Submitted by climaterealists on Fri, 25/06/2010 - 17:50
Richard Treadgold | April 28, 2010 | 7:58 pm
Climate Conversation Group
In the Parliament today, Chris Auchinvole asked Nick Smith (Minister for Climate Change): “Are claims correct that New Zealand is the first in the world to have an emissions trading scheme, and that it is just a tax for revenue purposes?”
And thus did Nick reply:
No, 38 countries have commitments under the Kyoto Protocol, and 29 of them, or three-quarters, already have an emissions trading scheme. Nor is the scheme a tax. Although consumers and businesses will pay $350 million in the first year of the scheme for their emissions, foresters will receive $1,100 million in carbon credits for post-1989 forests. Far from providing net revenue to the Government, the scheme is actually a cost to the Crown. There are 12,000 New Zealanders who, in good faith, planted trees on the assurances of both National and Labour Governments that they would receive carbon credits for those post-1989 forests. The emissions trading scheme honours that commitment.
But the facts are different from those presented by our Nick.
Submitted by climaterealists on Fri, 25/06/2010 - 17:48
Dr Smith
The ETS debate continues albeit a very one-sided debate, largely due to a compliant media.
Your often quoted mantra that 'New Zealand does not lead the world with an ETS and 29 countries already have a system in place', is of course not entirely true and you are well aware this is not true. New Zealand is the only country to have an ''all sectors, all gases" ETS. You are also well aware that 27 of the 29 countries you quote are within the EU and that scheme has so many exemptions as to make a comparison with New Zealand's scheme laughable.
Dr Smith you are very quick to point out that both ACT and Federated Farmers are misinforming the public. Below are three quotes, are you saying that these statements are untrue, if so perhaps you would be good enough to correct them.
Submitted by climaterealists on Fri, 25/06/2010 - 17:45
Ahhhh, even TV3 is starting to cover "the facts".......
TV3 News, Auckland -- 04 Jun 2010 10:32a.m. -- Ray Lilley -- Some South Pacific coral atolls have held their own or even grown in size over the past 60 years despite rising sea levels, research has shown.
Some scientists worry that many of the tiny, low-lying islands throughout the South Pacific will eventually disappear under rising sea levels.
But two researchers who measured 27 islands where local sea levels have risen 120mm - an average of 2mm a year - over the past 60 years, found just four had diminished in size.
The reason: Coral islands respond to changes in weather patterns and climate, with coral debris eroded from encircling reefs pushed up onto the islands' coasts by winds and waves.
Professor Paul Kench of Auckland University's environment school and coastal process expert Arthur Webb of the Fiji-based South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission, used historical aerial photographs and high-resolution satellite images to study changes in the land area of the islands.
While four had gotten smaller, the other 23 had either stayed the same or grown bigger, according to the research published in the scientific journal Global and Planetary Change.
Submitted by climaterealists on Fri, 25/06/2010 - 17:02
Washington Times editorial 11 June 2010
New study debunks Al Gore's hysterical fairy tale
Of all the apocalyptic imagery summoned by global warming's proponents, the most compelling has been the threat of coastal devastation from rising sea levels. In his best-selling work "Earth in the Balance," Al Gore argued that the selfishness of Western industrialization would obliterate small, impoverished countries.
"Although the sea level has risen and fallen through different geological periods, never has the change been anywhere near as rapid as that now expected as a consequence of global warming," he wrote. "... [I]sland nations like the Maldives and Vanuatu (formerly New Hebrides), will be devastated if the projections made by scientists turn out to be accurate." Mr. Gore solemnly predicted that millions of poor inhabitants would be forced to flee their homelands in a desperate bid for survival - unless we adopt his political agenda. It just isn't so.
Submitted by climaterealists on Fri, 04/06/2010 - 21:32
The following is a reply to a letter from Nick Smith. To read this letter, click here.
Dr. Smith
Thank you for your letter of 3rd inst. in response to my calls to delay the ETS.
Your second paragraph cites statistics indicated a warming earth and a warming New Zealand. The accuracy of measurements and the storage of raw data have been called into question by a large number of climate scientists. The obvious manipulation of raw temperature data in New Zealand by NIWA is well documented and is the reason why they are now reconstructing the temperature record for New Zealand. So, I would contend that the assertion that the earth and New Zealand are warming is debateable. That said, there is no consensus among scientists that the 0.03 percent of the atmosphere which is anthropogenic CO2 has any significant affect on the greenhouse effect. The science is in its infancy and much more research is needed into other climatic influences such as Pacific Decadal Oscillations, El Nino & La Nina patterns, sunspot activity, cloud cover and aerosol impacts, negative feedbacks and much more.
Submitted by climaterealists on Fri, 04/06/2010 - 21:18
nzherald.co.nz 3 June 2010
They are the poster children for fears that rising sea levels will swallow island nations.
But a study of Pacific Islands over the past 60 years shows many are fighting back against climate change by actually increasing in land area.
Aerial photographs and high resolution satellite images of 27 islands taken since the 1950s found only four islands had decreased in land area - despite sea level rises of about 12cm - and most of those were uninhabited.
At the same time, seven islands grew in tiny Tuvalu, the low-lying group whose fate transfixed the world's media at the Copenhagen climate conference last year.
Submitted by climaterealists on Fri, 04/06/2010 - 20:58
To our most honourable Leaders
I’m writing to express my absolute dismay that, with the introduction of the Emissions Trading Scheme, New Zealand is about to become a world leader for all the wrong reasons.
How can we push through with such a scheme when no other country in the world has signed up to an ETS?
Why is there such a hurry to push this tax through when Australia will not even entertain the idea until at least 2013?
How can you justify forcing this tax on the New Zealand public when we are in a recession?
Why have you changed your position, Most Honourable Prime Minister, when you have previously been quoted as saying that “Global Warming is a hoax” and that “New Zealand should not be a world leader on climate change”?
Why do politicians keep saying the science is settled when you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to find that thousands of scientists around the world do not agree with the alarmists' claims?
A petition, signed by over 31,000 scientists, states that there is no convincing scientific evidence that the tolerance of the release of greenhouse gases is causing global warming. The science is not settled; in fact the recent eruption in Iceland makes a mockery of what any ETS would achieve.
Submitted by climaterealists on Fri, 04/06/2010 - 20:32
With emission schemes stalled from Washington to Canberra, David Broome asks if Federated Farmers could be set to ‘fight all ridiculous taxes’ in F.A.R.T 2.0.
It may be that New Zealand has just embarked on the most audacious branding exercise ever conceived. Global in scope, the brand takes market forces, supercharges them with the power of righteousness and uses them to drive what to-all-intents-and-purposes, is a moral crusade. All going to plan, other nations will be powerless to resist the brand’s underlying logic with our goods sailing (but not flying) out the door to grateful buyers willing to pay a huge price premium.
Or, just maybe, New Zealand has embarked on a lonely, delusional, badly-timed odyssey that will cost the country dearly – leaving the rest of the world shaking its collective head in amused bewilderment. New Zealand, the land which swallowed its own propaganda. It’s no wonder, some say, the Government receives congratulatory emails from overseas about its acronym rich Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS).
Submitted by climaterealists on Fri, 04/06/2010 - 20:20
Released 03 Jun 2010
Using the Minister of Agriculture & Forestry's own cost figures for the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), the national dairy herd will need to expand by 88,000 cows just to offset the $44.46 million ($3,900 per farm) in ETS costs from 1 July.
"Dairy farmers will need to increase intensification on-farm just in order to stand still under the ETS," says Don Nicolson, Federated Farmers President.
"Based on the current payout forecast, our calculations using the Minister's own figures, tells us that it will take the profit from an additional seven dairy cows per farm just to cover the ETS cost per farm.
"If you multiply that over 11,800 farms it adds up to a substantial expansion in the national herd over and above any natural growth.
Submitted by climaterealists on Thu, 03/06/2010 - 10:30
The Dominion Post 3 June 2010
OPINION: Could it be that other countries are waiting to see how NZ's scheme pans out, asks Joe Fone.
'The madness of the Government's new carbon tax is that New Zealanders will be the only people in the world paying it," Nick Smith said in 2005.
"It will drive up the costs of living and undermine competitiveness of New Zealand business for negligible environmental gain."
Back then, Dr Smith was scathing of the Labour government's planned emissions tax but now, as minister for climate change issues, he argues the exact opposite. It is difficult to reconcile these contrary attitudes, especially given revelations of scientific malfeasance in the climate science community during the intervening five years that have thrown serious doubt on the whole idea of human-induced climate change.
The minister gets around this contradiction by arguing that the National Government's emissions trading scheme is not a tax at all but a strategy designed to change our behaviour. This argument is specious because it suggests that National's scheme would have some effect on climate while Labour's would not, due to a few technical differences. Hardly.
Pages
