Weather Eye with John Maunder

Climate Change is Not a major problem 

Bryan Leyland (in a recent review in the New Zealand Centre for Political Research) notes that underlying almost everything we hear from the mainstream media is based on an assumption that if New Zealand reduces its emissions of greenhouse gases, our climate will ‘improve’. This he says “... is nonsense because any reduction we make in greenhouse gases will swiftly be blown off into othe Pacific. It is also worth noting that, according to Bjorn Lomborg, if every country that signed the Paris Agreement abided by their promises until 2100, the world would be cooler by a trivial 0.17 °C. As many countries are not abiding by their promises, we cannot expect any measurable reduction in temperature. New Zealand’s only sensible option is to adapt to our ever-changing climate, and stop squandering money on a futile attempt to control it.” Leyland also notes that “We hear a lot about 1.5°C “tipping points” that, it is claimed, could melt Greenland ice, destroy Amazon rainforest, trigger rapidly rising sea levels, and so on. The evidence from ice cores is that previous warm periods were warmer than pre industrial temperatures by more than 1.5°C. The Bronze Age, the Roman and the Medieval warm periods all brought prosperity to many countries. Without a prosperous economy they could not have afforded to build so many cathedrals!”

 “Regarding recent weather disasters (in New Zealand), many commentators seem to be unaware that past weather events were at least as severe and that much of the flooding was due to inadequate drainage in urban areas. For instance, Esk Valley floods were as bad in 1938 and worse in 1897. ‘He who ignores history is doomed to repeat it’ ”. Leyland also says that “We hear lots of claims that inaction in emissions comes with a massive financial bill from the Paris Agreement. Nonsense: the Agreement does not have penalties. Given its futility, New Zealand should either opt out of the Agreement or, like the majority of countries that have signed the Agreement, ignore it. Given that Article 2(b) says that we should not do anything that threatens food production, why are so many people complaining about removing agricultural emissions from the Emissions Trading Scheme?” “The New Zealand Government’s latest Climate Strategy says that climate change is already costing New Zealand and the costs are likely to grow. It is notably silent on whether or not anything that we do will change our climate; but the whole thrust of the strategy implies that this is the case. Deliberate deception? People don’t expect governments to spend vast amounts of money for no return; but this is happening. 

“The first pillar of the Strategy is to build up our resistance to inevitable climate change: this can only be a good move. The second pillar of the NZ Government’s Strategy says that they will rely on the market to reduce emissions at the lowest cost. Which is certainly an improvement on the current situation where nobody considers ‘the bang for the buck’ of various options and chooses the best. The third pillar is to have clean energy abundant and affordable. It might be abundant but it is certainly not affordable because of the very high cost of providing backup for the times when the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining. The fourth pillar is to have world leading innovation boosting the economy and the fifth pillar is to have nature based solutions addressing climate change. Leyland says I’m not sure what they’re getting at. If this includes growing ‘carbon forests’ and building solar farms on productive farmland then they are flying in the face of Article 2 of the Paris Agreement

Air New Zealand and Green Credentials 

Search for Air New Zealand’s big bold climate action plan and you get a black screen with the words: This site is under review Dubbed Flight NZO (zero), the airline called it its “most important journey yet”; its commitment to finding a more sustainable way to connect with the world by buying greener planes and using greener fuel. That journey has been disrupted after the airline dropped its 2030 goal to reduce carbon intensity by nearly a third from its 2019 baseline. It has also pulled out of the Science-Based Targets initiative, a scheme involving corporates around the world. The airline says it is sticking with the goal of net zero carbon emissions by the year 2050 and it is working on a new “near-term carbon emissions reduction target that could better reflect the challenges relating to aircraft and alternative jet fuel availability within the industry”. The move comes as airlines around the world face court action over their sustainability claims, so called greenwashing. 

Newsroom’s David Williams says the sceptics of Air New Zealand’s climate ambitions, including Tourism Professor James Higham, had warned early on that they would face greater scrutiny. “I guess he’s saying that it’s very hard for an airline to claim environmental exceptionalism. It’s not exceptional in terms of its ability to reduce its carbon footprint. So he would say there needs to be a bit more reality about what they’re saying about their sustainability.” Despite the move, Williams says the airline is seen as a sustainability leader by the industry, particularly for it’s offsets programme where customers can opt to pay for tree planting to offset their emissions. “And there’s all sorts of things you can do at the airport as well to save energy and to not emit carbon; but actually the big one is the big source of your emissions and that is flying planes. It’s really hard to say you’re an environmental leader when you’re burning fossil fuels all the time.” The airline’s announcement came on the same day that the Climate Change Commission warned that New Zealand risks missing key emissions targets under current government policies. 

Newsroom’s Marc Daalder says people often find the stories confusing and discouraging but there was some optimistic news in the same report. “We either want to hear that we’re doing well or we’re not doing well but the message often takes a little bit more nuance than that. That report said on the one hand New Zealand’s emissions have fallen every year in a row since 2019. That same report says we may be on track to meet our near term emissions targets but we’re not on track to meet our medium and long-term emissions targets.” He explains to The Detail why government policies have played only a small part in the reductions to date; and why we’re now not on target for net zero 2050 emissions. For example, he says, “the goals are ambitious and require deep cuts to the climate pollution produced from transport, energy, industry, waste and households. Compared with most other developed countries New Zealand’s emissions are higher per capita, mainly due to our agriculture. New Zealand’s net zero 2050 targets are also less ambitious because they do not include agriculture. We’ve got less stringent targets, we’re just getting started on our journey and at the same time we now have a government that is cancelling a lot of climate policies, reworking the emissions plan and producing new plans that don’t have us on track to meet our targets “. “There are other countries that are facing backslides on climate or are at risk of doing so, like the United States, but New Zealand is part of a smaller core of countries that are actually taking backsteps on climate.