harvested but used in products such as for buildings or furniture – rather than have it count as being consumed and its emissions released on felling. It is seeking rules to allow forests planted pre-1990 to be harvested and re-planted in other parts of the country.

    New Zealand also supports a Brazil proposal for a “reference level” on forestry for trees planted before 1990. The issue, Dr Smith said, was in New Zealand trees were planted sporadically over the years In some years many trees are ready to be harvested but whole decades go by when there is little felling. That impacted massively on how New Zealand’s emissions added up.

    “The age profile of those pre-1990 trees that are already in the ground has periods where New Zealand’s emissions are up 30 per cent on existing rules and others where it is down 30 per cent on existing emissions simply because of the age spread of those pre-1990 trees.”

    The Brazil proposal would acknowledge that pattern and plot them into the future.

    “We’re going to call that the reference level and your emissions will be recorded (in the new agreement) by the degree that they vary from that reference level.

    “You can then judge New Zealand on genuine emissions reduction and not these large variations that flow from the different age class of our pre-1990 forests.”

    Green Party co-leader Russel Norman yesterday said withholding commitments to specific emissions reduction target without changes to forestry rules was a “shockingly irresponsible act”.

    “The Government seems to be saying it will only commit to emissions reductions if forestry accounting rules make it possible to cheat.”

    Dr Norman said New Zealand would be able to increase emissions by getting weak forestry rules.

    Dr Smith said it was Dr Norman who was being “reckless and irresponsible”.

    “There is no way in which New Zealand can make a commitment to reduce emissions by 10 or 20 per cent or whatever number you choose when rules over how you deal with those forests can completely swamp by as much as 30 per cent where those rules are finally agreed.”

    – NZPA

    • Richard C (NZ) on 11/12/2010 at 11:39 am said:

      “He was hopeful that a binding treaty could follow on from the talks.”

      I’m not.

      The only signing Smith and Groser need to do is the Hotel Register.

    • Andy on 11/12/2010 at 11:47 am said:

      The talks are in a very constructive mode and recovering from the train wreck of Copenhagen

      – Nick Smith

      Chris Huhne, the Energy and Climate Change Secretary, said the “knife-edge” talks in Mexico are in danger of becoming a “car crash” if countries cannot compromise.

      continues Huhne

      Next year ministers will not bother to come, they will send senior civil servants, then they will not bother to come they will send junior civil servants. What we will end up with is a conference which is a zombie conference where there is nobody at a senior enough level to make decisions.

      If Chris Huhne is off this planet, then where is Nick Smith? Another universe?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Navigation