New Zealand's Clean Green Illusion

New Zealand's prime minister, John Key, has stated that his country's E.T.S (Emissions Trading Scheme) will likely be similar to that of Australia -- a country that is predicted to be the world's biggest per capita emitter by 2020.

As we prepare to go to Copenhagen (actually John Key will not be going) it's a good time to hark back to the1990 signing of the Kyoto Protocol when New Zealand secured a sweet deal, which simply required us to not increase emissions between 1990 and 2010.

However, the latest United Nations statistics are showing that emissions in that period have risen by 22 per cent. The New Zealand government has defended this abysmal record by claiming that almost half the emissions come from the agricultural sector, and there is little they can do about them.

So, let us look at the reality. If you exclude all emissions except those resulting from the burning of fossil fuel, the calculated increase becomes a whopping 39 per cent.

On a per capita basis, New Zealand's emissions are now 60 per cent higher than those of Great Briton. Among industrial countries New Zealand is only exceeded by Canada, USA, Australia and Luxembourg. The average Chinese person's emissions are one-seventh of a New Zealander's!

The land area of Japan is about the same as New Zealand, but if Japan followed similar environmental practices that are permitted -- dare I say encouraged -- here. That country would become a wasteland. With our small population we project an environmentally friendly, clean green image, which is mythical and far from the truth.

Maldives President Calls for "Survival Pact"

President Nasheed

President Nasheed, leader of the Maldives -- a low lying nation faced with the real threat of extinction from rising seas, last week delivered a powerful and emotional speech at the "Climate Vulnerable Forum" at Barcelona.
Anyone who cares at all about this issue needs to read his speech.

We are gathered here because we are the most vulnerable group of nations to climate change.

Some might prefer us to suffer in silence but today we have decided to speak ... we will not die quietly.

Members of the G8 rich countries have pledged to halt temperature rises to two degrees Celsius. Yet they have refused to commit to the carbon targets, which would deliver even this modest goal.

At two degrees we would lose the coral reefs. At two degrees we would melt Greenland. At two degrees my country would not survive.

As a president I cannot accept this. As a person I cannot accept this.

I refuse to believe it is too late, and we cannot do anything about it. Copenhagen is our date with destiny. Let us go there with a better plan.

At the moment every country arrives at the negotiations seeking to keep their own emissions as high as possible. They never make commitments, unless someone else does first.

This is the logic of the madhouse, a recipe for collective suicide.

We don't want a global suicide pact. And we will not sign a global suicide pact, in Copenhagen or anywhere. So today I invite some of the most vulnerable nations in the world, to join a global survival pact instead.

Junk Mail, Our Forests and Global Warming.

According to ForestEthics, an NGO based in San Francisco, one hundred billion pieces of junk mail are stuffed into American mail boxes every year -- around half of which are never opened. An annual 100 million trees are cut from the world's forests to produce this junk mail. Trees that could have otherwise played a vital role in countering the effects of global warming.

Even though some junk mail proponents argue that the paper can be recycled, recycling is only second best to reducing the need.

ForestEthics found that greenhouse gasses created each year by junk mail are equivalent to:-

• 9,372,000 passenger cars.
• 11 coal fired fired power plants.
• Heating 12.9 million homes.
• Mowing more than 20 billion homes.
  

Corporations Fight to Stall Climate Talks

In a recently released investigative report, the US based "Center for Public Integrity", detailed the intense corporate pressure that is being applied to block an effective global treaty at the December, United Nations climate summit in Copenhagen.

The report reveals that vast sums of money and much effort have been poured into a campaign to stall  effective climate change legislation. "There are now about 2,810 climate lobbyists for every member of Congress -- a 400 jump from six years earlier ", says the report.

Exxon Mobil, Peabody Coal, along with other energy and agricultural groups are  fiercely lobbying behind closed doors -- spreading misinformation about the impact of meaningful emission regulation.The tactics are changing over time. Previously, the lobbyists fervently denied that global warming was actually happening. A few scientist who publicly supported this view were found to be receiving grants from  the corporations.

But now, the lobbyists mostly acknowledge that climate change is real but still persist in their attempts to water down and stall progress on emission reduction

Coal magnate Don Blankenship, hosted a country music rally in the Appalachia region of the eastern United States for "Friends of America" and to inform the locals "how environmental extremists and Corporates are both trying to destroy your jobs."

I recall from many years ago a mining boss told me -- "If God didn't want us to burn coal he wouldn't have put it in the ground". It seems that not much has changed!

Emissions From Urea -- Alan Thatcher Comments.

In South Taranaki, New Zealand, the NZ Petrochem Company manufactures ammonia which is mostly converted into urea for fertilizer. The remainder is sold for industrial use

Alan Thatcher, from Massey University, is well qualified to comment on the environmental impacts of urea, so I invited him to share his thoughts on my blog. This is what Alan had to say:

"Urea is a potentially a very environmentally damaging substance, especially if used inappropriately.

• Emissions result from:
• CO2 discharges from manufacture (Petrochem).
• CO2 emissions from soil bacterial action removing the carbon fraction of the urea molecule.
• N20 emissions from soil microorganisms removing the N fraction of the urea molecule if that N is not taken up by pasture."
  

"Petrochem's product is almost entirely consumed by the domestic market. A carbon charge applied to urea should include the carbon fraction of the urea molecule. If also applied to imported urea at a rate that includes emissions from manufacture, this would 'level the playing field' for Petrochem. The funds raised from this carbon charge should at least be partly diverted to an education campaign, directed at farmers, on the best strategic use, plus research into mechanisms whereby farming can become less dependent on nitrogenous fertilizers and adapt to climate change."