JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Kyoto: Australia “IN” New Zealand “Out”

 

New Zealand signed up for an emissions trading scheme in November 2009, fully expecting Australia to sign in an ETS the next week. Thanks to one vote and an Abbot win, Australia didn’t sign up then, but will get one (unless things change) in 2015.

Kyoto 1 ends in December 31, 2012, and not a moment too soon. Last week Australia signed up for Kyoto 2, but this time New Zealand  didn’t.

[Reuters] Neighbouring New Zealand said it would not sign up for the next phase and would instead join a separate convention, including large greenhouse gas emitters such as the United States and China.

Kyoto 2 will only include 15% of emissions. The New Zealanders didn’t want “in” with such a small ineffectual crowd, and will wait for the US and China.

[Reuters] Australia in July introduced a A$23 ($24) per tonne carbon tax on top polluters, which will move into an emissions trading scheme from mid 2015. Australia and the European Union have agreed to link their trading schemes by 2018.

New Zealand’s abandonment of Kyoto 2 followed changes to its emissions trading scheme (ETS), which allowed unlimited use of carbon credits to meet targets at near-record low carbon prices.

The changes also kept out the agriculture sector, which accounts for around half of New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions, from the ETS.

Plus there was the matter of needing to redesign their trading scheme as well.

Greens climate change spokesman Kennedy Graham said: “Not content to pass a law [on Thursday] to gut New Zealand’s emissions trading scheme, the National Government is now out to undermine any international credibility the nation ever had on climate change.”

The key appears to be that on November 2, 2012, NZ opted for the cheapest carbon credits they can get:

[Reuters] New Zealand put it’s trading scheme on hold

Parliament is expected to approve amendments within weeks to allow the unlimited flow of cheap U.N.-based carbon offsets to New Zealand that have driven down the price of domestic pollution permits to a tenth of what they were last year.

The proposals also extend indefinitely a sweetener for polluters to submit one permit for every two tonnes of emissions. New Zealand is the only country to offer the scheme, which halves carbon costs and was previously due to end in late 2012 or early 2013.

The result is that New Zealand polluters can meet their emissions obligations at a fraction of the cost paid by their competitors in Europe and Australia. Cheap carbon costs give businesses little incentive to invest in ways to cut emissions.

New Zealand is different: they aren’t tied to the EU scheme, they’re tied to the UN credits

[Reuters] New Zealand’s scheme is the only national programme that allows polluters to meet all emissions obligations with U.N.-backed carbon offsets. Europe and Australia have imposed strict limits on the use of U.N. offsets.

The U.N. offsets, called Certified Emission Reductions (CERs) hit all-time lows last week, touching 71 euro cents a tonne

 

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 8.5/10 (36 votes cast)
Kyoto: Australia "IN" New Zealand "Out", 8.5 out of 10 based on 36 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/a7rq8p6

95 comments to Kyoto: Australia “IN” New Zealand “Out”

  • #
    James

    The Royal Society of New Zealand released a statement in 2008 in order to clear up “the controversy over climate change and its causes, and possible confusion among the public”

    The globe is warming because of increasing greenhouse gas emissions. Measurements show that greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere are well above levels seen for many thousands of years. Further global climate changes are predicted, with impacts expected to become more costly as time progresses. Reducing future impacts of climate change will require substantial reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.[31]

    It’s good to see they are still involved in action against the carbon pollution.


    Report this

    244

    • #
      gbees

      The globe is warming because of increasing greenhouse gas emissions. ” – No evidence

      “Measurements show that greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere are well above levels seen for many thousands of years.” – Pick a timeline. Millions of years ago CO2 levels were way higher. Human CO2 emissions pale in comparison to nature’s emissions.

      “Further global climate changes are predicted, with impacts expected to become more costly as time progresses.” – only in flawed models ..

      “Reducing future impacts of climate change will require substantial reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.” – False, that won’t work. Human’s cannot control the climate and certainly not with a useless tax.

      “It’s good to see they are still involved in action against the carbon pollution.” – CO2 is not Carbon and is not pollution. Just another falsehood.


      Report this

      420

      • #
        James

        “Pick a timeline. Millions of years ago CO2 levels were way higher. Human CO2 emissions pale in comparison to nature’s emissions.”

        Brilliant! CO2 was higher when humans didn’t exist and the biospehere was completely different. Great target you aim for.

        “only in flawed models”

        Doesn’t take a model to see the ice melt.

        “False, that won’t work. Human’s cannot control the climate ”

        Science contradicts you.
        http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-comprehensive-review-of-the-causes-of-global-warming.html

        “CO2 is not Carbon and is not pollution.”

        Creatures impacted by Ocean Acidification would disagree with you.


        Report this

        245

        • #

          Oxymoron alert! James says “Science contradicts you” and links to Skeptical Science!


          Report this

          300

        • #
          memoryvault

          James

          Repeat after me:

          An acid plus a base equals a salt plus water.

          You cannot “acidify” an alkaline solution by adding an acid. All you do is lower the alkalinity by watering down (diluting) the solution.

          Once you have neutralised ALL of the alkaline you STILL won’t have an “acidic” solution, only salts plus water.
          Then and only then could you add even more acid and start turning the total solution acidic.

