Newsletter No. 10 for 2010 From The NZ Climate Realists’ Against the ETS

Hello again Climate Realists,

Activists, Neil & Esther Henderson

Welcome to this week’s newsletter.

The last few weeks have seen us very busy in the ETS arena, with a visit to Wellington to consult with a group of likeminded folk to look at the practicalities of running an organised campaign against the ETS.
At this stage no great amount of finance is available for a large-scale media campaign.
However Act’s John Boscawen is making the ETS a primary focus for the first part of this year. As he rightly points out, once it is implemented it creates a property right, and in the case of the whole thing collapsing, as it surely must eventually,  the government is immediately laid open to huge compensation claims from power companies and others who have committed huge financial resources to becoming ‘carbon friendly’.
Of course the rise in fuel and electricity prices, and the unsustainability of planing huge tracts of pine forests, not to mention the thin end of an agriculture-destroying wedge provide plenty of other incentives for combatting the ETS!!!
Act’s stance is that they would like to see the ETS scrapped, but, realising that is an almost impossible ask, they are suggesting the further implementation of the scheme, due in July, be deferred for at least two years.
We as Climate Realists will be doing all we can to assist and work in together with Act. We are not Act members and have no political affiliations; however Act is the only voice on our side in this debate within the current government.
We are also circulating a number of ideas to our network as to how individuals can make their point. It will need action from a lot of people and this challenge is to YOU to look over the list of suggested action points below and see where YOU can help to make a difference.
We also took the opportunity to visit with four of the staff at MAF, who gave up an hour of their time to listen to our concerns. We are grateful to them for this, but in the end wonder whether we achieved very much. It is quite obvious to us that one does not get a job at MAF unless one holds to a particular view; so any effort to reason with the people there is met with a ‘we totally understand your point of view- but we’re still continuing on regardless’ response.
They did eventually admit that animal emissions from a farm with constant livestock numbers do not cause global warming; however even having conceded this point they still see farms as a necessary target for reduction of methane emissions.
Our frustration is that Nick Smith et al constantly refer to the advice that they are given by their ‘advisors’ (ie MAF) but the advisors, when one eventually tracks them down, say they are under instruction from the government and must follow policy.
The cart and the horse appear to be confused about their respective roles.
Today Neil is at Frasertown attending a meeting at which David Carter will be speaking. He is hoping to point out the medium and long term costs of the ETS to the farmers attending and challenge the official figures given thus far.
Thanks for all the messages of encouragement,
We can not do this on our own.
Please look over the action points below and do whatever you can to help.
all the best,
Esther (and on behalf of Neil)
Many thanks to the farmers who have replied so far.
*****We are still looking for more responses though!!!*******
– in order to make a big impact we need many of these .
Please circulate this request to as many farmers as possible.
If you are unable to give accurate figures, we could still use statements of two or three sentences giving your considered opinion as to what impact the ETS will have on you and your farming operation.
We are aware that some farmers simply have never really worked out what the cost to them will be; also the large number of variables make it difficult to get an exact estimate- we all just know it will hurt!
Further down this newsletter is an extract from an email by Nick Dalgety from MAF with links which may be helpful to those of you wanting to work out detailed figures.
LETTERS TO THE POLITICIANS, particularly John Key, Nick Smith and Tim Groser.
We are reliably informed that all letters are noted, and writing letters is still an option open to us- the more, the better. Even though it appears no one is taking any notice, let it never be said that no one even bothered to write to their MP about their concerns regarding the ETS!!
Copy your letter to your local paper, and let the MP you are writing to know you have done so.
If you send your letter to us we will also publish it on our website
We have organised and printed our first Climate Realists’ pamphlet, designed to be given away at any occasion where people from the ‘green’ perspective need some convincing.
It contains a number of indisputable facts, along with website references for further research.
Designed and illustrated by members of the Climate Realists’ network, we are very pleased with it.
Anybody who would like some of these to give away, email your address to us at .
We need to be more visible, and a relatively inexpensive way of achieving this is to get our members to advertise us on their vehicles! (And make a clear statement at the same time….)
We have organised the first run of Climate Realists’ bumper stickers, with eight options (attached).
Please let us know which one(s) you would like, and send your postal address to .

