Climate Change Envoy Warns Against Cutting Investment in Green Energy

The government's climate change envoy has warned that failure to take more action to invest in a low carbon economy is a threat to the future "prosperity and security" of the British people.

John Ashton, who has just stepped down from his post at the Foreign Office, told MPs that the UK was still considered an influential global player on climate change, but signalled that position was at risk as the country was falling behind on investment in energy efficiency and clean energy.

This in turn would make it harder to meet global targets to limit global warming to 2C - the level at which experts consider most countries will cope with the ensuing disruption to weather patterns.

"Failure to deal with climate change would amplify already dangerous stresses arising from food, water and energy insecurity," Ashton told the energy and climate change select committee. "This potentially unmanageable combination of stresses poses a systemic risk to the security and prosperity of our country."
In 2004 the government's then chief scientist, Professor Sir David King, made headlines around the world when he declared that climate change was "the most severe problem we are facing today, more serious even than the threat of terrorism".

However, the growing political consensus for tackling climate change, which culminated in the 2008 Climate Change Act committing the UK to binding emissions reductions, has appeared to be breaking down in the last two years as lack of economic growth and savage public spending cuts have eroded support for sometimes costly policies.

These issues came to a head in February when more than 100 Conservative MPs signed a letter to the prime minister, David Cameron, calling for an end to onshore windfarms.

Ashton, who left his six-year post two weeks ago, said he sympathised with concerns that UK efforts to combat climate change would be an expensive failure if other countries did not follow suit. However in a thinly-veiled warning about the damage done by draining political support for 'green' policies, he said the UK's diplomatic efforts to persuade other countries to reduce the world's reliance on oil and other fossil fuels "depends on what we are doing at home" and the "consensus across the political spectrum".

Ashton also told MPs that far from leading the world, the UK was falling behind important economic competitors such as Germany, Korea, China and Japan in some of the big future industries such as offshore wind energy and carbon capture and storage systems for gas and coal power stations.

"Internationally we must resolve the false choice, exacerbated by the current crisis, between economic security and climate security," said Ashton. "A rapid shift to low carbon growth is essential for security, competitiveness and prosperity, not an intolerable risk to competitiveness, jobs and growth."

"Politically we must address this not as a distraction from our current problems, but as part of the solution to them," he added.

Tory committee member Dr Phillip Lee challenged Ashton, however, suggesting that there were still hundreds of millions of people who wanted a better standard of living in developing countries like China, and in the UK during the recession, who would not support policies which pushed up the price of energy and so goods and services they wanted to buy.

"It's seen that going green is going to slow down the growth that we need," added Lee.

Alumina Rejects Wagerup Carbon Tax Claim

Alumina Ltd says the high cost of construction in Western Australia rather than the carbon tax is a key reason that the expansion of its Wagerup alumina refinery has stalled.

WA's Environmental Protection Authority on Monday granted AWAC, Alumina and Alcoa's joint venture company, an extension until September 2016 to substantially commence the expansion that was first given environmental approval in 2006.

The Australian newspaper this week reported an Alcoa spokeswoman as saying the company would not revisit the expansion until it had a clearer picture of the full impact of the carbon tax, due to start on July 1.

The media report also cited the need to secure energy supplies, which Alumina chief executive John Bevan concurred with on Thursday.

But, Mr Bevan said, it was 'not the case' that the carbon tax was the key reason the project was not yet going ahead.

'The capital cost of building in WA is high, as seen with BHP's Worsley (refinery),' Mr Bevan told a conference call for analysts.

The cost of expanding BHP Billiton's Worsley alumina refinery in WA has blown out substantially due to factors including inflationary pressures and the stronger Australian dollar.

This had prompted analysts to speculate recently that the asset may be sold by the mining giant.

Alcoa last week announced that AWAC could close one of its two Australian aluminium smelters, Point Henry in Victoria, in the face of continuing difficult global economic conditions for the industry.

The company warned in January that it planned to close or curtail about 12 per cent of its global smelting capacity to improve its competitiveness amid falling aluminium prices and escalating raw materials costs.

The Point Henry announcement triggered a parliamentary furore, with federal Opposition Leader Tony Abbott blaming the possible closure on the government's carbon tax.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard labelled his comments a disgrace given that 600 jobs at the smelter hung in the balance.

'It (the potential Point Henry closure) is really not firm at this stage,' Mr Bevan said on Thursday, adding that Alcoa's global curtailments would occur in the next four or five months.

In delivering a near fourfold surge in full-year net profit on Thursday, Alumina said costs at Point Henry and its other aluminium smelter in Portland, Victoria, were last year pushed up by increased alumina and coke prices, and the rising Australian dollar.

Alumina booked a net profit for the 12 months to December 31 of $US127 million ($A119.16 million), up from $US35 million ($A32.84 million) for the 2010 calendar year.

Mr Bevan said margins rose after the company moved to price some of its alumina on an index/spot basis.

Morningstar analyst Mark Taylor said a 55 per cent rise in underlying earnings to $US128 million beat the investment research firm's forecast of $US113 million ($A106.02 million).

The company to maintain its full year dividend at six cents per share.

Mr Bevan said the company was cautious on the outlook for 2012, reflecting volatile pricing conditions, a strong Australian dollar and high input costs.

Conditions deteriorated towards the end of 2011, with prices for Alumina's products falling significantly.

Shares in Alumina closed up 1.5 cents, or 1.3 per cent, at $1.17.

Our ETS Future 'Will Not Come Cheaply

AUSTRALIA will be unable to produce affordable baseload power supplies while meeting its emissions targets under present policy, new research has found.

A study by Melbourne's Grattan Institute, to be published today, warns that while carbon pricing will help make low-emissions technologies competitive, it will not be enough without big structural and policy changes.

Tony Wood, the institute's energy program director, says governments face "an acute intellectual and policy challenge" steering a course between inadequate support for low-emissions technologies or unduly favouring one technology over another. He cautions "Australia's move to a low-carbon future will be too expensive unless they do."

The Grattan research stresses markets as the primary mechanism by which Australia can reduce its emissions, but it says markets cannot work properly unless governments optimise regulatory and policy frameworks.

The study also warns against letting ideology limit the scope for manoeuvre by preventing serious evaluation of carbon capture and storage and nuclear energy. "A range of technologies available today can generate electricity at or below 0.2 tonnes of carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour and have significant scale-up projection," the Grattan research finds.

"Yet none currently represents more than 2 per cent of Australia's electricity supply and

their future technical and economic potential is shrouded in uncertainty."

The report finds further refinement of the underlying technologies of low-emission energy options will be the most important tool for their future development and commercialisation.

It reminds governments of their roles overseeing the development of new transmission networks and pipelines, resource maps, market frameworks, regulations and engineering skills.

The Grattan researchers urge the commonwealth to ensure the carbon pricing scheme works properly by setting long-term emission caps and call on all governments to act to ensure there is a level playing field for all power-generating technologies.

The report's authors urge the removal of obstacles that impede technologies such as wind and geothermal from connecting at large-scale to electricity grids built around the needs of very large fossil-fuel plants.

Climategate (Part II) A sequel as ugly as the original.

The conventional wisdom about blockbuster movie sequels is that the second acts are seldom as good as the originals. The exceptions, like The Godfather: Part II or The Empire Strikes Back, succeed because they build a bigger backstory and add dimensions to the original characters. The sudden release last week of another 5,000 emails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of East Anglia University​—​ground zero of “Climategate I” in 2009​—​immediately raised the question of whether this would be one of those rare exceptions or Revenge of the Nerds II.

Before anyone had time to get very far into this vast archive, the climate campaigners were ready with their critical review: Nothing worth seeing here. Out of context! Cherry picking! “This is just trivia, it’s a diversion,” climate researcher Joel Smith told Politico. On the other side, Anthony Watts, proprietor of the invaluable WattsUpWithThat.com skeptic website, had the kind of memorable line fit for a movie poster. With a hat tip to the famous Seinfeld episode, Watts wrote: “They’re real, and they’re spectacular!” An extended review of this massive new cache will take months and could easily require a book-length treatment. But reading even a few dozen of the newly leaked emails makes clear that Watts and other longtime critics of the climate cabal are going to be vindicated.

Climategate I, the release of a few thousand emails and documents from the CRU in November 2009, revealed that the united-front clubbiness of the leading climate scientists was just a display for public consumption. The science of climate change was not “settled.” There was no consensus about the extent and causes of global warming; in their private emails, the scientists expressed serious doubts and disagreements on some major issues. In particular, the email exchanges showed that they were far from agreement about a key part of the global warming narrative​—​the famous “hockey stick” graph that purported to demonstrate that the last 30 years were the warmest of the last millennium and which made the “medieval warm period,” an especially problematic phenomenon for the climate campaign, simply go away. (See my “Scientists Behaving Badly,” The Weekly Standard, December 14, 2009.) Leading scientists in the inner circle expressed significant doubts and uncertainty about the hockey stick and several other global warming claims about which we are repeatedly told there exists an ironclad consensus among scientists. (Many of the new emails make this point even more powerfully.) On the merits, the 2009 emails showed that the case for certainty about climate change was grossly overstated.

More damning than the substantive disagreement was the attitude the CRU circle displayed toward dissenters, skeptics, and science journals that did not strictly adhere to the party line. Dissenting articles were blocked from publication or review by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), requests for raw data were rebuffed, and Freedom of Information Act requests were stonewalled. National science panels were stacked, and qualified dissenters such as NASA prize-winner John Christy were tolerated as “token skeptics.” The CRU circle was in high dudgeon over the small handful of skeptics who insisted on looking over their shoulder, revealing the climate science community to be thin-skinned and in-secure about its enterprise​—​a sign that something is likely amiss. Even if there was no unequivocal “smoking gun” of fraud or wrongdoing, the glimpse deep inside the climate science community was devastating. As I wrote at the time (“In Denial,” March 15, 2010), Climategate did for the global warming controversy what the Pentagon Papers did for the Vietnam war 40 years ago: It changed the narrative decisively.

The new batch of emails, over 5,300 in all (compared with about 1,000 in the 2009 release), contains a number of fresh embarrassments and huge red flags for the same lovable bunch of insider scientists. It stars the same cast, starting with the Godfather of the CRU, Phil “hide the decline” Jones, and featuring Michael “hockey stick” Mann once again in his supporting role as the Fredo of climate science, blustering along despite the misgivings and doubts of many of his peers. Beyond the purely human element, the new cache offers ample confirmation of the rank politicization of climate science and rampant cronyism that ought to trouble even firm believers in catastrophic climate change.

In fact, the emails display candid glimpses of concern inside the CRU circle. Peter Thorne of NOAA (National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration), who earned his Ph.D. in climate science at East Anglia in 2001, wrote Phil Jones in a 2005 message, “I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.” An appeal to “context,” which the climate campaigners say is crucial to understanding why excerpts such as this one are unimportant, does quite the opposite, and only points to the problems the climate change campaigners have brought upon themselves by their tribalism.

This exchange between Thorne and Jones, along with numerous similar threads in the new cache, is concerned with what should and shouldn’t be included in a chapter of the IPCC’s 2007 fourth assessment report​—​a chapter for which Jones was the coordinating lead author along with another key Climategate figure, Kevin Trenberth. The complete chapter (if you’re keeping score at home, it’s Chapter 3 of Working Group I, “Observations: Surface and Atmospheric Climate Change”) lists 10 “lead authors” and 66 “contributing authors” in addition to Jones and Trenberth. One of Jones’s emails from 2004 displays how explicitly political the process of assembling the IPCC report is: “We have a very mixed bag of LAs [lead authors] in our chapter. Being the basic atmos obs. one, we’ve picked up number of people from developing countries so IPCC can claim good geographic representation. This has made our task harder as CLAs [contributing lead authors] as we are working with about 50% good people who can write reasonable assessments and 50% who probably can’t.”

The final chapter was amended along lines Thorne recommended, but several other objections and contrary observations (one in particular from Roger Pielke Jr. about extreme weather events that has been subsequently vindicated) were scornfully dismissed. And appeals to context avoid the question: Is this “science-by-committee” a sensible way to sort out contentious scientific issues that hold immense public policy implications? Perhaps a politicized, semi-chaotic process like the IPCC is unavoidable in a subject as wide-ranging and complex as climate change; future historians of science can debate the issue. But the high stakes involved ought to compel a maximum of open debate and transparency. Instead, the IPCC process places a premium on gatekeepers and arbiters who control what goes in and what doesn’t, and it is exactly in its exercise of the gatekeeping function that the CRU circle has shredded its credibility and trustworthiness.

One thing that emerges from the new emails is that, while a large number of scientists are working on separate, detailed nodes of climate-related issues (the reason for dozens of authors for every IPCC report chapter), the circle of scientists who control the syntheses that go into IPCC reports and the national climate reports that the U.S. and other governments occasionally produce is quite small and partial to particular outcomes of these periodic assessments. The way the process works in practice casts a shadow over one of the favorite claims of the climate campaign​—​namely, that there exists a firm “consensus” about catastrophic future warming among thousands of scientists. This so-called consensus reflects only the views of a much smaller subset of gatekeepers.

Beyond additional bad news for the hockey stick graph, is there anything new in these emails about scientific aspects of the issue? This will take time to sort out, but I suspect anyone with the patience to go through the weeds of all 5,300 messages and cross check them against published results may well discover troubling new aspects of how climate modeling is done, and how weak the models still are on crucial points (such as cloud behavior). Some of the new emails frankly acknowledge such problems. There are arcane discussions about how to interpolate gaps in the data, how to harmonize different data sets, and how to resolve the frequent and often inconvenient (because contradictory) anomalies in modeling results. Definite examples of political influence have emerged already from a first pass over a sample of the massive cache.

In the editing process before the IPCC’s 2001 third assessment report, Timothy Carter of the Finnish Environmental Institute wrote in 2000 to three chapter authors with the observation, “It seems that a few people have a very strong say, and no matter how much talking goes on beforehand, the big decisions are made at the eleventh hour by a select core group.” In this case, decisions at the highest levels of what specific figures and conclusions were to appear in the short “summary for policy makers”​—​usually the only part of the IPCC’s multivolume reports that the media and politicians read​—​required changing what appeared in individual chapters, a case of the conclusions driving the findings in the detailed chapters instead of the other way around. This has been a frequent complaint of scientists participating in the IPCC process since the beginning, and the new emails show that even scientists within the “consensus” recognize the problem. Comments such as one from Jonathan Overpeck, writing in 2004 about how to summarize some ocean data in a half-page, reinforce the impression that politics drives the process: “The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out.”

No amount of context can possibly exonerate the CRU gang from some of the damning expressions and contrivances that appear repeatedly in the new emails. More so than the 2009 batch, these emails make clear the close collaboration between the leading IPCC scientists and environmental advocacy groups, government agencies, and partisan journalists. There are repeated instances of scientists tipping their hand that they’ve thrown in their lot with the climate ideologues. If there were only a handful of such dubious messages, they might be explained away through “context,” or as conciliatory habits of expression. But they are so numerous that it doesn’t require an advanced degree in pattern recognition to make out that these emails constitute not just a “smoking gun” of scientific bias, but a belching howitzer. Throughout the emails numerous participants refer to “the cause,” “our cause,” and other nonscientific, value-laden terms to describe the implications of one dispute or another, while demonizing scientists who express even partial dissent about the subject, such as Judith Curry of Georgia Tech.

Since the beginning of the climate change story more than 20 years ago, it has been hard to sort out whether the IPCC represents the “best” science, or merely the findings most compatible with the politically driven climate policy agenda. Both sets of emails have lifted the lid on the insides of the process, and it isn’t pretty.

A good example of how the political-scientific complex works hand-in-glove to tightly control the results comes from May 2009, when the IPCC authors were working on a “weather generator,” which they hoped would produce climate change scenarios tailored to localities, so as to promote favored adaptive measures (sea walls, flood control, drought readiness, etc.).

This is a small but hugely controversial aspect of climate modeling, and one where politicians and advocacy groups (the World Wildlife Fund was especially keen to have this kind of work done) may well be asking scientists to do the impossible. But there’s research money in it, so scientists are only too happy to oblige. Kathryn Humphrey, a science adviser in Britain’s DEFRA (Department of Environment, Forestry, and Rural Affairs​—​Britain’s EPA) wrote a worried note to Phil Jones and several other scientists involved in the project about criticisms of the cloistered working group behind the weather generator scheme, noting, “Ministers have also raised questions about this so we will need to go back to them with some further advice.”

Jones tries to reassure Humphrey that he’s got the working group under control: “As I’ve said on numerous occasions, if the WG [working group] isn’t there, all the people that need [the weather generator] will go off and do their own thing.

This will mean that individual sectors and single studies will do a whole range of different things. This will make the uncertainties even larger!” What Jones is referring to are numerous independent scientific efforts to “downscale” climate models to predict local impacts, and the fact that the results of these separate efforts have been chaotic, rather than demonstrating consensus. Hence the need for someone in authority to marginalize uncertainties and contradictory results. But this is properly called politics, not science.

Read the Rest of this article

Costs of Climate Tax 'Could Drive Farmers From the Land'

Carbon tax costs could push farmers off the land and raise the price of agricultural productivity, a Senate committee has been told.

Sitting in Brisbane, the Senate select committee on the scrutiny of new taxes heard that the Queensland government would forgo $1 billion in royalties in the coming decade because of the tax.

Queensland Farmers Federation chief executive Dan Galligan said the extra costs would put more pressure on farm profits, and called for industry-specific economic modelling.

"The analysis is too broad to give us a clear understanding of how many farmers this will affect to a point where they may well leave the industry," he said. "That may well happen for many farmers -- that loss in profit margins, associated with a number of other issues, will be enough reason for them to leave the farm."

Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.

End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.

Under questioning from Labor senators, Mr Galligan acknowledged the government exemptions on agriculture emissions and fuel were helpful. He said the Coalition's direct-action plan to pay $10 a tonne of soil carbon abatement would be insufficient.

But he said the Gillard government's carbon reduction scheme could have the "perverse effect" of stalling farm productivity because improvements relied on power use, which would be more expensive under the carbon tax.

"The mitigation options under the carbon farming initiatives may in fact further constrain a farmer's ability to increase productivity, which would be their usual mechanism to fight against a reduction in margins," he said.

Also appearing before the Coalition-dominated committee, Queensland Resources Council chief executive Michael Roche said taxpayers could be forced to compensate the $1.7 billion asset writedown in state-owned coal-fired power generators.

He queried why the Bligh government had not highlighted an estimated $1bn in lost coal royalties between 2012 and 2021. "I would have thought the Queensland government would see the risk for their single largest source of revenue outside of grants from the federal government," he said.

But Queensland Premier Anna Bligh said the coal industry had a "very strong future", with almost $60bn worth of mining applications in the pipeline.

Next week, the committee will visit the northern NSW town of Tamworth, in Tony Windsor's federal electorate, before moving to the Queensland coalmining centre of Bowen.

Australia to get carbon scheme by July 2012

Australia's minority Labor government has announced the country will have a carbon price by July 2012. The government has been working to reconstruct emissions trading policy after a dramatic failure under the former Labor prime minister, Kevin Rudd.

Some say the date is ambitious and leaves a multi-party parliamentary committee in a race against time to answer a list of hard questions. And the opposition has accused the prime minister of breaking a promise not impose such a tax.

MOTTRAM: Releasing a framework that sets the first of July next year as a date for setting a carbon price for Australia, Julia Gillard said now was the right time because the climate was changing as more people than ever produce more carbon than ever, but also because lingering would be bad for Australia's economy.

GILLARD: History teaches us that the countries and the economies who prosper at times of historic change are those who get in and shape and manage the change.

MOTTRAM: But a carbon price remains highly contentious in Australia. And Julia Gillard, who promised during last year's election campaign that there would not be a carbon price in this term of a Labor government, has had to work within the reality of being a minority government, courting Greens who will shortly have the balance of power in the senate, and independents who decide whether or not government measures get through parliament's lower house.

The political reality was in evidence as Ms Gillard made her announcement, flanked not only by her climate change minister, but two Greens senators and two of the lower house's four independent MPs who are part of a multi party committee that's working on how to price carbon. The Greens deputy leader, Christine Milne, made the political point.

MILNE: And it's happening because we have shared power in Australia. Majority governments would not have delivered this outcome, it is because the Greens are in balance of power working with the other parties to deliver not only the aspiration but the process to achieve it.

MOTTRAM: And with the opposition already calling it a breach of faith and an expensive one for consumers, it claims, the prime minister later conceded the point.

Politics aside, the framework sets a key goal, the July 2012 start date for a carbon price to establish an Australian market for tradeable carbon permits. It would be a two stage process. For the first three to five years, the carbon price will be fixed. Then it will shift to a flexible price, set by the market, pending a review of conditions, domestic and international, a year before that transition.

The committee says it gives business and industry what it wants now, certainty that there will be price on pollution where polluting is currently free.

But the framework is a long way from answering some key and very hard questions. Australia's climate change minister is Greg Combet.

COMBET: You will see that there has been no discussion to date of the starting price for the carbon price mechanism, or of the proposed household assistance measures that might obtain, or of the proposed measures for assisting industry for the transition to a clean energy future at this point in time. That is detailed work that of course we will have ahead of us in the weeks and months ahead. But nonetheless, the mechanism that has been outlined here is a very important step forward.

MOTTRAM: The mechanism also excludes agriculture and the status of transport is still under consideration. But one of the most contentious elements of former prime minister Kevin Rudd's failed attempt to introduce an emissions trading scheme will also likely dog this continuing negotiation - how much compensation should go to what are called emissions intensive, trade exposed industries - that is, big polluting companies like the coal fired power sector and the aluminium industry, which the Greens would want to see given as little help as possible.

Greens leader Bob Brown flagged his view.

BROWN: We are open to looking at the impact on the trade exposed industries but there is quite a deal of world experience in this now and we'll be looking at that experience because it doesn't back up some of the alarmist projections we've heard in the past.

MOTTRAM: Some of those alarmist projections included one that an emissions trading scheme would return Australians to the days of candles and horses and carts. The opposition leader, Tony Abbott, quickly flagged his continuing intense disagreement with a carbon price.

ABBOTT: We will fight this every second of every minute of every hour of every day of every week of every month. I don't believe it's going to happen because I think there will be a people's revolt - they will see this as an assault on their standard of living, which is exactly what it is.

MOTTRAM: So the government and its allies will be racing to embed a carbon trading scheme, aware that if they don't do so sooner rather than later, an election that delivered victory to Mr Abbott's side could see the scheme undone again. Ms Gillard can also anticipate a backlash from voters, if the claim that she's broken an election pledge not to have a carbon price takes hold.

Reporter: Linda Mottram, Canberra correspondent
Speakers: Julia Gillard, Australia prime minister; Christine Milne, deputy leader, Australian Greens Party; Greg Combet, Australian climate change minister; Bob Brown, leader, Australian Greens Party; Tony Abbott, Australian opposition leader

LISTEN TO THE INTERVIEW

EU to ban China, India carbon credits trade

Europe is to ban a highly lucrative trade in polluting rights obtained by European-based companies under a UN scheme to favour environmentally-friendly industrial investment in the likes of China or India.

The Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism, an international tool in the fight to tame global warming, gives firms from industrialised countries incentives to invest in greenhouse gas reduction projects in developing countries, traditionally huge polluters.

In return, these investments generate rights to emit gases which are said to trade at 78 times the cost of destroying by-product gases, but the European Union will remove them from its Emissions Trading System registries as of May 1, 2013, the European Commission said Friday.

The ban requires the European Parliament's assent over the next three months.

"These projects raise concerns relating to their environmental integrity, value-for-money and geographical distribution," said the EU's climate action commissioner, Connie Hedegaard.

"Our aim is not to reduce the number of credits available but to ensure the international carbon market is based on a better quality and distribution of credits."

The ban will affect credits granted for destroying HFC-23 (a by-product of HFC-22) and N2O (nitrous oxide) gases, powerful greenhouse gases which contribute to climate change.

The commission partly wants to divert such investments to the world's least developed countries.

The EU executive said that "just 23 such industrial gas projects account for two-thirds of all the credits generated" through the CDM programme, leading to consistent accusations of major systemic abuse by powerful energy and industrial companies.

The vote comes a day after the theft of two million tonnes worth of polluting rights by hackers forced Brussels to close national carbon credits trading registries for at least seven days pending online security reinforcement.

Nick Smith faces anger at ETS meeting - Carbon Trading Scheme

There were fears for the safety of Climate Change Minister Nick Smith last night as he faced a barrage of abuse from mainly irate Southland farmers at a meeting to discuss the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS).

More than 300 people from across Clutha and Southland packed the Gore venue, where it was obvious even before the meeting began that opposition to the scheme was strong.

Farmer and businessman Richard King took the chance to have his say face-to-face with the minister before the start. Following a heated exchange, Mr King told nzherald.co.nz he had been a National Party member for more than 40 years. "I'm here to say 'to hell with it'."

Dr Smith struggled to give his 20-minute presentation as he was continually interrupted by hecklers. At one point it appeared the chairman, Invercargill MP Eric Roy, almost lost control of the meeting as he repeatedly yelled for order and had to stop one man from advancing toward Dr Smith.

A National Party insider told the Herald organisers were concerned people could become violent and had considered calling the police.

Dr Smith told the crowd it was the 32nd presentation he had made during his nationwide road show but the first where he had been repeatedly interrupted.

Order was finally restored when there was the opportunity for questions from the floor. Bruce McGill asked the minister why New Zealand wasn't following Portugal's lead and promoting soil carbon as a means of gaining credits.
Dr Smith said if the government had opted to include soil carbon in the scheme farmers would have had to take the up side with the down side. "It's true some farmers are building up their top soil, but the amount we are losing from erosion and storm means overall (our soil carbon) is negative."

He said the inclusion of agricultural emissions into the scheme had been deferred until 2015 and that it would only enter the ETS if New Zealand's trading partners made progress on tackling climate change.

Until then, farmers were no different from all other New Zealanders, who had to pay more for electricity and fuel as a result of the ETS, he said.

View Source