          There is sufficient alkaline buffer in the oceans to deal with the burning of ALL known reserves of fossil fuels, some 80 times over.

          .
          Go peddle your unscientific nonsense somewhere else -like septic science – where the average reader is actually blind dumb ignorant enough to believe it


          Report this

          341

          • #
            Mattb

            Jo uses the term acidification. MV you are just going to have to live with the fact that it is an acceptable, but arguably laymans, term for becoming less alkaline. yada yada well done on being a pedant.


            Report this

            324

          • #
            memoryvault

            Mattb

            “Political language. . . is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”

            George Orwell

            I note with interest that just today the Council for the Australian War Memorial refused a request to include the names of those Australian servicemen and women killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Apparently, they weren’t “soldiers” in wars, but rather mere “peacekeepers” involved in “policing actions”.

            .
            I wonder if the poor bastards blown to shreds noticed the difference.


            Report this

            80

          • #
            Catamon

            MV i think you are carrying the grumpy pedant a bit far.

            I’ll grant that there may be some, small, substance to your assertions that “acidification” is not the appropriate term. In this context though it its used to describe a process by which a solution is becoming less alkaline. Describing the ph of that solution sliding towards the more acidic end of the spectrum in relative terms.

            Probably time to just accept the common usage which in context is actually a decent descriptor.

            Of course you could also just keep on being git about it and i’m sure everyone will understand.


            Report this

            22

          • #
            John Brookes

            Pedantry is an important part of the “skeptics” play book.


            Report this

            213

          • #
            michael hart

            “Less acidic than water” is an equally valid description.


            Report this

            20

        • #
          memoryvault

          Doesn’t take a model to see the ice melt.

          Given that the rate of recovery of the ice pack in the Arctic is the fastest in two decades, and given that the ice pack at Antarctica set new records this year, and given that yesterday it was MINUS 101 degrees F on the Greenland ice sheet . . . .

          . . . which “melting ice” would that be, James?

          .
          Yes, I know all the “models” predict melting. But that’s the whole problem with fatally flawed computer models, isn’t it?


          Report this

          231

          • #
            John Brookes

            Oh yes, that super fast recovery. I’ll bet that when we get to an ice free arctic at the end of one not too distant September, the re-freeze will be even better than now. But will it make headlines among “skeptics” then?


            Report this

            112

          • #
            JFC

            Oh dear, I think you’re “in the bubble” again MV. You know, that parallel universe that types like you and Republicans inhabit? Where stats/data don’t mean anything unless you’ve doctored them to suit your world view.


            Report this

            112

          • #
            formerley_memoryvault

            [Snip comment to mods and admin]

            MV Sorry. I’ll explain the glitch in an email. It’s not personal, wasn’t meant to stop you writing. Your comment is approved.

            Jo


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Catamon

            Given that the rate of recovery of the ice pack in the Arctic is the fastest in two decades

            Oh goody, all that this 1 year thick ice that just …….. melts fast in the summer.

            Or isn’t is cool to focus on volume when the skeptic flavor of the week is extent??

            You can be a bit of a special tool sometimes MV.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Catamon

            JFC @ 1.1.1.3.2

            You should probably watch this. :)

            AndyG55, you shouldn’t. Seriously.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            BobC

            Catamon
            November 14, 2012 at 12:03 am
            JFC @ 1.1.1.3.2

            You should probably watch this.

            Rachel Maddow – seriously?

            This is the woman who, when belittling Congressional candidate Art Robinson, treats the radiation hormesis hypothesis as incredible stupidy — even though she has never even heard of it, much less having any knowledge of the evidence.

            She knows her job well — that of a liberal attack dog. You shouldn’t put any more credence on what she says than you would on the barking of said dog.

            Unless, of course, you are a totally brainwashed, unthinking, true believer like Catamon.

            ************

            One thing (among many) that you will never hear Rachel talk about is the demonstrated fact that you could donate to Obama’s online campaign contribution website using the name “Osama bin Laden”, from a Pakistani IP address, with a phony real address. His donation site had all safeguards deliberatly turned off (they are on by default, when you set up these donation sites) in violation of US law.

            Another thing that probably won’t come up on her show is the scores of precincts where Obama won over 99% of the vote (after poll observers were forced to leave) — or the Ohio precinct where he got 108% of registered voters approval.

            The motto of the Left has been (for over a century) “By any means necessary” — that is, the end justifys the means. The fact that the end is never reached and all you really have is an endless succession of means — resulting in the Left creating nothing but dystopias of varying degrees of dreadfulness — hasn’t yet sunk through the fog of false promises to reach their brains.


            Report this

            30

          • #
            Catamon

            Be aware BobC your “demonstrated fact” link (which i went to) has links to dodgy sites included. [link checks out ok for me] ED

            LoL! Rachel Maddow may be a “liberal attack dog” but she certainly scores on coherency vs the conservatives like Glen Beck.

            So, when does the voter fraud stuff get taken to court?


            Report this

            01

        • #

          James
          November 13, 2012 at 3:16 pm

          Doesn’t take a model to see the ice melt.

          Oh yes it does!

          http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/s_plot_hires.png

          One day at the other pole they may be able reenact the voyage of Admunsen without resorting to carrying the boat. Then again maybe not!

          “The plan was that we would
          spend the winter in Gjøahavn in Canada,
          just as Amundsen did. But heavy ice put
          paid to that. 300 nautical miles short of
          our goal we were forced to turn back.”

          http://www.nwp.solinova.no/media/Stromme/KnowHow_nr3_2003.pdf


          Report this

          80

    • #
      Ross

      James
      That was in 2008 !! A time when everyorganisation was rushing to make grand announcements just because everyone else was. Following like sheep –we have alot of sheep in NZ


      Report this

      160

    • #
      Peter Miller

      Interesting, this was probably before the fraud about New Zealand’s official temperature records became well known:

      http://www.climatescience.org.nz/images/PDFs/global_warming_nz2.pdf

      This statement was issued back in the heady days before Climategate and Copenhagen. At that time sceptics were on the back foot and all sorts of nonsense on AGW and CAGW was blindly accepted as being the Gospel Truth. Now we know different. Nevertheless, the point is well made, it is no longer possible to trust the opinions of the supposed pillars of the scientific establishment.


      Report this

      70

    • #
      ExWarmist

      Hi James,

      There you go again – assuming that Carbon is pollution.

      What is life made of?


      Report this

      60

      • #
        John Brookes

        Ahh rhetoric at its best. Carbon, the stuff of life, can’t possibly be pollution. Carbon monoxide can’t possibly be poisonous, because its made from carbon and oxygen, and they are both essential to life. Hydrogen cyanide can’t possibly be dangerous, because its made of hydrogen, carbon and nitrogen, and they are all essential to life.

        What if you agree never to use this inane argument again?


        Report this

        313

        • #
          AndyG55

          Gees you are a prize idiot. !!!

          Of course the compound of carbon matters.

          But C02 is a totally BENEFICIAL plant food gas, totally harmless in any concentration many times any concentratio it can ever reach in the atmosphere.

          Carbon itself is very much an integral part of nature, nature depends on it. Darn you can eat the stuff, or take it in tablet for to CLEAN your guts.

          Anything in the wrong amount is dangerous, but carbon and carbon dioxide are very much at the very bottom of the danger scale.

          I dare you to live a life without carbon.. PLEASE !!!


          Report this

          101

          • #
            JFC

            Maybe I should dare you to inhale a big bag of CO2? Harmless? Maybe not, all depends on how much there is, pretty much like the definition of ANY pollutant. Doh!!


            Report this

            16

          • #
            AndyG55

            What didn’t you understand about “normal atmospheric concentrations”..

            You truly are as thick as half a dozen planks !! (made of mostly carbon, incidentally)

            Humans can easily cope with MANY times more than any atmospheric concentration of CO2 than will ever likely exist.


            Report this

            10

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            JFC

            … pretty much like the definition of ANY pollutant. Doh!!

            Two comments:

            1. Anybody who feels the need to end a statement with “Doh”, with or without multiple exclamation marks, is implicitly indicating that they have no further evidence to support their position. So thank you for that indicator, I will keep it in mind.

            2. What is your definition of a pollutant? The Shorter Oxford Dictionary defines it as, “an agent that fouls or contaminates the environment”. But since CO2 is necessary for all plant life, and by association, the vast majority of life on this planet, it can hardly be “fouling or contaminating the environment”; it is actually making the environment more conducive to life.

            The first time I heard of CO2 being called a pollutant was from the mouth of Julia Gillard, which says more about her lack of knowledge about science and the English language, than it does about reality. She is obviously living in a bubble created from her own ignorance.

            A sad indictment of a Prime Minister.


            Report this

            50

          • #
            ExWarmist

            RW says…

            The first time I heard of CO2 being called a pollutant was from the mouth of Julia Gillard, which says more about her lack of knowledge about science and the English language, than it does about reality. She is obviously living in a bubble created from her own ignorance.

            A sad indictment of a Prime Minister.

            How do you know that she is ignorant?

            CO2 chemistry, photosynthesis, and the Carbon cycle were all taught in high school science when I went to school – she most likely has been exposed to such information.

            Her past patterns of behavior suggest that she knows precisely what she is saying and does not care if it is factual, what seems to matter to her is that she be believed by those who she needs to believe her – and that is sufficient for her.


            Report this

            20

        • #
          Mark Hladik

          JB,

          Sodium, by itself, causes nasty burns on one’s skin. Chlorine, by itself, if inhaled by a mammal, is not pretty.

          But you cannot live without a small measure of sodium chloride in your body.

          Please try to get some education in science. The universe is a wonderful place to explore.

          Regards,

          Mark H.


          Report this

          90

        • #
          MaxL

          John, not even the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, National Pollutant Inventory can bring itself to classifying either carbon or carbon dioxide as a pollutant.

          http://www.npi.gov.au/substances/factsheets.html

          So what if you agree never to use the terms “carbon pollution” or “carbon dioxide pollution” again?


          Report this

          30

        • #
          Mark Hladik

          Addendum to above post to JB:

          Also, still waiting for your correlation coefficient (now that the WayBac Machine has found Veizer’s temperatures and Berner & Kothavala’s CO2 records).

          I’m sure you, and Maxine, and Mattb, and Tristan, and James (your alter-ego?) can all come up with a correlation coefficient you like.