When a broadcaster presents something on radio or television we have the right to make a complaint about it on a number of different grounds.
The relevant ones for us are generally accuracy, balance and fairness.

We are aware of at least one complaint so far, with regard to the inaccuracy of reporting about livestock emissions.
Influencing the mainstream media is one of our biggest challenges, as anyone who has tried to get an anti-global warming letter published will testify.
However if enough complaints are laid about unfair and biased reporting, one would hope the message will eventually get through.

A little history leading up to this power increase.

Government notified a cut off date when Lines Companies were no longer required to guarantee supply to uneconomical lines.
Therefore repair and maintenance would be charged directly to the consumer.
Realizing that customers would install generators, a ruling was put in place that generators would need to be registered and subject to annual survey checks.
Government did an about face and decided to continue with guaranteed supply.
Lines companies come back with a 20% increase to upgrade lines and catch up on deffered maintenance.
Note the assessment of the rural versus urban customers ability to pay.

Hi Geoff

In response to your email of 2 March, there is a range of publicly available information on the impacts of the NZETS which I’ve referenced below.  However, in general I understand that farmers will be exposed to the costs of approximately 10 percent of their farms methane and nitrous oxide emissions by 2015.

The easiest way for farmers to work out an approximate cost is therefore to work out their total emissions in CO2 equivalents and multiply it by ten percent to arrive at an approximate cost for the year 2015.  Most dairy farmers should be able to obtain a carbon output from their Overseer results, but sheep and beef farmers may need to use one of the carbon calculators that are available.  There is one here which MAF don’t officially endorse, but I understand it is in the right ballpark.  MAF has funded its own carbon calculator which will be available shortly on the Pastoral Greenhouse Gas Research Consortium website.

Query A: Farmer liabilities under the present ETS legislation as it will be applied – specific either on a farm model basis or per SU.

There used to be estimates of the cost per Kg milksolids and per Kg meat on MfE’s website, however they have reorganised their site and it appears to have dropped off.  One of our analysts is looking into it, but the information it provided was as follows:

$25/tonne CO2-e 2015- 90% allocation
Dairy (per kg/milksolids) 2.3 cents
Beef (per kg/meat) 2.9 cents
Sheep (per kg/meat) 5.6 cents
Nitrogen fertiliser (per tonne) $14 (dollars)
Another source of information is the evidence provided to the Finance and Expenditure Select Committee for the passing of the recent amendment Bill. They requested a comparison of the impacts of the moderated ETS with the old ETS. This work compared impacts across a selection of MAF’s model farms (see Table 3 of the attached).

Here is some information on the energy price impacts (CO2). The information appears on The Climate Change Information New Zealand website. This commentary also confirms recent changes made to the ETS legislation.

Query B: Costs of turning pre 1990 forest back into pasture.
One of our regional analysts has assessed an average default value for deforesting a hectare of pre-1990 forest land at 800 tonnes of CO2/ha . Multiply this by $25/tonne and it amounts to about $20,000/ha.

Also, MAF funded MOTU Public Policy Research to do some work on allocation to agriculture in 2008.  The report can be found here:

I hope  this information is of assistance.

Your faithfully

Nick Dalgety
Senior Policy Analyst
Natural Resources Group MAF Policy
P O Box 3318 Richmond NELSON
Ph 03 543 9184
Mobile 0299 431 026
Fax 03 543 9187

From Ian Wishart:

Please don’t tell me you’re going to let skeptics from Spain and the U.K. get

ahead of skeptics from Australia and New Zealand in terms of enrollment?


A short read I thought would interest you.

The read is here:
Think you’ll enjoy it.


After errors, global warming gets a cold shoulder
Critics point to mistakes, e-mail theft to raise doubts on research; poll shows less public concern

article links chemtrails as answer to global warming by so-called geo-engineering experts. Greenpeace has not expressed any interest in the existance of chemtrails (they do not acknowledge their existance).

You may find this report both interesting and helpful : —

World’s biggest coal company brings U.S. government to court in climate fraud
by John O’Sullivan on February 17, 2010 · 7 comments

The world’s largest private sector coal business, the Peabody Energy Company (PEC) has filed a mammoth 240-page “Petition for Reconsideration,” a full-blown legal challenge against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

The petition must be answered and covers the entire body of leaked emails from ‘Climategate’ as well as those other ‘gate’ revelations including the frauds allegedly perpetrated under such sub-headings as ‘Himalayan Glaciers,’ ‘African Agricultural Production,’ ‘Amazon Rain Forests,’ ‘Melting Mountain Ice,’ ‘Netherlands Below Sea Level’ as well as those much-publicized abuses of the peer-review literature and so called ‘gray literature.’ These powerful litigants also draw attention to the proven criminal conduct by climate scientists in refusing to honor Freedom of Information law (FOIA) requests.

Peabody is, in effect, challenging the right of the current U.S. federal government to introduce cap and trade regulations by the ‘back door.’ In this article we summarize Peabody’s legal writ.

PEC has pulled out all the stops to overturn the EPA findings ‘Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act’ made on December 7, 2009. Those findings were in turn premised on the Supreme Court decision of April 2, 2007 of Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), where the court ruled that greenhouse gases are air pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act.

PEC argues inter alia that the law requires that the federal agency must articulate a “rational connection between the facts found and the choice made” as per the case of Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of the United States, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983).

The PEC arguments are based primarily on the release of email and other information from the University of East Anglia (“UEA”) Climatic Research Unit (“CRU”) in November of last year. Their civil action lists most of the principle scientists such as Professor Phil Jones, of the UK’s Climatic Research Unit, who recently admitted there has been no ‘statistically significant’ global warming for 15 years and agreed the Medieval Warm Period may have been just as warm, if not warmer than current global temperatures.

The petition argues the EPA must reconsider its Endangerment Finding based on all the new material from Climategate that was not available during the original EPA ‘comment period’ and which is central to the outcome that EPA reached in promulgating its Endangerment Finding.

The petition further states that the EPA failed to properly exercise its judgment as required by the Clean Air Act (“CAA”) and acted in an “arbitrary and capricious” fashion by relying almost exclusively on flawed reports of the IPCC in attributing climate change to anthropogenic greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions and which were influenced by political rather than scientific concerns.



This entry was posted in Global Warming Hoax, New Zealand, NZ Climate Realists Against The ETS and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Newsletter No. 10 for 2010 From The NZ Climate Realists’ Against the ETS

  1. Nik says:

    IF Act is a political party first and foremost (?), & not just an shop front of high finance globalisation & consolidation ( as promoted by such figures as free-mason Karl Marx even in its initial stages); then it would put greater emphasis on the fact that it was it’s change of emphasis of promoting it’s opposition to the CO2 taxes in the last couple of weeks at the forefront, that gave it the surge of support for it’s seats in parliament.
    It wasn’t an emphasis on being against CO2 taxes but Act going along with them anyway and only suggesting that their further implementation should be delayed. If i recall rightly, Act’s final weeks of the election were downright opposition to the CO2 taxes at the forefront! And consequently, that is the pre-text that they swung into parliament on in a upturn of their political fortunes.

    The property rights line doesn’t really do it for this issue though, as the Co2 tax is simply the private banking/finance pyramid, trying to extend it’s property rights to the CO2 life cycle on earth in western civilisation.

    The opposition to CO2 taxes will not go away and will only increase, this opposition doesn’t need any political organisations but pol. organisations wanting more power than allocated at present will be needing this strong support as it coalesces into a powerful voting block above all the usual pre-defined brands of pre-judice that are the usual life blood of politics.

  2. Clare Swinney says:

    Thanks for your input Nik.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s