My Photo
Mobilise this Blog





New Zealand Conservative


AmCam News Tips

  • Have you got mobile camera pix of breaking news, or a first-hand account you've written?
    email Investigate now on publicity [at] and we'll get you online
Blog powered by Typepad

« BREAKING NEWS: Drowning islands claim debunked by new research | Main | The environmentalist who doubts global warming theory »



Just why is the National Govt being so stubborn over this issue? I feel very misled, and if I knew what I know now, then National would not have been given my vote. It's always the same, Kiwis are just ignored and trampled on by the main power brokers. Vote National, get Labour?


Ian or anyone else -

Trying to find out when and where Nick Smith is holding his ETS meetings

- any ideas?

I've got a few questions for Nick, quite apart from the scientific ones.

I would like to ask him why he thinks my great granddads service in Gallipoli was a waste of time and why 7473 dead or wounded New Zealand patriots was just us doing our bit.


Entwined by the Tentacles of Sophistry

Annette Huang

Slightly OT - the most stupid quote I've heard this morning on Morning Report (in passing, so I can't attribute it) - "He believes carbon farming is the way of the future."

It's all got very silly.


Very true Annette.
I'm trying to find out where the spin merchants got the figure of 120% for the increase in emissions from electricity generation in NZ from 1990.( as reported on the Dom Post article on Saturday ) If it is true it must have been from an extremely low base and so it is a typical PR use of statistics.



Between 1990 and 2007, greenhouse gas emissions from electricity generation rose by approximately 91 per cent, and greenhouse gas emissions from energy use by manufacturing industries rose by approximately eight per cent.

However, this is another view
In 2008, New Zealand’s total greenhouse gas emissions were 74.7 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (Mt CO2-e), which means total emissions are now 13.9 Mt CO2-e (22.8%) higher than the 1990 level of 60.8 Mt CO2-e.


More info.
The graph here:

seems to line up with the 60->74 Mt figure I quoted above.


Thanks Andy. But the figures still don't make alot of sense to me , unless all the gas fired stations in Taranaki came on stream after 1990 ?


I have emailed MFE for clarification, will keep you posted.


"Just why is the National Govt being so stubborn over this issue?"..cause it stopped being(IMHO) about the climate or for that matter our comittments to Kyoto long ago,but take heart Tanya,National will go into next years election with the public well 'aware' of the true costs that the ETS will impose on them..and with the almost daily disclosures of dodgy climate science..

..and as Abe once said,

"You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time."


Andy -- I have found this list of stsations on Wiki.

If you include Huntly and Whirinaki ( both standby/emergency stations) then you can get something like their figures but without them non renewable generation only makes up less than 10% of the total of the major stations. So it looks like playing with figures to get their 91% or 120% increase since 1990.


I'm still finding it hard to match the numbers on emissions by sector

I can't see how the large increases by sector lead to an overall figure of 22.8% increase since 1990

Also, since the stated targets are thus:

* A medium-term responsibility target of a 10 to 20 per cent reduction in emissions below 1990 levels by 2020.
* A long-term target of a 50 per cent reduction in net greenhouse gases from 1990 levels by 2050.

we could really do with a more detailed breakdown of where the GHG increases are, and how we can realistically achieve these targets.

A 50% decrease by 2050 sounds quite optimistic given our large percentage of renewable energy sources.

Mayor Chin

There appears to be a crisis in Dunedin town!

I am reading Deadline, and it is becoming clear that the Dunedin City Council has a conflict in interest as to where it as borrowed $285 million dollars from!

In the last 2 weeks, MP Pete Hodgson and Vice Chancellor of Otago University David Skegg have both resigned.

Exactly the position of the University and the DCC in the construction of Dunedin's much protested billion dollar stadium is unknown.

Did the University use its Financial Services division funny money tricks to bankroll a corrupt local city council?
Where is all the money coming from?
Where is all the money going?
Is the NZ Taxpayer going to be left the can bailing out a corruption within the University and the DCC totally billions of dollars?

The local ODT newspaper has stifled debate, and threatens to sue readers or letters that hint of any involvement in the stadium process. Of course, the local paper is in it up to its neck, along with an number of key financial business people and political servants in Dunedin.

