No treaty, no ETSRichard Treadgold | May 18, 2012
The NZ Climate Science Coalition has lodged its submission on the government’s proposed amendments to the Emissions Trading Scheme. The submission is unemotional, even subdued, yet it makes compelling reading.
Readers of the Climate Conversation Group will not be surprised to hear that the Coalition thinks New Zealand’s response to so-called Anthropogenic Global Warming should strictly follow international agreements.
The Coalition does not like the extreme green idea that we should be an inspiration to the rest of the world — light some kind of beacon, stick our necks out.
So, it recommends that at the end of this year, when the Kyoto Protocol expires, our involvement should expire with it. Kiwis should stop paying for a reduction in global temperatures. Full stop. That’s as far as it goes, chaps. The party’s over, you know?
No more easy money. We weren’t measurably lowering the temperature anyway.
The Coalition suggests leaving open the option to reinstate the ETS if some new international treaty is later ratified by the NZ government. And fair enough, if everyone else is going to nobble their industry, we’ll nobble ours too. But not alone. Especially in these hard times. No thank you.
We need to survive.
Oddly, our current global warming bureaucracy, toiling hard as it is to count our emissions of greenhouse gases, calculate the effects on the atmosphere of our land use changes and model the effects of growing more forests or felling existing ones, tells us that New Zealand is certain to be obligated by a future treaty to reduce its emissions. It’s inevitable, they say. Our own public servants want us to keep paying for some undetermined, not to mention indeterminate, future global temperature reduction.
That is entirely predictable, since if a new treaty fails to eventuate, the current bureaucracy will be out of a job. So they fervently hope for a replacement agreement momentarily, ignoring the sheer impossibility of any number of countries agreeing to a serious reduction in productive capacity, which is what reducing emissions amounts to.
The only nations sucked in so far are those governed by unelected officials not answerable to any electorate (Europe) and us. No other sovereign nation has so far put their trust in the global warming deception. Canada has pulled out of it and Australia is almost tearing itself apart over it.
Why do they think nations haven’t signed up to a new treaty? What else could it be but a lack of will to pay a high price? From China to the USA, only the price stands in the way. My, that sentence has a good rhythm. Please remember it.
Thus the innocent people of New Zealand are fed by our own faceless functionaries the fiction, in an ever-perplexing complexity of contexts, that our ETS will always be necessary. That the need to fight global warming is real and growing, even overwhelming.
From universities offering endless seminars on the psychological challenges of global warming publicity (as if it mattered) to local bodies’ battles allowing for sea level rise in resource consents, and from “Planning for Climate Change” courses for civil engineers put on by NIWA to the interminable “Energy Spot” TV campaign funded by taxes, the taxpayers have the wool pulled over their eyes.
The bureaucrats say “the science is settled”, but they never tell us what the science actually says. Ask them!
The Coalition, virtually alone among Kiwi institutions, cries “Hold, enough!” Yet, cleverly, and unpredicted by its opponents, the Coalition argues this position not on the “anti-science” of climate change “denial” but on the practical political science of what is good for the country and what is reasonable in the current international arena.
Will it sway the government?
Still to come: in examining the future of the ETS, a look at the costs to families of our modern green dreamtime.