Hard News: Climate, money and risk
220 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 9 Newer→ Last
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
Our customers overseas are unlikely to buy that argument
As I've said at least three times now there is a good case for doing something to be part of the worldwide community. But unless what we do to reduce emissions can be transferred to the big emissions producers then it is meaningless. An ETS does nothing that can be transferred, changing technology and practices can be transferred.
-
Che Tibby, in reply to
yeah, well out of my depth on that one.
what do you know about using trains for freight instead of big stinky trucks?
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
what do you know about using trains for freight instead of big stinky trucks?
Our rail infrastructure sucks, slow track mostly. Trucks are more flexible and roads are cheaper to make, but trucks destroy roads. I'm guessing we just don't have the throughput to make constructing a good rail freight system viable. Electric motors have more torque so some trucks could also be electric but it's the battery range that is the issue. Infrastructure could solve part of that, also hybrids where diesel takes over for cruising could work.
But honestly out of my depth too.
-
Chris Waugh, in reply to
Our rail infrastructure sucks, slow track mostly. Trucks are more flexible and roads are cheaper to make, but trucks destroy roads. I’m guessing we just don’t have the throughput to make constructing a good rail freight system viable.
But didn't we used to have a much more extensive rail network? I was under the impression that the dominance of trucks and slow decline of rail freight is more about economics - trucks being effectively subsidised at the cost of rail. And this post at Transport Blog seems to cast some doubt on the narrow guage = slow trains and similar stories told about NZ's rail network.
But yeah, I'm just as way out of my depth as everyone else.
-
Gary Young, in reply to
if all the cars (not trucks) in NZ were electric it would make only a few percent difference to our total electricity usage
It would, nonetheless, make a difference. I am uncomfortable with the argument that because an action doesn't help all that much we shouldn't bother trying it at all.
The only issue I have with electric cars is I am uncertain whether the environmental cost of making the cars and batteries is actually better than the cost of burning petrol
The environmental cost of making a car (excluding it's powerplant) would be much the same. A petrol driven car, however, consumes it's source of energy once and then dumps the residues into the environment. A battery powered car, in New Zealand at least, can run indefinitely on a sustainable and renewable energy source. The battery materials can then be recycled so the cost of mining and manufacture need only occur once.
-
Che Tibby, in reply to
good point. you throw away a $3 battery. you don't throw away a $30k one.
-
Chris Waugh, in reply to
Must be examples from places like China for one.
Why China? I thought countries like Denmark were way ahead in wind power, for example.
I'm not sure China's heavy investment in nuclear power would go down terribly well in NZ. And for all the investment in renewables and nuclear, China's still very heavily dependent on coal.
One upside of China's political system is better strategic planning, but that doesn't always translate into action, and it can take a really long time to get the ok of all the Party's factions. And some like the ability of the Party to just Get Shit Done without having to worry about the niceties of democracy or public opinion, but public opinion plays a much bigger role in Chinese politics than I think most Westerners realise, and although I'm sure the likes of Steven Joyce and Judith Collins are envious of the Party's ability to bang disobedient and truculent heads together until they get what they want, I'm not sure terribly many kiwis would really appreciate living in that kind of reality.
And Beijing's traffic restrictions (and the new smog alert system that sees the restrictions getting tougher once the alert hits a certain level) and lottery to get permission to buy a car aren't really all that good - they're symptoms of a serious problem that is as much social as environmental. And restrictions on buying cars, whether Beijing-style lotteries or Shanghai-style licence plate auctions (meaning licence plates in Shanghai easily cost more than many lower-end cars) seem to be having a perverse side-effect of encouraging people to buy bigger, heavier, gas-guzzling European and American luxury brands.
China's PV production took off big time, to the point they swamped their own market.
I haven't seen much progress on the solar-thermal power station under construction in Yanqing County lately, although more may be happening than I'm aware of.
But on the plus side: Beijing has been phasing out coal for heating in the downtown area and is moving to phase out coal in the outlying areas. Fleets of all-electric taxis are springing up - in Beijing they're limited to the outer exurbs for now, but they're there and they're expanding. And obviously that means the supporting infrastructure like charging stations is also being built. Last time I was in NZ I didn't see much in the way of solar water heaters, which I don't understand, because they're really popular here - rooftops have forests of them, and when I went to Xishuangbanna years ago the fancy hotels in Jinghong advertised 24 hour hot water, because everybody else was relying on low-tech solar heaters that gave hot water only in the late afternoons. Beijing's coldest county, Yanqing, has all-solar bath houses in the villages, and they work even in the middle of winter.
But really, I think NZ is better off looking to NZ for solutions to NZ's environmental problems. Like what Bart's talking about getting better grasses and bacteria so cows and sheep produce less methane, and basically all of what Auckland Transport Blog keeps saying about improving transport infrastructure.
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
It would, nonetheless, make a difference. I am uncomfortable with the argument that because an action doesn’t help all that much we shouldn’t bother trying it at all.
No I mean quite the opposite. Because it would only make a few percent difference to our (renewable) electricity usage we SHOULD do it.
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
The battery materials can then be recycled
Really? I had thought lithium batteries got contaminated by long use and were not recyclable into new batteries.
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
The environmental cost of making a car (excluding it’s powerplant) would be much the same.
I agree. But the powerplant and computer management in early cars seemed to be less robust and hence the early models were turned over more frequently than conventional. I don't think it's a huge issue but I do think that the reliability and cost (environmental) will drop significantly as makers develop these cars. With that in mind it may make sense to choose adopt 3rd or 4th generation to replace the entire fleet rather than 1st or 2nd. But I really don't know, it is just a question that comes to mind.
-
Chris Waugh, in reply to
I do think that the reliability and cost (environmental) will drop significantly as makers develop these cars.
Agreed. After all, isn't that how regular petrol cars developed? I very much doubt a Model T is anywhere near as fuel efficient as a Mondeo, and I'm sure the technology used to build Model Ts was far more destructive than that used in modern plants.
-
Just a few comments on this most important subject: Climate Change, and NZ effort or not to address this, and the prominence of dairying in the discussion.
I agree with Lilith that intensification of dairying especially in Canterbury is bad.
Although what we have is more than enough, farmers eye the Fonterra etc income, convert more land, often unsuitable, so land prices increase,so more money must be made.
Dairy intensification not only needs more water [and pollutes the ground water and streams] it is un-natural, so that cows need more and more antibiotics, and supplementary feeding with food which is not natural to their gut bacteria [ie palm kernal..the demand for which is leading to destruction of O2 producing, CO2 absorbing forests,loss of biodiversity with all its potential etc etc]. And then added to the negative, more "support" farming where crops are grown for cows, not us. We have finite arable land, finite wtaer.
So there should be no more dairying at all in NZ.Re GMOs: this 1. is not needed: genetic knowledge means that choosing varieties of grasses that are drought reisistant, or better suited for cattle digestive systems so they don't burp so much is now quite quick.. and is using nature, not disregarding or corrupting it.
2. GMOs produce grasses etc that have never been found in nature, and all creatures cells do not know how to handle them.. they are synthetic, and synthetic foods, vitamins etc are toxic.
Thus synthetic canabinoids are completely different to the real McCoy. Synthetic vitamins, and minerals from gound up rocks, rather thatn those obtained through plant or animal tissues are actually harmful to us. Another example; synthetic Nicatinoids as pesticides killing all kinds of wild life including bees.We humans are stupid to think we can do better that nature. We seem not to learn, and it is disappointing to me that the very intelligent posters to Russell excellent blogs can be supportive of any GMO "solution".
-
Gary Young, in reply to
Because it would only make a few percent difference to our (renewable) electricity usage we SHOULD do it
Oh, ok. Agree
-
Sacha, in reply to
unless what we do to reduce emissions can be transferred to the big emissions producers then it is meaningless.
Not sure you're hearing me. I'm talking about the business/marketing consequences of NZ being seen to be doing nothing much to address climate change. Which has nothing to do with transferability of tech or practices, or indeed of what methods we use to get there as a nation. Getting ourselves booted out of current world carbon markets hasn't been a smart move.
In a carbon-conscious world, the *impression* of doing nothing will be swiftly punished in the wallet, flushing whatever is left of our unearned national green brand down the dunny in the process. Our current government is gambling that won't happen, on our behalf. High- stakes, and definitely meaningful.
-
Sacha, in reply to
We’re also running into ‘peak metal’ soon, so battery-powered vehicles are not a viable widespread answer. Trains and trucks, certainly.
-
Che Tibby, in reply to
my "educated layperson's" POV tells me that the economic future will force us to forego the heavily externalising efficiencies of Big Logistics (TM).
we'll just have to make do with buying stuff nationally, or near-nationally, instead of getting disposable paperback books air-freighted from the UK...
should solve the transport debate nicely.
-
Stephen R, in reply to
Really? I had thought lithium batteries got contaminated by long use and were not recyclable into new batteries.
According to http://www.waste-management-world.com/articles/print/volume-12/issue-4/features/the-lithium-battery-recycling-challenge.html lithium in batteries is completely recyclable, but "Recycled lithium is as much as five times the cost of lithium produced from the least costly brine based process."
Part of that seems to be because there's not yet the bulk supply of worn out automotive batteries, and the ones that are aren't standardised as to their chemical makeup (both factors making economies of scale more difficult for recycling companies). The article also suggests that this will likely change in the next ten years, as they expect demand for lithium batteries will make recycling more economically realistic (the price of lithium having almost tripled in the last ten years).
-
Lilith __, in reply to
We’re also running into ‘peak metal’ soon, so battery-powered vehicles are not a viable widespread answer
I think the result of this will be a flowering of recycling and improvements in manufacture. Batteries may become more expensive, but unlike fossil fuels, metal can be reused.
-
Sacha, in reply to
Why China?
Thought they'd probably have more non-market-reliant solutions.
-
Regarding GMOs, I have nothing in particular against them in themselves. Or their (hypothetical) use to reduce burping from ruminant animals.
But I have a helluva problem if this means we go on multiplying dairy herds beyond the carrying capacity of the land. We only have so much fresh water, and cows both drink a great deal, and introduce a huge amount of pollution to groundwater as well as streams and rivers. The only solution is fewer cows, whether they burp or not.
-
Lilith __, in reply to
Make renewable energy sources easier and cheaper to install and people will switch to them rather than being chased from old technologies.
It’s not silly to think that the latter would drive the former, though, as Che Tibby says. Also? We’ll be chased from using petrochemicals eventually anyway because of increasing scarcity driving up the price.
What if carbon taxes went directly to subsidise R&D and manufacture of cleaner technologies? Surely that's a win-win.
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
Here we go then
Re GMOs: this 1. is not needed: genetic knowledge means that choosing varieties of grasses that are drought reisistant, or better suited for cattle digestive systems so they don’t burp so much is now quite quick.. and is using nature, not disregarding or corrupting it.
This is not true. In the same way the Hide made up "facts" this is simply not true.
I work in this field, it is my area of expertise and I will say now that people who tell you breeding can do everything we need are simply not telling you the truth.
"quite quick" in breeding terms means around two decades even with every molecular tool we have now to speed the process up and a crop that can be crossed once or twice a year. In addition there is no truth to the statement that we can get all the traits we need from existing breeding stocks.
Sorry if those comments come across as harsh, but you are doing exactly what Rodney Hide did in his original column, using falsehoods to justify an ideological position.
You are of course welcome to hold any position you wish but spreading falsehoods is unreasonable.
2. GMOs produce grasses etc that have never been found in nature, and all creatures cells do not know how to handle them.. they are synthetic, and synthetic foods, vitamins etc are toxic.
There is this idea that things that occur in nature are good and things that are man made are bad. It is strange. In the first place most of the plants in nature will either kill you or make you very very sick if you eat them. Our food crops are a tiny fraction of the plant kingdom and most of them have been bred for a couple of thousand years to make the toxins in those safer. Even so Cassava (A major calorie source in Africa) is cooked for many hours to remove the cyanide it produces.
And the second part that synthetic things are bad is equally weird since you wrote that sentence on a computer. Antibiotics are all synthetic, anti-cancer drugs, anesthetics, the pill, condoms, ...
By all means test every food to make sure it is as safe as can be but rejecting something because it is synthetic is just a random arbitrary distinction. It would make as much sense as rejecting all organic foods because they might contain toxic fungal contaminations or because most of them were farmed by big multi-national companies.
-
Che Tibby, in reply to
Our food crops are a tiny fraction of the plant kingdom and most of them have been bred for a couple of thousand years to make the toxins in those safer.
most of our staples are actually not even remotely similar to their natural counterparts. the majority of the main foods eaten have been manipulated beyond recognition by their creators in the americas - potatoes, tomatoes, maize, cassava, peppers, sweet potato.
afaik they're not actually sure exactly which plant was the predecessor of the most-consumed plant in the world - maize. so uncertain that it tempts certain quarters to mutter "aliens..."
now, putting jellyfish genes into your grains... not so sure it's wise.
my only real issue with GMO is seed control, and trademarked foodstuff. you only need look at what monsanto is doing to US small holders.
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
I’m talking about the business/marketing consequences of NZ being seen to be doing nothing much to address climate change.
Ok I see. But since most of our biggest export earners go to China I'm not certain that it's true.
But somehow I have come across as suggesting we do nothing. That isn't what I think or what I meant to convey. There are numerous things we can do to reduce emissions that are simply good by every measure and we should just do them. Even provide subsidies to encourage them if necessary.
Nor am I suggesting, as has been implied, that we should increase our dairy herd.
Nor am I suggesting that the dairy industry should be further subsidised to increase the herd.
I believe we must diversify our export base. But diversify does not mean make dairying smaller it means make other things bigger.
But I also think that applying the ETS to farming is not our best option for proving we are serious about climate change. It is the simplest political option (if you are left leaning) but that does not make it the best option.
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
beyond the carrying capacity of the land
Most of my colleagues and I would argue that if we can improve efficiencies we can get the same yield from less land with less environmental harm. That is certainly my aim in life and work and I haven't met any genetic engineers with any other aim.
Every cow burp is wasted energy. Complex carbohydrates in grasses can't be digested and get broken down by bacteria in the rumin. But the process is wasteful and releases methane which is incredibly high in energy. If a different process could be developed then maybe those carbohydrates could be converted into more sugars that could be absorbed by the cow and make it into milk. Or if grasses had different carbohydrates that didn't need rumin digestion ...
It should increase the efficiency of the cow and reduce the amount of grass needed.
We are forced to phrase all these ideas in terms of financial benefit to NZ, and NZ businesses, by the funding systems, but actually talk to the scientists and all they care about is making more and better food with fewer resources.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.