Published on Sunday, February 6, 2005 by the lndependent/UK

Apocalypse Now: How Mankind is Sleepwalking to the End of the Earth

Floods, storms and droughts. Melting Arctic ice, shrinking glaciers, oceans turning to acid. The world's top scientists warned last week that dangerous climate change is taking place today, not the day after tomorrow. You don't believe it? Then, says Geoffrey Lean, read this...
by Geoffrey Lean

Future historians, looking back from a much hotter and less hospitable world, are likely to play special attention to the first few weeks of 2005. As they puzzle over how a whole generation could have sleepwalked into disaster - destroying the climate that has allowed human civilization to flourish over the past 11,000 years - they may well identify the past weeks as the time when the last alarms sounded.

Last week, 200 of the world's leading climate scientists - meeting at Tony Blair's request at the Met Office's new headquarters at Exeter - issued the most urgent warning to date that dangerous climate change is taking place, and that time is running out.

Next week the Kyoto Protocol, the international treaty that tries to control global warming, comes into force after a seven-year delay. But it is clear that the protocol does not go nearly far enough.

The effects of global warming are already apparent, unexpected problems are looming and there are no 'magic bullets' for tackling the peril, a top forum of climate scientists warned. The alarms have been going off since the beginning of one of the warmest Januaries on record. First, Dr Rajendra Pachauri - chairman of the official Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - told a UN conference in Mauritius that the pollution which causes global warming has reached "dangerous" levels.

Then the biggest-ever study of climate change, based at Oxford University, reported that it could prove to be twice as catastrophic as the IPCC's worst predictions. And an international task force - also reporting to Tony Blair, and co-chaired by his close ally, Stephen Byers - concluded that we could reach "the point of no return" in a decade.

Finally, the UK head of Shell, Lord Oxburgh, took time out - just before his company reported record profits mainly achieved by selling oil, one of the main causes of the problem - to warn that unless governments take urgent action there "will be a disaster".

But it was last week at the Met Office's futuristic glass headquarters, incongruously set in a dreary industrial estate on the outskirts of Exeter, that it all came together. The conference had been called by the Prime Minister to advise him on how to "avoid dangerous climate change". He needed help in persuading the world to prioritize the issue this year during Britain's presidencies of the EU and the G8 group of economic powers.

The conference opened with the Secretary of State for the Environment, Margaret Beckett, warning that "a significant impact" from global warming "is already inevitable". It continued with presentations from top scientists and economists from every continent. These showed that some dangerous climate change was already taking place and that catastrophic events once thought highly improbable were now seen as likely (see panel). Avoiding the worst was technically simple and economically cheap, they said, provided that governments could be persuaded to take immediate action.

About halfway through I realized that I had been here before. In the summer of 1986 the world's leading nuclear experts gathered in Vienna for an inquest into the accident at Chernobyl. The head of the Russian delegation showed a film shot from a helicopter, and we suddenly found ourselves gazing down on the red-hot exposed reactor core.

It was all, of course, much less dramatic at Exeter. But as paper followed learned paper, once again a group of world authorities were staring at a crisis they had devoted their lives to trying to avoid.

I am willing to bet there were few in the room who did not sense their children or grandchildren standing invisibly at their shoulders. The conference formally concluded that climate change was "already occurring" and that "in many cases the risks are more serious than previously thought". But the cautious scientific language scarcely does justice to the sense of the meeting.

We learned that glaciers are shrinking around the world. Arctic sea ice has lost almost half its thickness in recent decades. Natural disasters are increasing rapidly around the world. Those caused by the weather - such as droughts, storms, and floods - are rising three times faster than those - such as earthquakes - that are not.

We learned that bird populations in the North Sea collapsed last year, after the sand eels on which they feed left its warmer waters - and how the number of scientific papers recording changes in ecosystems due to global warming has escalated from 14 to more than a thousand in five years.

Worse, leading scientists warned of catastrophic changes that once they had dismissed as "improbable". The meeting was particularly alarmed by powerful evidence, first reported in The Independent on Sunday last July, that the oceans are slowly turning acid, threatening all marine life.

Professor Chris Rapley, director of the British Antarctic Survey, presented new evidence that the West Antarctic ice sheet is beginning to melt, threatening eventually to raise sea levels by 15ft: 90 per cent of the world's people live near current sea levels. Recalling that the IPCC's last report had called Antarctica "a slumbering giant", he said: "I would say that this is now an awakened giant."

Professor Mike Schlesinger, of the University of Illinois, reported that the shutdown of the Gulf Stream, once seen as a "low probability event", was now 45 per cent likely this century, and 70 per cent probable by 2200. If it comes sooner rather than later it will be catastrophic for Britain and northern Europe, giving us a climate like Labrador (which shares our latitude) even as the rest of the world heats up: if it comes later it could be beneficial, moderating the worst of the warming.

The experts at Exeter were virtually unanimous about the danger, mirroring the attitude of the climate science community as a whole: humanity is to blame. There were a few skeptics at Exeter, including Andrei Illarionov, an adviser to Russia's President Putin, who last year called the Kyoto Protocol "an interstate Auschwitz". But in truth it is much easier to find skeptics among media pundits in London or neo-cons in Washington than among climate scientists. Even the few contrarian climatalogists publish little research to support their views, concentrating on questioning the work of others.

Now a new scientific consensus is emerging - that the warming must be kept below an average increase of two degrees centigrade if catastrophe is to be avoided. This almost certainly involves keeping concentrations of carbon dioxide, the main cause of climate change, below 400 parts per million.

Unfortunately we are almost there, with concentrations exceeding 370ppm and rising, but experts at the conference concluded that we could go briefly above the danger level so long as we brought it down rapidly afterwards. They added that this would involve the world reducing emissions by 50 per cent by 2050 - and rich countries cutting theirs by 30 per cent by 2020.

Economists stressed there is little time for delay. If action is put off for a decade, it will need to be twice as radical; if it has to wait 20 years, it will cost between three and seven times as much.

The good news is that it can be done with existing technology, by cutting energy waste, expanding the use of renewable sources, growing trees and crops (which remove carbon dioxide from the air) to turn into fuel, capturing the gas before it is released from power stations, and - maybe - using more nuclear energy.

The better news is that it would not cost much: one estimate suggested the cost would be about 1 per cent of Europe's GNP spread over 20 years; another suggested it meant postponing an expected fivefold increase in world wealth by just two years. Many experts believe combating global warming would increase prosperity, by bringing in new technologies.

The big question is whether governments will act. President Bush's opposition to international action remains the greatest obstacle. Tony Blair, by almost universal agreement, remains the leader with the best chance of persuading him to change his mind.

But so far the Prime Minister has been more influenced by the President than the other way round. He appears to be moving away from fighting for the pollution reductions needed in favor of agreeing on a vague pledge to bring in new technologies sometime in the future.

By then it will be too late. And our children and grandchildren will wonder - as we do in surveying, for example, the drift into the First World War - "how on earth could they be so blind?"

WATER WARS

What could happen? Wars break out over diminishing water resources as populations grow and rains fail.

How would this come about? Over 25 per cent more people than at present are expected to live in countries where water is scarce in the future, and global warming will make it worse.

How likely is it? Former UN chief Boutros Boutros-Ghali has long said that the next Middle East war will be fought for water, not oil.

DISAPPEARING NATIONS

What could happen? Low-lying island such as the Maldives and Tuvalu - with highest points only a few feet above sea-level - will disappear off the face of the Earth.

How would this come about? As the world heats up, sea levels are rising, partly because glaciers are melting, and partly because the water in the oceans expands as it gets warmer.

How likely is it? Inevitable. Even if global warming stopped today, the seas would continue to rise for centuries. Some small islands have already sunk for ever. A year ago, Tuvalu was briefly submerged.

FLOODING

What could happen? London, New York, Tokyo, Bombay, many other cities and vast areas of countries from Britain to Bangladesh disappear under tens of feet of water, as the seas rise dramatically.

How would this come about? Ice caps in Greenland and Antarctica melt. The Greenland ice sheet would raise sea levels by more than 20ft, the West Antarctic ice sheet by another 15ft.

How likely is it? Scientists used to think it unlikely, but this year reported that the melting of both ice caps had begun. It will take hundreds of years, however, for the seas to rise that much.

UNINHABITABLE EARTH

What could happen? Global warming escalates to the point where the world's whole climate abruptly switches, turning it permanently into a much hotter and less hospitable planet.

How would this come about? A process involving "positive feedback" causes the warming to fuel itself, until it reaches a point that finally tips the climate pattern over.

How likely is it? Abrupt flips have happened in the prehistoric past. Scientists believe this is unlikely, at least in the foreseeable future, but increasingly they are refusing to rule it out.

RAINFOREST FIRES

What could happen? Famously wet tropical forests, such as those in the Amazon, go up in flames, destroying the world's richest wildlife habitats and releasing vast amounts of carbon dioxide to speed global warming.

How would this come about? Britain's Met Office predicted in 1999 that much of the Amazon will dry out and die within 50 years, making it ready for sparks - from humans or lightning - to set it ablaze.

How likely is it? Very, if the predictions turn out to be right. Already there have been massive forest fires in Borneo and Amazonia, casting palls of highly polluting smoke over vast areas.

THE BIG FREEZE

What could happen? Britain and northern Europe get much colder because the Gulf Stream, which provides as much heat as the sun in winter, fails.

How would this come about? Melting polar ice sends fresh water into the North Atlantic. The less salty water fails to generate the underwater current which the Gulf Stream needs.

How likely is it? About evens for a Gulf Steam failure this century, said scientists last week.

STARVATION

What could happen? Food production collapses in Africa, for example, as rainfall dries up and droughts increase. As farmland turns to desert, people flee in their millions in search of food.

How would this come about? Rainfall is expected to decrease by up to 60 per cent in winter and 30 per cent in summer in southern Africa this century. By some estimates, Zambia could lose almost all its farms.

How likely is it? Pretty likely unless the world tackles both global warming and Africa's decline. Scientists agree that droughts will increase in a warmer world.

ACID OCEANS

What could happen? The seas will gradually turn more and more acid. Coral reefs, shellfish and plankton, on which all life depends, will die off. Much of the life of the oceans will become extinct.

How would this come about? The oceans have absorbed half the carbon dioxide, the main cause of global warming, so far emitted by humanity. This forms dilute carbonic acid, which attacks corals and shells.

How likely is it? It is already starting. Scientists warn that the chemistry of the oceans is changing in ways unprecedented for 20 million years. Some predict that the world's coral reefs will die within 35 years.

DISEASE

What could happen? Malaria - which kills two million people worldwide every year - reaches Britain with foreign travelers, gets picked up by British mosquitos and becomes endemic in the warmer climate.

How would this come about? Four of our 40 mosquito species can carry the disease, and hundreds of travelers return with it annually. The insects breed faster, and feed more, in warmer temperatures.

How likely is it? A Department of Health study has suggested it may happen by 2050: the Environment Agency has mentioned 2020. Some experts say it is miraculous that it has not happened already.

HURRICANES

What could happen? Hurricanes, typhoons and violent storms proliferate, grow even fiercer, and hit new areas. Last September's repeated battering of Florida and the Caribbean may be just a foretaste of what is to come, say scientists.

How would this come about? The storms gather their energy from warm seas, and so, as oceans heat up, fiercer ones occur and threaten areas where at present the seas are too cool for such weather.

How likely is it? Scientists are divided over whether storms will get more frequent and whether the process has already begun.

© 2005 Independent News & Media (UK) Ltd.

Hi everyone.......... Preparations for the Mayoral Challenge are just about finalized so be sure to mark in MONDAY 26 FEBRUARY, 6 P.M (Logan Park) into your diary and bring yourself and the kids along to what will be Dunedin\'s biggest ever cycle-related event.....

The evening will be very kid-friendly with FREE magicians, dancing puppets, face painting, balloonists, bike tune ups (courtesy of the cycle surgery) starting at 6 p.m so get there early!

