The ODT has two stories about climate change. One is an opinion piece headlined Debunking the climate change deniers by Doug Mackie, research fellow in the chemistry department at Otago.
The other is a news story on consent hearings for a wind farm and quotes Professor Bob Clark who said available scientific data on global warming did not justify the belief carbon dioxide emission controls could be used as a means of managing or stopping future climate change.
I spent last Thursday with a discussion group learning about climate change. Chatham House rules apply so I can’t discuss the presentations. But my conclusion was that regardless of what science has established, consumer demand and politics require producers to reduce carbon emissions.
Our competitors would grab any opportunity they can find to impose non-tariff barriers and could use carbon emissions, real or invented, to do it. Retailers will use low carbon emissions to give a marketing advantage and consumers wealthy enough to have a choice will take the carbon footprint into account when making a purchase.
That isn’t all bad news because using water, fuel, power and fertiliser more efficiently has enviornmental and economic benefits.
However, not everything required by the Kyoto Protocol makes sense. For example you can cut down trees and replant in the same place or leave the land to regenerate without incurring a carbon liability; but if you replant somewhere else, you will.
The people negotiating on our behalf need to address stupidities like this to minimise the economic cost and maximise the enviromental gain.
Homepaddock 
Perhaps the most offensive thing about climate change is the cry “The science is settled” followed by demand that the skeptics recant, make a good act of contrition and get with the programme.
Science like this is never settled and claims that it is are an affront to science and credibility.
The Western world has made huge strides in environmental protection in the last 50 years, and given time, would either clean up oil and coal or render them obsolete. Forcing this change brings in the law of unintended consequences.. big time.
Bringing domestic animals into the equation is nutty. What about all the creatures in the wild? And it’s a short step to the Green nirvana of only a billion people in the world, to placate Gaia.
Still, the plain evidence is that as the rhetoric rises, so does the carbon footprint. It seems, like the PMs award for greenness, that the appearance of being green is more important than real action.
JC
LikeLike
Must research Chatham House rules.Sounds like a Gore District Council meeting.
LikeLike
Oops I should have looked up the Chatham house Rules before I made the comment about Gore District Council meetings.
Q. What are the benefits of using the Rule?
A. It allows people to speak as individuals, and to express views that may not be those of their organizations, and therefore it encourages free discussion. People usually feel more relaxed if they don’t have to worry about their reputation or the implications if they are publicly quoted.
These rules would be of no use at Gore District Council meetings that are open to the public as open discussion is frowned upon.
As for climate change three cheers for Professor Bob Clark and others who dare challenge the establishment.
LikeLike