NZ’s ‘climate change target’ 30% below 2005 levels by 2020

Wahoo! It looks really low (though it should be nil), but how much will it cost?

The government has announced a new climate change target that aims to reduce New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions to 30% below 2005 levels by 2020 and a review this year of the existing Emissions Trade Scheme as part of its policy mix to meet the new targets.

Source: Government sets climate change target to reduce CO2 emissions to 30% below 2005 levels by 2020 | The National Business Review

Leave a Reply

12 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
5 Comment authors
Notify of

Sorry for being off topic, but have you all seen this?

‘Government sets climate change target to reduce CO2 emissions to 30% below 2005 levels by 2020’

Mike Jowsey

DMR – yes, heard it on Radio NZ first. Initial response – predictable, unsurprising and a facepalm moment for New Zealand. What can one do? Send letters to MP’s but it’s all about Paris 2015. They are mobilising bigtime. Who are we to wonder why – we are but to do and die. Or, just talk to people in the village square, the living room and over the internet. Government rolls on with its magnificent machinations in spite of popular disquiet.

Richard C (NZ)

Wont happen in 4 1/2 years. I predict an increase over 2005 levels. But must appease Paris.

Meanwhile the gas will carry on greening the environment and having no effect on climate whatsoever.


As always, no one has a clue how these targets will be achieved, so they are not worth the paper they are written on.

Richard C (NZ)

‘Our Common Future Conference Needs Long-Term Vision’ By Christiana Figueres and Joseph Alcamo Over the past 12 months the number of countries signaling support for a long term vision on climate change has risen dramatically – this is an exciting development indeed. Many now recognize that our best bet for a stable, healthy world is setting in train the policies and the actions to achieve what some term ‘net zero’ and others coin ‘climate neutrality’ in the second half of the century. The G7 group of nations is a case in point. Meeting a few weeks ago, they underlined their commitment to de-carbonize the global economy over time–along with financing for developing country ambitions – both are pre-requisites for delivering and arriving at that long-term, safe haven. A rapidly growing numbers of cities, regions and companies are sharing a similar ambition. Some have set long-term targets ranging from 100 per cent renewable energy by 2050 to absolute emission reductions, in some cases as high as 80 per cent. There may be those wondering why so many nations, local authorities and companies are coming behind this vision and this aim–is it grounded in a… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

>”Problem is, human climate “forcing” (1.5+ W.m-2) has no effect whatsoever at TOA”

Curiously, the IPCC neglects to address this glaring problem in Chapter 10:

IPCC AR5 Chapter 10 Detection and Attribution of Climate Change

The total net human activities forcing is 1.5+ W.m-2 (as is CO2):
comment image

Problematic if the TOA imbalance is only 0.6 as a result of solar absorbed at surface (0.6), from Chapter 2:

IPCC AR5 Chapter 2: Observations: Atmosphere and Surface

The “science foundation” for a “de-carbonize the global economy” case achieving ‘climate neutrality’ is quicksand

RT. Regarding the All Blacks vs. Samoa – I wonder how hard & dry their field is. I don’t think Samoa has much rain at this time of year, and if it hasn’t rained for a while it’ll be hard as concrete. Victims of runaway global warming no doubt.

Richard C (NZ)

>”Problem is, human climate “forcing” (1.5+ W.m-2) has no effect whatsoever at TOA” Curiously, the IPCC neglects to address this glaring problem in Chapter 10 ‘Radiative Forcing, Radiative Feedbacks and Radiative Imbalance – The 2013 WG1 IPCC Report Failed to Properly Report on this Issue’ by Roger A. Pielke Sr / October 21, 2013 5. The IPCC Failure The IPCC report has failed to report on the implications of the real world radiative imbalance being significantly smaller than the radiative forcing. This means not only that the net radiative feedbacks must be negative, but they failed to document the magnitude in Watts per meter squared of the contributions to positive feedbacks from surface warming, and from atmospheric water vapor and clouds. These must be smaller than what the IPCC models are producing. One clear conclusion from their failure is that the climate system has larger variations in the Radiative Imbalance, Forcing and Feedbacks than is predicted by the model and accepted in the 2013 IPCC assessment report. Judy Curry David Douglass, Roy Spencer, Bob Tisdale, Anastasios Tsonis, Marcia Wyatt and others have been pioneers in advocating this perspective, and the failure in the… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

Earth Energy Budgets without ‘Greenhouse Gases’ or ‘Back Radiation’ The Hockey Schtick The foundation of the greenhouse theory is that ‘greenhouse’ gases absorb infrared radiation from the earth and then ‘back-radiate’ this energy to the earth to cause global warming. Several prior posts have illustrated that the concepts of greenhouse gas ‘back-radiation,’ ‘heat-trapping,’ ‘heat capture,’ and ‘radiative forcing’ are essentially all referring to the same unphysical, fundamental error of the greenhouse theory that cannot be found in textbooks of physics. Several commenters have indicated that they think it is impossible to explain the temperatures of the earth and atmosphere without incorporating ‘greenhouse gases’ and ‘back-radiation’ in diagrams of the Earth’s energy budget, such as the famous Kiehl/Trenberth/IPCC Energy Budget, which shows ‘back-radiation’ to be a very significant 324 W/m2 (95% of the average solar input!) at all times 24/7/365. However, the earth-atmosphere system can be much more simply described (see Occam’s Razor) with real physics without using ‘greenhouse gases’ or ‘back-radiation’ at all. Here are five Earth Energy Budgets which completely explain the earth-atmosphere system without ‘greenhouse gases’ or ‘back-radiation,’ in stark contrast to the IPCC alarmist & unphysical Energy Budget: 1.… Read more »


A quacktivist from Generation Zero was on TV this morning complaining that 30% was far too little

Maybe the quackivists can tell us what we can do to,achieve their desired levels of reduction, how many degrees of projected global warming this would theoretically offset, and how much it would cost, to the nearest billion.

Then, that would involve engaging some brain cells, something the quackivists are in short supply of.

Richard C (NZ)

>”how many degrees of projected global warming this [NZs negligible contribution] would theoretically offset” Generation Zero must first know the theory, or at least the results of theoretical calculations. For example: ‘The carbon dioxide theory of Gilbert Plass’ Plass calculated the change in top-of-the-atmosphere (TOA) radiative fluxes given a doubling (or a halving) of CO2 while everything else stayed the same. He then took that number and using someone else’s estimate of the sensitivity of the TOA radiation to the surface temperature, he calculated the temperature change that would be necessary to compensate. Converting from the units he used, the radiative flux values for a doubling of CO2 were 8.3 W/m2 and 5.8 W/m2 for clear-sky (no clouds) and averagely cloudy conditions (all-sky) respectively (and slightly larger and of opposite sign for a halving). The sensitivity of the TOA flux to surface temperature he used was around 2.3 W/m2 per ºC (equivalent to a temperature sensitivity of 0.4 ºC/(W/m2)). However, this is a ‘no-feedback’ estimate (allowing only the surface temperature to change with a constant lapse rate, but with no changes to water vapour, albedo or clouds). Today, our current best guess for… Read more »

Post Navigation