NZ opts for UN Framework not Kyoto 2

November 10, 2012

New Zealand is committing the the UN’s Convention Framework rather than signing up for stage two of the Kyoto Protocol:

The Government has decided that from 1 January 2013 New Zealand will be aligning its climate change efforts with developed and developing countries which collectively are responsible for 85% of global emissions. This includes the United States, Japan, China, India, Canada, Brazil, Russia and many other major economies, Climate Change Minister Tim Groser says.

In the transition period 2013 to 2020, developed countries have the option of signing up to a Second Commitment Period (CP2) under the Kyoto Protocol or taking their pledges under the Convention Framework. The Government has decided that New Zealand will take its next commitment under the Convention Framework.

“I want to emphasise that NZ stands 100% behind its existing Kyoto Protocol Commitment.  We are on track to achieving our target – indeed we are forecasting a projected surplus of 23.1 million tonnes. Furthermore, we will remain full members of the Kyoto Protocol. There is no question of withdrawing. The issue was always different: where would we take our next commitment – under the Kyoto Protocol or under the Convention with the large majority of economies? We have decided that it is New Zealand’s best interests to do the latter.

“It is our intention to apply the broad Kyoto Framework of rules to our next commitment. This will ensure that at least New Zealand has started a process of carrying forward the structure created under the Kyoto Framework into the broader Convention Framework.  This had been a point of principle of some importance to many developing countries. It would also mean that there would be no changes in domestic policy settings which had been modelled on the Kyoto Protocol rules.” . .

. . . The next decision will be to set a formal target for NZ’s future emissions track through to 2020 to sit alongside our conditional offer to reduce emissions between minus 10% and minus 20% below 1990 levels. “Cabinet has agreed in principle to set that target once we know exactly what the final rules will be on some crucial technical issues, including access to international carbon markets.”

The opposition and others of a dark green persuasion are saying the government has done the as a result of which the sky will fall and the sea will rise.
They’d prefer we stuff  our economy to make token gestures which will have little if any impact on the environment.
Our emissions are so small on a global scale we could kill all our animals and people and the resulting decrease in emissions would barely register.
That could be used as an excuse to do nothing but instead we’re aligning our efforts with those of most of our trading partners – except Australia.
P.S. I note one of those doing as we are is Canada, do I remember correctly that it pulled out of its first Kyoto commitment?

Less meat, better health, less carbon?

September 15, 2012

A British study suggests eating less meat could reduce disease and carbon emissions:

. . . Researchers from the University of Cambridge found that cutting back on red meat consumption could decrease the number of cases of chronic disease by 3 to 12 percent, and make the carbon footprint nearly 28 million tons smaller per year by decreasing greenhouse gas emissions.

The BMJ Open study included data from the National Diet and Nutrition Survey of British Adults in 2000-2001. Researchers looked at the amount of meat the people in the study consumed, as well as how many green gas emissions were emitted that are linked to 45 different kinds of food.

The BMJ Open study included data from the National Diet and Nutrition Survey of British Adults in 2000-2001. Researchers looked at the amount of meat the people in the study consumed, as well as how many green gas emissions were emitted that are linked to 45 different kinds of food.

After adjusting for proportions, the researchers found that people who regularly ate red or processed meat in the study also just generally consumed more food than people who didn’t regularly eat red or processed meat. So, they calculated that if people who ate the most red and processed meat in the study were to adjust their eating habits so they ate like the people who consumed the least red and processed meat in the study, that would decrease health risks (such as risk of diabetes, colorectal cancer and heart disease) anywhere from 3 to 12 percent. . .

If I’m reading this correctly, it says people don’t have to just eat less meat, they have to eat less fullstop.

It’s not a matter of replacing red meat with other food but in reducing total food intake.

If eating less still provided a balanced diet there would almost certainly be health benefits. If reduced consumption led to reduced production there would probably be a reduction in carbon emissions too – although that would depend on what food was consumed, how it was produced, transported and stored.

But if the meat was replaced with other food it’s possible there would be no benefits to either people’s health or the environment.

Minnows can’t make big difference

August 2, 2011

Quote of the week from Minister  for Climate Change Negotiations Tim Groser:

“We need some international context around this. I mean, with 0.2 percent of emissions, New Zealand just doing something way out there on its own doesn’t make a damn bit of difference,” says Mr Groser.

He says without buy-in from big emitters like the US and China, the talks are just that.