          Maybe, if you don’t like the one you get, you can just make one up!

          Best regards to all,

          Mark H.


          Report this

          10

        • #
          Mark Hladik

          Is that the “R” or the “R^2″ value?


          Report this

          10

        • #
          ExWarmist

          Hi JB,

          Well lets talk about the notion of Carbon Pollution – specifically Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere.

          At what concentration would CO2 in the Atmosphere be deemed pollution and why would it be deemed pollution?

          And when you come back with a number – please explain the “pollution” impact of that number on the C3, C4 and CAM pathways for photosynthesis for plants.

          Looking forward to your answer.

          Thanks

          Cheers ExWarmist


          Report this

          10

        • #
          Juliar

          I guess water must be a pollutant /sarc


          Report this

          10

  • #
    Albert

    Canada has withdrawn from Kyoto.
    NZ is not signing up nor is the US, Japan and China (+Russia and others, I think)
    As other countries are jumping ship, we’re signing up and we’re not told the cost to the taxpayer.
    Rudd was the main architect of the COP15 agreement and they will not let it go.
    According to Rudd’s scare campaign at that time, I should be 5 metres under water.


    Report this

    220

    • #
      Albert

      I should add Rudd’s opinion was supported by ”4,000 Scientists from the IPCC who wear white coats and don’t have a sense of humour.” these were Rudd’s words.
      None of their extreme forecasts have come to pass.
      Don’t be fooled by Sandy, it’s just a regular weather event occurring about 12 times per century.


      Report this

      210

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      New Zealand will go into an alternative scheme to Kyoto 2, along with the US and China.

      This alternative scheme has yet to be defined, so now is the time to buy popcorn futures.


      Report this

      20

  • #
    handjive

    Fraud. Carbon. Government.
    3 words that always travel together…

    $

    The (NZ) Government had promised that foresters would get their carbon credits and on that basis people invested in forestry.

    Warning of mass deforestation after govt’s Kyoto pull-out

    “Some people have invested large amounts in carbon forests, based on the government policy and what they were saying.
    For some people they’ll lose tens of millions I would think.
    Everybody feels totally let down by the government’s decision.”

    Roger Dickie says the (NZ) Emissions Trading Scheme now has no muscle and will disappear down the gurgler.

    $

    Govt dismisses carbon profiteering claims:

    The ETS does not require those buying and surrendering carbon credits to pay for their carbon emissions to reveal the prices they paid for credits or whether they bought cheap and questionable overseas credits or local credits backed by local trees plantings.


    Report this

    60

    • #
      Brian H

      Credits are a hoot. Want some? Threaten to cut down some trees, or whip up some nasty hyper-GHG, or like that. Demand credits for promising to not do the above.
      Laugh all the way to the bank. If you can find some sucker buyers, of course.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Brian H

      Credits have hidden benefits.

      High-emission industries in the developed world can make out like bandits by:
      *Obtaining (then selling as fast as possible) credits by closing a (moderately clean) plant in the high-labour-cost developed world –
      *Opening an equivalent plant in the credit-rich or exempt developing world, with fractions of the labour cost and few controls.

      Result: income from credits, lowered plant and labour costs, expanded sales, improved employment in the needy developing world, and significantly expanded CO2 emissions.

      What’s not to like?


      Report this

      00

  • #

    The Kyoto Protocol is what got me started on all this way back in March of 2008, when the owner of the site where I am now the Editor asked if I would like to contribute. I had an idea of perhaps a short series of four or five Posts tops, and I wanted to look at this Kyoto Protocol, especially what is asked for in respect of electrical power generation, and what it would mean by closing so much coal fired power down, and if there was anything that power could be replaced with.

    That series morphed into more than 50 separate Posts spread over 4 Months. After that, I actually thought I was tapped out, but luckily, there was always more to look at and then write about.

    Sometimes I go back and look at that first Post, and I even sometimes cringe a little at the amateurism I showed there, and even made a mistake or two. However, it still stands up for most of what I said there.

    This insidious (and even invidious) document has now become the root cause of its own demise, and try as they might to cobble together a so called extension for it, it will be incredibly difficult to find a replacement for it, if they ever do, again a problem caused directly by the original Protocol.

    The original called for a reduction in GHG to a level 5% lower than they were in 1990, and now Governments proudly proclaim they may just lower their emissions by a tiny percent and that will occur in perhaps 2020.

    See how even Kyoto has been watered down.

    Now, all it is being used for is to protect the money. Politicians waffle on about how this is imperative that they do this wonderful thing.

    It has nothing whatsoever to do with the environment.

    I’ll link back to the first two of those original Posts, not to boost visits to that site, but just to give everybody a good laugh.

    Tony.

    Kyoto – A Perspective (Part1)

    Kyoto – A Perspective (Part2)


    Report this

    150

  • #
    Lank is committed

    Actually Australia hasn’t signed up yet. – just announced that it will.
    Why would anyone commit to signing BEFORE the Dohar negotiations have even started?
    Is this good business/politics? Why wouldn’t Australia wait and see what the new terms are before committing? Maybe Mr Combet and team should be committed.


