Straight Thinking by Owen Mcshane

PDF of this NBR column 

Do pollsters ask the Right Questions?

Why has the National Party so strongly endorsed Labour’s commitment to the Kyoto protocol?

I would have thought prudent politicians would keep their options open – especially the possibility of switching to the Asia-Pacific 6, which is likely to be more effective in reducing emissions.

I understand recent polls suggest New Zealanders are concerned about climate change. However, it’s the trends that count. There is evidence that alarmism has peaked and that both the scientific community and the general public are becoming increasingly skeptical.

Maybe the pollsters need to ask the right questions. If a pollster asks me “Do you believe in climate change?” what can I say but “Yes”?

I accept the Benign Medieval Warm Period really happened, and was followed by the non-benign Little Ice Age – which brought the Black Death to Europe, froze up the Vikings, and halted Polynesian migration to and from New Zealand and Easter Island.

On the other hand, a question like “Is the science on manmade global warming settled?” might give surprising results.

For example, the famous physicist, Freeman Dyson, has always argued that the focus on the atmosphere science is wrong, and that we will not understand the contribution of greenhouse gases (GHGs) to temperatures until we know more about the biosphere as a whole, and, in particular, of the actions of soil and root systems. Dyson was an early advocate of biological sequestration, but always insisted “it’s roots that count – not shoots”.

Unfortunately, our Government has been taken in by the atmospheric emphasis of the IPCC and has moved funding out of the agricultural CRIs and into NIWA. So we still don’t know whether turning pine forests into pasture increases or decreases our GHG emissions.

This science is certainly NOT settled.

Why our Belching Livestock Count.

We are told our farming activity accounts for over 50% of our GHG emissions. But this is because we have only a few million people, very little industry, and generate most of our power from hydro, geothermal and natural gas. Our several million ruminants figure large in Kyoto calculations only because our other sources of emissions count for so little.

Our farm animals are among the most methane efficient in the world. So if we punish our farmers with taxes and charges, then global customers will buy their meat and dairy products from less efficient producers, and GHG emissions worldwide will increase.

Does this make any sense?

The Europeans have told their farmers that if they tax them for methane emissions their subsidies will be increased to compensate. Why should we join the Europeans’ pernicious game – especially when they are the referee?

The Perils of Carbon Trading.

Should we really rush into carbon trading – especially if it is based on forests?

Estimates of greenhouse gases absorbed by forests may well be in error by plus or minus 50%. Even if we did know exactly how much a tree absorbs, further errors arise when assessing the number, size and growth rate of trees in a plantation. Unlike most transactions, the purchasers don't care, because they are actually buying “indulgences” – not sequestered CO₂. In the end, someone will offer a price based on best guesses and the “highest guesses” will be best rewarded.

If there is an opportunity for fraud, it will be taken. Enron promoted man-made global warming because they saw the pot of carbon-gold at the end of the carbon-trading rainbow.

Carbon trading will provide benefits for a select few, increase the cost of living for the majority, make little difference to GHG emissions, and have absolutely no measurable impact on global temperatures.

Do these costs justify pandering to Europe’s whims?

We should focus on the Pacific Rim.

Should we be affirming our commitment to the Kyoto protocol just when Canada seems to be preparing to withdraw? While Canada may not be major player or trend-setter, their withdrawal would mean that New Zealand would be the only nation on the Pacific Rim to be committed to the Kyoto protocol, and the only one carrying the anti-competitive costs.

The Pacific Rim is where our future trading opportunities lie. We are fortunate to be within this grouping of the most rapidly growing economies in the world. Why hang on to the European coat-tails? They will always find some excuse to protect their markets: if food-miles don’t work they’ll find something else that will.

The Europeans look after their own interests. They are giving up on wind-power, investing in nuclear power, and buying into Russian oil and Canada’s oil-sands.

The Irish economy has performed spectacularly well and the result is their Kyoto budget is blowing out by hundreds of millions of dollars. That’s how the Kyoto Protocol rewards Ireland’s economic success. We have been warned.

The Costs and Benefits of the “50 by 50” target

Has the National caucus attempted any cost and benefit analysis of its target?

Given that 50% of our emissions come from ruminant livestock, which don’t respond to fiat, we may have to reduce all other emissions by 75%. Don’t be surprised if 75% of our population migrates to Australia.

Killing off our ruminants would impose a massive cost. On the other hand, going nuclear and electrifying the private transport fleet might be a better option, and provide a bonus by reducing our dependence on Middle Eastern Despots and their Oil.

If we reform the RMA only to make life easier for windfarmers we only divert investment away from other more useful infrastructure. Let’s reform the RMA for everyone.

Most government agencies now seem convinced that we should favour public transport over private transport. I have no idea why, because public transport is less fuel-efficient than private transport.

This may seem counter-intuitive but some typical figures explains why.

Cars carrying central city commuters are only about 30% loaded. (They are always 25% loaded because of the driver). Commuter buses during rush hours will be about 60% loaded over the whole trip. But over the “whole-of-day” the load-factor of the private car increases to about 40%, while the whole-of-day load factor for buses falls to only 10 – 15%.

So moving people from private to public transport uses more fuel per passenger-kilometer traveled!

If anyone produces figures which show otherwise they are cheating – usually by focusing on commuter trips only, or by ignoring return trips, when commuter buses run empty or near empty.

Sustainable Development

Of course most of these political postures are derived from the United Nations’ love affair with “sustainable development”.

The Chairperson of the United Nations Committee on Sustainable Development hails from Zimbabwe.

Which should give us all some food for thought.

The good folks of Zimbabwe would just appreciate some food.

Are Teens inventing the Public Transport of the Future?

Police reports tell us there were some 500 to 600 young people at the Christchurch Text Party which ended in the death of two young women.

I don’t remember any reports of about 500 cars crowding the streets. This may be an early sign that the e-world savvy young people who have invented U-Tube, TradeMe, and so on are in the process of inventing DriveMe – the transformation of the private vehicle fleet into the world’s most efficient and intelligent public transport system.

The new Nokia N95 phone, which has GPS built-in, will tell you where you are, where your friends are, give directions to get anywhere, and locate the nearest taxi or other “wired” vehicle. Video-images and tracking provide security to drivers and passengers alike.

While our dumb Kyoto-addled masters invest in moronic trains, our savvy teenagers may well be inventing the intelligent transport system of the future – one which comes at no cost to taxpayers and which actually works.

Let’s hope they get there first.

1283 words