Climate Change Minister Nick Smith said new data showed that New Zealand had sufficient forests to offset increases in emissions since 1990 to meet Kyoto Protocol obligations.Well that's mighty convenient because earlier the story from Nick Smith was "Emissions target 'too expensive'". Lucky all those, erm, new trees were there then.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Everything you needed to know about the Kyoto Protocol
Newly on the Herald website today: "Kyoto liability wiped out by new trees, says Govt":
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Please tell me you're following the Fox news-esque 'fair and balanced' week-long smacking reportage. Today: "I asked for help but instead got a conviction" about a (violins please) solo father who smacked up the (possibly) drug-addled daughter he's been raising alone since her mother went 'psychotic'...
ReplyDeleteEarlier: "CYFS probe traumatises family" God-fearing Christian folk driven to deliver smack as a part of good parenting. Smack instantly calms and reforms out-of-control child but then CYFS steps in and accuses the family of abuse, leading to said child developing morbid fear of being taken away from her parents.
And then on Monday there was "Smacking debate: adults see it differently" (what that headline is supposed to mean, I don't know), which teaches us about 'every parent's nightmare' - being confronted in a shop by a meddling Scooby Doo-esque harridan after smacking his incorrigible offspring.
Can't wait for the rest of the week-long series!
This is barking. (no pun intended)
ReplyDeleteSo, let's get this straight. A country that shaved the trees from it's landscape 100 years ago is now claiming that a growing tree somehow makes up for C02 emissions. Even though it's only replacing the trees cut down before, and much CO2 remains in the atmosphere for a 1000 years, and 10% remains for 10,000 years.
Why, that makes a lot of sense. There is no hope as long as weasly politicians respond to the letter and not the spirit of any treaties.
@William Knight
ReplyDeleteCutting down trees is not a problem for CO2 emissions, provided that the timber is not burnt. Turn it into useful stuff like houses and furniture and that CO2 is locked away from the atmosphere.
Then grow more trees on the land to take more CO2 out of the atmosphere.
It is the burning down of forests/jungle to turn into arable land that is detrimental to atmospheric CO2 levels.
Off topic, I know, but I think this YV comment deserves a mention somewhere.
ReplyDeleteIn response to the question "Was Paula Bennett right to release income details on two solo mothers?" we get this comment:
"Where is the Privacy Protection Act?
Parliament and Hospitals only should be using your information for your good only.
Its what WINZ calls Good Service.
Then you get Tresspassed for two years from all the surronding area district branch offices in your neighbourhood city area. Banned from Auckland, Wellington etc. Invalid, Widow, Death etc."
So the first paragraph: on topic at least. We already have the Privacy Act 1993, and although I have no idea why KAOS brings up hospitals, but he'll no doubt be glad to know we have a Health Information Privacy Code 1994.
And then we reach the second paragraph: what? Just, you know, WHAT?
@salientnz
ReplyDeleteBut of course a lot of ends up being burnt, or made into paper which then decays in landfill or is burnt.
During the forest clearances in NZ, a large proportion of the timber was simply burnt in the fields to make pasture. (not all, I know, but a large proportion... that C02 is still in the atmosphere)
Trees are of course a very good thing, but using them as an excuse to do nothing about emissions is not.