When will our bloody journalists wake up?Richard Treadgold | June 12, 2010
How obvious must the lack of credibility in AGW become before New Zealand’s so-called journalists wake up to it?
Their disconnection from reality now transcends mere embarrassment for the onlookers; it has become actually humiliating, because the only remaining reason for our nation’s professional journalists to hold to the IPCC line on dangerous man-made global warming is an intentional neglect of the facts.
It is bad enough that our public scientists issue mendacious statements; but it is far worse when journalists ignore their professional devotion to truth and conspire to confirm the lies. For defects in public policy are thus guaranteed.
Matt Ridley is a former editor of The Economist and author of best-selling science books. He has heavily defended the science and pronouncements of the global warming establishment, but in his new book, The Rational Optimist, according to reviewer George Gilder, he suddenly reverses course.
The cause of his sudden and violent disillusionment is the collapse of global warming science, which he and the Economist have long gullibly accepted but which Ridley has now discovered to be so deeply flawed as to rise to the level of fraud.
But just as he says that, we hear NZ Herald Economics Editor, Brian Fallow, global warming enthusiast and regular promoter of the ETS, announce today:
On July 1 something that has always been free, the right to emit carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, starts to cost money.
He says this without a hint of shame. The ETS, which seems to thinking people an obscenity, has the sole supporting reason of making money for those willing to become traders. Overseas experience shows that those making the most from an ETS, and especially from the issue of “free” carbon certificates, are oil companies, power generators and huge users of hydrocarbons.
Overseas experience shows that those losing the most from an ETS are publicly-owned, honest organisations such as hospitals and schools.
It is six weeks since the Herald reported “Australia has dumped plans for a greenhouse emissions trading scheme.”
It is three months since France reversed course and refused to introduce a carbon tax and now Germany’s Angela Merkel says they cannot even afford personal tax cuts, so they’re hardly likely to add to their financial burdens with carbon taxes instead.
Fallow raises a point about our ETS that must be challenged. He mentions correctly that forestry owners get to receive money because they own immature trees. These so-called “carbon credits” are issued to forest owners because:
while they grow, [they] absorb CO2 from the atmosphere and so provide an offset to emissions elsewhere. The units are allocated annually.
But nobody knows how much net carbon dioxide a particular block of trees will absorb or even emit (for that is possible!). It depends on many variables, such as temperature, rainfall, soil type, microbial influences, type of tree and atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide.
None of these factors influences the uptake of carbon dioxide in simple or well-understood ways. Please note that, the more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the quicker the tree grows and the more carbon dioxide it absorbs — by attempting to reduce the amount in the atmosphere, we’re attempting to reduce the growth of all plant life.
So how will the bureaucrats determine the amount of CO2 absorbed each year for specific blocks? It’s basically a guess, from theoretical calculations. But the whole exercise is a minefield that will bring lawyers out of the woodwork to challenge the official assessment of a forester’s liability or entitlement in every year in which temperature or rainfall or some other factor varies from “normal”. Which is almost every year.
Note that the possibility of a forest block being a net emitter of carbon dioxide is officially excluded. But it is scientifically possible, depending on the age of the trees and other factors.
Next, Fallow says:
The flipside is that when the trees are harvested most of that carbon is deemed to be emitted then and there, so those receiving units also accept a liability for the corresponding emissions upon harvest.
That is like saying that trees vanish when we cut them down, or that we don’t use wood for anything except burning. There is, then, no reason to plant forests except to harvest Kyoto credits from the extremely gullible.
This is institutionalised blindness for the sake of perpetuating the establishment madness induced by the fear that carbon dioxide will destroy the world.
Bear in mind that the gas inducing such fear is so scarce in the atmosphere that it must be measured in parts per million to avoid a string of noughts before the number. Remember, too, that the portion of that gas that we have “generated” by burning our wonderful fossil fuels is about three parts per hundred — 3%. Three per cent of 400 parts per million is 12 parts per million. By “we” I don’t mean New Zealand, but the whole of mankind.
We should save the world? From what — it doesn’t need saving!
Humanity needs saving, though — from the carbon traders who will profit from the poor paying more for petrol and electricity and everything that depends on petrol and electricity in its production, distribution and storage.
Let the government know the depth of feeling against their ETS. Go to the anti-ETS protest march in Wellington on 22 June. Take a placard. Be early.