He was responding to criticism of New Zealand’s progress on reducing carbon emissions.

Not only are our emissions tiny on a world scale, most of them come from farm animals and there’s very little we can do about that.

That doesn’t mean farmers and processors aren’t doing what they can. Fonterra intends to reduce emissions by 30% by 2030.

But Mr Ferrier says the ETS is already costing dairy farmers about $3600 per year in increased energy costs.

He says efficiencies can be made without having to pile more costs onto farmers, who have already reduced on-farm emissions by more than 8% since 2003.

All farmers contribute to research on reducing emissions too.

But we’re still and minnow in the sea of emissions and there’s no point criticising us for doing too little when the whales are being left alone .

Smith speaks sense on emissions targets

December 11, 2010

A friend is developing a farm which has small blocks of forestry.

As the Kyoto rules stand at the moment if he fells the pines re-plants in the same place or fells the trees and leaves the stumps he will have no carbon liability. But if he fells the trees, clears the stumps and replants trees in a different place he will.

Many hectares of land around Taupo were planted in trees because stock grazed there got bush sickness. It has since been recognised that this was caused by cobalt deficiency which can be addressed.

In other areas development incentives encouraged farmers to clear marginal land which is prone to erosion.

It would be better for both the economy and the environment if the land near Taupo was cleared for pastoral farming and the marginal land was returned to forestry but that is unlikely to happen under the current Kyoto rules which were designed with native forests in mind.

New Zealand is one of few, possibly the only, country in the world with a large areas of exotic forestry.

There may be sense in requiring the replanting of trees where they’ve been felled if you’re trying to save rain forests but it makes no difference to carbon emissions if replacement trees are planted in a different place.

New Zealand has put a lot of effort into getting this changed and now Climate Change Minister is sensibly saying New Zealand won’t commit to emissions targets unless forestry rules are clear.

He told the United Nations conference in Cancun New Zealand wants a change to allow pre-1990 forests to be harvested and re-planted elsewhere and also to lock up emissions for wood which is felled and used for building  rather than have it count as being consumed and its emissions released on felling.

It’s such a good idea, Whaleoil, who doesn’t praise lightly, has given him politician of the week on the strength of it.

Risks and opportunities in ETS

June 3, 2010

The ETS will hold both risks and opportunities, Rabobank head of Food and Agribusiness Research Advisory, Justin Sherrard, told farmers in Oamaru.

“New Zealand farmers had proven ability to improve productivity year on year to remain competitive in international markets and the ETS will be another driver for this.”

He said the government has introduced the ETS to:

* meet international obligations,

*play its part in addressing a major global challenge;

*transition the economy to low carbon growth

* preserve our clean, green image.

Sherrard said an  ETS is the most cost effective way of achieving emissions reductions and international retailers are already cutting carbon..

Walmart has introduced a sustainability index target to cut 20m tonnes of carbon by 2015 – that’s about half of what New Zealand produces.

“It will send a signal up the supply chain and ask all supplier to reduce emissions and reward those which do,” Sherrard said.

Tesco has a carbon footprint label on products which show the total life cycle carbon emissions so it can give consumers information on which to base their choices.

The Japanese government has introduced a carbon labelling scheme.

Marks and Spencers is converting 50% of its branded products to Plan A products by 2015 and 100% by 2020 by working with suppliers.

The market is moving and suppliers who don’t move it will be at a disadvantage.

The ETS will impose costs but that’s what it aims to do in an attempt to encourage reductions and Sherrard said carbon could be a driver of innovation.

“Globally the food and agriculture sector needs to cut carbon from food production and New Zealand could be a leader in the agriculture sector,” he said.

“There is an opportunity for New Zealand to gain early access to techniques and technology. This will provide market access advantages and branding advantages.”

Farmers had opportunities to reduce exposure to carbon prices by using alternative fuels and when replacing machinery ensuring it was more fuel efficient.

Alternative energy such as solar or biogas could be used. There are also opportunities for efficiency gains in plant and equipment..

Sherrard said that to prepare for the ETS the food and agriculture sector needs to:

* ensure it understands how the ETS works and the associated risks and opportunities.

* engage effectively in the policy process before agriculture comes into the ETS.

* understand the mechanics of carbon pricing.

* ensure there is sufficient investment in innovation.

Individual farms won’t be participants in the ETS but processors will be.

“Markets hate uncertainty. You may not like what’s going to happen but at least we know what’s going to happen and we’re able to assess the risks and opportunities and act on them, ” he said.

Three questions:

November 25, 2009

1.Why does the carbon liability for oil falls on consumers when the liability for food falls on producers?

2. Why is New Zealand criticised for our per capita emissions when we export most of what we produce form the animals that produce the bulk of our emissions?

3. Why action which reduces emissions in one place is deemed to be good, even if it leads to an increase in emissions in another place?

More food less carbon

October 8, 2009

One of the criticisms of carbon emissions’ policy is the impact on agriculture and the need to increase food production.

Trade and Associate Climate Change Minister Tim Groser discusses this in an article published in the Wall Street Journal.

Reducing agricultural emissions cannot be at the expense of food production, however. To feed the world, food production will need to double by 2050. This is the same time frame in which the science tells us global greenhouse gas emissions will need to be halved if we are to limit global warming to two degrees centigrade. Already the food system is struggling to feed the world’s population, and food security will always take priority over climate-change considerations.

Groser says there are commercial reasons for reducing emissions and that the Global Alliance which New Zealand is promoting could find the answer to growing food without growing emissions.

If it doesn’t any attempts to reduce emissions will have to exclude agriculture because the need for food today will always win against the good of the environment tomorrow.

Smoking bad for environment

August 22, 2009

It isn’t news that smoking is bad for human health but now it seems it’s bad for the globe’s health too.

The number of outdoor heaters has increased since smoking inside was banned and environmentalists are concerned about the carbon emissions from them.

 “100,000 homes all using a standard patio heater on average of one hour per week would generate a carbon footprint of approximately 18 000 tonnes, that’s equivalent to a medium-sized car travelling from Auckland to Wellington and back again around 60, 000 times,” says Kathryn Hailes, from Carbonzero programme.

“If these households stopped using their patio heaters cost savings could be potentially around $20 million dollars per annum, that’s a lot of savings that people could keep in their back pocket rather than using to heat the ambient temperature of the neighbourhood,” says Ms Hailes.

But do 100,000 homes all use a standard patio heater for an average of an hour a week?

We have a couple of patio heaters which we use for a few hours a few times a year – less than 10 hours in total.

We use a barbeque a lot more often, though usually for less than 15 minutes at a time.

“What seems very bizarre about them is that we’re busy insulating our houses so that we can minimise the amount of heat that we need to keep warm and here we are burning fuel outside with not even walls let alone insulation heating up the entire universe,” says Jeanette Fitzsimons, Green Party MP.

Environmentalists say they produce the same volume of climate-changing gases as a speeding truck. They’ve also calculated they consume as much energy as five electric fan heaters on full power.

The European parliament is in the process of banning the outdoor heaters and Australia is wondering about the environmental cost of them.

Here in New Zealand there are no plans for a ban but the energy efficiency and conservation authority says it’s keeping a close eye on developments in Australia.

Jeanette Fitzsimons doesn’t support a ban but says she is concerned about the heater’s carbon footprint. . .

 “It’s a question of personal responsibility of the person using them and that’s one of the things that a price on carbon emissions will start to create as it will raise the price of fuel and then people can decide ‘Do I really want to spend that much on outdoor heating or have I got better things to do with the money and the fuel,’ and for those determined to head outdoors on chilly evenings there’s always the option of putting on another jersey,” says Ms Fitzsimmons.

Personal responsibility and letting people make their own choice based on price is a pleasant change of tone from the Greens which have in the past been more keen on bans.

However, has anyone thought that if people weren’t outside enjoying themselves they might be somewhere else doing something else which caused even more emissions?

Kyoto take 2

May 24, 2009

New Zealand was very badly served by the people who negotiated our commitments to reducing carbon emissions under the first Kyoto Protocol.

Trade & Associate Climate Change Minister Tim Groser is doing his best to ensure a better deal, not just for New Zealand but the global environment in the next round of negotiations.

The ODT’s Agribusiness editor Neal Wallace has a comprehensive interview with Groser in which he speaks of the need to include developing countries in future agreements, for scientific solutions to reduce agricultural emissions, and the importance of food security.

He also spoke of the risk to trade:

International climate change and trade liberalisation policies were linked, he said, but equally there could be a distortion in international trade.

A carbon tax or emissions trading scheme imposed in one country could result in carbon leakage, or another country retaliating by imposing tariffs and other trade restrictions, he said.

“Simply, I suspect that those politicians in various countries who today believe there is a simple fix to carbon leakage through unilaterally imposed carbon-tax adjustment do not actually intend to put a time-bomb under the world trading system.

“But there is no doubt in my mind that that is the risk.”

Regardless of whether the climate is changing and human induced emissions are contributing to it, the international politics require us to be seen to be doing our part to reduce them.

At least with Groser in charge, there’s hope that any agreements won’t wreck the economy without helping the environment which is what the original agreement would do.

You can read the interview here.

Do you want a sermon with that?

April 18, 2009

A travel company’s blurb on a walking tour of Italy says:

Whilst at your discretion [the company] recommends arriving/departing by train where possible within Europe due to this method of transport’s minimal carbon emissions.

Is that the end of the sermon, or are they going to recommend that we don’t drop rubbish, eat too much, drink immoderately or do any of the other things which might impact on the health of the planet or ourselves?

While one company’s preaching at us, another is making us pay for their penance.

I don’t have a problem with supermarkets, or other businesses, charging customers for plastic bags – there’s a cost to them, someone has to pay, it might as well be the users and if that encourages more people to use reusable bags which in turn reduces rubbish that might be a good thing.

I say might because I don’t know if the total impact of manufacturing and eventually recycling or disposing of reusable bags is actually better for the environment than that of making and recycling or disposing of plastic bags.

But that’s an argument for another time, it’s paying the penance  about which I’m quibbling now.

 Foodstuffs (New Zealand) managing director Tony Carter will only say that it will be making “substantial contributions” to environmental causes, with the majority of the money charged for bags earmarked for this use.

* I’m a little confused by this because it appears customers are being charged extra for something that will be better for the environment and then the company is using the extra money to contribute to “environmental causes”. *

If this is a good policy for bags, why not give the majority of the profits from everything to environmental causes because everything they sell will impact on the environment?

Or, if resusable bags really are so much better for the environment, why not just charge the cost price and let customers choose what to do with the money they save by not having to pay the supermarket extra so they can give it away?

If , however, charging more so supermarkets can donate more is a good thing, why stop there? Why not donate some of the profit from pet food to the SPCA and from anything which doesn’t meet the low fat, low sugar, high fibre prescription for healthy eating to the Cancer Society or Heart Foundation?

Is that any sillier than donating most of the profit from reusable plastic bags to “environemntal causes”?

I don’t have anything against businesses making profits or choosing to give some of those profits to worthy causes, but the idea of charging more than they need to then giving the excess away is a bit too much like a government taking more tax and redistributing it for my liking.

I use reusable bags, at least I do when I remember to take them, and being charged for the plastic ones will almost certainly help me remember them more often.

I don’t have a problem with the user-pays-save-the-planet policy, it’s turning it into a mission I question.

Businesses should do what’s best for them and, like all of us, minimise their negative impact on the environment while they’re doing it.

But they can keep the sermons and if they choose to pay a penance, they need to understand they’re not doing us any favours by charging us more to let them do it.

Lou Taylor at No Minister  reckons retailing is a bloodsport and:

The retailers who survive are the ones who can evolve with the times, control their overheads and are prepared to accept lower profits from time to time.

They might also be the ones that forget the sermons and don’t expect us to pay their penance.

P.S. Apropos of reusable bags, Liberty Scott shows the Greens don’t get the idea of choice.

* I was confused, this policy applies to plastic bags not resuable ones.

UPDATE: The Visible Hand in Economics posts on industry based solution vs regulation

UPDATE 2: Poneke has made a welcome return and posts on a related matter: indulgences we can do without.

NZ’s eco footprint 6th biggest

October 29, 2008

WWF reckons New Zealand has the 6th biggest ecological footprint  in the world.

The WWF calculations include carbon emissions from the production of imported goods and services and shows that Kiwis’ use of natural resources is excessive.

Do most of those carbon emissions come from animals?

And do these natural resources include the water and grass for the animals which produce the milk and meat to feed to people in countries which aren’t able to produce their own as efficiently – in environmental and economic terms – as we do?

And if so, how do we go about reducing our ecological footprint without ruining our economy; increasing ecological footprints in other countries who increase their production to compensate for the reduction in ours; and adding to the world wide shortage of food?

Early emissions cuts will crucify farmers

September 30, 2008

Farmers would be crucified if Australia cuts its greenhouse emissions before its major trading partners acted.

This is the view of Dr Brian Fisher a former federal research chief and greenhouse negotiator who said:

Australian Federal Government’s emissions trading scheme would slug farmers and other exporters with carbon costs they couldn’t pass on to overseas customers.

A new global agreement on cutting emissions was still “decades away “and Australia will have no influence on other countries by going first”.

“If we choose a target ahead of other countries, we’ll crucify our trade-exposed, emission sectors, we’ll roast them all on a spit,” Fisher said.

“There’s absolutely nothing to be gained by going first. We are climate-takers, not climate-makers. We’ll have no influence by leading with our own policies.”

“Why would we do that? You can just imagine the secret smiles of our competitors, who will no doubt be looking after their own national interest.”

If Australian farmers are going to be in trouble it will be much worse for New Zealand farmers and as a result of that our whole economy.

Females fail carbon test

September 5, 2008

Why women take the carbon credit is the heading on Jim Hopkins’  column. As always it’s worth reading in full and I was particularly tickled by this bit:

Ironic then that just as our politicians are wrestling with the sinful issue of emissions, new evidence should emerge from the Czech Republic which shows, on an individualised, gender-specific, preferential activities basis, that women may be making a disproportionate contribution to climate change.

Its impossible here to report all the findings – which have, of course, been suppressed by the mainstream media – but let’s consider a few salient snippets.

The fact that European women do 72.4 per cent of the cooking and 78.63 per cent of the washing up afterwards probably demonstrates traditional roles but the carbon consequences are nevertheless noteworthy.

As is vehicle use. What the Czechs show is that a combination of extended life expectancy and tasks like taking children to school or visiting the supermarket mean women are responsible for 61.077 per cent of all emission-intensive, stop-start, round-town travel miles recorded.

But it’s discretionary areas like grooming and hygiene where the carbon gap becomes genuinely worrisome. Apparently, the average European woman showers an alarming 2.795 times more frequently than her male equivalent. She also remains in the shower 4.21 minutes longer with the water at a higher temperature.

It’s estimated that such habits results in the annual burning of 41.6 million tonnes of fossil fuels that would otherwise not be needed. Then there’s the “garment gap,” which is massive. It turns out, for every garment the average Herr has in his wardrobe, there’s a equivalent 5.19 in hers.

And if the eco-impact of this is palpable, the consequences of the multibillion-dollar cosmetics industry are even greater. It’s estimated (in Europe) that a breath-taking 79.3 per cent of all unguents, creams, lotions, sprays, defoliants, hair lip and eye enhancers are purchased by women.

It’s the enviro-adversity of manufacturing those items – including waste (an estimated 356 million tonnes of discarded packaging per annum) – which should be agitating our legislators.

Especially since the cumulative effect of these and other inputs means the AAFWFCF (Average Aggregated First World Female Carbon Footprint) is either 1.7 or 1.9 times greater than its male equivalent, depending on variations in computer modelling.

If this Czech research can be corroborated, then any feminist worth his salt should be very alarmed. And every parliamentary feminist should be focusing more on changing female behaviour than this daft and costly business of trading emissions.

It would be ironic indeed to find some future historian concluding that we missed our best chance to “Save the planet” by failing to insist that women behave less like themselves and more like unwashed and smelly, ill-clothed and grubby old blokes!!!

Small benefit bigger costs

September 2, 2008

The ODT  headline says: Households to benefit from ETS in 2010.

The story says:

About $180 million is likely to flow to households through compensation payments for power price rises under the Government’s emissions trading scheme, Climate Change Minister David Parker says – an estimated $10 a month on an average household’s power bill.

But this is telling only part of the stroy, the compensation is very unlikely to match the rise in power costs and won’t come anywhere near the increase in other costs as a direct result of the seriously flawed ETS which is likely to be introduced.

Besides that, an ETS is supposed to impose costs to alter behaviour to reduce carbon emissions. If people are compensated for the rise in costs the point of the costly exercise in futility is considerably blunted.

Kyoto inconsistencies

August 27, 2008

Can anyone explain why:

1) The people who produce oil don’t have a carbon liability but the people who produce meat and milk do?

2) People who cut down forests have a carbon liability when the carbon is still in the wood which is then used for building?

3) People who cut down a forest and replant it in the same place don’t have a carbon liability when those who cut it down and replant elsewhere do?