    Report this

    160

    • #
      Dennis

      Nothing this circus alliance federal government does surprises me, how any Australian with brains could support them is beyond my comprehension. And as for the leaders, she has an emotional speech crafted for her based on deception relating to her political opponent and then brags and tells more porkies about being supported by world leaders. He is far better educated (including a bachelor of economics and bachelor of laws), has a long history of public service including volunteer work and charity work (she does not), and is a family man and athlete. Her spin is ridiculous.


      Report this

      140

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    At risk of repeating myself, kinda nauseating isn’t it?

    Nothing ever changes in this world of musical-idiots. It’s constant jockying for advantage but never a tumble to the big lie holding it all up!


    Report this

    70

  • #
    Ross

    I’m a little confused. As Jo states the Kyoto agreement runs out at the end of the year. There have been alot of discussion at Cancun and other talkfests about Kyoto’s extention but as far as I’m aware nothing has been agreed to –that is, there is no agreement to sign. Many people have been saying they don’t expect any new international agreement ( although I read yesterday ther “maybe” one in 2015).
    Have I got it all wrong ? If I’m correct then the MSM is totally confused.


    Report this

    30

    • #
      cohenite

      Australia signed Kyoto 1 and was a staunch member of the Copenhagen Agreement, UNFCCC.

      The UNFCCC really sums up what the IPCC, UN and all supporters of the lie of AGW are on about. Section 38 on page 18 of UNFCCC describes how any scheme agreed upon will have the status of a government with vast financial capacity and enforcement capability. The document allows for the creation of a supervising board of UN bureaucrats with powers to issue fines based on multiples of the market price of carbon. So, for instance, if Australia does not confine its emissions to a target specified by UNFCCC and as agreed under the CPRS, fines up to $1 billion could be levied.

      As well as penalties for non-compliance with emission targets, the main purpose of UNFCCC is to facilitate a massive transfer of wealth from developed nations to the economies of poorer nations. The justification for this is contained in Section 17 of annex 111 E on page122 which states the developed nations should compensate the poorer nations “for lost opportunities, resources, lives, land and dignity, as many will become environmental refugees”.

      The expected total of this compensation is described in Section 33, page 39, as being in the range of $US 70 – 140 billion per year. Each offending developed nation shall have at least 0.7% of its annual Gross Domestic Production assessed for compulsory contribution [Section 41, page 43]. In Australia’s case this would amount to $7 billion per year.

      The UNFCCC is a comprehensive document and details how the supervisory board will have power over every aspect of a nation’s economy, including research, technology and financial institutions.

      Anything in Kyoto 11 will not detract from these alarming attributes and given the hysteria already released about AR5 the pressure from the IPCC and its stooges like Combet and this wretched government will only increase.


      Report this

      81

      • #
        Winston

        And 75% of that $7 billion p.a should keep UN bureaucrats knee deep in caviar and prostitues for a considerable period of time, god bless ‘em.

        For the 25% left over (if your lucky), there is the palm greasing of 3rd world despots for services rendered, their purchase of arms and mercenaries to facilitate “control” of the population of these “developing” (now a misnomer) nations, then “re-educating” these peasants in the merits of maintaining their Stone Age carbon free existence, their should be a couple of bucks left over for the poor sod in the field to compensate him for having had his land confiscated for carbon credits so that now his family can’t eat.

        Ain’t Western compassion just grand! Makes you kind of choked up and sentimental, don’t it?


        Report this

        61

      • #
        John Brookes

        That transfer of wealth from rich to poor countries is a travesty. The proper order of the universe is that we rip them off so that they provide us with luxuries while dying young from overwork. That they might benefit from their own labor is anathema.


        Report this

        215

        • #
          cohenite

          What! How about we raise the standards in the 3rd world to the same level as in the Western world; which could be achieved if the green blight and AGW scam were not standing in the way of transferring reliable fossil and nuclear energy and agricultural techniques including GM technology.


          Report this

          111

        • #
          AndyG55

          John, You always aim for the LOWEST outcome , don’t you.

          Typical far left wing morons, always trying to bring everyone else down to their level.

          Never a thought that, maybe, if they got off the arses, they might actually bring themselves up out of the gutter.


          Report this

          70

          • #
            Bite Back

            John, You always aim for the LOWEST outcome , don’t you.

            What do you expect from a least-common-denominator thinker? It’s a matter of faith with them that wealth is a limited commodity and those who have it must have stolen the share that somehow belonged to those who don’t have it.

            You’ve got to give John credit for one thing though. He is consistent.


            Report this

            40

          • #
            Winston

            BB,
            Excellent point and well said.

            Industrious people understand that the path to wealth generation and prosperity is “industry” in all derivations and definitions of the word. Politicians and academics like John Brookes have never actively and physically “generated” wealth, only channeled the wealth of others, so fail to understand that any plan of action which discourages “industry” in the 3rd world will necessarily promote poverty and dependence, not alleviate it. Socialists perhaps lack this insight because they lack the Edison gene.


            Report this

            30

          • #
            AndyG55

            @Bite Back “least-common-denominator”

            I was going to use that term, but then realised I was talking to John. Wasn’t sure he would know what I meant.


