Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Don’t mention the “N” word; The Strategist thinks the New Zealand Navy receiving money from the Treasury, then paying that money back to the Treasury to purchase carbon credits is some kind of achievement. And they should consider purchasing an electric tender for VIPs.
Navies must reduce their carbon emissions in the face of climate change
30 Mar 2021 | Anthony Bergin
The Royal New Zealand Navy recently launched its own journal, which aims to build the service’s professionalism and ‘engage and exchange views with all those who have an interest in naval and maritime affairs’. The most eye-catching contribution in the inaugural edition is by the RNZN’s chief naval architect, Chris Howard, with the provocative title ‘Toward a zero carbon navy’. It’s a fascinating read.
In November 2019, New Zealand’s parliament passed the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Act. Net emissions of all greenhouse gases, except methane, are to be reduced to zero by 2050. The act requires all parts of society to examine their emissions levels and reduce them wherever possible and practicable.
There aren’t any net-zero-carbon navies. But the RNZN is the only navy paying into an emissions trading scheme. It pays New Zealand’s treasury a capped price of NZ$25 per tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent and receives a substantial rebate for fuel assessed as burned overseas on task. That’s because those emissions are deemed international and so fall outside the scope of the national scheme.
…
While not sceptical, Howard is realistic about the difficulties of reducing the carbon footprints of navies: ‘[F]or the next few decades, it seems probable that most naval ships worldwide will continue to rely on diesel fuel.’ But he suggests that the RNZN could, for example, showcase a green-ship technological commitment by acquiring an all-electric vessel as a tender or future VIP barge. (New Zealand’s first all-electric passenger ferry is currently being constructed locally.) Autonomous maritime vessels such as solar-powered wave gliders could also help monitor New Zealand’s large offshore zone.
…
Read more: https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/navies-must-reduce-their-carbon-emissions-in-the-face-of-climate-change/
Zero carbon nuclear reactors for ships are a mature technology, and can be scaled right down – the smallest NASA fission reactors generate 10KW or less. So it seems entirely feasible to build reactors to power every class of naval ship other than small tenders.
But New Zealand is so anti-nuclear they don’t even want visits from US warships.
There are no serious alternatives to nuclear power, the days of naval sailboats are long gone. So New Zealand appears to be focussing on token gestures, like a circular carbon credit money shuffling system between the Treasury and the Navy, adding a bit of bio-diesel which they haven’t got the means to produce themselves, and wondering if they should build a battery powered boat for VIP photo opportunities.
New Zealand might think they don’t need a serious Navy, but New Zealand would be an obvious staging place for an international response to an attempt to invade Australia – large enough to supply food and a base of operations, far enough from Australia to be outside the range of all but the longest range bombers. A hypothetical aggressor might decide to attack New Zealand first, at the very least they might attempt to destroy New Zealands’ ports and maritime infrastructure, and block New Zealand’s harbours with wrecked civilian ships, if they think New Zealand is an easy target.
Nuclear submarines at least would be a tremendous low carbon deterrent. Even if port and maritime infrastructure in Australia and New Zealand was destroyed by long range bombardment, a decent fleet of Australian or New Zealand Nuclear submarines could seriously hamper long naval supply lines, by sneaking in, destroying convoy ships, then a quick sprint underwater to San Diego or Hawaii for resupply.
Both New Zealand and Australian politicians are too timid to embrace this obvious defensive strategy. The conventional submarines Australia favours would be utterly dependent on resupply from Australia, they don’t have the range of nuclear submarines.
I presume they will also be seeking carbon-neutral gunpowder.
They’ll just need to track the net use and pay into the mitigation fund 🙂
Net emissions of all greenhouse gases, except methane, are to be reduced to zero by 2050.
That’s parliament off the hook, but it’s clearly become a competition to see who can be the most unhinged.
Army To Roll Out Electric Tanks To Fight Climate Change!
Electric tanks and vegetarian options in the mess are just some of the ways the Armed Forces will go greener, the Ministry of Defence has revealed.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2021/03/30/army-to-roll-out-electric-tanks-to-fight-climate-change/
Beam me up, Scotty.
Presumably the tanks will have to use rail guns since gunpowder releases CO2. Hoy many meters do you suppose the batteries will take the tank and fight with the rail gun simultaneously?
How retro – The English Navy was under SAIL under Admiral Lord Nelson. Having sailed across the Atlantic in five days I am all for returning to sail. And let’s return to Canons and Chain for weaponry. Hoo Rah!
as usual the mining and smelting never seems to enter their tiny minds.
I propose wind power. What’s could possibly be wrong with a good old-fashioned polynesian trimaran? Just needs a little upgrading. And politically correct and deferential to native cultures too.
They can’t use gunpowder on their wooden, sail powered frigates as the reaction produces CO2.
Under the UN’s guidelines, prior to military engagement in a war, all militaries will negotiate and exchange carbon credits, ensuring a minimal carbon footprint. Wars will become carbon neutral. I would hope that New Zealand’s Navy will also spend a few million dollars on rainbow flags which would help ease social tensions.
Armies of the world could be SJWs and stop wars. It’s just common sense. It’s just the laughing stock of China, Russia, and North Korea.
(New Zealand’s navy could also do its part by just reducing their vessel’s speeds by 20%)
Moderators….. My name has been usurped
Identity theft.!
Yes, and those VIPs should test this wonder vessel.
Out of sight of land.
With no backup.
Ok, give them paddles maybe.
I imagine it is a lot easier to go green to save the planet than it is to go to war to save your country.
Let’s be realistic here. NZ has no need of heavy military equipment to defend it. They have a bunch of painted men in grass skirts poking their tongues out and threatening to eat all invaders……
You know they are really getting angry, when they start thumping their chests and stomp about.
The rest of us think the Chinese might need a bit more of a deterrent to keep them away, should they decide to lay claim to a very nice South Pacific island group like NZ.
.
So are they going back to roundshot, grapeshot, and chainshot, for their munitions?
Maybe they’re thinking of bringing back flogging.
Countries that do not believe they need a serious navy, or army, or air force are usually the ones countries like the U.S. have to go save in the next big war. It’s getting to the point we will not be able to.
Worrying about CO2 emissions from war vessels and vehicles is one of the most stupid obsessions I have ever heard of. Do they think that the bullets, missiles, warheads, bombs, and various other explosives are carbon neutral? Or the burning facilities, vessels, and vehicles that they rip through?
I can just see the Chinese Army telling their leadership – “Yes, we are going to continue the attack as soon as our tanks are recharged, but first the sun has to come up and it will take 4 hours to charge them using our solar panels.”
How about the U.S. armed forces pledge to plant trees all over every country they end up over-running. If we had done that, there would be (by now dead) forests covering Iraq and Afghanistan. Greenies could feel good about all that carbon that would be removed from the air (they never pay attention long enough to realize the forests all died of dehydration). And the Iraqis and Afghanistan’s would have plenty of kindling wood for years to come.
I am all for the U.S. Navy to start building mostly nuclear vessels. They offer a huge logistics advantage in the case of a war. We need to have more than 2 ship building ports certified to build and repair navy nuclear vessels anyway. And this might finally get our butts into gear in researching more advanced reactors.
Maybe New Zealand will have to build a fleet of clipper ships. But what if the enemy is upwind?
It would be interesting to see the design of an underwater charging station for an electric submarine!
New Zealand is so far from other major land-masses that New Zealanders needn’t worry about the effects of their CO2 emissions elsewhere on the globe. To the south, the penguins would probably welcome a slight warming of the climate.
Back of my day the military purpose was killing people, I don’t know what it does now.
Both New Zealand and Australian politicians are too timid to embrace this obvious defensive strategy. How to replace the timid with the bold? The bold are deeply concerned with the welfare of their fellow citizens, the timid not so much. New Zealand needs candidates for public office who care about their country enough to do anything to make it strong.
MAke New Zealand Great Again! MANZGA! Hmm. Make Us Great Again! MUGA! Maybe not. Slogans help, but fundamentally we must pour money into our armed forces, abandon the outdated “anti-nuclear” policy (we still operate X-ray machines in every town and city), forget about going “carbon” free and develop a credible defence strategy for the future.
In other words, please protect us from real threats.
If the RNZN was really interested in zero carbon, they would start with the heating and cooling issues.
A good cooling alternative, especially on submarines, is the installation of screen doors, fore and aft and on the Con tower. A natural green cooling chimney effect is created. Problem solved.
So they’ll all be green when they blow the hell out of each other at sea. Shouldn’t they concentrate on being effective? Loony Toons
I believe in other circles the scheme would be called money laundering.
In this case, the Navy’s budget is increased to allow for payment of carbon credits.
The Navy then pays the credits to the treasury that will then go to the general fund for other uses.
Regarding making all ships nuclear, check out how many companies make pressure vessels and steam generators.
Last I heard, the Japan facility had a backlog a decade+ long.
Global warming causes April 1st to occur every other day.