4) People who cut down a forest and replant it in the same place then cut down the replacement trees six months later pay the carbon liability on the new seedlings not the old trees?

5) There is nothing to stop a business which has carbon liabilities here moving production to another country where it might produce more emissions but have to pay nothing?

6) We aren’t waiting to see what our trading partners do so that we don’t out-pace them?

7) We are introducing legislation which will hamper primary production and add to its cost when the world is short of food?

 *) Our negotiators served us so poorly?

9) Our politicians are rushing through legislation about which there are so many concerns?

10) Our politicians didn’t learn from the way they steamrolled through the Electoral Finance Act that cross-party consensus ought to be sought on matters like this?

11) Our politicians are introducing a scheme which will have an enormous negative economic and social cost with little or no environmental gain?

12) Our politicians want us to lead the world in solving a problem to which we contribute so little?


* if I type 8 with a closing bracket it turns into a face.

Contact’s eyeing the Clutha

August 9, 2008

Contact Energy is investigating more dams on the Clutha River.

Contact Energy’s Wellington-based communications manager Jonathan Hill said the power company was “taking a close look again” at old proposals which had been on the back burner, such as those involving sites at Beaumont, Luggate and Queensberry.

… Mr Hill said Contact did not have any firm plans in place and was simply looking at all of its options.

“However, we have a clear preference that any new hydro developments should be on rivers that already have hydro schemes on them, to avoid altering virgin rivers.”

Beaumont, Luggate and Queensberry on the Clutha River had all been proposed as possible sites.

Mr Hill said they were the only river schemes that Contact was actively looking at as the plans had already been drawn up by the previous owner, ECNZ.

“I think its a very important point to make that if we do identify a project that we would like to advance, the first steps will be to discuss it with local communities.

“The role of new, large-scale hydro projects will be particularly important in an environment in which there is growing concern around climate change and sustainability and in which traditional thermal fuels such as gas are becoming increasingly expensive,” he added.

The increase in thermal generation has been a major contributor to the increase in our carbon emissions. But the difficulty of getting through the Resource Management Act makes the development of new wind and hydro generation a long, involved and expensive process.

The Environment Court appeal against Meridian Energy’s  application consent for its Project Hayes windfarm in the Lammermoor Range has been adjourned until January.

Its Project Aqua on the south of the Waitaki River never got to the consent stage but the company is now looking at a scheme on the north bank.

This winter’s power crisis was avoided by conservation measures and timely rainfalls, but at great cost to businesses and the economy.

Conservation measures can only do so much, if we want to be a first world country with a first world economy so we can afford first world social and environmental initiatives, we need first world power supplies and that means more generation.

If the past is any guide there will be fierce oppostion to more dams on the Clutha. But if we have to reduce carbon emissions and nuclear generation is neither popular nor practical then we have to accept more wind and/or hydro schemes.

Climate change debate distorted by dogma

July 20, 2008

University of Otago geographer, Professor Geoffrey Kearsley, says that while human activity is changing the climate there is an increasing body of science that says the sun may have a greater role than previously thought.

It is now pretty much taken for granted that global warming is ongoing, that climate change is being driven by human activity and that it is critically important that extraordinary changes be made in fundamental aspects of our economy and way of life.

On the small scale, people plant trees, examine food miles, purchase carbon offsets and modify their travel behaviour.

Cities and even countries vie with one another to become carbon neutral; as a nation, we are contemplating emission controls, taxes and carbon-trading schemes that will have a profound effect on individual households and the national economy alike.

When linked with the other great crisis of our times – peak oil – it has become not only socially desirable to embrace all of this, but sustainability has achieved the status of a higher morality.

It has become politically unacceptable to doubt any of the current dogma.

So politics not science is driving the debate.

Not to subscribe wholeheartedly to the sustainability ethos is to be labelled not just a sceptic but a denier, with overtones of Holocaust denial and a wilful, unreasonable immorality.

It is said that we are now beyond the science and that the science of global warming has been finalised or determined and that all scientists agree.

Sceptics and deniers are simply cynical pawns in the pockets of the big oil companies.

And no one points out the vested interests in what has become the climate change industry.

This is unfortunate, to say the least.

Science is rarely determined or finalised; science evolves and the huge complexity of climate science will certainly continue to evolve in the light of new facts, new experiences and new understandings. Read the rest of this entry »


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,313 other followers

%d bloggers like this: