TBR.cc

Emissions Trading Scheme: 40% cut will cost $3000 per PERSON!

New government reports on the cost of New Zealand's proposed emissions trading scheme reveal it could cost NZ taxpayers a staggering $3,000 each, per year, if CO2 emissions are cut 40% relative to 1990 levels by 2020.

Even a 15% cut will cost ordinary New Zealanders $1,400 a year each, or around $7,000 a year for a family of five, in new fees, taxes and higher prices.

The figures, compiled by Infometrics, have been released this afternoon (Download NZIER Infometrics Report 26 July 2009) by Climate Change Minister Nick Smith:

“We’ve got significant decisions to make on New Zealand’s 2020 target and on emissions trading that will have major environmental and economic consequences for many years to come.

Key conclusions from the NZIER-Infometrics report on the macro-economic impacts of climate change policy are that:

Costs range from $600, $1000, $1400 to $3000 per capita per year for 2020 emissions targets ranging from +15%, 0%, -15% to -40% relative to 1990 levels

• Costs are significantly greater if there is no international trading
• Costs are reduced by between a third and half if there is consistent action by other countries
• New Zealand’s Gross Domestic Product continues to grow under all options.

“We need to be upfront with New Zealanders that climate change poses real risks and that addressing it comes with costs that this report helps quantify," said Smith.

The Government reports make it clear that cutting CO2 emissions will come with a huge economic price tag, making it imperative, dare I be so bold, for people to get up to speed and read Air Con before these targets are locked and loaded.

 

UK Met withholds climate data to avoid embarrassment

One of the key global warming monitoring centres, the UK Met Office Hadley unit, is deliberately refusing to release key climate data for peer review, in case skeptics find something wrong in the data.

As a show of faith in their own scientific work, it rates a zero, but as a sign of how the global warming industry is starting to fall apart, it's a classic.

It's all very well for Hot Topic and others to pontificate about "peer review", but it seems there's a growing trend toward only allowing friendly peers to review the data, which is hardly "peer review" really.

Anyway, here's Anthony Watts' take on the latest data scandal:

For all of our UK readers, now is the time for all good citizens to come to the aid of their country (and science). The Met Office refuses to release data and methodology for their HadCRUT global temperature dataset after being asked repeatedly. Without the data and  procedures there is no possibility of replication, and without replication the Hadley climate data is not scientifically valid. This isn’t just a skeptic issue, mind you, others have just a keen an interest in proving the data.

What is so bizarre is this. The FOI request by Steve McIntyre to the Met Office was for a copy of the data sent to Peter Webster. If the restrictions on the data hold for Steve McIntyre, why did they not prevent release of the data to Webster?

When asked by Warwick Hughes for this data, Dr. Jones famously replied:

Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.

This is just wrong on so many levels.

"Something fundamentally wrong" with CO2 theories - new study

Study shakes foundation of climate theory! Reveals UN models 'fundamentally wrong with the way temps and carbon linked' -- Blames 'Unknown Processes,' not CO2 for ancient global warming!  

'Global warming: Our best guess is likely wrong'

Tuesday, July 14, 2009By Marc Morano  –  Climate Depot

A new peer-reviewed study may shake the foundation upon which man-made global warming fears are based. The new study discovered "something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models."

The study, which was published on July 14, 2009 in the peer-reviewed journal Nature Geoscience, found CO2 was not to blame for a major ancient global warming period and instead found “unknown processes accounted for much of warming in the ancient hot spell.” The press release for the study was headlined: "Global warming: Our best guess is likely wrong."

"In a nutshell, theoretical models cannot explain what we observe in the geological record," said oceanographer Gerald Dickens, a co-author of the study and professor of Earth science at Rice University. "There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models."

 

Read more

 

Get last week's #5 bestselling climate change book on Amazon US and UK: