Category Archives: Climate Change

Turn up the pressure

The New Zealand Government has set an emissions reduction target of 10-20% below 1990 levels (dependent on global agreement and other conditions).  This is well below the reductions called for by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which states that a reductions target of 25-40% less than 1990 levels (by 2020) is needed for all developed countries. Regardless of what the international scientific voices have to say, however, there is still wide ranging opinion as to whether this target is sufficient or is unreachable. The Ministry for the Environment has a list of tables comparing New Zealand targets to other countries worldwide, and while we are ahead of most developed countries, the EU has made far more promising progress so far, and have committed to a 30% reduction depending on a global consensus, and a 20% reduction target unilaterally. The UK is also ahead of us, setting an unconditional target of 34% or 42% dependent upon international consensus.


Interestingly, The Business Council for Sustainable Development, while being in agreement with the initial target, also notes that the target will have to increase in the December talks in Copenhagen. They cite two major reasons for a need to increase the target: first, leading other nations into a more ambitious reductions target will do more to combat climate change, and second, New Zealanders are willing to aim higher as well. An online survey of over 2000 kiwis showed that 49% wanted a target of more than 20%, with only 16% wanting a target below 10%.

Currently the governments’ plan to achieve this target is “a mix of domestic emission reductions, storage of carbon in forests with new plantings and the purchase of carbon credits” (AP). Is it just me, or is everyone else wondering what “domestic emission reductions” is going to entail? Environment Minister Nick Smith (is anyone else cringing at the fact that our Environment Minister is from, of all parties, the National Party?!) has stated, probably to quell outrage at the target, that it is unachievable and unaffordable to aim higher. I am willing to bet that he doesn’t distinguish between “unachievable” and “unaffordable.” The Green Party has released their own study that shows a different picture.  Usage of carbon credit figures by the New Zealand Government has not only been variable, but the high reliance on purchasing carbon credits in the first place is shown to be overstated. The study concludes that making key, economically viable and conservative adjustments to the following sectors would mean less purchasing of carbon credits to allow us to strive for a more ambitious target: Electricity, Industrial Fuels, Transport, Agriculture, Forestry Planting, and Forestry Management. What I found most surprising about this report is that we weren’t all expected to start riding our bikes tomorrow, or anything particularly drastic, in fact, the biggest savings to be had were in better forestry planting and management.

If you feel that the emissions target of 10-20% falls short of what should be done, demand more! There are two petitions currently running that I know about:

Oxfam’s Feel the Heat petition
Sign On

Both call for a 40% target, which is in line with the target called for by the IPCC. Let me know by commenting if there are other similar petitions going and I’ll add them to the list.


It gets worse (Greens)

1 Comment

Filed under Climate Change, Current Affairs

Car Free Day – 22nd September

Just thought I’d post a note about car free day, if anyone particularly feels like using any gear they own emblazoned with things like “pathways, not highways!” or “one less car on the road,” or “parks, not car parks!” on that day, you will no doubt be joined by many others.

And in preparation for the day, a tip: Most of the air pumps at petrol stations that tell you they are not suitable for use on bikes are are wrong. They’re just being mean.


Leave a comment

Filed under Climate Change, Transport/Cars

The Gullibility of Skeptics

I need to know the most diplomatic way to say “well, you’re entitled to your opinion, but you should really stop denying that it conflicts with the clear scientific evidence.” This need usually grips me in the depths of a civil discussion about global warming. You know the ones.

Many people perceive a scientific controversy where none exists. Naomi Oreskes has documented the extent of the scientific consensus, and I recently discovered she’s done further work looking at where these beliefs come from. Her answer, which takes up the latter half of that video, is that the controversy doesn’t come from within science, but from concerted PR campaigns by nonscientific lobbying organisations. A good watch if you’re a media/environment/science geek with a spare hour.

Leave a comment

Filed under Climate Change