            Report this

            10

        • #
          Winston

          And John,
          Since you are expert in such matters, will you extoll us with precisely what mechanism the UN plans to put money into the hands of the poor in, say Uganda. What percentage is likely to reach the needy, and how do they ensure it actually goes to those who need it, or don’t you do detail? Just happy to accept that it will go in the general direction because it is the UN, a “benevolent” and “efficient” organisation with a track record of effective intervention and selfless dedication ( yea right!), and hope some of it might magically make it there. Doesn’t it concern you that no safeguards (or even elaboration of details) seem to exist to illustrate how this huge wad of money will be used, or how to prevent unscrupulous middle men and bureaucrats from pocketing it on the way?

          So, by what mechanism does persuading 3rd world countries not to develop or remain carbon neutral improve their lot in life? Please by all means be specific John or, as I suspect, have you not even thought about it? And yes, it is an utter travesty when wealth is diverted from honest working slobs in first world countries, ostensibly for some benefit in poverty alleviation in the developed world (and to ease the conscience of well meaning naive fools like yourself), knowing that absolutely none of it will reach those whom you assume will benefit. All so you can go quietly back to your bed at night deluding yourself that your stand on CAGW is helping to do anything for the nebulous poor, in spite of all evidence to the contrary, other than line the pockets of thieves and scam artists.

          The best hope for the developed world btw, is for those in the West to stop actually obstructing their development and facilitating their indebtedness via the IMF. The Chinese have invested heavily in parts of Africa, and shown the West how it should be done. We in Oz should be doing the same with Timor and PNG for example, but our corporations are too busy pillaging them for profit instead of developing for mutual benefit. Charity has never delivered lasting prosperity to anyone IMHO, but mentorship for mutual benefit OTOH from strong economies is the best hope for the developed world, but your welfare mentality blinds you to the benefits of self-determination and self sufficiency. I find your beliefs naive, not to mention patronising to the capabilities within these nations if properly fostered. The UN is, I believe, inherently unsuitable for this purpose.


          Report this

          60

        • #
          markx

          John BrookesNovember 13, 2012 at 8:23 pm ·

          “….That transfer of wealth from rich to poor countries is a travesty….” (/sarc)

          John, interesting thought process.

          Development of the now “rich” countries was powered by the discovery and usage of abundant, cheap forms of energy. If we had to still rely on horses and the odd waterwheel and windmill, we would not have progressed much at all.

          More expensive energy will not enhance the lives of the third world.

          Neither will more expensive food, driven by insane inefficient schemes to turn food into fuel, for no improvement in CO2 outputs.


          Report this

          40

          • #
            Brian H

            It is inherent in their reliance on the Big Lie that they will achieve the opposite of what they claim. E.g.: CO2 output will indeed be improved (increased). For every gigaton, the plants of the world thank you (us, them, whoever).


            Report this

            00

        • #
          Juliar

          I thought John said once that everyone is a socialist? If we all are socialists, why are there so many people from poor nations who are getting ripped off and our socialist governments not distributing more money to those poor nations?


          Report this

          20

        • #
          Bite Back

          That transfer of wealth from rich to poor countries is a travesty. The proper order of the universe is that we rip them off so that they provide us with luxuries while dying young from overwork. That they might benefit from their own labor is anathema.

          Actually John, the first question to get answered is this — by what stretch of imagination do “rich” nations “owe” “poor” nations anything?

          Let’s see you start there. Let us know what you come up with for an argument that your implied, “We owe them,” is even the slightest bit justified.

          I’ll be back to see what you have to say.


          Report this

          20

      • #
        Ross

        Thank you Cohenite.
        I’ll have to look at that doc. more carefully.
        I suppose it shows one thing –it is all very tangled web and I doubt any particular group understands exactly what is going on in whole web.
        Also perhaps these UN guys are extremely cunning –the general public and the gullible MSM were lead to believe Copenhagen and Cancun were failures. A con job. I think Lord Monckton is the only prominate commentator I have read who did not dismiss them totally.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Brian H

          They wanted decapitation (cheers for Chavez!), but will settle for death by a thousand cuts.
          >:(

          Monckton is prominent, though, not “prominate”. Whatever that is.


          Report this

          00

  • #
    tckev

    New Zealand has sense on how corrupt and controlling the IPCC tries to be but that’s normal for the UN. I see that the UN wants to censor the internet as well. Thankfully some of your good citizens are trying to stop it…
    http://thewatchers.adorraeli.com/2012/11/12/internet-kill-switch-urgent-global-action-needed-as-internet-as-we-know-it-comes-under-very-real-threat/


    Report this

    40

    • #
      Manfred

      NZ had many many years under a Labour government and the ‘leadership’ of Prime Minister Helen Clark, now the Administrator of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), and the third-highest UN position, since 2009. Helen and Juliar are joined at the hip. Juliar will leave Australia in a shambles, tied up with UN Climate Change obligations, to join Helen at the UN for her fitting reward with an appointment to the leftist eco-theocratic elite.


      Report this

      20

  • #

    This is partly related to this Thread whilst seeming a little off topic, but part of what The Kyoto Protocol called for was for those Developed Countries to replace coal fired power with renewables.

    Just today, the Solar Dawn plant planned for Chinchilla in Queensland has fallen over completely now, as the consortium has announced that they will no longer be proceeding.

    This plant was originally mooted to cost $1.2 Billion. $464 Million was coming from the Federal Government, and under the former Labor Government in Queensland Anna Bligh chucked in $75 Million, which Campbell Newman canned completely.

    Now, what does it tell you, (and scream loudly) when the consortium pulls out after just the one subsidy worth only 6.25% of the total cost is withdrawn.

    Keep in mind that was for a Concentrating Solar (CS) Plant, you know, one of those plants that are supposed to replace coal fired power, and, umm, so we are told, actually can provide power on the same basis as coal fired power, and in fact why these types of Plant, (CS) are sometimes (completely erroneously) referred to as Solar Baseload.

    This was for a plant with a maximum power delivery of 250MW, and was going to be running 5 X 50MW boilers, using the solar trough format, but with no heat diversion capability which, had it been planned, would have added an extra, well hundreds of millions anyway.

    So, this all singing all dancing Concentrating Solar way of the future was actually going to deliver between 500 and 600GWH per year, giving this plant a Capacity Factor of 23 to 27%, which equates to an extrapolated daily average power delivery at the full 250MW of between five and a half and six and a half hours of power.

    So much for Solar Baseload.

    The plant also had the facility to run one of those 50MW generators with Natural Gas for out of daylight hours, but again, this was restricted by the introduction of the CO2 Tax, and had the plant run as designed with this NG, then it would have been subject to the Tax as one of those 500 polluters, hence that NG run time was dramatically cut back to fall under the lower total, because imagine the embarrassment when a Solar Plant has to pay the CO2 Tax.

    Let’s compare what this Solar Dawn Plant (would have) delivered with a real Base Load plant.

    That 550GWH delivered by Solar Dawn across one whole year is actually delivered by Bayswater in eleven and a half days.

    This is the way of the future all right.

    I wonder how much of the Commonwealth Government’s $464 Million will be recovered.

    They asked Martin Ferguson for a comment.

    Hear those crickets?

    Tony.

    Consortium pulls plug on $1.2bn solar energy project


    Report this

    80

    • #

      Pictures of the renewable energy transition in Germany. Renewable energy needs coal to work. Brown coal in Germany.

      Financial Times article in German. Pictures multi-lingual. The third picture in the album says a throusand words, and then some.

      Enjoy!


      Report this

      00

      • #

        Bernd and others,

        here’s a clue when you find pages like these.

        Click on the link, and it opens up the original page.

        When it opens go to the address bar and highlight the whole address.

        Copy and paste that address into your search engine of choice, and then press enter.

        When the list of titles comes up, your address should be the top one there on that page.

        Just under the title there, and highlighted in the colour blue is the phrase ….. translate this page.

        Click on that and it converts the link to English.

        Tony.


        Report this

        10

      • #
        Brian H

        That picture is, as the caption says, showing the steam from a power plant. Shows how much power it is producing. Did you mean it to show “a thousand words” about pollution?

        Steam output pictures are routinely used by the left to imply smoke pollution.


        Report this

        00

    • #
      rukidding

      Very hard to find anything at their ABC on the Solar Dawn failure.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    pat

    ***this farce continues to unravel. however, i’d love to know where in he article there is anything whatsoever about the carbon market rising, barbara lewis?

    12 Nov: Reuters: Barbara Lewis: UPDATE 4-EU Commission freezes airline carbon emissions law
    EU member states will have to endorse Commission plan
    EU flights will still have to comply with EU ETS scheme
    Non-EU flights get breathing space for 2013
    ***EU carbon market rises ahead of draft proposal to bolster market
    The European Union will freeze for a year its rule that all airlines must pay for their carbon emissions for flights into and out of EU airports, the EU executive said, following threats of international retaliation…
    The year-long exemption will apply to flights linking EU airports to countries outside of the bloc.
    Climate Commissioner Connie Hedegaard said she had agreed “to stop the clock” to create a positive atmosphere for international talks on an alternative global plan to tackle airline emissions…
    “But let me be very clear: if this exercise does not deliver – and I hope it does – then needless to say we are back to where we are today with the EU ETS. Automatically.”…
    U.S. politicians welcomed Monday’s news, but wanted more.
    “While I am pleased the EU has temporarily suspended its efforts to unilaterally impose a tax on our airlines flying over U.S. and international airspace, the EU’s announcement does not rule out future efforts to tax foreign carriers,” said Senator John Thune, who has led the push for the blocking law in the U.S. Senate…
    Some airline associations welcomed Monday’s announcement, but said the moratorium meant EU carriers operating flights within the bloc could be at a competitive disadvantage.
    Environment campaigners said the European Union was giving up too much, too soon…
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/12/eu-airlines-ets-idUSL5E8MCAAY20121112


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Brian H

      The EU is, with the UN, pretty much alone (except for the trivial efforts by the trivial country, Australia), trying to impose the suicidal Green agenda on the world. Economic and the Invisible Hand have begun to squeeze, and will continue till their pips squeak and eyes bulge and pop out. Fascinating to watch, in a horrible sort of way.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Eliza

    There waiting to see if AGW actually happens (which is not happening). None of the above will happen. By 2015 all hell will break lose and all cards are off the table. Nobody will join any of these schemes ever.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Snafu

    Grant Detail:

    Recipient – UNFCCC
    Value - $578,381.19
    Purpose – Contribution to UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol
    Approval date – 8 March 2012

    http://www.climatechange.gov.au/about/grants/2012-58.aspx


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Snafu

    Also, every year we pay $120,000 to the IPCC ‘Trust Fund’.

    http://www.climatechange.gov.au/about/grants/2012-11.aspx


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    banks replace environmental groups! still pushing how it could alleviate debt, not CAGW!

    14 Nov: SMH: Tom Arup: No plans for carbon tax, says White House official
    A RE-ELECTED US President Barack Obama has no plans to implement a carbon tax, a White House official has told Washington-based newspaper The Hill.
    The possibility of a national US carbon tax had been raised in recent days by analysts at global financial firms HSBC and Citibank who suggested President Obama could revisit the idea following his re-election in an effort to raise revenue to alleviate US debt…
    http://www.smh.com.au/world/no-plans-for-carbon-tax-says-white-house-official-20121113-29agh.html


    Report this

    10

    • #
      gai

      The USA is in debt up to its rump and the banks hold a lot of those loans. With Obummer re-elected and the leash off (He is not up for re-election) you can expect Obamacare not to be repealed. The US debt will continue to skyrocket as the Baby Boomers (me) retire and become a liability (money out) instead of an asset (money in)

      With the WTO and major relocation of US industry to China the USA now has less than 9% of its labor force in manufacturing. Obummer has stopped mining. The Econuts have kill a lot of the lumber industry. The Food Safety Act of 2010 goes into effect soon and will wipe out many small farmers. As one pundit said the USA is now a nation of Shopkeepers and Bureaucrats.

      Wealth creation is Mining, Agriculture or Manufacturing everything else is just moving the created wealth around and the US government has effectively killed US wealth creation. Heck in recent years over 50% of new jobs were created by small business. With Obamacare looming the chatter among the small business crowd is downsize to under 50 employees and retrench or retire.

      In otherwords the Banks with their economists KNOW the the Federal revenues from income taxes are going to nose dive so they are looking for another way to extract their pound of flesh that can not be evaded by the majority of people.

      A question?
      Are the world’s politicians TRYING to start mass riots/revolutions throughout the world? Sure seems like it.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Brian H

        Notwithstanding the best efforts of Odumdum and his handlers and cabal, the cornucopia of frac gas and tight oil in the US is so large (at least 5X all its previous known reserves) that the US is doomed to prosper as an Oil Empire for centuries to come.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    pat

    13 Nov: Bloomberg: Ewa Krukowska/Mathew Carr EU Carbon Prices Slump After Commission Unveils Permit-Glut Fix
    Permits for December slid as much as 7.5 percent, their biggest drop since July 18, after gaining 9 percent yesterday on the ICE Futures Europe exchange in London…
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-12/eu-plans-delay-of-900-million-carbon-permits-to-curb-surplus.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Peter Jordan

    I have been reading your comments and I am very impressed with the level of scientific discussion etc. It has restored my opinion that there are true scientists still out there willing to have their theories tested.

    My own non-scientific thought on this subject is…

    Leaving Kyoto is about the only thing Mr Key has done right in his time in power (Oh and giving tax breaks to Hollywood, getting more movies produced here).

    I did not realise he was waiting to join up with the US and China (The two main trade partners he is concentrating on at present) which makes more sense. AGW suits his purposes well, keeping environmentalist’s eyes on CO2 emmissions and not seeing all the environmental damage that he has been and will be allowing locally.

    E.g. Taking away mine and everyone else who lives in Greater Canterbury’s right to vote for the Environmental Council and the right to take any decisions by the Govt Apt Council to Environmental Court so Dairy Farm Companies have free range to suck dry what’s left of the rivers etc. I can also foresee a few native forests going to make way for open-cast mining once the legistration from the safety report on Pike River makes tunnelling non-profitable. (Just buy a few more carbon credits to offset that). For a person in charge of the tourism portfolio Mr Key is managing to remove any reason for tourist to visit NZ except to stand in a Hobbit Hole.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    J Cuttance

    i do not have your preference for one tweedledum council over another tweedledee gang, or your confidence in a report which won’t say why the mine only had one tunnel instead of a ventilating two.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Peter Jordan

      I never said I had confidence in the report, I am not a mining expert. It is whether the government has got confidence in the report which matters, they’re the ones who make the laws. And normally, no matter what party is in control, the laws will reflect a kneejerk reaction and go too far the other way to appease the voters.

      It is not the council so much I object to, even the removal of my democratic right (to be honest I didn’t know the ECan candidates when I could vote), it is that no one is able to take them to Environmental Court, which means the environmental watchdogs (the ones not sidelined by AGW) have no comeback when water is over allocated to irrigation systems. It was this court action which has already saved the McKenzie Country from being over dairied (just after ECan was ousted).


      Report this

      00

  • #
    coge

    I’ll show you a consensus. 87% of all nations have not signed up for Kyoto 2.


    Report this

    10

  • #

    ADMIN Note:
    Markx and a few others, I’m getting many bounce messages in my intray from emails that don’t seem to be correct. Please can people check they are providing a proper email, I can’t send messages to you privately, and if you subscribe to comments, you won’t get the comments, but I will get the bounces.

    Thanks

    Jo


    Report this

    00

  • #