At 6.30 the Mayor, Peter Chin, will lead everyone off on one of two circuits ranging from 10-30 minutes and suitable for young, inexperienced or hardy riders. There will be marshals all the way so there will be no safety issues and for everyone who completes the ride there is a chance to win one of over 500 spot prizes ranging from stickers up to bike lights. And of course one lucky person will go home with a brand new Avanti Bike........ At the finish there will also be live music from KING LEO & THE GROWLING DOGS along with a selection of stalls where you can purchase food and drink (including a well earned beer!)...........

As each city will also earn points for any celebrities who are cycling, this is your chance to try and spot some T.V personalities and perhaps a Highlander or two.

For more info and a more detailed map of the rides go to http://www.hcn.co.nz/calendar.htm

Any further questions just contact me at this address or on 472-8409 and please pass this on to anyone you know who wants to come along as the more cyclists the more points Dunedin will earn in the Mayoral Challenge nationwide....

Regards..... Steve Walker

December 2006

Peak Oil – A Major Issue for New Zealand
Introduction

Life in New Zealand is heavily reliant on abundant and cheap energy, much of which we get from oil and gas. Yet oil is a finite resource, and one that the world is rapidly using up.
At present, world conventional light crude oil production is barely keeping up with rising demand. At some point, conventional light crude oil production will peak, and then decline - a phenomenon commonly known as “Peak Oil”. Once this readily available source of oil can no longer meet world demand, the world will have entered the post-cheap-oil age, and there is likely to be a sharp and sustained rise in the price of oil. There may also be physical shortages of oil. The Government is already considering contingency plans to cope with temporary shortages, but has not yet considered how to deal with long-term shortages.

The peak in the production of conventional oil is likely to encourage the use of smaller, more remote, harder to extract, heavier and dirtier fossil fuel resources, such as tar sands, oil shales, deepwater and polar oil, and oil produced by liquefying coal. However, there will come a point at which the amount of energy that can be produced from these resources is less than the amount needed to extract them, and the greenhouse gas emissions from many of them are far worse than the already severe emissions from conventional oil.

There are potential alternatives to fossil fuels for transport, some of which (e.g. biofuels) are already used on a small scale. There are a variety of difficulties with exploiting these resources on a larger scale, and these are discussed in the SEF paper “New Zealand’s Response to Peak Oil: Land Transport”.1 The critical point is that these alternatives are far from ready to replace the world's massive dependence on conventional oil. Expansion of biofuel production on the scale required, even if it were feasible, would severely intensify the pressure on scarce resources of land and water.

Because the implications of Peak Oil are so serious for New Zealand, SEF recommends that the Government, and individuals, start planning for Peak Oil now.

Why Peak Oil Should Be an Urgent Priority

Until recently, most official estimates were that Peak Oil would not occur for some decades. In recent years, a number of reputable bodies have predicted that Peak Oil may occur much earlier than previously expected. The International Energy Agency2 predicts that Peak Oil will occur some time between 2013 and 2037. The Association for the Study of Peak Oil (ASPO)3, comprising experienced petroleum geologists, has recently predicted that the peak will occur in 2010. The more that world oil demand increases, the nearer the peak is likely to be.

It is difficult if not impossible to identify the date of the peak in advance. Oil prices rise and fall in response to a number of factors, including geopolitical factors, seasonal fluctuations in demand, economic growth levels, decisions by oil producers on production levels, and market psychology. An oil price rise does not prove that the peak is imminent; a fall in the oil price does not prove that it isn’t. And “peak” production may turn out to be a bumpy plateau rather than a sharp point. We may only know the date of the peak after it has occurred.

But whatever the date, action is needed now. If the peak is imminent, then we need urgent action to mitigate the worst of its effects. If the peak is still a decade or more away, then there is much that can be done to prepare for it, provided we do not wait too long. It is reasonable and prudent to include in our national contingency planning a range of future oil supply possibilities, including a scenario where the production of oil follows the pattern established throughout the history of oil exploration and development on the national scale (e.g. in the USA): that is, it peaks and then declines.

The plan adopted would need to encompass a difficult transitional process, marked by increased price turbulence and periodic shortages of supply in a small and remote market such as New Zealand.

Implications for New Zealand

In 2004, oil made up 48% of our national energy consumption. Whenever the oil production peak occurs, the effect on an unprepared economy and society will be severe. The most obvious sector that will be affected is transport, but almost every aspect of our economy and society has developed on the back of cheap oil and cheap plastic:
• Tourism to and from New Zealand is dependent upon cheap aviation fuel
• International trade depends upon cheap aviation and shipping
• Manufacturing and electricity generation depend upon imported components
• Crucially, much of our current agricultural production depends on machinery, pesticides, and the application of fertiliser, all of which are dependent on oil - as is the distribution of the food our farms produce
• Our banking and financial systems depends on the stability of all these sectors
• Our cities, towns, and transport systems have all been designed around cheap oil and private transport, none more so than Auckland. Many things which we currently take for granted, such as driving to the supermarket to buy food, or driving the children to and from school, will become much more problematic in the post-cheap-oil age.

What the Government is Doing

During the last few years, lobbying and letter-writing from concerned groups and citizens has made politicians and officials aware of Peak Oil. At her post-Cabinet press conference on 18 April 2006, Prime Minister Helen Clark observed that the world was at or near Peak Oil production.4 And, primarily under the guise of combating climate change, the Government is taking some small steps to attempt to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels – such as the establishment of a modest target for biofuel sales.

But, as the section on Peak Oil in the draft New Zealand Energy Strategy shows, there’s still a complacent belief in political and financial circles that the market will take care of Peak Oil. Their expectation is that, as oil prices rise, alternatives to oil will become economically viable, and our economy and society will be able to make a seamless transition. Of course, there’s some truth in this view – as shown by the recent rise in demand for public transport and smaller cars. But such a viewpoint ignores two key factors;
a) the central role of oil in our society, the fact that no currently available alternative can rival the energy density of oil, and the inability of market signals to provide a consistent and accurate picture of the future of oil, and
b) The very high proportion of investment in equipment (e.g. heating in large buildings, vehicles, industrial plant, etc.) that will continue to need oil for two decades and beyond.

That’s why SEF recommends that Government adopt the following agenda to help New Zealand meet the challenge of Peak Oil.

Policy and planning agenda

1. Establish a high-level task force, to work in conjunction with civil society groups, business interests and other stakeholders, to assess the effects of the coming peak in world oil production. Its terms of reference should ensure it reviews all aspects of New Zealand economic and social life, including but not limited to transport, agriculture, international and domestic trade, the financial system, tourism, foreign policy, and the environment. It should be mandated to make institutional and policy change recommendations for Government and community implementation.

It should build on the work that is already being done at regional and local level, e.g. in Otago. It should consider the infrastructure changes that are needed to make New Zealand more resilient in the face of the need to reduce dependence on oil and other fossil fuels.

2. Direct Treasury to review its methods for forecasting oil prices in the short and medium term, submit these methods to public scrutiny, and model a range of oil price and supply scenarios to provide advice to the Government on oil price trend risks. (SEF is pleased to see that the Ministry of Economic Development has taken this scenario-based approach in its latest New Zealand Energy Outlook.)

3. Investigate the introduction of a reducing quota of oil consumption, whether as a direct quota or by means of tradeable oil consumption permits, so that the amount of oil consumed in New Zealand reduces by a set amount each year once the scheme commences. It may be possible to link this scheme with a more general scheme of tradeable greenhouse gas emission permits.

4. Investigate increasing New Zealand's on-shore stock of products derived from oil for which substitutes cannot readily be found.
Research agenda
5. University-based research into the physical, policy, and societal implications of Peak Oil for New Zealand, and into ways of mitigating these effects, is already underway. As part of its wider agenda, the Government should ensure that such research is adequately funded, and that a pathway is provided to have the results of the research incorporated in policy and planning decisions, and commercialised where appropriate.

Mitigation agenda
This focuses on actions which can be taken now, while the broader policy and research agendas are being developed.

6. Introduce demand-side management measures to discourage inefficient and unnecessary use of fossil fuels.

7. Implement changes to the road user charging, vehicle licensing and importing, and fuel tax regimes to reward efficient vehicular selection and fuel use and to penalise inefficient use.

8. Commence a programme of major investment in urban public transport, and ensure that public transport receives priority in urban design and in urban transport funding.

9. Commence a programme of investment, and, where necessary, policy changes to ensure that rail and sea transport networks are able to transport critical goods, such as food, in the event of a substantial decline in the availability of oil.

10. Declare a moratorium on all new roading projects unless and until it can be shown that they meet a stringent set of national environmental, health and safety, and energy efficiency improvement criteria.

International agenda
11. Join, and if necessary initiate, international efforts to manage a peaceful transition to the post-cheap-oil era. The first step could be to link up with the studies and SEF, PO Box 11-152, Wellington info@sef.org.nz December 2006
SEF information sheet on the “Peak Oil” Issue for New Zealand Page 5 of 5
strategic thinking already initiated by the Federal authorities in Australia.6 Without wider international cooperation, SEF is concerned that a new era of resource wars could become a reality.

12. Integrate New Zealand's response to Peak Oil with its response to human-induced climate change, and in particular New Zealand's commitments under the Kyoto Protocol and any successor (or complementary) international agreements.

What You Can Do

• Research the situation yourself.
• Investigate lifestyle changes you can make to help yourself, and the nation, prepare for life without cheap oil, and make those changes that are feasible for you.
• Discuss Peak Oil with your neighbours, friends, workmates, and local organisations.
• Find out whether your local council and local MP are preparing for Peak Oil. If they aren’t, educate them about the issue and make proposals for change.
• Follow the lead of such communities as Hampden-Moeraki (in North Otago) and Dunedin, and set up a local or regional initiative to make your community more resilient in the face of Peak Oil and climate change. (SEF can provide you with more information and contacts if you are interested in doing this.)


About the Sustainable Energy Forum

The objective of SEF is to “facilitate the use of energy for economic, environmental and social sustainability”. SEF is a group of individuals and companies interested in promoting information and supporting action which will help move New Zealand toward a sustainable energy future. SEF has a membership around 150 ranging from staff in major energy companies to students and retired people. Many members are active in small-scale sustainable energy supply and energy efficiency businesses.

See http://www.sef.org.nz for further information and membership.

1 Available at http://www.sef.org.nz/papers/peak_oil_land_transport.pdf
2 IEA web site: http://www.iea.org
SEF information sheet on the “Peak Oil” Issue for New Zealand Page 2 of 5
3 ASPO web site: http://www.peakoil.net.
SEF, PO Box 11-152, Wellington info@sef.org.nz December 2006
SEF information sheet on the “Peak Oil” Issue for New Zealand Page 3 of 5
4 From http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0604/S00206.htm, April 2006.
5 These are high-level policy proposals. Other SEF documents on Peak Oil and climate change go into these measures in more detail.
SEF, PO Box 11-152, Wellington info@sef.org.nz December 2006
SEF information sheet on the “Peak Oil” Issue for New Zealand Page 4 of 5
6 For information on the Australian Senate Inquiry into Australia's future oil supply and alternative transport fuels, see http://www.aph.gov.au/SENATE/committee/rrat_ctte/oil_supply/

The Sustainable Energy Forum Inc.
SEF, PO Box 11-152, Wellington info@sef.org.nz http://www.sef.org.nz

Submissions

School Curriculum Review: Submissions close on 30 November. Many of us in environmental education believe the new draft curriculum does not emphasise sustainability adequately. See

http://www.tki.org.nz/r/nzcurriculum/pdfs/curriculum-framework-draft.pdf for a copy. A collaborative response to the Draft NZ Curriculum workshop report is on http://www.esf.co.nz/esf/ - scroll down the home page where you can access the report as a PDF. You can read the points trhere to make your own submission. Please also circulate to anyone who you think may be interested, or can be encouraged to write a submission! The more people we have calling for sustainability in the curriculum the better our chances of seeing improvements to the current draft.

Wind Factory proposal planned for our Otago Uplands: please visit www.uplandlandscapeprotection.org to find out quickly what the environmental impact will really be and make a submission. Submissions need to be on official CODC forms and you only need to say something briefly like "I oppose this in its entirety and give a few reasons and whether you want to speak in person. Project Aqua was stopped because over 500 submissions came in and Meridian realised they had a real fight on their hands with a really committed and caring community. To date Project Hayes has received only 88 submissions

Protection Measures for Hectors Dolphins: Submissions close on 23 November The Ministry of Fisheries (MFish) has released an initial position paper on protection measures for Hector's dolphins (including the North Island population, also known as Maui's dolphin). In this paper, MFish presents a broad range of management options from voluntary measures to banning gillnets in some of the areas where Hector's dolphins are found - see: www.fish.govt.nz/en-nz/Consultations/Proposed+interim+measures+for+Hectors+Dolphins/
Post: Steve Halley, Ministry of Fisheries, P.O. Box 1020, Wellington
Fax: (04) 819-4669 Email: halleys@fish.govt.nz janderton@ministers.govt.nz ccarter@ministers.govt.nz

Flexible Working Hours Bill: Submissions close on 15December. Click here to read the Government discussion paper and complete a submission on line. Click here to download the paper and a response form from the department's website http://www.dol.govt.nz/. For more information go to http://flexihoursnow.wordpress.com/

Application for GM Brassicas field trial at Lincoln: Submissions close 12 December ERMA New Zealand has received the first application in three years to field-test a GM crop. Crop and Food Research has applied to field test three vegetables (broccoli, cabbage and cauliflower), and a forage brassica (forage kale) in the Lincoln region for a period of 10 years.Go to ERMAs website to find out details about how you can submit. At http://www.ermanz.govt.nz/news-events/focus/brassicas06/index.html, School Curriculum Review and Working Hours

Objection:
There is no consensus on Global Warming Theory and until there is we
should not take any actions.

Well, this is simply not true, but what can you do? Perhaps ask what
they would need to see and provide an extensive list of organisations
that have made statements supporting the IPCC conslusions. Will that
convince your objector? We can only try.

Answer:
In the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR
<http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm>), the most
comprehensive compilation and summary of current climate research ever
attempted, it was concluded that based on the balance of all available
evidence and even considering uncertainties and areas lacking adequate
research, the earth is undergoing a rapid warming trend that is outside
the likely bounds of natural variations and this climate change is
likely to have been due to anthropogenic emissions of CO2 from fossil
fuel burning.

This statement has been explicitly endorsed by:

* Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
* Royal Society of Canada
* Chinese Academy of Sciences
* Academié des Sciences (France)
* Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
* Indian National Science Academy
* Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
* Science Council of Japan
* Russian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Society (United Kingdom)
* National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
* Australian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
* Caribbean Academy of Sciences
* Indonesian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Irish Academy
* Academy of Sciences Malaysia
* Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
* Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

in either one or both of these documents:

* http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
* http://www.royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=13619

In addition, the following institutions specializing in Climate,
Atmosphere, Ocean and/or Earth sciences have published the same conclusions:

* NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies
<http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/>(GISS)
* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
<http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html> (NOAA)
* National Academy of Sciences
<http://books.nap.edu/collections/global_warming/index.html> (NAS)
* State of the Canadian Cryosphere
<http://www.socc.ca/permafrost/permafrost_future_e.cfm>(SOCC)
* Environmental Protection Agency
<http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwarming.nsf/content/index.html>(EPA)
* Royal Society of the United Kingdom
<http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=3135> (RS)
* American Geophysical Union
<http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechangeresearch_2003.html> (AGU)
* National Center for Atmospheric Research
<http://eo.ucar.edu/basics/cc_1.html> (NCAR)
* American Meteorological Society
<http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/jointacademies.html>(AMS)
* Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
<http://www.cmos.ca/climatechangepole.html> (CMOS)

If this is not consensus, then what in the world would consensus look like?

Now one could quite legitimately argue that such policy statements by
necessity hide possibly legitimate internal debate while trying to
present unity of position. Fortunately, there is a bit of research one
can turn to that looked specifically at this very question. Please see
this article
<http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/04/position-statements-hide-debate.html>.

(Part of the How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic guide)