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.
Posted by homepaddock 
Homepaddock 