New Zealand PM Jacinda Ardern. By Newzild - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, link

New Zealand Climate Commission Accused of Carbon Accounting Tricks

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Robert Lachlan, Distinguished Professor of Applied Mathematics at Massey University, has accused the New Zealand climate commission of using dubious accounting tricks to exaggerate New Zealands progress towards achieving emissions reduction goals.

Why the Climate Change Commission’s targets are so weak

Robert McLachlan
05:00, Mar 13 2021

OPINION: Of all the many things the Climate Change Commission has been asked to advise on, the emission budgets are the most important. These describe the total amount of all greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere.

They admit that simply meeting the global average isn’t enough (we’re a rich country whose historical contribution to climate change is about six times the world average). And yet, the proposed budget of 628m tonnes is higher than 564m tonnes. They invite the public to comment – submissions close on March 28.

But it’s worse than that. These figures reflect the particular carbon accounting methods which have been applied by the commission. The choices that have been made make our contribution – “a 30 per cent reduction on 2005 levels by 2030” – look far better than it really would be.

The first of these is called “gross-net accounting”. The 2030 target is for netemissions: we get to subtract off the carbon stored in trees from our gross emissions from burning fossil fuels and agriculture. Yet, it’s compared to gross emissions in the baseline year. This artificially bumps up our past emissions, making the future targets look better. 

The second is shifting the base year. Many climate targets use a base year of 1990. For example, the EU has a target of reducing emissions by at least 55 per cent by 2030 compared to 1990. (That works out to at least a 41 per cent reduction over 2018–2030.) 

By shifting the base year to 2005, we are letting ourselves off the hook for our rapid increases in emissions in the 1990s. Again, choosing higher baseline emissions in the past makes the targets look better.

The third is the treatment of forestry. Here there are two main choices, Greenhouse Gas International (GHGI) accounting and Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) accounting. The first is used by all countries in their annual reports to the UN, the second arose out of the Kyoto Agreement.

Read more:

If professor McLachlan’s analysis is correct, in my opinion, “cheating” is a reasonable description of New Zealand’s questionable carbon target accounting tricks.

I’m a bit shocked. I thought the New Zealand government was completely nuts for planning on sacrificing their economy on the altar of the carbon god, but I thought they were making a genuine effort to achieve their emissions reductions. It never occurred to me that they were also planning to cheat.

5 22 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Bruce Cobb
March 13, 2021 10:11 am

You weren’t supposed to notice.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
March 14, 2021 12:29 am

What, that they (the targets) are too weak? Sneaky governments, tsk, tsk. Ya just can’t trust them to do the right thing, even the quite good ones.

John Galt III
Reply to  Loydo
March 14, 2021 7:16 pm

Socialists, Communists, Nazis. Fascists, Democrats cheat?

Wow, so totally unexpected.

March 13, 2021 10:12 am

Just as climate alarmists have learned to go from trough to crest when trying to convey an ever continuing temperature “rise,” climate feel-gooders are learning to go from crest to trough in trying to convey their country’s “success” at reducing their contribution to CO2 increase.

Reply to  noaaprogrammer
March 13, 2021 9:30 pm

Further, in the case of NZ they include methane (CH4) as a greenhouse gas which like CO2 it is not but also the actual radiation absorption at wavelengths over 8.0 microns is actually zero and not more than CO2 which has some absorption at a wavelength of 14.8 micron. The so called calculation on CH4 assumes it burns in the atmosphere to give 1 mole of CO2 and 2 moles of H2O (which does absorbs radiation) but it does not burn. NZ wants to get rid of their farming of cows and sheep which give the main exports. to the country.

Climate believer
March 13, 2021 10:12 am

It’s all a ruddy great scam!

Reply to  Climate believer
March 13, 2021 2:57 pm

There are four major groups involved in all of this:

Group #1: sees this as a dire environmental emergency and wants to see genuine CO2 emissions reductions.

Group #2: wants to redistribute wealth by seeing the West’s high energy prices drive businesses to developing countries. (they don’t care about CO2 levels, and that offshoring factories creates more CO2.)

Group #3: wants to make money off of government subsidies, utility payers, and by offshoring factories (they don’t care about wealth redistribution, carbon emissions or global governance)

Group #4: wants to use the issue to usher in an era of “global governance”. (they don’t care about wealth redistribution, carbon emissions or who makes or loses money)

So, the bottom three groups “fudge the numbers” in order to placate Group #1; to keep the green movement going. But sooner or later, folks like Robert Lachlan and Michael Moore start to probe under the hood and that causes real trouble. The biggest danger would be a resurgence of “old school” environmentalism, where you actually measure real environmental impacts vs reductions in invisible gases.


