“Please remove my name. What you have done is totally unethical!”
A story that could seriously damage the credibility of a broad swathe of climate change sceptics has blown up, in the wake of a new Heartland Institute list of 500 scientists whose work allegedly “undermines the idea of human-induced climate change”.
The list is an attempt to deflect the idea that there is no real science behind the deniers, however, it did not take long for many of those named on it to come forward claiming their work had been grossly mis-represented.
Five New Zealanders appear on the list, namely Associate Professor Chris Hendy (University of Waikato), Dr Matt McGlone (Science Team Leader, Landcare Research), Dr Neville Moar (retired DSIR,), Dr Jim Salinger (Principal Scientist, NIWA) and Dr Peter Wardle (retired DSIR, FRSNZ). They and a significant portion of the list are very upset at their inclusion and have requested their names be removed.
The five have today issued a public statement strongly objecting to the implication that they support Heartland’s position and reiterating their support for the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as to global warming and its causes, reads today’s Greenpeace press release on the issue.
“The sceptics have sunk to new depths if they’re prepared to mislead the public by using with the names of upstanding New Zealand climate scientists,” says Greenpeace climate campaigner Simon Boxer.
The incident comes just as a notorious New Zealand sceptic linked to the Heartland Institute puts his case to the Finance and Expenditure Select Committee on the Government’s emissions trading scheme.
“Owen McShane, who was paid by Heartland to speak at their conference in New York in March, gave evidence to the Committee this morning that climate change is a hoax,” said Boxer. “If this latest incident is any indication of the veracity of sceptics’ case, let’s hope the Select Committee paid no heed to his submission.”
Heartlands also helped Mr McShane - and fellow member of the NZ Climate Science Coalition Bryan Leyland - travel to the recent UN climate conference in Bali, where they ran workshops to try and draw attention to his anti-climate science argument, to little effect.
“Sceptics are like a huge number of species in the world - at risk of extinction from the truth about climate change,” said Boxer.
Greenpeace says it’s a sign of how desperate climate sceptics are that they’ve used the names of eminent New Zealand scientists to falsely back their cause.
In 2004, Greenpeace launched the research project ExxonSecrets to highlight the more than decade-long campaign by Exxon-funded think tanks to deny the urgency of global warming and delay action to fix the problem.
Find a map of Heartland, its staff and associates, the Exxon-funded groups they are linked with and the NZ Climate Science coalition at exxonsecrets.org.
The international climate blog, DeSmog Blog, originally broke the story, and it has so far published responses from scores of scientists, ourtraged at being included in the list. DeSmog also amusingly notes that a number of those on the list would be unable to respond, as they are no longer alive. Here’s a taste of some of the responses from the living:
“I am horrified to find my name on such a list. I have spent the last 20 years arguing the opposite.” - Dr. David Sugden. Professor of Geography, University of Edinburgh.
“I have NO doubts ..the recent changes in global climate ARE man-induced. I insist that you immediately remove my name from this list since I did not give you permission to put it there.” - Dr. Gregory Cutter, Professor, Department of Ocean, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Old Dominion University.
“Please remove my name. What you have done is totally unethical!!” Dr. Svante Bjorck, Geo Biosphere Science Centre, Lund University.
“I don’t believe any of my work can be used to support any of the statements listed in the article.” - Dr. Robert Whittaker, Professor of Biogeography, University of Oxford
Let’s see how many more scientists come forward over the coming weeks to get their names struck from the list - upwards of 45 have done so already.
The Heartland Institute has now withdrawn the claims the list makes, but is so far refusing to remove anyone’s name from the list.
Related posts
Email This Post
The incredible thing about the references to the NZ scientists’ work is that the Heartland Institute references the DSIR a number of times - this means that the work they are citing is at least 20 years old.
You’d think they’d draw on the huge amount of climate science that has been published more recently rather than scratching around for out-of-context references from 20 years ago.
This is the type of twisted, bent, science that you get from the climate sceptic industry - and from the Heartland Institute which is funding the NZ Climate Science Coalition.
Meanwhile, Heartland has also been busy in Canada, sending 11,000 DVD’s and brochures to schools asking them to teach climate scepticism.
You have to give them credit… they never do let the truth, facts or overwhelming scientific opinion sully their convictions.
This is totally hypocritical of Climate change believers! There Are Scores of scientists on the IPCC reports list of world leading scientists that are absolutely infuriated that they were used as supporting the theory of man influenced climate warming.
They are so p..d off that they made a documentary to expose the absolutely rediculous certainty that is purported by the IPCC who have quoted them as world class scientists but picked only their names and parts of their research to include in their report in an unbalanced way. The doco established a far better correlation to Global warm periods to solar activity than anything else as another proposal rather than a minute component of our atmosphere. Quite plausible. If it were a pot of water on the stove, would you assume the level of the element or the steam hovering in the pot had more effect on the temperature???
People in Glass houses shouldn’t throw stones,, Karma perhaps or what goes around comes around or do unto others.
The “human caused Climate change believers” are vastly more guilty of this unethical behaviour. The issue with using another’s research ethically is not using it but accurately using it. Hopefully the data and assumptions of the research quoted were used accurately within the researchers own quality standards etc. And as for using old research somehow being irrelevant! Ha Ha Ha.
Climate change cant be measured over a week… Only religious belief is adopted in a week or a year or two. Climate change needs to be compared over centuries and millenniums.
In summary； Hypocritical and Unqualified Criticism.
Now will you censor that or trust in truth unlike the IPCC.
Climate change is measured not believed!
D Duxfield, you say:
“The doco established a far better correlation to Global warm periods to solar activity than anything else as another proposal rather than a minute component of our atmosphere.”
Actually, no it didn’t. the documentary makers changed the graphics.
You might like to look at ABC Australia’s Tony Jones interview with the documentary maker Martin Durkin;
Part 1 here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIjGynF4qkE%20
Part 2 here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goDsc9IaSQ8&feature=related
Right… so how about a few links to back up your claims? Credible links from reputable sources or peer-reviewed materials only please.
The IPCC has no “ridiculous level of certainty” as you claim. Again, go do some research instead of just reading headlines.
Of course climate changes needs to be looked at over huge expanses of time, but it is - as the IPCC says - upwards of 90% certain that MAN is the driving force behind the rapid and catastrophic changes currently happening.
Your pot of water on the stove analogy is ridiculously simplistic (and really, the whole solar flares argument is defunct - please have a read of http://www.realclimate.org), but it does work well if you imagine us as frogs in the water, slowly boiling to death as we pretend we are not destroying our planet and collective future.
You seem to be referring to the “Swindle” documentary, and if indeed you are, then it’s probably a good idea you go do some more reading. It’s been thoroughly discredited, one of the more hillarious examples of this being Tony Jones’ complete dismantling of its arguments and creator Martin Durkin.
Find it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIjGynF4qkE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goDsc9IaSQ8
If you want to remove emotion from the *cough* debate, it really comes down to paying heed to the precautionary principle and exercising basic risk management.
If we take action to reduce emissions and clean up our act/planet and man-made climate change is miraculously proven to be false, we end up with a bunch of new technology and a healthier way of life (not a complete destruction of the economy as so many deniers cry). However, if we do nothing and continue with business as usual and the IPCC and overwhelming majority of scientists are *shock* correct, then we’ve destroyed the only known planet that can support life as we know it.
If you don’t want to do a lot of reading - and continuing with the youtube link theme - then watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF_anaVcCXg&feature=related for an excellent run down of why we should be prudent and take steps against climate change no matter what.
You’re right, climate change is measured - and all those measurements show that man and unrestrained, exploitative industrialisation is the cause. Every year that passes reaffirms this as more damning data surfaces.
Dang Cindy, beat me to it!
ah well, Greg, it seems you and I have the same views - and hopefully a double reference to the Tony Jones interview will have people watch it!
Great to see these videos and refs etc. Re From: wonderingmind42’s video
I think the point is the action to prevent perhaps the impossible (GW if by natural phases) depending on whether it is true or not is more sure to cause global humanitarian disasters than the no action. We are alraedy seeing the result of people preparing to produce biofuels that is resulting in massive food price rises that we are seeing only the start of. So the choice presented by the school teacher with the devil hat is a false analogy as destruction sits in both the action column of his matrix and the non action column. And in fact the action column is the only one in which disaster is almost certain. Millions die in famines… but then… perhaps thats the plan. Reduce the world population. Marshall political power through crisises. We are a virus after all. Damn the humans! Save the plankton. Sounds like Bush and the war on terror logic being used.
If also the theory was all true we would not be putting together a complex scheme that does nothing to guarantee a reduction in Carbon emmission but only a new inefficient industry and experts and markets to trade carbon points.
If this were all true we would do one natural market force complainat thing it would Definitelyt and directly reduce the use of fossil fuels immediately and not limit the few who want a hummer but naturally motivate the right societal behaviour research and development Birth rate and all.
What is this? Governments collecting tax from Fossil fuels even exclusively if need be more and more until the correct levels of Carbon production are used.
What ever that be. This need not stop any economy or starve millions of people it can be a tax replacing conventional taxes so we are not taxed more over all at all. If we all agree that carbon emissions came from fossil fuels and beef etc production nothing more need be done.
This is “the mammoth in the living room” in the face of a political beuraucratic mess being constructed with the ET schemes. These only favour politicians and market traders. and not the environment much at all. Even with all GW believers theories unquestionably accepted. Can we not see the political game in this??? Even a Believer can not deny that! It is counter productive and inefficient in the face of simple solutions.
As for part 1 of the great GW swindle interview the interviewer simply talked over his reasons and explanation to focus on 1 weak point a few year blip which most likely existed just as often in the Medievil warm period as it does now.
The interviewee was trying to explain the low credibility of the data and th erecent removal of data feeds in russia and would probably have gone on to introduce the contradictory data collected by satellites. ut he was not allowed to answer even directlyt the question asked. That is not an interview that is a witch hunters tactics when the inquisition courts are embarrassed to dismiss innocent and reasonable peoples pleas before execution.
This has become so emotion and tactic and propoganda bassed it is laughable.
And you’ve got to ask why a scientist would ruin his carrer in the missdle of the GW inquisition and the chance to get the grants required to survive if it were not for the moral reason of supporting truth against a hateful political agenda that Global warming activists have become. They harness good meaning ugnorant people and use them against society to control it.
Clear as Dogs balls!
Part 2 of the interview is much the same a single graphical violation in the period of 400 years showing a miniscule violation as evidence that 400 years is inaccurate! He still talks over any explanations that are going anywhere.
Need a line from the interviewer sums it up. and his comment about the aggressive nature of believers in this faith in GW ideology.
It seems that misquotes and smothered responses is the hall mark of the GW activist movement! It is sick! It is a witch hunt with a “damned if you speak the truth” situation.
Listen not to the critc of the interviewee for reason to dismiss him listen for the truth the guy was trying to present each time he was cut down by the interviewer.
Sorry I should have grammar checked all that.
Tell me you guys have listened to the Doomsday called of series rather than a science ignorant interviewer mocking an interview skill ignorant scientist.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr5O1HsTVgA&NR=1
Mate, Martin Durkin - the interviewee and producer of the Swindle “documentary” - is no scientist, and his chief scientist in the doco itself denies that smoking causes lung cancer.
These are men who have been proven to distort facts, interviews and research to their own ends, and you’re putting your faith in the greatest threat facing mankind in history in their hands?
I’ll give that Doomsday series a look at, but seriously, the unassailable truth is the vast - and I mean vast - majority of scientists believe in the threat of climate change, that man is responsible, and that action needs to be taken now to curtail the associated problems before it’s too late. It’s already too late to stop it, but we do have time to mitigate the worst effects if serious action is taken quickly.
As for the whole Biofuel thing, just because some politicians are trying to score green points by leaping into unsustainable production methods (eg methods that affect the world food supply) doesn’t mean that action = destruction. There are many other promising biofuels in development that are made from waste products, but even then the answer is not happy motoring nor business as usual. Action means powering down, it means replacing poor forms of generation and food production etc with more sustainable alternatives.
There’s some fantastic talks on TED that cover a lot of ground on these subjects.
There’s Gore’s follow up to the sceptic’s favourite punching bag of a doco http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/243
There’s this one by Michael Pollan discussing how man’s perception of nature in relation to himself needs to be re-thought: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/214
This one by JH Kunstler (eventually) gets into solutions that will be unavoidable in the near future. http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/121
…and there’s plenty more fantastic talks from the world’s leading minds (on the environment here: http://www.ted.com/themes/view/id/15 or on a range of fascinating topics on the main page http://www.ted.com).
One thing you won’t find on TED is a climate sceptic. I’ll let you figure out why.
Any views on why no simple diversion from tax from income and sales etc to fuels rather than anti-market schemes that do jack squat for the world?
10 dollars a litre or whatever. Introduce it bit by bit and watch the inginuity flow?
Emissions trading is a decietful Crock! It suits Politicians idelougues and traders. Not people or the earth!
Tax beef to if CH4 farts are too bad.
It would produce the right market reactions simply for NO ADDED COST!
That is a HUGE Mammoth in the living room!
Answers to that!?!?!
Other than you are so naive and don’t understand!
Because so far the ETS shows that it is a naive or deliberately flawed scheme that proponents don’t or sadly do perhaps understand.
Remove it and the whole GW story will look a little less suspicious.
Better than the same fear of big evils used to marshall people generation after generation when not much is actually wrong as from the US and Britain and Germany and before most major wars based on Power over benign happy masses.
Even if we ignore all the science that tears it to shreds in my view. So far all the refutations I have seen presented here have confirmed ignorance and naivity of GW believers not discernment of propoganda and intellect.
Gores own movie tears his own theory to shreds if it is to believed some ice melt will occur he shows it will reult in an ice age if his own case is correct! Desalination and the stopping of ocean currents etc…Watch if you want to know what I mean it is quite an embarrassing portion.
I’ll scan the latest sites offered tonight and see if they are not another temple full of religious zealots burning alive Gallileos proposing a round earth.
Duxfield, your rhetoric doesn’t exactly paint you as an open-minded person, so I think any naivety labels are misplaced.
Sceptics/deniers are not Gallileos arguing for a round earth, they are the remnants of flat-earth believers trying to twist political opinions into science despite the overwhelming majority of scientific opinion, and vast weight of research being against them.
I’m no economist, but I would think that if the government abolished sales and income tax in favour of a steep tax on fuels then it would not only be committing political suicide, but the economy would plunge like a 747 with its’ wings broken off mid flight.
I would imagine that with a hefty tax on fuel all of the businesses not tied directly to the land would pack up shop overnight and move somewhere else to be more competitive (Did you see Rio Tinto whining that the ETS will force it offshore? image what would happen if every business in this country was suddenly in the same position), the cost of living would rocket well past any extra money one would have due to lower income taxes (removing sales tax would not make food cheaper either, all food outside of what you grow in your own garden is heavily reliant on petrochemical fertilsers, transport, processing, packaging etc etc), after all, you may have an extra few hundred bucks in your pay packet each week, but what point use is that if fuel is $13 a litre, bus trips are $15 each and your supermarket bill goes through the roof?
Emissions trading is not perfect by any means, but if implemented correctly it is an effective way of encouraging polluters to clean up their acts, to increase government revenue which can (and should) be spent on important infrastructure (trains, public transport etc), healthcare and education, and cleaner, more sustainable technologies in general. If implemented correctly, it can also ensure we don’t have to suffer a major economic depression during the transition - which your “simple” suggestion in my mind would be far more likely to trigger than an intelligent ETS. Sounds to me like you’re proposing a flat tax, which as an idea itself has been resoundingly discredited around the world whenever it pops its head out. Modern economies just aren’t that simple.
You speak as if I haven’t thought this through at all.
You should really think twice about that proposal.
It is sensible and not politically manipulatable though it may be popular for the people who would be even slightly ready to change some habits and the poorer people who ride buses.
I think you would find many businesses coming! Low Business Tax! That has worked Everywhere to promote growth.
And in the end reduced emissions scenarios all result in less import and export anyway so resulting in self sustaining communities working more and more with local made products. This is a blessing in disguise. New Zealand will be motivated to make and use products from closer to home. No need for carbon miles to calculate that with a simple fossil fuel tax universally
Modern economics actually are finding themselves more and more simple contrary to your comments. That has been one of the most undefiable aspects of economics that has been revealed over and over again. Why should now be different?
The levers nations are willing to use to control an economy are becoming less and less as we realise it more and more. Have you noticed the way the worlds reserve banks are getting simpler in their responses to crisis’s
So a Major point is the tax overall doesn’t increase!
It is definitely not a flat tax and it doesn’t preclude other tax.
I just pointed out our cost of Environmental action needn’t change our daily costs only motivate positively rather than negatively the right activities.
The only business that would leave NZ would be a fuel based business like…..?
Only local transport companies maybe? We are a lucky country for such a Tax restructuring.
And the idea is that the whole world abandon the defunct idea of an ETS and use this far more logical and simple scheme that is fully adjustable even if one day we find that GW is a myth. It will appease the sceptics, cause a quantum leap in environmental technology research we will never regret and be able to be implemented with almost no cost and in fact with a reduction in Tax administration costs.
The biggest beauty of it is. …. It is not a greed facilitating monstrosity of a market that will be high jacked by an elite and politicians and be very difficult to dismantle should it be found to be superseded.
It should not loose an election and that is a no Brainer and your criticism on most points are a little less than completely thought out.
Because
1 it would be a gradual adjustment.
2. Each up in fuel would be matched by a down in other tax. So they say we are putting your fuel up $5 (10 cents a litre for a 50 litre a week person) and shifting the tax threshold up $5 So as you see the overall effect is an even stronger tax for luxury lovers and wasters.
3. Rio Tinto would be delighted if you realise where there energy comes from!
It is exactly for people like that that we would be wise to do this.
4. The emissions trading scheme is FAR from intelligent as most complex un even handed schemes tend to be. We have seen central policy time and time again end up political un fair and economy destroying. and incrementally introduced exchange between fuel tax would be the most efficient and fair system for spreading the cost and motivating the right action. And as for studying economics I haven’t recently but when I did I topped the subject.
Bus trips would not be $15 a trip for a number of reasons. One being electric buses are one of the easier things to implement and the other being that a Bus company could be realistically given a tax rebate if actively working to use the most efficient vehicles. That is not rocket science.
But it seems the resistance to this simple scheme is unusual not just here.
Colin Espiner with no reason out of hand mocked it and said he wouldn’t engage the thought.
It is the unexplained illogical obsession with the ETS that will be unequally applied industry by industry and fully open to political manipulation and require thousands of unproductive experts who reduce GDP.
The Tax I suggest would literally require half a dozen experts and perhaps reduce headaches for people at tax time and at the IRD.
It is Bl…dy glaringly obvious how ridiculous the ETS is but no body even touches this just as obvious alternative.
What is more it means it is easy to levy the non compliant nations and relieve developing nations.
Each country just like Kyoto agrees to a fossil fuel levy regime and that is a more simple tax scheme above political interference that the ETS absolutely Reeks of. It needn’t even be levied at the pump but at the Border on imported fuels and at the producer where we produce our own fuel.
Really guys that is something Greenpeace should Be Shouting for and running through its think tanks.
It is far more efficient and effective and doesn’t have un-transparent leaks to particular industries. If an industry really needs protection beyond this you use tax rebates.
Run this around your think tanks…
And as for the Galileo thing being the opposite way around… well you apparently haven’t watched or researched much other than your own vetted propaganda.
The rebuttals I have seen offered from the comments above, have shown how much you guys have not paid attention to the science that supports your passion and the perhaps even anti environmental positions you are taking naively. The name of your organisation doesn’t protect you from errors any more than a priests uniform stops him from sexual desire. There is too much comms consultant spin being regurgitated and not enough truth. Too much very Dodgy data as no few people agree is coming out of the IPCC. The Hockey stick! If you can’t tell me what a denier means if he/she were to mention that and why they think the IPCC has issues with its data, you are not ready to engage in this topic as anything more than a blind religion. As that is just a little of some really poor science from the IPCC. We have got to stop reading our own propaganda which though with good intentions to convince people, was produced, it is not rigorous science but only presentations to convince.
We should first be reading the science not counting the scientists on each side. Truth is not democratic. That has been seen as with Galileo. So far the rebuttals from disbelievers have been met with rhetoric skills and not science. That is why I am much more impressed with the science offered by the sceptics. It seems that since the now intensely discredited information in Gores “Inconvenient Truth” has emerged, only the rhetoric has improved and not much science.
We need diligent investigation of criticism not blanket write offs.
That is mere religion.
Mate, you haven’t offered a single piece of evidence to support any of the points you have made, so I hardly think you can criticise anyone else for arguing without scientific basis.
That said, do you really believe that an organisation such as Greenpeace bases an critical global campaign such as climate change on hearsay and dodgy science? Do you think we throw away vast amounts of money kindly donated by our supporters on tenuous issues?
No, we don’t. We have scientists, researchers, campaigners and more all around the world that spend all day, every day working on the issues we campaign on so we know without a shadow of a doubt that our position is solid. GP isn’t made up of five smelly hippies working out of a hut in Byron Bay. We are a global organisation that is a respected commentator and we know the science back to front and inside out.
We can argue about this all day if you like, but the fact remains that the climate is rapidly changing for the worse, man is the main driver for this change, and we must make a global effort to reduce the long term effects. The ETS, while not perfect by any means, is NZ’s best hope right now to help curb our contribution to the problem. Scrapping it in favour of quazi-tax re-jigging is not a solution if for no other reason than there is simply no time to do it. We have a window of 8 to 10 years (according to respected scientists - not a divination from the Enviro-God) to make real change before it is too late.
To address a few of your points directly…
When I say the weight of scientific opinion is against sceptics/deniers, it’s not that i’m counting the number on each side of the table. Rather that there are more scientists with more peer-reviewed materials, and more substantiated arguments overall than there are on the other side. If there really was so much solid, credible evidence to the contrary then would those that agree with man-made climate change not be in the minority? It’s not like this is a new issue.
To answer your question: “The only business that would leave NZ would be a fuel based business like…..?”
What businesses aren’t fuel based? Everything in our economy is intimately tied to the price of oil and higher prices at the pump are already putting strain on businesses and the general population.
Electric busses aren’t that easy to implement in my opinion. I’ve lived in countries with these systems and unless you’re going to deploy a fleet based on lithium ion technology you need to install overhead power delivery infrastructure, dedicate lanes etc etc. Can you imagine people agreeing to having overhead powerlines installed everywhere?
With the levers of the economy and the bank responses to fiscal crisis… i feel the responses are more akin to blunt instruments than a simplification of process. But we can agree to disagree about that otherwise we’ll be here all month.
WHAT is there to agree to disagree about ????!!!!
Clearly my main point has escaped you which I tried for 3 messages to make clear. Even if all your views are correct (which I wrote a number of times) the current politically manipulatable approach to this is unnecersary and inefficient when a very clear alternative is Obvious.
It is something I have seen no GW believer entertain which seems to reek of false motive which stokes skepticisim.
Briefly Re the science You clearly still have not reviewed the other side of the story as I suggested.
Do you know about the hockey stick yet enough to show why the complaints about the Data removed from the IPCC model is objected too by scientists?
I have reviewed the posts which quite often talk more on ethics assuming the science.
Such ethics are not the problem we all surely agree on them. I watched Gores rebuttal about the sun linked warming theory. After his short bit of science with 2 graphs which I am still seeking the background of the data used ?? (-night temperetures- and stratospheric temperatures over a short period of time).
Anyway that was interesting of him despite the superficial explanation.
But science need not even be argued as I pointed out.
Lets agree on GW. Though I doubt I can accept that.
What Gore said that was also quite interesting and is exactly what I have been pushing was…..Gore reccommended stop taxing income he said and tax Carbon- pollution!! So why an ETS that is my question?
I clearly dealt with the few drawbacks you seem so keen to find in my suggestions if you read it again.
There is nothing you need so obstinately disagree about, other than my openness to studies that disagree in conclusion with the assumption of GW (you just can not call it established fact),
Because… I was not making suggestions to not take action.
I am not the petrol head wanting cheap fuel for the V8
I was suggesting a far more effective more honest and undisruptive solution.
In regard to your suggesting we are heavily fuel reliant I meant disproportionately fuel reliant industry like a coal fired plants.
Otherwise as I pointed out and you still don’t seem to have taken in, the overall cost of business would NOT increase.
As other tax as Gore even suggested would Decrease.
So that is an irrelavent argument. dispite me showing even if it were relevant further tax rebates could mitigate it.
Also the intention was that it be a international response not a NZ only approach as if our 1 city sized nation could make a differnece except as idealistic leaders.
Then if Logical simple approaches are taken that are more flexible and less disruptive and political Many people would take this whole thing along more seriously. Action here need not result in a reaction at all.
It is hard to trust power addicts like politicians want only the best when they build a system that will reinforce power over people when a perfectly simple option that leaves freedom is at hand.
Do you get that!
A system not guaranteed to work but guaranteed to turn our lives upside down
OR
A System that is guaranteed to work and leaves us free with a changed world.
WHAT is there to agree to disagree about ????!!!!
Start marketing this idea.
Run this idea up the flag pole and see if it gets shot down and by Whom?
Only by power mongers oil companies and pollititians.
Oil Companies must Love the ETS Scheme. Is assures a new bright future out of the power shadow of the US and Higher oil sales in the develping world.
“I am Exxon I’m not scared of ETS”. The Oil companies are very quiet on this…
Go figure why?
The Scientists named here are just refuges of an inquisition.
They don’t want to be bullied and unpopular in the playground that is all.
The questions should be about there research accuracy not how it was used.
Hey Greg
This rather loud D Duxfilefd (Dead duck?) may be a cynic but has a good point.
What is suggested would be much simpler and very flexible and provide no barriers to countries to implement. Sounds a bit like tax on Tabacco and other harmful sustances. The only thing to lose out with the drop in CO2 is plants trying to breathe in nice fresh CO2 to stay alive.
It seems strange here that you advocate Not raising fuel prices and criticise electric buses as that is exactly the carbon trading thing is trying to push us in Theory.
Who is the real greenie here?
Duxfield, your main points haven’t evaded me at all. I’m just thinking beyond what would be ideal to what is actually possible to achieve. I’m not obstinately disagreeing with you, I just have my own view of the situation based on a lot of reading on and writing about this topic.
I also never proclaimed GW is established fact (I said climate change every time for one, GW is a bit of a misnomer like the “fart tax” and promotes the wrong kind of discussion - eg: the whole, snow in Baghdad = GW is a myth! claims), I said a number of times that the vast weight of peer-reviewed scientific says it (climate change) is happening, and if you saw any of the recent reports, even faster than thought.
You suggested a Fuel tax - not a Carbon tax. They are hardly the same thing. And slowly increasing tax in one area while reducing it in others is not going to, in my opinion, reduce complexity at all. Nor will it result in a situation where there will be no pain during transition.
As the Deputy PM Michael Cullen said recently: “We are getting to the point where people are arguing we must do something to stop climate change but it must not in any way have any impact on anybody that is in any way negative. That’s not possible.”
The big problem is, we simply do not have the luxury of time to devise a whole new way to attack the problem (let alone a whole new system of taxation), to formulate policy, to get parliament to agree on it, to sell it to the public etc etc. These things take YEARS, and are - as we are seeing with the current ETS - often hampered, or completely watered down by those who prefer business as usual, regardless of the effect on the environment and their ability to do business in the long term.
And as David Parker said in December: “We do not have the luxury of time. If I or this Government mistakenly delay our response to climate change, that will be in the poor interests of New Zealand economically. It will leave our children a legacy of climate change. You know, the Government will have failed its duty.”
Again, while it’s not perfect the ETS (provided the government doesn’t go through with recent backtracking) will encourage the big polluters to clean up their acts, and it will bring in extra revenue that the government can, and should spend on improving infrastructure, health, education, energy efficiency etc etc.
You say the ETS is overly politicised, how do you think changing the tax system isn’t politicised? Do you think those same organisations that heavy the government to water down the ETS will not try to bend any new legislation to their will?
I’m not anti-business or anything like that, or trying to dismiss your suggestion completely. I really just don’t see how it will solve or simplify anything, let alone be painless or timely enough to be worthwhile.
Hi Aaron,
I’m not advocating keeping fuel prices low by any means (and they will rise of their own accord anyway), and I think we all agree that rising fuel costs will encourage demand destruction that would have (despite a lot of complaints from the public and business) a lot of positive run-on effects.
I’m not criticising electric buses either, I just think there are far more urgent infrastructure issues to resolve before sidetracking the debate with new technology rather than improving what we already have.
And if you think plants will struggle to breathe with lower levels of Co2 in the air… do you think they were struggling a few thousand, or even a few hundred years ago when we had far lower levels of Co2, but vastly increased forestry levels?