• More on climate change

    From Tony@21:1/5 to All on Tue Jul 30 21:33:17 2024
    XPost: nz.politics

    https://goodoil.news/new-zealand-this-is-climate-deception/
    "This faith-based acceptance of man-made global warming is despite two fundamental facts that confront such extremism.
    The first is that with 97 per cent of carbon dioxide produced from natural sources including oceans,
    rocks, and volcanoes, how can human be responsible for dangerous global warming when only three per cent is produced by mankind?
    And second relates to the fact that since the warming effect of our main greenhouse gases is logarithmic
    – which means that as their concentration in the atmosphere increases, their warming effect diminishes significantly
    – how is catastrophic warming even possible?"
    "Faith-based acceptance" indeed.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rich80105@21:1/5 to lizandtony@orcon.net.nz on Wed Jul 31 10:47:22 2024
    On Tue, 30 Jul 2024 21:33:17 -0000 (UTC), Tony
    <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

    https://goodoil.news/new-zealand-this-is-climate-deception/
    "This faith-based acceptance of man-made global warming is despite two >fundamental facts that confront such extremism.
    The first is that with 97 per cent of carbon dioxide produced from natural >sources including oceans,
    rocks, and volcanoes, how can human be responsible for dangerous global warming
    when only three per cent is produced by mankind?
    And second relates to the fact that since the warming effect of our main >greenhouse gases is logarithmic
    – which means that as their concentration in the atmosphere increases, their >warming effect diminishes significantly
    – how is catastrophic warming even possible?"
    "Faith-based acceptance" indeed.

    As a follower of Cam Slater you must have extraordinary faith, Tony,
    but you are entitled to your religious beliefs. I care more for the
    effects of such beliefs on the ability of New Zealand farmers to
    survive if international trade for our products reduces, and the cost
    of meeting targets in our international agreements, and the higher
    cost of not meeting targets.

    See https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/523539/significant-risk-delaying-climate-deals-could-cost-five-times-more-simon-watts-told

    "Officials have warned Climate Change Minister Simon Watts of a cost
    blowout if the government does not get moving on signing international
    climate deals.

    The 2015 Paris Agreement allows governments and companies to offset
    some of their greenhouse gas emissions by paying for work to cut
    climate pollutants elsewhere.

    To meet its international commitments, the government needs to secure
    almost 100 million tonnes of carbon dioxide savings from other
    countries before 2030, to top up savings inside the country by
    transport, industry and other emitters.

    Advice released to RNZ under the Official Information Act said
    delaying buying these international offsets until closer to 2030 would
    be expected to see the price rise to five times the cost they could be
    bought for today."

    "But although successive governments since 2015 under John Key have
    known New Zealand would need to buy a substantial portion of carbon
    savings from overseas in order to meet its 2030 target, no deals have
    yet been signed.

    The government also has not indicated how it would cover the cost,
    which Treasury puts at least $3 billion and possibly up to $23b."

    ".... the cost of offsets has been put at anywhere between $3b and
    $23b by Treasury, depending on the quality of projects, when they were purchased, and who from."

    "Carbon markets expert Dr Christina Hood was involved in the
    development of the Paris Agreement trading arrangements.

    She said the delay was reckless.

    "New Zealand portrays itself as a champion of international markets...
    so it is ironic and disappointing that when it comes to actually
    following through we're sitting on the sidelines, ignoring our own
    best interests.

    "It was a negotiating bottom line for New Zealand for these market
    arrangements to be in the Paris Agreement. This was in the face of
    scepticism from environmental groups and some other countries who
    viewed trading as just an excuse to set weak domestic targets," she
    said.

    "If a country like New Zealand proves those critics right by not
    managing this well, that not only damages our own reputation but will
    also undermine support for use of markets in international climate
    response more broadly." "

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tony@21:1/5 to Rich80105@hotmail.com on Wed Jul 31 00:41:11 2024
    Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
    On Tue, 30 Jul 2024 21:33:17 -0000 (UTC), Tony
    <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

    https://goodoil.news/new-zealand-this-is-climate-deception/
    "This faith-based acceptance of man-made global warming is despite two >>fundamental facts that confront such extremism.
    The first is that with 97 per cent of carbon dioxide produced from natural >>sources including oceans,
    rocks, and volcanoes, how can human be responsible for dangerous global >>warming
    when only three per cent is produced by mankind?
    And second relates to the fact that since the warming effect of our main >>greenhouse gases is logarithmic
    – which means that as their concentration in the atmosphere increases, their >>warming effect diminishes significantly
    – how is catastrophic warming even possible?"
    "Faith-based acceptance" indeed.

    As a follower of Cam Slater you must have extraordinary faith, Tony,
    but you are entitled to your religious beliefs. I care more for the
    effects of such beliefs on the ability of New Zealand farmers to
    survive if international trade for our products reduces, and the cost
    of meeting targets in our international agreements, and the higher
    cost of not meeting targets.
    More sarcasm from the biggest idiot in this group and the only person who believes that sarcasm has a legitimate place in debate. It hasn't.

    See >https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/523539/significant-risk-delaying-climate-deals-could-cost-five-times-more-simon-watts-told

    "Officials have warned Climate Change Minister Simon Watts of a cost
    blowout if the government does not get moving on signing international >climate deals.
    Nonsense.

    The 2015 Paris Agreement allows governments and companies to offset
    some of their greenhouse gas emissions by paying for work to cut
    climate pollutants elsewhere.
    Which is patently absurd.

    To meet its international commitments, the government needs to secure
    almost 100 million tonnes of carbon dioxide savings from other
    countries before 2030, to top up savings inside the country by
    transport, industry and other emitters.
    No sucj agreements are of value or binding.

    Advice released to RNZ under the Official Information Act said
    delaying buying these international offsets until closer to 2030 would
    be expected to see the price rise to five times the cost they could be
    bought for today."
    Off topic.

    "But although successive governments since 2015 under John Key have
    known New Zealand would need to buy a substantial portion of carbon
    savings from overseas in order to meet its 2030 target, no deals have
    yet been signed.

    The government also has not indicated how it would cover the cost,
    which Treasury puts at least $3 billion and possibly up to $23b."

    ".... the cost of offsets has been put at anywhere between $3b and
    $23b by Treasury, depending on the quality of projects, when they were >purchased, and who from."

    "Carbon markets expert Dr Christina Hood was involved in the
    development of the Paris Agreement trading arrangements.

    She said the delay was reckless.

    "New Zealand portrays itself as a champion of international markets...
    so it is ironic and disappointing that when it comes to actually
    following through we're sitting on the sidelines, ignoring our own
    best interests.

    "It was a negotiating bottom line for New Zealand for these market >arrangements to be in the Paris Agreement. This was in the face of
    scepticism from environmental groups and some other countries who
    viewed trading as just an excuse to set weak domestic targets," she
    said.

    "If a country like New Zealand proves those critics right by not
    managing this well, that not only damages our own reputation but will
    also undermine support for use of markets in international climate
    response more broadly." "
    Total;ly off topic. STart your own thread.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)