It's time for the SFO to come in. Readers will remember Michael Swans $38 million swindle that has left the local DHB crippled, with patients dieing daily due to lack of funds.

Now there are hundreds of millions of dollars of public monies missing, no accountability, and potentially up to $1.5 billion dollars of public money involved a local University led building spree.

Ian Wishart. Get off your Fat Chuff ... and lift the lid on this one!


I received some more info by email to my question on emissions:

Dear Mr XXX

Thank you for your question. There are two differences to be aware of in the figures you quoted. The first big difference is that the first figure (91% increase) is just on emissions from electricity generation, and the second is all of New Zealand’s emissions. Emissions from electricity generation make up only 10% of New Zealand’s total emissions. The largest share of New Zealand’s emissions come from agriculture. So while electricity emissions increased by 91%, they did so from a low starting point compared to the rest of New Zealand’s emissions. Other emitting sectors increased emissions at much slower rates, such that the overall increase in all emissions was 22.8% between 1990 and 2007.

Total emissions includes emissions from energy, industrial processes, agriculture and waste. Over the period 1990 to 2008 total emissions from all these sources have increased by 22.8 per cent.

The second difference is that the first figure you quote is 2007 data, while the second figure is 2008 data. When comparing two emissions figures they ought to be for the same year, as emissions will change from year to year. Every year, the Ministry for the Environment compiles the national greenhouse gas inventory with data from the latest year. This is done 18 months after the calendar year ends so data can be collected and analysed. This means that 2007 data are published in the Inventory in 2009, and 2008 data are published in 2010 and so on.

I hope that answers your question.

Kind regards


I have followed up with further questions as to whether there is a more detailed list of emissions by sector.


Andy -- At least they are acknowledging the "low base" but they should explain that to the public in more detail. But they will continue to treat us as fools.
Perhaps this article partly explains why Smith is pushing this scam through -- there has been some behind the scenes deals with iwi groups.


How much did the population grow between 1990 and 2007?


I have further info from mfe:

The full inventory tables of greenhouse gas emissions and removals may be downloaded from the MfE website:

There is a link on the right to the zipped excel spreadsheets for every year 1990 to 2008, and to the National Inventory Report. The National Inventory Report fully documents all the details of the inventory. The spreadsheets are called Common Reporting Format tables. The files are quit large. We should have these on a CD if you are unable to download. There is a lot of detail in the CRF tables, and you may need to read alongside the National Inventory Report. There are a lot of useful summary sheets at the end of each workbook that may be more helpful.

All Annex 1 parties are required to submit these tables by April 15 every year. Other parties and New Zealand’s historic tables may be downloaded from the UNFCCC website on:

I have forwarded your second question to my policy colleagues and I will chase them up next week if there is no response from them

In response to the question by singularian :
How much did the population grow between 1990 and 2007?
This is actually a great question, and if you visit

you will find that GHG emissions have reduced per GDP since 1990.


This CO2 group sounds interesting:

Good to know that "entrepreneurs" such as Andrew Grant are making inroads into our carbon market; big thanks to the Kiwis "saving the planet"


People, people, people. What is all the fuss about?? Everybody knows that the ETS is based on rock solid science and that it won't eventually destroy the means of primary production in our nation and every other developed nation on earth. Besides it is absolutely ludicrous to think that there are power brokers out there who would dogmatically pursue this seemly catastrophic goal. I mean, who stands to benefit from it all? Besides, are there not more important issues that demand our attention? Issues such as the amazing feats of the all whites, or the endless features of the new iphone? You'd all be silly to prioritize minor issues like liberty and truth over such things. Lets keep labeling the people who think they are exposing the supposed lies and deception of our government and main stream media as nutters and wing-nuts. I'm sorry, this is all so obviously sarcastic, I'm just incredibly frustrated by what I see on a daily basis. Lets face it, most people just don't care. They enjoy their meaningless, mediocre, naive little lives. Is there any hope?

John Briand

I emailed the PM last week, asking just why National were persisting with the ETS. No answer yet. I also asked if anyone in caucus had read 'Air-Con'. Quite a few MP's do not believe this climate change gobbly-gook (including the speaker of the house, who holds a science degree). Reason given why MPs follow and sell their souls - for the supposed advantages of trading with Europe. Makes you sick to the stomach!

The comments to this entry are closed.