Here, I've pasted their material and added a comment or two (in red) where I felt there was some flim-flam going on (if it was ink, I'd have used gallons).
Climate change
Myth: Coal, oil & gas development in NZ will affect the climate.
(Stop right there, Mr Straterra! There is no question what so ever that the development of coal, gas and oil in New Zealand has already, and will if it continues, affect the climate. The only question can be 'by how much'? Your, 'myth' tag here is utter nonsense. Consider this - if you believed it was a myth, would you be talking gas capture and sequestration at all? Your first 'play' on this page is an epic fail.)
Reality: Fossil fuels do lead to greenhouse gas emissions, however, this statement needs to be measured in the context of New Zealand’s climate change response. That is that we must do our fair share - and we are. For example, New Zealand has 70% renewable electricity generation, a world leading figure. While close to half our emissions come from agriculture, this industry helps feed the world and is less emissions intensive than it is in many other countries.
(This 'rationalization' is complete bollocks! You do lead, however, with a true statement; "Reality: Fossil fuels do lead to greenhouse gas emissions..." which kind of makes your lead statement at the top of the page look foolish, doesn't it. You seem to be saying here, that because elsewhere in the world, others are creating greenhouse gases at a greater rate, we are okay adding our smaller amounts. The mind boggles at your logic and apparent ability to deny the obvious. New Zealand's climate change response, as championed here by you, is widely recognised as a very, very soft one. For you to willfully add to the output of greenhouse gases that we are already failing to account for, is not admirable, Mr Straterra.)
Myth: NZ should ban coal mining and oil & gas development, to reduce emissions.
(This is a myth? It doesn't even have the form of a myth, Mr Straterra. If it said, "Banning coal mining and oil & gas development in New Zealand would reduce emissions, it would of course be true, no myth at all. However, you seem to be implying that there is a claim 'out there' for the banning of coal mining and oil and gas development. You have, I guess, made that up. The most credible calls I hear from those agencies who regard extractive activities such as you describe as as a threat to the climate aren't calling for a ban on existing coal mining, especially those that are mining high grade coals, they are calling, not for a ban, but a moratorium, on lignite extraction where new mines are proposed and they are calling for a similar moratorium on off shore drilling for oil, not a ban on those already in operation. Your 'myth' is one you have, I suggest, dreamed up to suit your purpose. It's not one that is circulating in the real world.)
Reality: Yes, but climate change demands a global response. That will include carbon capture and storage technologies (CCS) to address the fact the world will continue to burn fossil fuels for many years yet. According to the International Energy Agency, 47% of new electricity generation in the last decade is based on coal. Unilateral action would only harm NZ – e.g. closure of dairy and wood processors, steel mill, methanol plant, cement plants - while not benefiting the climate, unless the world acts in concert. It is not, at present.
(Reality: Yes! Goodness, your myth, by your own reckoning, is a reality? You might need to adjust your spin on this Mr Straterra, it's a little revealing!
Climate change demands a global response you say? So you've accepted that it's not just a myth, I take it.
'Global response' must be a conglomeration of local responses, naturally, and you have the chance to be some of those local responses (or are you hoping that 'overseas' will fix the climate change you describe?).
Unilateral action is the great 'stick of fear' producers of green house gases like to wave, but of course it's nonsense. Other countries/companies/communities are taking action. Our own is dragging the chain and the mining industry is one of the worst offenders here - and that's you, Mr Straterra! Claiming that we can act til the world acts, benefits those who also claim the same thing in order to carry on business as usual, ignoring the fact that their activities are causing a worsrning of the climate and a direct threat to every human on the planet. "But they're doing it" sounds like a school yard wheedle and doesn't impress when it comes from a seemingly sophisticated corporation.
Myth: CCS doesn’t work and is corporate spin.
(Had you been at the public meeting at Mataura where the Lincoln University specialist in CCS spoke, you'd take down this claim, Mr Straterra. He fisked your argument so thoroughly that you'd have slunk from the room.
