Gary Kerkin: Is Net Zero For New Zealand Worth $550 Billion Dollars?

Last month Michael Kelly, Emeritus Prince Philip Professor of Technology at the The University of Cambridge, a New Zealander, published a Note under the auspices of of the Global Warming Policy Forum, London, entitled “NET ZERO FOR NEW ZEALAND - A report from a Putative Delivery Agency”[1] stating in the Executive Summary:

The cost to 2050 will comfortably exceed $550 billion, a workforce comparable in size to the health sector will be required for 30 years, including a doubling of the present number of electrical engineers, and it will need about 10% of the global annual production of lithium, cobalt, neodymium and other materials.

Given his credentials and reputation there is no reason to doubt his findings which suggests an expenditure of around $290,000 per dwelling or an average of $110,000 per person over the next 28 years. The Net Zero Emissions Legislation (NZEL) will enforce this as an annual tax on everyone.

Can we afford such an impost? Or, even more importantly, is such an impost necessary?

The political forces which support the NZEL base their arguments on perceptions of alarming changes in the climate of the globe which, if unchecked, will result in catastrophic changes to our way of life. Their reasoning is based on numerous reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which was established by United Nations and which distill down to one single, simple hypothesis: that human contribution to emissions of gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, and the oxides of nitrogen, among others, have resulted in an increase of these (greenhouse) gases in the atmosphere and are solely responsible for an increase of a little over 1.5ºC in the temperature of the atmosphere of the globe since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution around the start of the 19^th Century.

Numerous calculations and estimates have been made of the influence of the greenhouse gases, which, with water vapour, are critically important to life on earth and their effects have been extensively modelled by computer programs in attempts to predict future temperatures with mixed results, almost invariably over
 estimating reality. The difficulty all researchers face in trying to validate the results of their models is that there is no definitive, empirical, repeatable, physical evidence which can verify the predictions of their models.

There is an irony that should be appreciated by every New Zealander, let alone politicians. We are all familiar with the attempts of our professional weather forecasters to predict what will happen up to 10 days ahead and we all know the success rate of those forecasts is not particularly good. So why are we expected to believe that scientists can predict what the climate will be like in 20, 50, or even 100 years with any confidence?

So how do they justify this expenditure?

We are told that climate change is dangerous, that it will result in more violent and more dangerous weather events, that sea level rise around our coastlines will endanger our habitat, that rising temperatures will endanger our land and marine habitats and biota, that our food production will be placed in jeopardy. And we are told that this is because of the way we are increasing carbon dioxide (CO₂) (and other greenhouse gases such as methane and the oxides of nitrogen) in the atmosphere.

Well-known supporter of the greenhouse gas theory, Bjørn Lomborg[2], does not agree. In the introduction to his book, “False Alarm"[3] he writes:

WE ARE NOT on the brink of imminent extinction. In fact, quite the opposite. The rhetoric of impending doom belies an absolutely essential point: in almost every way we can measure, life on earth is better now than it was at any time in history.

But we find our media claiming with increasing hyperbole that we are in increasing danger and they believe they have good reason for writing this way. The Autumn of 2022 has brought excessive rainfalls and storms to some parts of New Zealand resulting in devastating flooding to those unfortunate enough to live in their paths. “It’s the worst that’s ever happened,” trumpet the media, echoed by those unfortunates interviewed for our TV news programs. But is it? Have they forgotten the disastrous “Wahine Storm”, and the ravages of tropical cyclone Bola?

The short answer is they have—as they have most of the more extreme events of the past. A perusal of New Zealand weather records show that many recently claimed high temperatures, rainfalls, wind speeds have been exceeded in the past and not just once. For example National Institute of Water and Atmospherics (NIWA) has a web site devoted to Historical Weather Events (HWE)[4]. A search for floods which resulted in casualties show 157 events ranging from a flood in the Waikato in May 1864 to major flooding on the West Coast in March 2019 during which Haast was described as experiencing “a 1 in 100 year flood”.

This is not to say that recent events have not been disastrous for those unlucky enough to have been caught by them—but it does say the events of the last couple of months are not unique. The history of such events offers pointers to where mitigation of the results of floods could be implemented—perhaps should already have been implemented.

Are we experiencing more hot days? More days over, say, 35ºC? The media would have us believe we are but is that correct? On 26 January 2018 NIWA tweeted the then top 10 hottest days in New Zealand history[5]. These ranged from 39.4ºC to 42.4ºC, most occurring on 6 and 7 February 1973. One temperature of 40ºC, however, was recorded in the Timaru Gardens on 27 January 1908. The importance of this is that the sorts of

temperatures being touted as “disastrously high” have been experienced in New Zealand for more than the last century. Such temperatures are not unique in our history.

There appears to be little or no reproducible, empirical evidence to justify such claims. Are our temperatures rising dangerously—will the increase cause significant and undesirable changes in our living conditions?

It is not likely!

In the last 100 years the average temperature in New Zealand, according to the records maintained and manipulated by the National Institute of Water and Atmospherics (NIWA) has increased by around 1ºC. I write “manipulated” because the information extracted from the raw temperature records from the CliFlo database of NIWA have been subjected to statistical and other massaging to produce what NIWA refers to as the Seven-Station temperature record. The adjustments to the record, justified by changes in instrumentation, location, and correction of errors curiously result only in positive changes to the rate of increase. This record shows a much higher rate of increase over a century than does the original data.

Just how significant is 1ºC? Most days in New Zealand are subject to a swing of around 5 to 10ºC—diurnal variation. Most years are subjected to seasonal variations of 10 to 20ºC or more. It is not unreasonable to assume that most surface based biota in New Zealand can easily withstand such temperature variations. It is more likely that such biota has much less chance of surviving changes in habitat brought about by changes in land use justified as responses to “dangerous” climate change. But we are regularly greeted with headlines that this small temperature change will cause irrevocable negative changes to our land based biota. There appears to be little or no reproducible, empirical evidence to justify such claims.

Temperature change is not confined to just the atmosphere. The temperatures of the ocean surrounding New Zealand is also changing. “This is disastrous!” trumpets the media—“it is damaging to our fish stocks and other marine resources.” But, again, is it? Much of the changes in temperature witnessed is cyclic. “Ocean heat waves” cause temperature increases of up to 5ºC but are short-lived and temperatures revert to expected values reasonably quickly. Other oceanic cycles, such as El Niño and La Niña which can cause similar changes, tend to last longer.

There is an extensive literature investigating the temperature of sea water on various marine biota but little to suggest that a temperature change of around 1ºC will be disastrous.

There appears to be little empirical information pointing to irrevocable damage to life in our surrounding oceans caused by climate change. Most claims appear to be based on speculation.

In the last few weeks much has been made of the “disaster” facing our shorelines because of an increasing rate of rise of sea level. Wellington has figured large in this news but not all the change is claimed to be due to climate change—part of the changes are due to vertical land movement which is definitely not climate change related.

Figure 1 shows the increase in sea level for Wellington, obtained from the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL)[6] and indicates the increase over the period graphed is at an average rate of about 3.8 mm/year. Figure 2 shows the vertical land movement at the Wellington Tide Gauge, obtained from the Geonet website[7] and indicates a rate of change of about -0.2 mm/year which means the actual sea level increase is about 3.6 mm/year which is not far outside the global increase in sea level as measured by satellite of 3.3 mm/year.

The tide gauge increase shows no sign of acceleration i.e. it could be approximated by a straight line. Similarly the vertical land movement is essentially a straight line except for the influences of earthquakes.

From our point of view in New Zealand one earthquake movement can far outweigh any change cause by rise in the level of the oceans surrounding us.

So, should we be as concerned as the media would have us believe?

No! As Bjørn Lomborg points out in “False Alarm"[8]

One of the clearest results of studies of adaptation around the world is that coastal protection for populations and valuable land is a great investment. … coastal protection costing tens of billions of dollars can avoid tens of trillions of dollars in flood damages.

The shorelines of Wellington can be protected with uncomplicated sea walls.

Are we as susceptible to other extreme weather events as the media would have us believe? Are such events occurring with greater frequency because of climate change. It would appear not!

The Ministry For the Environment (MfE) records show, in figure 3, that over a period of nearly 30 years the number of extreme or very high fire danger days has been reducing.

Similarly the number of days in which wind gusts exceed gale force appear to be reducing (Figure 4).

Figure 5 shows the trends of maximum daily wind gusts presented by Stats N Z[9]confirming the conclusions which can be drawn from the Auckland and Wellington information above.

Stats NZ’s trend in maximum daily rainfall[10] is shown in Figure 6 and indicates that the trend at most sites in New Zealand is either steady or decreasing. Despite claims in the media that flooding is increasing due to climate change these trends would suggest otherwise, or that other factors are involved.

We are told that the number of droughts we will experience will increase because of the changing climate. Stats NZ suggests otherwise (Figure 7) indicating that the trend of increasing number of droughts is likely in only 10 out of 30 sites.

Does all of this suggest that we in New Zealand are heading into dangerous situations because our climate is changing?

It doesn’t look like it to me.

We live in a temperate climate in which a permanent increase in our annual average temperature of 1.0 - 1.5ºC will not be noticeable to anyone and is not likely to affect our biota adversely.

Is the temperature increase over preindustrial time likely to exceed 1.5ºC? Possibly but it would appear to be not by much.

We are not likely to encounter significant increases in events caused by climate change which can damage our environments. In common with the rest of the world we are not likely to encounter increased numbers of deaths from the increase in temperature: fewer people die from higher temperatures than die from lower temperatures[11].

Most of the temperature-related mortality burden was attributable to the contribution of cold. The effect of days of extreme temperature was substantially less than that attributable to milder but non-optimum weather.

It seems to me that adaptation to the few very adverse effects we might experience as a result of our climate changing is likely to be far cheaper than the proposal to limit emissions to zero by 2050. I can think of many things the difference can be spent on with far better benefit to our society.

Do we need to spend $550 billion achieving Net Zero Emissions.

My conclusion is a resounding “NO”.

References: 

1. http://www.bryanleyland.co.nz/uploads/2/9/7/1/29710909/kelly-nz-net-zero_2022.pdf

2. President of the Danish think tank Copenhagen Consensus Center.

3. “False Alarm”, Bjørn Borg, Basic Books, Hachette Book Group, 1290 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10104, 2021. Adobe Digital Edition Page 13.

4. https://hwe.niwa.co.nz

5. http://bit.ly/niwaweather

6. https://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/221.php

7. https://fits.geonet.org.nz/plot?siteID=WGTT&typeID=u

8. ibid. Page 173.

9. https://www.stats.govt.nz/indicators/extreme-wind

10. https://www.stats.govt.nz/indicators/extreme-rainfall

11. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(14)62114-0/fulltext

Gary Kerkin BE MEngSc is a retired chemical engineer who worked in academia, heavy chemicals, and the dairy industry, with consulting experience in New Zealand, Australia, and North America. He is a member of the New Zealand Climate Science coalition.