I find it paradoxical that the Michael Moore types, who discover fraud in one area, don’t go on to question the whole premise, including the science. If I had found what Michael Moore found, the assumption I would operate under is that if they are lying about one aspect they must be lying about the others (until conclusively proven otherwise). Oh well…

Last edited 1 year ago by Anon
Reply to  Anon
March 13, 2021 5:28 pm

If this bloke is a “Distinguished Professor of Applied Mathematics”, he must have done the math to see just what CO2 is capable of doing in the atmosphere. In that case he knows that global warming is nothing but a scam, so what is his motive for this bull dust?

Bryan A
Reply to  Anon
March 13, 2021 9:22 pm

Group #1: sees this as a dire environmental emergency and wants to see genuine CO2 emissions reductions.

I believe group 1 has 2 separate divisions

1A) Those that believe and have purchased Full Battery EVs, installed Solar Panels, replaced their gas fired furnaces, water heaters and ranges with electric AND have installed Tesla Powerwall batteries

1B) Those that claim to believe but want all others to be FORCED to follow THEIR beliefs before they will be willing to act

March 13, 2021 10:24 am

The NZ government knows only too well that the whole point of the exercise is to signal virtue , in order to keep the trade channels open.
The EU is not the only outfit that is erecting trade barriers / tariffs etc on the basis of perceived “climate compliance” TM.
It stands to reason that we would therefore use totally bogus calculations to comply with totally bogus edicts based on totally bogus climate predictions and totally bogus emissions reduction requirements.
What’s not to like?
AND the Climate Commission has refused to release its workings . . . as you do .

Last edited 1 year ago by farmerbraun
Reply to  farmerbraun
March 13, 2021 11:29 am

Didn’t you know, requiring folks to show their work and get the correct answer is racist?

Reply to  farmerbraun
March 13, 2021 12:04 pm

Math, it’s turn has come.

Reply to  farmerbraun
March 13, 2021 12:06 pm

You know we see these kind of things in every country, state/province, and city/town where the left is in control. Is it a law of nature that leftist lie, cheat, steal, corrupt, and try to destroy everything on the conservative side? Perhaps the worst thing they do is develop a double standard where few leftists are accused of impropriety or crimes, and at the same time the moderates and conservative side are accused and convicted of anything the left doesn’t like.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Leonard
March 13, 2021 2:44 pm

If you’re looking for morality, ethics or simple common sense from the Left, you’re wasting your time. There is no up side to socialism. It just doesn’t work so it requires lots of cheating.

Reply to  farmerbraun
March 13, 2021 3:32 pm

+1: “It stands to reason that we would therefore use totally bogus calculations to comply with totally bogus edicts based on totally bogus climate predictions and totally bogus emissions reduction requirements.”

Reply to  farmerbraun
March 13, 2021 10:57 pm

Well, yes, but consider that Jacinda is a full on Fabian Socialist, as was Helen Clark before her. Fabian Socialists self declared objective, for a century, is a Global State. Everything else is just a useful lever

March 13, 2021 10:31 am

New Zealand has a population of 4.9 million. They can all increase CO2 emission 100% or decrease CO2 emission by 100% and no one will ever be able to tell the difference at Mauna Loa anyway. So the whole exercise is a scam to begin with.

Reply to  Doonman
March 13, 2021 10:46 am

The idea that a tree that is cut down , and made into , say, a piece of furniture which could last a couple of hundred years before it is burnt, will instantaneously release all its oxidised carbon at the precise instant that the chainsaw completes its cut, is so obviously an utter scam in the carbon emissions accounting, that any government anywhere is completely justified in using any accounting tricks that it likes in order to feign compliance .
Makes sense to me.

Reply to  Doonman
March 13, 2021 11:49 am


  1. NZ’s CO2 out put is not measured at Mauna Loa. NZ is in the southern hemisphere.
  2. We all live on this planet so if you want to lower CO2 (yes I know most here don’t) then it is on us all. I can here the bleating now if the NZ government was to say we are small not gonna make a difference gonna do nothing.
Reply to  Simon
March 13, 2021 11:54 am

Why do you believe that humanity controls , or can control the level of atmospheric CO2 ?
That looks like superstition to me. Especially since we cannot accurately measure carbon fluxes.
If your livelihood depends on going along with this conjecture , then perhaps you will say so , because then we will understand.

Last edited 1 year ago by farmerbraun
Reply to  farmerbraun
March 13, 2021 1:50 pm

Why do you believe that humanity controls , or can control the level of atmospheric CO2 ?”
If you are asking that question then you really are just starting out.

Reply to  Simon
March 13, 2021 2:48 pm

If you are submitting that as proof then you really don’t know how science works.
You have to show that all of the other possible sources of CO2 are not causing the increase.
You cannot do that , so you fall back on pseudo -science.

Reply to  farmerbraun
March 13, 2021 3:00 pm

OK so you didn’t read what was in a very informative, accurate article. I could send you numerous pieces from a variety of sources that give the same information. But clearly your mind is closed. If you don’t read it then you don’t have to think. And if you don’t think then there is no chance you could change your mind. People here whine and grizzle about the term “denier” but it is 100% accurate for people like you.

Reply to  Simon
March 13, 2021 3:36 pm

That’s your proof?

Reply to  farmerbraun
March 14, 2021 1:27 am

Read the article. I have put it in your lap. Would you like me to come and read it for your bed time story?

Reply to  Simon
March 13, 2021 5:10 pm

“what was in a very informative, accurate article”

Oh… the GULLIBILITY and IGNORANCE of simple simon…. .. it burns. !!

Tell us what we DENY that you can provide actual evidence for , simple simon. !!

Reply to  Simon
March 13, 2021 9:06 pm

Lies are not informative

Reply to  Lrp
March 14, 2021 1:30 am

Yawn. Before you can say it is a lie, you need to say why? Is it a lie that carbon from the burning of fossil fuels has it’s own isotopic finger print? If you say that is false then let’s see your evidence? Saying it is a lie does not make it so.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Simon
March 13, 2021 2:50 pm

There’s nothing even remotely useful over at the It’s doubtful if Gavin Schmidt can even spell science, let alone grasp something as complex as climate. You really must be a keen neophyte if you look to that site for real facts.

Reply to  Rory Forbes
March 13, 2021 9:08 pm

No, he’s a green/Marxist ideologist

Reply to  Rory Forbes
March 13, 2021 9:40 pm

You are right -I saw in a blog he was asked about the Schmidt number. I replied with misunderstanding what was in Wiki under that topic and then disappeared from the site. He has no idea of of the engineering subject of Heat & Mass transfer

Reply to  Simon
March 13, 2021 3:49 pm

”CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere. This is because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (12C vs. 13C);”

That is from your link, so if that is the case, why then is it an accepted fact the planet is getting greener???

Reply to  Simon
March 13, 2021 5:31 pm

Poor simon,

I’m really glad you think the world needs to reduce CO2 emissions..


Did you know that China added more than three times as much new coal power capacity as all other countries combined in 2020.


And there is absolutely nothing all the mindless AGW yapping can do about it 🙂

Last edited 1 year ago by fred250
Tombstone Gabby
Reply to  Simon
March 13, 2021 9:49 pm

G’day Simon,

Interesting article. Yes, I read the entire article, and the comments. When I got to the end it struck me, the article is strictly about the quantity of atmospheric carbon dioxide. The only place “global warming” is mentioned is in the comments. (I used ctl-F to double check.)

So, just what are we discussing here, carbon dioxide, or warming? Correlation, causation?

Reply to  Simon
March 13, 2021 12:11 pm

The Southern Hemisphere’s atmosphere completely mixes with the Northern Hemisphere’s in just a couple of years. That’s why, despite the vast majority of anthropogenic CO2 being emitted in the Northern Hemisphere, both hemispheres have essentially the same CO2 concentration.

So why does the Paris Accord allow each country to set their own CO2 emission cuts? For example, China is allowed to grow their emissions, Pakistan has only committed to reach a peak at some unspecified point in the future, but New Zealand is required to cut theirs?

Reply to  Meab
March 13, 2021 1:52 pm

So why does the Paris Accord allow each country to set their own CO2 emission cuts?”
Because we live in a world where not all countries have an equal ability to cut emissions and a blanket direction would have certainly resulted in countries pulling out.

Reply to  Simon
March 13, 2021 5:03 pm

Is that why some countries aren’t cutting their emissions at all? Some, like China, have committed to increase emissions not decrease. China has the world’s greatest share of CO2 emissions (double the U.S.) and they’re increasing emissions through 2030 (which was their plan before the Paris Accord). With China increasing emissions and the U.S. decreasing China is on track to almost tripling the U.S. in a decade. You know why? China still gets 58% of their power from coal and they’re completing a new coal plant every ~2 weeks.

Many other countries haven’t done very little, if anything, to meet their commitments.

I agree, if the Paris Accord had imposed cuts across the board, many countries would have pulled out. What does that tell you about how phony the Accord is?

Reply to  meab
March 13, 2021 6:11 pm

Kerry was ordered to avoid negotiated reductions.
Negotiated reductions are a treaty and require Senate approval; which Obama did not have that level of Senate support.

Without the USA negotiating agreed reductions, the onus was removed from the rest of the countries.
Instead, it stated that each country would volunteer their reductions.

Reductions that the majority of countries have ignored. Which is why the USA is one of the largest reductions due to increasing use of natural gas.

China flatly refused to volunteer ‘reductions’. Instead they stated their plan was for increased emissions, at least until 2030. At which point China would review their progress and decide if they would reduce emissions…

Keep in mind that China explicitly increases emissions right up to 2030. Does anybody other than delusional simple religious zealots expect a country that willfully builds coal plants and increases emissions will suddenly start closing those new coal plants?

Reply to  Simon
March 13, 2021 5:13 pm

Thanks for showing us that the Paris accords are a piece of POLITICAL FAKERY !

They are aimed ONLY at bringing western civilisations down to a lower level.

Remember, simple simple.. You will always be at the very bottom of any heap

Reply to  Simon
March 13, 2021 7:31 pm

In other words, Simon and the AGW leaders know the whole thing is a scam, that’s why they are willing to let each country decide on it’s own how much, or as is more often the case, how little they are going to do.

Reply to  MarkW
March 13, 2021 10:04 pm

“the AGW leaders know the whole thing is a scam”

Yep, that has been OBVIOUS for a long time, to anyone with their eyes and mind open.

Simple Simon seems to have FINALLY waken up to that FACT.

Reply to  Simon
March 13, 2021 11:47 pm

You mean the two largest economies in the world get treated completely differently ?

Reply to  Meab
March 13, 2021 2:28 pm

” … in just a couple of years … ”
The mixing is known to be around 10% p.a.
” … both hemispheres have essentially the same CO2 concentration ..”
Then how do you explain the massive difference between the hemispheres reported by the OCO2 satellite? (They only reported one year’s cycle, but that was enough to show their expectations were bogus.)

Reply to  Martin Clark
March 13, 2021 2:50 pm

Consider the extent of ocean in the Southern Hemisphere compared to the Northern.
See the difference?

Reply to  Martin Clark
March 13, 2021 4:42 pm

Not true, Martin.

The CO2 concentration has been measured at both Mauna Loa and the South Pole for over 60 years. The concentration measured at the South Pole today is the same as it was at Mauna Loa just 2 to 3 years ago. The only way that could happen is if complete mixing between the hemispheres is about 2 years.

comment image?1615681998521

I’m curious, where did you come up with that complete nonsense?

Reply to  Meab
March 13, 2021 9:49 pm

You are not correct. There is less CO2 in the Southern Hemisphere as there is more ocean. The highest level of CO2 is in equatorial areas. Satellites can pick up slightly higher amounts of CO2 over China, Europe and USA but these areas do not exceed those around the equator. The lowest CO2 is around Antarctica where no one lives there are no trees and the water is cold absorbing CO2

Reply to  Proeng
March 13, 2021 11:41 pm

No Proeng, the Southern Hemisphere has almost the same CO2 concentration as the Northern. See plot above, and that’s for the South Pole. 90+% of Anthropogenic CO2 is emitted in the NH but the concentration is almost the same in the air over the South Pole as over Mauna Loa in the NH. If it isn’t atmospheric mixing, do you really think that it’s absorbed by plants in the NH spring (that’s what causes the annual dips in the Mauna Loa data, but not at the South Pole), decays in the NH fall (notice the steep annual rise at Mauna Loa, but not at the South Pole) dissolved in the Northern oceans, then carried by ocean currents to the SH without any mixing into deeper layers of the ocean, re-emitted by the *colder* Southern Oceans (colder means lower emission as you said), and then make it to the South Pole in a ~year? Seriously?

Reply to  Simon
March 13, 2021 12:35 pm

1) Nobody said it was. Please re-read, this time concentrate on comprehension.
2) CO2 is a net benefit.

Reply to  MarkW
March 13, 2021 12:56 pm

Simon will not deny that he is a beneficiary of this scam.
He is committed to seeing it continue.

Reply to  farmerbraun
March 13, 2021 1:53 pm

Simon will not deny that he is a beneficiary of this scam.”
You think I am profiting from having to pay more at the pump? What a twat.

Reply to  Simon
March 13, 2021 2:42 pm

Don’t compare yourself to something useful & pleasurable.

Reply to  Simon
March 13, 2021 2:50 pm

Then deny it.

Reply to  farmerbraun
March 13, 2021 3:02 pm

Happy to. I make no money from my interest and passion about this topic.

I bet there are a few on here who would be lying if they said that.

Reply to  Simon
March 13, 2021 3:39 pm

So , not employed in the field of Climate , Environment or Sustainability . Is that your statement?

Reply to  farmerbraun
March 13, 2021 7:26 pm

I am not employed in the field of Climate , Environment or Sustainability . Is that your statement? I make no money from the field in any way.


Reply to  Simon
March 13, 2021 9:17 pm

Answer the question exactly, don’t obfuscate

Reply to  farmerbraun
March 13, 2021 7:33 pm

For people like Simon, seeing those despise suffer is all the justification they need.

Reply to  Simon
March 13, 2021 4:55 pm

What has “passion” got to do with science or policy development?

Both of these challenges require nothing but dispassionate rationality and reasoning.

Reply to  Mr.
March 13, 2021 6:31 pm

N.B., that simple did not respond to your direct question.

Reply to  Mr.
March 13, 2021 7:27 pm

What has “passion” got to do with science or policy development?
Both of these challenges require nothing but dispassionate rationality and reasoning.
Stupid comment.

Reply to  Simon
March 13, 2021 8:34 pm

So what’s your answer Simon?

What has “passion” got to do with science or policy development?

Reply to  Mr.
March 14, 2021 1:18 am

For goodness sake passion has everything to do with anyone wanting to do well in their field. Ask Roy Spencer if he is passionate about the field he chose to dedicate his life to? I be you he would answer most certainly. You think scientists can’t have passion? Just a dumb statement.

Reply to  Simon
March 14, 2021 10:32 am

Passion is emotion.
Emotion clouds rational thinking and actions.
Rationality is all that distinguishes homo sapiens sapiens from other animal species.

I have no doubt that Dr. Roy is DEDICATED to his work, and that he also dispassionately and rationally analyzes temperature data.

Reply to  Simon
March 13, 2021 5:19 pm

Poor simple slimon..

You have just admitted that you follow the AGW scam out of “BLIND BELIEF”

Its really sad you are incapable of letting go of your brain-wash ignorance.

Reply to  Simon
March 13, 2021 6:30 pm

simon’s response is sophistry.
N.B. simon’s previous comment:

You think I am profiting from having to pay more at the pump?”

Simple simon swapped paid advocacy for his profit from “pay more at the pump” red herring.
It’s a classic logical fallacy that simon loves to use against others in it’s comments.

Reply to  Simon
March 13, 2021 5:17 pm

Then WHY are you supporting this scientific and political SCAM, simple simon ?

Its nothing to do with you having any actual evidence.. because you don’t

So I’m guessing you treat it much the way a child treats belief in Santa Clause.


Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Simon
March 13, 2021 2:09 pm

Simon apparently hasn’t heard of China and it uncapped emissions pledge.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
March 13, 2021 2:54 pm

It doesn’t matter which country it is, they’re all just posturing and virtue signalling. No one in power truly believes that CO2 is controlling our climate. It’s all now just a means to manipulate the tax payers with scary stuff that only government can solve. It’s all about redistributing wealth, nothing more.

Reply to  Simon
March 13, 2021 8:43 pm

Wherever you want to measure it, makes no difference

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  Simon
March 14, 2021 11:58 am


  1. CO2 emissions in the southern hemisphere are not reflected by CO2 concentrations measured in the northern hemisphere? Is there an invisible wall at the equator rising up through the atmosphere?
  2. You can “here?”
Chris Nisbet
March 13, 2021 10:40 am

Honestly, I just wish this climate ’emergency bullshit’ would just stop.
It’s a never ending onslaught of hysteria, and it’s wearing thin.
Taxpayers are going to (and already are) bear the cost (economic and standard of living – wise), and our leaders seem intent on inflicting it upon us.
I’d like to think they don’t have evil in their hearts, but the more it continues the less sure I am about that.
(A Kiwi)

Last edited 1 year ago by Chris Nisbet
Reply to  Chris Nisbet
March 13, 2021 10:51 am

But you know as well as I do that this “climate emergency” and the covid horse manure “pandemic emergency” , and the soon to be announced “economic emergency” are all just about compliance with the edicts to curtail freedoms.
That’s the only real emergency . . . the freedom is hereby cancelled emergency.

March 13, 2021 10:41 am

Our Prime Minister, Jacinda Arden, declared “I never lie”. For a politician that is the first and greatest lie, right there.

Reply to  RockyJ
March 13, 2021 11:53 am

It’s OK. She crossed her fingers when she said “I never lie.”

Reply to  RockyJ
March 13, 2021 2:46 pm

No politician, Left, Right or Central will ever tell the truth; they spin a mix of truth & lies in a concoction that suits them at the time.
And if they get found out, they always have sacrificial ‘advisers’ to take the fall.

The sheeple are amazingly tribal & loyal to their ‘chosen one’ no mater what BS the ‘chosen one’ feeds them.

“You know how stupid the average person is !
…well 50% are stupider than that !!! ( Geo Carlin)

Hayden Redwood
Reply to  saveenergy
March 24, 2021 1:55 pm

Kiwis need to stop voting in these a-hole, they indoctrinated by the very system that thinking they doing great work for the masses, but really they have owners and they own you, bring back Geogre Carlin.He would have something to say to this knew snowflake government big multi national corp interest spoon feed babies.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  RockyJ
March 13, 2021 2:57 pm

Women never lie. They truly believe what they tell you. Jacinda is no different.

Reply to  Rory Forbes
March 13, 2021 5:37 pm

“They truly believe what they tell you”

But only while they are saying it.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  fred250
March 13, 2021 8:44 pm

Yeah, well that’s a given. I’nt it?

Reply to  Rory Forbes
March 13, 2021 6:36 pm

I knew cankles couldn’t be a woman…

Rory Forbes
Reply to  ATheoK
March 13, 2021 8:45 pm


Reply to  RockyJ
March 14, 2021 12:28 am

There are just two types of liars in the world. those who lie and those who say they don’t lie.

Reply to  Redge
March 14, 2021 3:44 am

You know what? Thinking about this there are 4 types of liars.

In order of how loathsome these types are:

1 Those who lie
2 Those who say they don’t lie
3 Climate modellers
4 Politicians

And I’m not sure about the order of the last two types.

March 13, 2021 10:46 am

Eric, hasn’t the whole AGW perfidy been a rolling “thimbles & pea” trick since the get-go?

And NZ’s capacity to influence their own climate(s), let alone the world’s, is a joke.

(Mind you, they do have a goodly number of volcanoes and thermal vents. Maybe they could reduce the activity levels of these inconvenient fixtures?)

And while I’m on the subject of flaws in Princess Jacinda’s governance – why hasn’t she yet apologized to the world and canceled that historic reference to Aotearoa as “The Land Of The Long WHITE Cloud”?

Reply to  Mr.
March 13, 2021 10:55 am

You have to admit that the appearance of the Long White Cloud is a damn fine navigational aid when you’re trying to make landfall on a voyage from the Marquesas or the Society Islands to the last bit of land before Antarctica. Don’t miss it.

Reply to  farmerbraun
March 13, 2021 12:05 pm

As my Irish antecedents would say about travel routes –
“If I was goin’ to Antarctica, I wouldn’t be leavin’ from Marquesas or Society”

March 13, 2021 11:53 am

The New Zealand government should be commended. Rampant cheating is the only.way emissions reduction goals can possibly be achieved, and economical too.

Ken Irwin
Reply to  Wal
March 13, 2021 12:23 pm

You beat me to it – we are going to see ever increasing “creative carbon accounting” – as the only way to achieve their stated objectives it to lie about it.

Reply to  Ken Irwin
March 13, 2021 1:54 pm

That won’t compare to the cheating that will go on by those selling carbon offset credits, getting kickbacks for issuing them, or for positive evaluations, with every level of government complicit either as “sharks” or “useful idiots”. We already have cases of companies selling offset certificates for shutting down production of fluorocarbons that they weren’t supposed to be producing to start with….only possible with a rubber stamped procedure.

Reply to  DMacKenzie
March 13, 2021 5:18 pm

We should welcome this ray of light. Those who realize that pretending to achieve emissions reductions will have the same real world effect as actually achieving emissions reductions should welcome this win-win-win outcome. Governments only need the appearance, ‘sharks’ will provide plausible data, and rent seeking offset credit providers will be much less destructive and costly than actual offsets. Climate sceptics should be praising the huge advances governments have already made in emissions reduction, especially if fictional.

Reply to  Wal
March 13, 2021 6:00 pm

I think you are onto something…..

Brian Dingwall
March 13, 2021 12:22 pm

New Zealand’s Climate Commission has a plan to reduce emissions with the minor side impact of destroying the country’s economy.
The good Professor is complaining that that destruction will not come fast enough.
The paper “Stuff” that published this material has an editorial position supporting only alarmists and their teaching. They publish three to four alarmist articles daily.
Evidence or opinion that even suggests there is no climate emergency will not be published (by them).
Public submissions on the climate commission report close on March 28, but the models, workings, and calculations will not be available until after submissions have closed. Even Treasury opinion on the report is not fully available until after the final report and almost certainly any resulting legislation. (Economist Eric Crampton has the details at Offsetting Behaviour).
Note that we already have an effective ETS, and all the industries covered have a cap on emissions. Agriculture is not covered, BUT we have recently learned in a new report published January this year that our agricultural production is the most emission efficient in the world so the proposed reduction in production will actually reduce NZ emssions sure, but increase global emissions, while being economically crippling for the economy.
The whole green driven Climate Commission device to legitimise wealth destroying legislation, without any measurable impact on climate, is utterly absurd.

March 13, 2021 12:47 pm

Massey is beautiful.
By the way Eric (in a word) is 88E a good bet?

Reply to  Eric Worrall
March 14, 2021 12:19 am

Thanks anyway Eric!

Jean Parisot
March 13, 2021 1:11 pm

Being so isolated, does NZ get credit for the transport time for any CO2 they emit against the residency time of anthropogenic CO2?

For that matter, do nations in the Southern Heminsphere get a ‘discount’ because their CO2 can only affect (if any effect) fewer people given the smaller population and the long transport time to global distribution across the ITZ?

Joel O’Bryan
March 13, 2021 1:22 pm

the saner ones know that if they attempt to reach a 40% reduction by 2030, that means the GDP would shrink by at least 1/3. That would do two things.
1) unleash a fury and wrath of the voters,
2) if they succeed and not get thrown out by voters, they’ll be presiding over a country at the mercy of China’s industrial output for survival as their middle class shrivels into poverty.

March 13, 2021 1:57 pm

The EU is doing the same thing with their preferred date of 1990. This was the end of Soviet era power stations and industry in East Germany. The European emissions dropped rapidly after that time and they don’t want to lose that advantage in virtue signalling.

March 13, 2021 2:10 pm

Canada has the 2nd largest Boreal forest on the planet next to Russia, but the governments does not include the forest in their national carbon emissions calculations. That’s 338 billion trees that they just happen to omit. Neat huh?

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Klem
March 13, 2021 3:05 pm

We’re also being told that our “climate” is warming X times faster than anywhere else on the planet. If it is, no one knows why, because we actually have a negative carbon footprint.

There is no science connected with the “climate change crisis” fraud.

Last edited 1 year ago by Rory Forbes
Dave Andrews
Reply to  Rory Forbes
March 14, 2021 9:07 am

I thought EVERYWHERE is warming X times faster than anywhere else on the planet these days!

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Dave Andrews
March 14, 2021 11:41 am

Oh … that too. It’s a crisis, I tell you. Run away.

(BTW … doesn’t it all ring a bell; like the “hell fire and damnation” of past religious fanatics?)

Reply to  Klem
March 13, 2021 6:19 pm

even worse, the official line is that “Canada’s managed forests” are net CO2 emitters…..which is totally ludicrous because the trees certainly emit oxygen and grow and extend their range every year….and the 300 Billion trees weren’t even there 80 centuries ago…so they must be a CO2 sink since at least the last glaciation.

March 13, 2021 2:47 pm

Thank goodness New Zealand is cheating on its ‘Global Warming’ targets as it will enable them to keep up with all the other countries who are doing exactly the same thing to stave off economic ruin and civic rebellion.

Bill Burrows
Reply to  nicholas tesdorf
March 13, 2021 3:58 pm

“Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive”.

New Zealand is not unique in adopting creative carbon accounting.  Its big cousin Australia gave a masterful rendition of the art via the so called ‘Australia Clause’ incorporated into the 1997 Kyoto Protocol document.  But I daresay there would be few countries, if any, who have signed up to subsequent reduction targets (e.g. the Paris Accord) who have not had a plan on how to fiddle the books, hidden in their back pocket. Here is a Link to a Submission made to Australia’s Climate Change Policy review in 2017: .

It is a teaser to how Australia is playing the game and suggests possible solutions for accurate reporting of fully integrated sources and sinks (true net emissions) in that country. But if we leave it to politicians and bureaucrats to tell us how it is, the smart operators (= nations) will take the rest of the world to the cleaners every time.

March 13, 2021 3:07 pm

Why do they even bother? If New Zealand never produced another molecule of CO2 it would have no affect on the future of the earth’s climate. Same if they doubled or tripled their output.

March 13, 2021 3:31 pm

So in addition to chief environmental officers, chief sustainability officers, and chief diversity officers, we also need specialty climate auditors.

We’re going to have higher emissions just from the overhead cost of the BS administrative costs and their associated elitist travel rewards.

March 13, 2021 3:39 pm

So if forests are clear cut in the U.S. to ship low value wood pellets to the UK to burn, does that mean we need to ding the Brits in these pseudo accounting statements for raping the land, even if it’s on another country’s books? Is there an extra penalty charge for doing it with tax incentives on both ends of the production and consumption sides.

Somebody has to ask these questions as the Climate Crusade marches by.

Reply to  ResourceGuy
March 13, 2021 4:43 pm

This Professor MacLachlan is into maths yet he can not work out the most simple and obvious fallacies with carbon accounting .
New Zealand’s emissions are dominated by methane from our farmed animals as this professor should know as he is based at Massey University which focuses on agriculture .
If this man can work out any thing he would soon realize that enteric methane is a closed cycle and this methane can never cause any problem in the future .
As I have stated before global methane levels were stable from 1999 till 2008 and so was world coal production at around 4.7 billion tonnes .
Then from 2009 till now coal production use in Asia has soared to reach over 8 billion tonnes and global methane levels have increased ,
Nothing to do with animals .
New Zealands agricultural exports have the lowest carbon footprint ( including shipping ) to nearly every country in the world .
Our forestry exports are also counted as our emissions which defies logic as our pine trees are grown and harvested in around 28 years and are then generally replanted .
They are a carbon sink as when the next rotation is harvested a great deal of timber used in construction and fencing is still in pristine condition with timber treatment .
Cannot this (esteemed Professor of applied maths ) work out something so simple .
The stupidest calculation around emissions is that New Zealand produce enough food to feed 25 million in other countries ,yet we have to account for all emissions ,not the people who consume the food .

Reply to  Graham
March 13, 2021 5:22 pm

Sorry, but cows, cattle, in fact, all livestock, is CARBON NEUTRAL

It cannot, chemically or physically, put out more carbon that it takes in.

Reply to  fred250
March 13, 2021 5:30 pm

Ah that’s true , but magically , methane has to be given additional weight , otherwise NZ would escape all penalties. Euro trash won’t wear that.
And NZ farmers’ trees on farms are disqualified from earning credits.
Because they are not forests.

Reply to  farmerbraun
March 13, 2021 11:15 pm

And, of course, it continues to be ignored that New Zealand practices Pastoral farming – and leads the world in pasture management. Properly managed pasture increases the amount of A horizon (topsoil) in a continuous process, and in doing so sequesters an enormous amount of carbon annually. Non of which is taken into account by the very myopic Kyoto protocols

Reply to  Davidf
March 13, 2021 11:16 pm

As does, I might add, properly managed plantation forest.

Reply to  Davidf
March 14, 2021 11:45 am

“Properly managed pasture increases the amount of A horizon (topsoil) in a continuous process,”

The american bison proved that it is possible to do that without ploughing; it’s just not so rapid.

Reply to  fred250
March 16, 2021 4:05 pm

Read what I wrote .
“Enteric methane is a closed cycle” and that means that farmed livestock are carbon neutral and they also sequester carbon in the soil of permanent pasture land which does not happen in continuous vegetable cropping .
The rules of carbon accounting make absolutely no sense .
The clowns in charge here in New Zealand tell us that we have drained extensive peat swamps and as these swamps dry out CO2 is released .
That is correct but all swamps or as they are now called wet lands emit large amounts of methane from decomposing vegetation .and there is now a movement to restore wetlands ,bogs and swamps .
Thats OK according to the clowns the same as rice paddies emit millions of tonnes of methane and that is treated as natural , but farmed animals are considered a threat .
Enteric methane was introduced at the Kyoto Accord and was accepted without question and has never been scientifically scrutinized like a lot of other beliefs with global warming .

March 13, 2021 5:25 pm
March 13, 2021 5:29 pm

Ignoring for a moment that the Southern Ocean acts as a sink for more emissions than NZ can make, the commission is penalizing the agricultural sector by not exporting it’s immissions along with its agricultural products to be consumed overseas, but importing immissions of products processed or manufactured overseas.

Tom in Florida
March 13, 2021 7:11 pm

Perhaps they brought in Bill Belichick as a consultant.

Matthew Sykes
March 14, 2021 3:52 am

It is all virtue signalling bullshit.

March 14, 2021 11:14 am

“I am not employed in the field of Climate , Environment or Sustainability . Is that your statement?”

I make no money from the field in any way.”


Reply : I am definitely in the environment , and I’m definitely employed.

In fact I’m a religiously irreligious biodynamic farmer.

Last edited 1 year ago by farmerbraun
%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights