frogblog

Thanks Rodney. Thanks John. From Scoop:

Specialist news service Carbon News this morning reports broker Nigel Brunel, of OMF Financial, as saying New Zealand is “a bit of a joke in Europe at the moment” following the National-Act agreement to suspend the emissions trading scheme.

“This was New Zealand’s opportunity to reinvent its financial markets by being the Asian centre of the carbon trade.”

But this week’s announcement that the incoming government will put the ETS on hold pending a review that will go as far as considering a carbon tax instead of an ETS and will re-examine the validity of the science behind climate change, has jeopardised everything, Brunel says.

“We have just fallen off the radar in Europe,” he said. “They are saying ‘all you do is talk. You’ve been talking since 1992. You are all talk and no action. You maintain that you are so clean and green and try to be leaders and all you do is nothing. You make a decision and then you change your minds. How can we do business with people like that? We can’t take you seriously’.”

Well, I confess that I have never taken Rodney Hide very seriously, particularly when it comes to his science.  Europe is into its fourth year of emissions trading. Claims of New Zealand leadership from National and Act during the campaign were fallacious.

All I can say is that I am looking forward to the blow torch of lobbyists coming onto National and Act, hard and fast. Oh, and the Maori party and UF too. They stood on the sidelines and threw stones while the rest of parliament got on with the challenging work of coming up with an ETS agreement that could get a majority in parliament. Even though it was our second choice, we Greens rolled up our sleeves and engaged with the real work.

Now John and Rodney have re-opened Pandora’s box and there will be hell to pay as the lobby groups from all sides pony up the big cash and the big guns. Meanwhile, the very allies and trading partners that National and Act say we should emulate are actively putting in place their own schemes. And we wonder why we look the fools on the international stage. Bad timing boys!

It’s official. The electoral commission has published the final results of the election, and the Green Party is up one more MP than previously announced. Kennedy Graham, the number 9 on the party list, is officially in parliament.

Ken teaches (taught?)  international politics and international law at the School of Law, Canterbury and Victoria University, and has previously worked for NGOs, the UN and as a diplomat. He was involved in negotiating the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone, defending the policy as a NZ diplomat before the UN in Geneva and New York and was also Director of a UN programme in the Middle East. Having returned to New Zealand he will now contribute his experience and perspectives to helping the country tackle the global problems we face.

Over the years Ken has developed a conviction about the need for Green principles in political action at a global & national level as well as in individual lifestyles. Ken has worked in ‘and survived’ ten countries, and loves them all. Having returned to New Zealand he now aspires to contribute his experience and perspectives to helping the country tackle the global problems we face through action in the Green Party and, now, through his parliamentary service.

Ken is (was?) Adjunct Senior Fellow at the School of Law, Canterbury, Christchurch; Senior Lecturer at Victoria University, Wellington; and a Visiting Professor at the College of Europe in Belgium. He teaches international politics and international law. Ken holds a B.Com from Auckland University, a BA Hons in Political Science from Victoria; an M.A. from the Fletcher School of Law & Diplomacy, Boston (Fulbright); and a Ph.D. in Political Science from Victoria University. He was also a Fellow at Cambridge University, studying in the Global Security Programme. Ken has authored and edited five books including ‘The Planetary Interest – A New Concept for the Global Age’ – which looks at issues of climate change, sustainability and nuclear weapons from a global perspective.

For the rest of Ken’s fascinating biography, click here. I am very excited by the experience and perspective that Kennedy will bring to the Green caucus. We now have 50% extra MPs, bringing us back to our level of 9 after the 2002 election. If you still consider Russel as a fresh new face in parliament, the Greens have managed a welcome balance of new talent and steady hands.

The Green’s tally now stands at 6.72% for the 2008 election. I’m still waiting for more detailed numbers from the elections website. Time to publish. Time to celebrate! Welcome Home Ken!

I promised in a comment yesterday that I would post this today. It’s an FAQ put together by RealClimate, a blog definitely worth giving a regular perusal. Here is just one sample from the armchair geek’s paradise:

What is robust in a climate projection and how can I tell?

• Since every wiggle is not necessarily significant, modellers need to assess how robust particular model results are. They do this by seeing whether the same result is seen in other simulations, with other models, whether it makes physical sense and whether there is some evidence of similar things in the observational or paleo record. If that result is seen in multiple models and multiple simulations, it is likely to be a robust consequence of the underlying assumptions, or in other words, it probably isn’t due to any of the relatively arbitrary choices that mark the differences between different models. If the magnitude of the effect makes theoretical sense independent of these kinds of model, then that adds to it’s credibility, and if in fact this effect matches what is seen in observations, then that adds more. Robust results are therefore those that quantitatively match in all three domains. Examples are the warming of planet as a function of increasing greenhouse gases, or the change in water vapour with temperature. All models show basically the same behaviour that is in line with basic theory and observations. Examples of non-robust results are the changes in El Niño as a result of climate forcings, or the impact on hurricanes. In both of these cases, models produce very disparate results, the theory is not yet fully developed and observations are ambiguous.

Clear as mud? They actually do a pretty good job of explaining what those pesky modellers are up to and why we should listen to them. I hope you will give it a read.

Things will be a bit sketchy around here at frogblog, as I help the parliamentary team pack up their office and shift further up in Bowen House. With our newer, bigger caucus, we’ll be inhabiting two floors now instead of one.

The views from level 8 were lovely. At almost twice the height, they will be magnificent. I wonder if I can talk some one into giving me a window seat?

I understand that over 700 people will be shifting over the weekend, with the new Ministers taking over the Beehive, the new opposition taking their offices and a massive shuffle across Bowen House.

I will personally inspect Winston’s fridge for anything chilled he may have left behind.

I laughed out loud at this image over at Tumeke this morning, in a post from Bomber. I’m not entirely sure who gets the image credit, but perhaps it is best ascribed to John Key himself, as quoted in the NZ Herald:

Do [New Zealanders] want to put in a National government with a fresh view that will work going in one direction with a small group of parties, or do they want a potentially five-headed monster?

[Frog: It turns out it was Tane over at the Standard who deserves credit for the awesome image!]

I’m not sure how I missed it, but F&B have launched a new blog. Yesterday’s post asked a very pertinent question:

As rule-maker & whistle-blower, one of the first questions facing the new Minister of Fisheries – Phil Heatley - is how many sea-lions can be killed this season?

Since 2003, a more information rich but highly complex model has been used to set the quota. It is like a minefield trying to get your head around the facts and figures Last year, based on advice from  MFish senior managers, the Minister made a controversial decision that greatly favoured the fishing industry – not the sustainability of NZ sea-lions. This was despite opposition from  the MFish science and policy teams as well as the Department of Conservation.

With this in mind, I ask how does one make an allowable kill quota on New Zealand sea lions whilst maintaining the ‘sustainable New Zealand’ brand?  Should the Minister support an allowable kill quota and if so, how many is acceptable? Or should they be saying no to the fishing industry – for the sake of the New Zealand Inc brand and the recovery of our depleted sea lion population?

Congratulations to F&B for widening their voice into the blogosphere. We need more credible voices asking pertinent questions about the destruction of our natural heritage. Green supporters should give it a look in and comment on the offerings.

So how about it Phil? Will you overturn Labour’s stupid adjustment of the quota, or make it worse still?

For those who wish to deny the climate science outright, you have just lost another straw man. For those who wish to engage with the science, acknowledging its limitations, this latest research is for you.

The sceptics love to bash on about how water vapour is the real greenhouse culprit, how climate scientists ignore it and waste their time on CO2. This is a typical straw man for the sceptics who won’t engage with the real science. The facts are that the climate scientists have always been aware of the importance of water vapour in global energy retention and have sought to model how our rapid increases in CO2 and other greenhouse gases effect it. Well, a new paper has been published that answers many of these questions.

An article at scienceblog describes the findings:

With new observations, the scientists confirmed experimentally what existing climate models had anticipated theoretically. The research team used novel data from the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) on NASA’s Aqua satellite to measure precisely the humidity throughout the lowest 10 miles of the atmosphere. That information was combined with global observations of shifts in temperature, allowing researchers to build a comprehensive picture of the interplay between water vapor, carbon dioxide, and other atmosphere-warming gases. The NASA-funded research was published recently in the American Geophysical Union’s Geophysical Research Letters.

“Everyone agrees that if you add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, then warming will result,” Dessler said. “So the real question is, how much warming?”

The answer can be found by estimating the magnitude of water vapor feedback. Increasing water vapor leads to warmer temperatures, which causes more water vapor to be absorbed into the air. Warming and water absorption increase in a spiraling cycle.

Because the new precise observations agree with existing assessments of water vapor’s impact, researchers are more confident than ever in model predictions that Earth’s leading greenhouse gas will contribute to a temperature rise of a few degrees by the end of the century.

“This study confirms that what was predicted by the models is really happening in the atmosphere,” said Eric Fetzer, an atmospheric scientist who works with AIRS data at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif. “Water vapor is the big player in the atmosphere as far as climate is concerned.”

No one ever asserted that the climate models used by the IPCC were anything more than crude approximations of a complex system. But they are amongst the best that human science can muster. Increasing support for the validity of key aspects of the models means that the next generation of model will be even more robust. This means the risks associated with rapid, human induced climate change can be better assessed and our responses refined. Those still demanding irrefutable proof of man’s fingerprint on climactic change will be waiting a long, long time. I for one will continue to monitor and take the advice of the best that modern science has to offer. Bjchip - did you say that you worked on the AIRS project? Perhaps you have a deeper insight.

Peter Kean, the Managing Director for Lion Nathan New Zealand gave a unique insight on Morning Report this morning into what happens when the need for financial growth detaches itself from social well being:

The beer market and the alcohol market have been very resilient. We’re not complacent about that but it is a positive trend. We’re in a market that often has said when things get tough people still enjoy a drink and they still enjoy going to the cinema. So there are a couple of things that people don’t tend to give up. And we’re I guess reasonably lucky that alcohol’s one of those things.

I guess the positive trend he is talking about is the record 470.3 million litres of alcohol consumed by New Zealanders last year. Cheers to a company that ’s aiming for double digit growth for the foreseeable future.

This cartoon is slightly out of date now, except as a tidy explanation of the benefits of two party first past the post presidential style elections so favoured by opponents of MMP.

There is more relevant Christmas themed Captain Capitalism here.

Greenpeace ironically notes that New Zealanders should be seriously alarmed at the prospect of the National-led government damaging the country’s relationship with the United States.

“New Zealand is at serious risk of becoming an international Pariah over climate, and jeopardising its international standing and trade relations. The last thing we want is to become the equivalent of the French Government during nuclear testing in the Pacific.”

Yeap, it seems after years of carping about the importance of relations with the United States, Act’s climate denial stance and demands for a select committee to investigate whether the earth really does revolve around the sun will be moving us in exactly the opposite direction to closer friendship with the United States.

This warning follows a speech by American President-Elect, Barack Obama, to California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s Global Climate Summit to which Obama pledges sweeping action to combat climate change but notes that the United States cannot meet the challenge alone:

Now’s the time to confront this challenge once and for all. Delay is no longer an option. Denial is no longer an acceptable response. The stakes are too high…

Anyone that is willing to join the cause of combating climate change will have an ally in the United States.

So, Rodney Hide, How about it?  Can you put aside the denialism, if not for science at least so we can stay cuddling up to that country with all the big shiny nuclear weapons?