"in operation, not in operation, or in the planning around the globe" - weasel words, those. The one thaat I've seen a report on that is collecting some of its CO2 is pumping it through a 300km pipeline and pushing it into a partly-empty oil well in order to force the oil up and into the pockets of the investors - not possible here in Southland, Mr Straterra, we've no half-empty oil wells here, none that are empty and waiting to be filled with Co2 and Taranaki's a very, very long pipeline away. CCS is a hugely underwhelming solution to what will be an unavoidable problem for your industry.
Reality: The IEA reports more than 70 large-scale CCS R&D projects in operation, not in operation, or in the planning around the globe. Many billions of dollars are being spent on this - a serious investment aimed at dealing with global reality, i.e. 1 trillion tonnes of coal is due to be burned in coming decades. That said, CCS is yet to be implemented at scale. For that, significant investment and de-risking, e.g. via improved regulatory environments, will be needed.
("That said, CCS is yet to be implemented at scale." - I commend you for your forthrightness and honesty, Mr Straterra. It's not, as you say, a reality yet, so I guess that makes CCS more myth than anything else!)
Myth: Lignite is particularly bad for the climate because the level of GHG emissions is high.
Reality: This depends on the use of the lignite, and whether CCS is deployed.
(Hard to know whether to bother with this last lame claim, Mr Straterra. Your argument is wet-tissue weak and I'm feeling kindly, after finding a grain of truth in your page (see above).
I think I'll leave it for another day. Thanks for your time.)
4 comments:
"The IEA reports more than 70 large-scale CCS R&D projects in operation, not in operation, or in the planning around the globe."
They manage to create the feeling that CCS is fully up and running by including the number 70 when the reality is that only 2 are fully operating at this point and because it is old mine and drilling sites that are used it won't be possible for Southland until the Great South Basin is accessed.
Straterra's shortcomings have even been picked up overseas by a mining expert:
http://ithinkmining.com/2012/01/26/new-zealand-mining-debate-lamb-vs-lignite/
Yes, bsprout. I'd expected a far better attempt to spin their story than that transparent effort. After all, those guys get paid handsomely and must have extensive resources for research. I wonder if they'd be up for a face-to-face public debate. Jeanette, for example, would have them on the ropes in the twinkle of a grandmother's eye, based on that example. A meatworker from Mataura would flay them.
I am happy to debate climate change issues with anyone, including Mataura meatworkers. I respect Jeanette Fitzsimons, however, cannot agree with her views, and views like it, on the global climate change response. On CCS, I suggest you read the Transfield Worley report on our web site. Commissioned by the NZCCS Partnership, it was written by people who know a lot about CCS, and that forms a counterpoint to your source. To the bigger issue, what NZ should do by way of a climate change response, at issue is that taxes from the direct and indirect economic activity arising from Fonterra pays for one in four hospitals, and schools in New Zealand. Much of Fonterra's wealth is earned by using coal and gas to turn milk into milk powder. Fonterra competes against subsidised producers of dairy products, so it uses cheap energy and other inputs. Sure, we could be more aggressive with our climate change response, put a much bigger price on carbon in our domestic economy, and then risk the collapse of our economy, because no one else is doing anything significant. New Zealand, in fact, has the most comprehensive framework for any ETS in the world; on that sense, we are the world leader on the climate change response. Meantime Canada pulls out of the Kyoto Protocol, there is no guarantee Australia will introduce its fixed price carbon scheme, Japan and Korea are dragging the chain, the US is not doing anything worthwhile, etc etc. Yes, we should be prepared to take serious action, but this is only worth doing if everyone takes action. It's the classic Prisoner's Dilemma, granted. How to get around it? James Hansen's global carbon tax is hopelessly naive. For now, CCS has to be a crucial part of the global response. Jeanette, and others, should get behind this technology, instead of criticising it at every turn. Regards, Bernie Napp, Straterra
No you stop right there RG.
The release of life gasses has still not been PROVEN to create global warming. In fact the opposite is occuring where climate models have been either disproven (spectacularly in the case of the hockey stick) or just cannot replicate the actual cliamte rsults from the past decade.
Paranormal
Post a Comment