Skip to content

Climate change nonsense


Gideon Rachman writing in the FT notes:-

Even if a deal is somehow struck at Copenhagen, it will involve promised reductions of CO2 emissions that seem literally incredible. The rich countries that belong to the Group of Eight, including the US, say they want to cut emissions by 80 per cent by 2050 – which will mean a massive transfer to cleaner sources of energy. As Oliver Morton, the science writer, points out – “Building two terawatts of nuclear capacity by 2050 – enough to supply 10 per cent of the total carbon-free energy that’s needed – means building a large nuclear power station every week; the current worldwide rate is about five a year. A single terawatt of wind – 5 per cent of the overall requirement – requires about 4m large turbines.”

Here in NZ politicians of all kinds are bleating about the ETS. Some politicians are bleating as well about how NZ has to show moral leadership and sign up to policies that would devastate our economy. Many blather about how the wrath of the civilised world will be visited on NZ if we fail to do something.

If it is, then that will serve only to show the moral bankruptcy of the bigger nations. Clearly if the quote above is correct then all this talk of 80 by 50 or 40 by 20 is clearly hypocritical blather – hot air, as there is no chance of the tagets being met, or the necessary power capacity put in place.

In a NZ context Nick Smith burbles about electric cars, who is going to build the generation capacity, given the RMA and the Greens would we even have consent to build by 2020?

Yes there may be a problem, but realistically we are going to have other ways to deal with it, as no country and in particular neither the US, nor the EU is going to impoverish their electorates to achieve anywhere near the targets. Moreover, the concept of ‘green jobs; may well turn out to be a mirage.

One Comment
  1. Sally permalink
    06/10/2009 19:40

    The “problem” is the well-funded climate monopoly who pay to find a crisis but don’t pay to check the results. Billions have been spent on global warming theories but auditing to test the integrity of the theories is left to unpaid volunteers.

    The unwillingness to allow open examination of methods and data sources is rather common in the climate studies field. In science, getting the stamp of “peer review” has become like a free pass to credibility.

    Science publishing by press release has resulted in a politicising of the science of global warming with fortunes to be made or lost based on how elected officials’ vote on a bill. We have ended up with science being used to support political consensus rather than finding the truth.


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: