Our carbon allergy

New Zealand is energy rich but in the present climate of man-made global warming hysteria this may sound almost like heresy, as much of our energy reserves are fossil fuel ones.  By Gerrit van der Lingen (pictured).

We have huge reserves of coal and lignite and reasonable reserves of oil and gas, and there is little doubt that more oil and gas can be discovered. I use the term “can”, because oil exploration is an uncertain undertaking.

The most promising sedimentary basin is the so-called ‘Great South Basin’ (GSB) to the east and southeast of New Zealand. While any discoveries will have to be large to be economically viable, in the past, several wildcat exploration wells have been drilled in the GSB, some of which proved the existence of hydrocarbons. The Taranaki Basin, both onshore and offshore, is so far the only producing basin. More discoveries in that basin are likely.

While there is uncertainty about our oil and gas reserves, no such uncertainty exists about our coal reserves and the website of the Coal Association tells us that coal production in 2007 was 4.83 million tonnes while estimated coal reserves are over 15 billion tonnes, of which 8.6 billion tonnes are economically recoverable. If my calculations are right, this means that we have enough reserves to last us for 1780 years (probably more) at 2007 production rates! This is almost like having an unlimited renewable energy source. New Zealanders could have plenty of cheap electricity for centuries, able to fuel a vibrant economy, were it not that global warming alarmists have demonised carbon, mainly in the form of human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), for allegedly causing catastrophic global warming.

This belief has been promoted by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which produced four scientific assessment reports (1990, 1995, 2001, 2007). Although the apocalyptic language in these reports has increased over the years, evidence for catastrophic man-made global warming has not. Their arguments remain anchored in non-validated computer models.

Many governments rely on the IPCC reports and they think that they provide impartial scientific advice. Unfortunately, this is not so. The IPCC is a political advocacy organisation. Admittedly, the IPCC does not say that their computer models are predictions. They call them “scenarios”. They are “what-if” exercises. No wonder that a Japanese scientist compared computer climate modelling to ancient astrology. But politicians, environmental groups, the media, “rent-seeking” scientists and carbon-credit-trading companies do use them as solid, science-based predictions.

On this misunderstanding, the entire global-warming apocalyptic house of cards has been built, resulting in the absurd vilification of carbon; calling it a pollutant or even a toxic gas. It is not. Without carbon there would be no life on earth. Without CO2 no plants would grow. The belief in catastrophic man-made global warming has resulted in nonsensical calls to “decarbonize the world” and to “kick the carbon habit”. Other progenies are “carbon footprints” and “food miles”.

It is sad that many scientists have joined the apocalyptic chorus. They realise that to doubt the dogma would not be a good career move. Billions of dollars in tax-payer-funded grants are available for research in support of the dogma, 10 billion annually in the US alone. Some scientists are more extreme than others, such as Dr James Hansen of NASA who started the global warming scare in 1988, when he testified before congress. He has remained an extreme global warming advocate and recently called coal-fired power stations “factories of death” and coal trains “death trains”, with the latter he conjures up memories of Nazi death trains to Auschwitz.

Since the world has not warmed anymore since 1998 and has even cooled since 2002, global warming alarmism has been cranked up several notches. Many activists would like to close all coal-fired power stations and prevent the construction of new ones.

Coal still provides 41 percent of electricity generation worldwide. Germany, one of the most enthusiastic champions of the IPCC dogma, is planning to build 12 new coal-fired power stations. There is no doubt in my mind that New Zealand eventually will have to make use of its huge coal reserves for electricity generation and other industrial applications, especially when the world keeps cooling. Several scientists, especially astrophysicists, are predicting that we may be entering a cooling period that may last up to 30 years. Supporting real-world evidence (not based on computer models) is the fact that the sun is extremely quiet, and has been for some time, and that the oceanic Pacific Decadal Oscillation has entered a cool phase that also could last up to 30 years. The two recent record-breaking cold Northern Hemisphere winters may represent the first signs.

For readers who would like to know more about the scientific aspects of the global warming debate, I recommend two sources:

1. An excellent scientific report by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), titled “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate”. This report is based on the same scientific publications as used by the IPCC, plus several more that were ignored by the IPCC as they did not conform to dogma: www.sepp.org/publications/NIPCC-Feb 20.pdf.
2. The full text of a global warming debate last year in the pages of the Christchurch magazine Avenues between Professor Bryan Storey and myself, including an adjudication of the debate by Justice John Hansen and some subsequent comments: www.climatescience.org.nz/images/avenuesdebate.pdf.

• Dr Gerrit van der Lingen studied geology at Utrecht University in The Netherlands, where he obtained his PhD. His first job was in Surinam, South America, where he worked in Amazon jungle. In 1965, he came to New Zealand to join the Sedimentology Laboratory of the NZ Geological Survey. From 1990 he worked as a private consultant and was a research associate at the University of Canterbury. From 1991 to 2002 he was involved in paleoclimate research, studying ocean sediment cores from the Tasman Sea and Southern Ocean. He has retired from paid research, but remains active as a climate change consultant.