New Zealand may initially get off relatively lightly as the world increasingly experiences the consequences of climate change, but will still face moral obligations to harder-hit vulnerable nations, warn scientists.   

A UN report released on Friday in Uganda found that increasing human emissions had “likely” – defined as a 66-100 percent probability – caused more extreme heat waves and sea surges, but was less sure about the link between man-made climate change and worse floods.

Extreme weather events such as heat waves, heavy rainfall, floods, strong cyclones, landslides and intense droughts were also likely to become more common.

“New Zealand is likely to fare relatively well in terms of food production for the next few decades, but we may well be impacted by economic instability related to crop failures and food shortages in other parts of the world,” said Dr James Renwick, leader of the Climate Research programme at National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA):

“Moreover, New Zealand may come to be seen as a ‘safe haven’ as the climate changes more dramatically elsewhere. We have moral and ethical obligations to those who look to us for assistance, from the Pacific and elsewhere.”

The IPCC’sSpecial Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (SREX) was the culmination of over three years’ work by a team of over 80 experts from around the world and its writers included two New Zealand scientists: Professor Glenn McGregor of Auckland University and Associate Professor John Campbell of Waikato University.

The Science Media Centre gathered the following comments from New Zealand scientists. Feel free to use these quotes in your reports. Contact the SMC for further details or to speak to a climate change expert.

Dr James Renwick, Leader – Climate Research programme at National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA), comments:

“New Zealand will feel the effects of climate change in coming decades, although local impacts are bound to differ from those in other parts of the world. We have a temperate climate and we are insulated to some extent by the oceans surrounding us. Yet even this is a double-edged sword. Sea level rise is currently at about 3mm per year globally (double the 20th century rate, and increasing) and New Zealand sea levels are rising at close to the global rate.

“We are likely to see the best part of a metre of sea level rise by the end of the century – when combined with king tides and storm surge, this significantly increases the risk of inundation in many coastal areas. Places with small tidal ranges (e.g. Wellington) will see larger relative effects. The globe is already committed to many centuries of sea level rise, and a number of regional authorities are developing policies for a managed retreat from coastal areas.

“Changes in storminess may mean slightly fewer big storms overall, but they are likely to be more intense and damaging when they come, than those we experience at present. Temperatures are rising in New Zealand, associated most clearly with a significant decrease in frosts and cold nights in many places over the last 50 years. Frosts will likely become rare or unknown in most major population centres by the end of the century. Such changes will affect agriculture here, but there are likely to be much larger changes in food production in other countries.

“New Zealand is likely to fare relatively well in terms of food production for the next few decades, but we may well be impacted by economic instability related to crop failures and food shortages in other parts of the world. Moreover, New Zealand may come to be seen as a ‘safe haven’ as the climate changes more dramatically elsewhere – we have moral and ethical obligations to those who look to us for assistance, from the Pacific and elsewhere”.

New Zealander Dr Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the USA National Center for Atmospheric Research, comments:   

“I have the final (version) of chapter 3, which deals with the science aspects. Overall it is awfully waffley. FAQ 3.1 argues about semantics as to what an extreme means.  It is pitiful. It passes entirely on answering the question ‘Is the climate becoming more extreme?’ Of course it is a silly question but it could have said something useful in response (or changed the question).

“FAQ 3.2 on “Has climate change affected individual events?” similarly is ineffective. The answer is quite wrong. It frequently asks the wrong question and then waffles. The framing is quite wrong.  The changes in the environment in which all events occur are missed entirely. The shift in odds is missed. It simply argues that because events could have occurred one can not say anything.    It mentions models (but not their flaws) and statistics but not physics. I would give it a failing grade.

“The chapter is quite confused… It makes a number of correct statements about natural variability leading to continued extremes. It correctly states that odds of extremes change. The statements are very conservative by always leaning toward a null hypothesis of no human influence. There is a lot on projections but it uses CMIP3 models and places undue weight on them: the models are not good at this stuff. There is no commonsense approach to all this”.

(Climate model output from simulations of the past, present and future climate was collected mostly during the years 2005 and 2006 to create phase 3 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project CMIP3 used by climate scientists preparing the IPCC Fourth Asssessment Report).

Dr David Wratt, Chief Scientist at NIWA’s National Climate Centre and Director of the New Zealand Climate Change Centre (a member of the NZ delegation at the Joint Session of the IPCC Working Groups I and II and the IPCC Plenary in Uganda) comments:

“Projecting local changes in extremes is often more challenging than making projections at broader regional to global scales. Local measures which provide benefits under a range of future climates, and help manage current disaster risks are a good starting point to adaptation.

“We have high confidence that extreme events will have greater impacts on sectors directly reliant on weather and climate. Our agriculture, horticulture and energy sectors clearly fall into that category. The high likelihood of increasingly severe extreme sea level events is also significant, given that 12 of New Zealand’s 15 largest towns and cities are located on the coast.”

“The challenge for policymakers the world over is to develop strategies to reduce vulnerability and exposure of people and assets to climate change extremes. That way, extreme weather and climate events won’t necessarily become disasters.”

Expert reaction collected by our colleagues at the SMCs in the UK, Australia and Canada follows: 

Dr Kathleen McInnes  from the Climate Change Research Group (Sea Level Rise and Coasts) at the Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research, a lead author of the report, comments: 

“Recognising that the effects of climate change will be felt most acutely through extreme events, this report is the first comprehensive assessment that focuses on extreme events as well as bringing together the experience of experts in climate change adaptation and disaster risk management to consider options for managing the risks associated with climate change.

“Some of the findings for Australia are that it is likely that there has been an overall decrease in the number of cold days and nights and an overall increase in the number of warm days and nights. While it is likely that the storm systems that affect southern Australia have moved poleward, changes in observing capabilities means there is low confidence in changes in tropical cyclone activity.

“It is likely that anthropogenic influences have led to warming of extreme daily minimum and maximum temperatures on the global scale and have led to increasing extreme coastal high water due to mean sea level contributions.

“Because of the nature of extremes (i.e. their rarity), changes in many extremes and their causes are assessed with lower levels of confidence due to such factors as length of observational record and the influence of natural variability. However, low confidence in an observed change neither implies nor excludes the possibility that a change has occurred.

“It is virtually certain that increases in the frequency and magnitude of warm daily temperature extremes and decreases in cold extremes will occur through the 21st century and it is very likely that the length, frequency and/or intensity of warm spells, including heat waves, will continue to increase over most land areas. It is also likely that that the frequency of heavy precipitation or the proportion of total rainfall from heavy falls will increase in the 21st century over many areas of the globe. In Australia by the end of the 21st Century, a 1 in 20 year daily maximum temperature is projected to occur once every 1 to 10 years. It is very likely that mean sea level rise will contribute to upward trends in extreme coastal high water levels in the future.

“As well as addressing climate extremes, this report also integrates perspectives from research communities studying adaptation to climate change, and disaster risk management. The severity of the impacts of extreme and non-extreme weather and climate events depends strongly on the level of vulnerability and exposure of human, ecological and physical systems to these events.”

Prof Bill McGuire, Professor of Geophysical Climate Hazards at University College, London, comments:

“One of the key ways in which anthropogenic climate change will affect human society is through the increasing impact of extreme events such as floods and droughts. This landmark report uses the latest observations and models to forecast what we will be up against in the decades to come. It also highlights the complex and sometimes unexpected ways in which climate change may drive dangerous extreme events, including a response from the solid Earth in the form of increased landslide activity and other geological hazards.

Dr Simon Brown, Climate Extremes Research Manager at the Met Office Hadley Centre, comments:

“This focus of the IPCC on extremes is very welcome as less emphasis has traditionally been given to these phenomena which are very likely to be the means by which ordinary people first experience climate change.  Human susceptibility to weather mainly arises through extreme weather events so it is appropriate that we focus on these which, should they change for the worse, would have wide ranging and significant consequences.  This review will be very helpful in progressing the science by bringing together a wide range of studies – not just on the physical weather aspects of climate extremes but also on how we might adapt and respond to their changes in the future.”

Bob Ward, policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at London School of Economics and Political Science, comments:

“This expert review of the latest available scientific evidence clearly shows that climate change is already having an impact in many parts of the world on the frequency, severity and location of extreme weather events, such as heatwaves, droughts and flash floods. This is remarkable because extreme events are rare and it is difficult to detect statistically significant trends in such small sets of data.  What is more, these trends have been identified over the last few decades when the rise in global average temperature has been just a few tenths of a centigrade degree.  The report shows that if we do not stop the current steep rise in atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases, we will see much more warming and dramatic changes in extreme weather which are likely to overwhelm any attempts human populations might make to adapt to their impacts.

“This report should leave governments in no doubt, as they prepare for the next United Nations climate change summit in Durban, South Africa, at the end of November, that climate change is, through its impact on extreme weather, already harming the lives and livelihoods of millions of people around the world.  Governments must focus clearly on reaching a strong international agreement to strengthen their efforts to reduce emissions and to prepare their populations for those impacts of climate change that cannot now be avoided.”

John Clague, Shrum Research Professor, CRC Chair in Natural Hazard Research, Department of Earth Sciences, Simon Fraser University, comments: 

“Sea level is currently rising at a rate of about 3 mm/yr and the rate is likely to increase through the remainder of the century. Low-lying coastal areas on all three of Canada’s coasts will experience increased erosion and inundation during extreme storms as the century progresses. Erosion and inundation occur during extreme storms, which as noted below, may increase along the Pacific and Atlantic coasts in the future. Greater erosion of some coasts in the Arctic will be exacerbated by reduced Arctic ice cover.

“The recent devastating flooding in Bangkok is a harbinger of things to come for that city. Bangkok lies only about 2 m above sea level. The slow rise in sea level reduces the gradient of the Chao Phraya River, which flows through the city to the Gulf of Thailand. During extreme river floods, as occurred this year, the lower ‘freeboard’ to the tops of the protective dykes at high tides increases the likelihood of flooding”.

Hans Schreier, Professor, Aquatic Ecosystem Research Laboratory, Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability, University of British Columbia, comments:

“As a result of the critiques of previous IPCC reports this SREX report is very cautious. Most of the IPCC efforts and projections are using climate data as a basis and land use information is usually not incorporated into the modelling. I would argue that land use changes alone have likely a greater influence on water processes than climate but they both are changing at the same time. It is therefore impossible to state which is more important. However, what is critical is that the combined effect of extreme event and land use change will have an accelerated impact leading to greater disasters and risks particularly at local levels.

“The lack of good historic data is the main reason why many of the experts are cautious in how much confidence they have in the current trends. However, most of the modelled projections to 2100 clearly show an increase in many aspects of extreme events. This means we need to focus on using adaptation and prevention  methods to reduce risks. The report mentions that post disaster recovery provides an opportunity to reduce the effect of extreme event. A more appropriate statement would be to use the precautionary principle and start taking  steps to reduce the risk of extreme events and prevent or reduce future impacts.

“The experts are virtually certain that the frequency and magnitude of daily warm temperature extremes are increasing. The implications of this for food production and energy demands are significant. A much higher risk of flooding — when land use changes are taking into consideration — is of particular concern in urban areas where storm water systems are inadequate. The flooding problem is even more critical in coastal areas because of anticipated sea level rise.”

Patrick M. Condon, Professor & James Taylor Chair in Landscape and Liveable Environments, School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, University of British Columbia, comments: 

“Even if we stopped spewing carbon into the atmosphere tomorrow, global temperatures will rise by 2degC. In this unprecedented circumstance our cities must do two things. First and foremost we must slowly rebuild them so they don’t demand so much carbon to operate. Our cities now demand at least five times more carbon per capita than they did prior to World War 2 largely due to our reliance on the car, and the low density sprawl which the car spawned. Doing our part to slow or stop global warming is not simply a practical imperative; its a moral one.. Changing our carbon greedy cities is the place to start.

“In rebuilding our cities for an altered world, we must work with our rapidly changing natural systems, not against them. One very simple example: “Green streets”, streets with ample shade trees and natural verges to infiltrate storm water, can both mitigate the threat of floods while naturally cooling our homes. The shade and protection thy provide can also make walking and cycling a more reasonable option than the car.”

John Stone, Adjunct Research Professor, Carleton University, (Canada) Department of Geography, comments: 

“I’m not particularly surprised with the findings. It’s pretty much what I expected to see – and it’s a reflection of what’s been known for quite a while. Some of the things (like heat-waves) we have been pretty sure of have not change and some of the things (like hurricanes) still have question-marks. Many of the findings are not much different from those in the IPCC’s 4th report.

“The report has addressed how we might respond – including such matters as disaster management.  This should be quite useful to governments at all levels. There is still a lot of controversy with respect to what we know about tropical cyclones – hurricanes in the North Atlantic. There are still some questions about whether there will be increases in hurricanes or not in the future. From what we know, it’s  likely that we will see more category 4 or 5 hurricanes – the most intense. The  overall number  might drop but we may see increases in the number of the stronger ones”

“From simple statistics and basic physics, we can say that there will be an increase in the frequency and severity of extreme events. What we’ve seen today doesn’t surprise us. It doesn’t mean we can attribute every extreme event to anthropogenic climate change, but it does support the idea that we’ve ‘loaded the dice’, so to speak. That these extreme events are more likely to happen now than they have been in the past”.

In the early hours of Saturday morning the UN’s climate change body will release a report that has been described in leaked versions as saying extreme weather events such as downpours and storm surges may make parts of the planet “marginal” for inhabitants.

Average global temperatures last year were tied with 2005 for the warmest on record, and the draft by the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is reported to warn that heat waves will continue to increase over most land areas.

Drought may intensify in the Mediterranean region, central Europe, southern parts of North America, northeast Brazil and southern Africa.

The report is seen as a pipe-opener for debate at the annual round of climate talks, taking place this year in Durban, South Africa, beginning on November 28. One of the first jobs of the incoming government after New Zealand’s general election will be to send a Minister for International Climate Change Negotiations to head the delegation of New Zealand officials among delegates from more than 190 countries working on ways to limit climate change.

But today a major science journal, Nature ran a commentary by Elliot Diringer (executive director of the US-based Center for Climate and Energy Solutions), arguing that a key issue for Durban is the survival or death of the Kyoto Protocol, whose emission targets expire at the end of 2012.

(Registered journalists can log into the SMC Resource Library to access the commentary).

Mr Diringer predicts that Kyoto will probably emerge from Durban on life-support – “alive, but just barely”. That shouldn’t be cause for alarm, he says: “Although the protocol remains an important emblem of multilateralism, it has become more of an impediment than a means to genuine progress.”

An obsession with legally binding targets for emissions reductions, he says, has caused harm rather than good. Instead, Mr Diringer calls for a multi-pronged approach to climate
change:

* countries should commit to the idea of a binding international agreement in the long term but accept that it will take a while to get there;
* they should follow in the footsteps of last year’s negotiations in Cancún and take incremental steps towards that goal; and,
* they should continue to work on national policies that contribute to the cause, such as Australia’s carbon tax.

The SMC sought comment on the implications for New Zealand’s stance on Kyoto. Feel free to use these comments in your reports.

Professor Martin Manning, New Zealand Climate Change Research Institute, Victoria University of Wellington, comments:

“The meeting of all governments, that starts this month in Durban, has to face up to the increasing problem of what to do about climate change. One of the major issues is whether or not the Kyoto Protocol, that set targets for developed countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, can continue. And if it does not, then what will countries like New Zealand do?

“Elliot Diringer’s summary, in Nature … sets out the key issues and shows why some reduced form of commitment by developed countries might survive. But this cannot be enough to limit global warming to 2 degrees in the way that governments have nominally agreed to, and further delays in agreements to reduce emissions would make it increasingly unlikely that the target was achieved”.

“Diringer’s key point is that the past focus on a legally binding commitment now has to be pushed aside. Global climate change is a problem that goes far beyond the international legal frameworks. Instead there needs to be a much clearer focus on agreements that lead to a stronger international synergy and multilateral approaches for switching to new sources of energy very quickly”.

“New analyses by groups such as IEA and UNEP have shown that both a technological and an
economic basis for rapid change in energy sources does exist and can significantly reduce future costs. Similarly, the group of long term investment companies, that manage more than 20 trillion dollars, want governments to move more quickly and stop increasing the risks that they have to deal with.

“This is leading to rapidly growing recognition that the major monetary and institutional subsidies that persist for a continuing use of fossil fuels must now be stopped. While some in New Zealand might see the slow international policy response as an excuse to keep investing in past technology, the increasingly obvious impacts of new types of extreme weather events cannot be ignored”.

Associate Professor Ralph Chapman, Director, Environmental Studies at Victoria University of Wellington, (who participated in New Zealand’s original Kyoto negotiations) comments:

“Although the Kyoto Protocol was a great step forward at the time, the world has moved on, especially with the new dominance of developing country emissions, their upward emissions path, and the downward trajectory of many developed country (especially EU) emissions. Indeed, this situation is partly the result of the success of the Kyoto Protocol in constraining many rich countries’ emissions.

“As Diringer’s article in Nature suggests, the new game is encouraging China and the US (and the other BASIC countries — Brazil, South Africa, India and China) to cut emissions, or at least their rate of growth, through some sort of Copenhagen/Cancun-style agreement, which will, over time, replace the Kyoto Protocol.

“Meanwhile, the world is running out of time rapidly, as each year sees countries investing in more high-emissions infrastructure such as coal power stations and motorways. These largely ‘lock in’ a pattern of emissions that mean that it is increasingly likely that we will exceed the 450 parts per milion CO2 ‘target’, loosely associated with the maximum  2deg of warming, that constitutes the guardrail that ‘no-one’ wants to go beyond.  The latest International Energy Agency (IEA) World Energy Outlook 2011 makes clear that only a few years remain before there is no ‘headroom’ left (the IEA points to 2017 as the turning point year)”.

“Of course, the timing is not definitive, and depends on the risk societies find ‘acceptable’, but there is little doubt that if the world is to avoid some massive risks of future climate change, increasingly stringent and, over time, radical emission cuts by both developing and developed countries need to be initiated. A global agreement that pushes hard in this direction is needed, and it is hoped that Durban might deliver this. It remains unclear whether it will, but with the current politics in Washington and Beijing, it seems unlikely.

A spokeswoman for New Zealand’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade comments:

“New Zealand is focused on the long-term objective of a comprehensive legally-binding agreement with emission-reduction commitments for all developed countries and advanced and major emitting developing countries.  Following the end of the first commitment period, it is important to ensure an orderly transition to the eventual new comprehensive framework, capturing current and pledged mitigation action by building on current structures and strengthening transparency of action”.

“New Zealand’s mitigation will continue post-2012 no matter what the outcome in Durban. New Zealand maintains its long-term emission reduction target for 2050 and will continue to mitigate emissions. New Zealand is committed to doing its fair share on this global issue -  but we are not an outlier because many other countries are undertaking serious mitigation actions of many forms, even if as yet they are not part of a legal regime. The ETS is the most effective way to reduce emissions at the least cost. It sends important investment signals to prevent New Zealand being locked into a carbon-intensive development pathway, which could be very costly in the longer term”.

“New Zealand is committed to assisting Pacific Island countries in adapting to the impacts of climate change, regardless of whether there is a binding international agreement in place.  We understand that other developed countries are similarly concerned to support vulnerable countries face the challenge.   We are actively working on addressing all aspects of climate change, both through formal negotiations and through initiatives such as Friends of Fossil Fuel Subsidy Reform and the Global Research Alliance”.

As the effects of climate change become more apparent and severe, what steps will we be forced to take to slow global warming? Syndicated columnist Gwynne Dyer looks to the future in an opinion piece published in the Gisborne Herald.

An excerpt (read in full here):

Moving into risky territory

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has released a Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources.

Dominion Post reporter Kiran Chug covered the story and spoke to Massey University Professor Ralph Sims, an expert who contributed to the report.

(The report was also covered in the New Zealand Herald, and a full IPCC press release is available).

NZ praised for energy policy but warned about ‘challenges’

CLOSE to 80 per cent of the world’s energy supply could be met by renewables within 40 years if the right policies are put in place, a new report shows.

In its first report since the ‘‘Climategate’’ debacle over leaked emails, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has turned its attention to the potential of renewable energy.

Among the report’s 120 authors is Massey University sustainable energy professor Ralph Sims, leading a chapter on how renewable energy could be integrated into existing infrastructure.

He said the key message of the report was that while, globally, renewables accounted for 13 per cent of energy sources, the figure was growing and would continue to grow.

However, cost, awareness and policy leadership were all barriers. New Zealand was still not fulfilling its potential for renewable energy use, and other than the Emissions Trading Scheme there was little to encourage growth in the area. New Zealand had got to where it was because of its good resources, not because of policy, he said.

In March, the International Energy Agency issued a report into New Zealand’s energy policies, saying they were on the right track, with 74 per cent of electricity production from renewable sources

However, the agency said ‘‘policy challenges’’ remained. It called on the Government to set realistic goals for energy efficiency improvements and to increase investment in electricity infrastructure. ‘‘Over the long term, New Zealand must continue to enhance its policies in order to ensure a secure, sustainable and decarbonised future, ’’ IEA executive director Nobuo Tanaka said.

Associate Energy and Resources Minister Hekia Parata said the report affirmed New Zealand’s position. ‘‘Renewables and energy efficiency are a big part of our energy picture. We are a world leader in geothermal energy. Our rivers and lakes have long provided hydroelectricity and our wind resources are world-class.’’

She said the Government was focused on renewables, the exploration of natural resources, energy efficiency and the pricing of carbon while managing environmental responsibilities and economic opportunities. The Government has a target of 90 per cent of electricity generation to be from renewable sources by 2025.

However, Professor Sims said New Zealand was placing too much of its future focus on petroleum exploration and coal.

‘‘New Zealand is on the cusp of going one way or another. Much of the world – Germany, China – is going boots and all for renewables. New Zealand could be leading. Instead, it’s digging up more coal.’’

Governments from all over the world have struck a deal at COP16, the sixteenth UN conference on climate change, held over the last couple of weeks in Cancun, Mexico.

The deal has a number of parts, including the creation of a Green Climate Fund to assist the transfer of green technologies, systems for reporting and measurement, measures to reduce deforestation, and better means of helping adaptation.

Media coverage:

Morning Report: What was really achieved at Cancun climate meeting?

NZ Herald: Govt welcomes Cancun climate deal

RadioNZ: Cancun climate deal achieved

RadioNZ: No guarantee of action on Cancun – academic

Stern talk on climate change

British economist Nicholas Stern will bring his “get serious” message on climate change to New Zealand next week, when he undertakes a lecture series hosted by the University of Auckland.

Lord Stern is best known for the 2006 Stern Review, a 700 page document commissioned by the UK Government that is one of the most in-depth economic reports on climate change.

This week in Australia, Lord Stern described the Copenhagen climate negotiations held last December as “cold, chaotic and quarrelsome”, but said the meeting wasn’t a total disaster as the Copenhagen Accord hastily agreed to at the end of the conference covers 85% of world emissions.

Lord Stern’s message, delivered in lectures and interviews around the world, is that the benefits of early and strong action on climate change considerably outweigh the costs.

If you are a journalist looking to bone up on Stern’s economics research in relation to climate change ahead of his visit, a good resource is this BBC special report on the key points of the Stern Review.

IPCC overhaul recommended

Lord Stern’s arrival follows the release this week of a report by the InterAcademy Council which represents a number of the world’s science academies and has been scrutinising the workings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The IAC report has called for some major changes to the way the panel is governed and the way checks are made on the veracity of scientific claims made in the panel’s reports.

Local scientists who have contributed to IPCC reports welcomed the changes proposed by the IAC.

Said Professor Martin Manning, Director of the Climate Change Research Institute at Victoria University:

“The key points in this report are that governments should now reform the IPCC management structure and that assessment of the science does need to meet very high standards because climate change has major implications.”

Full reaction from New Zealand scientists can be accessed on the Science Media Centre website.

Lord Stern – Managing the risks of climate change, overcoming world poverty and creating a new era of growth and prosperity: The challenges for global collaboration and rationality – 8-10 September – Auckland/Wellington – Over the lecture series, Lord Stern will outline what he considers as the two defining challenges of this century-managing climate change and overcoming world poverty. Details here.

Energy strategy under scrutiny

Public submissions closed yesterday on the Government’s draft energy strategy as experts weighed in to critique the goals outlined in the report.

Audio from a Science Media Centre briefing featuring Tim Davin, Director of Policy at IPENZ and Associate Professor Bob Lloyd, Director of Energy Studies Programme at the Department of Physics, University of Otago can be played back here.

Energy will also be the subject of a conference in Wellington next week. Keynote speaker Dr Ruth Mourik from the Energy Research Center of the Netherlands will headline an agenda looking at everything from the potential for geothermal energy in New Zealand to clean technology development.

Three new blogs on Sciblogs platform

Big changes afoot at Sciblogs, the country’s largest science blogging network, with the arrival of numerous new scientists.

Jess Dykstra, a PhD student at the University of Canterbury’s Natural Hazards Research Centre, puts his experience field-researching natural hazards in Fiordland, British Columbia and Alaska to good use in Shaken Not Stirred, his blog on natural hazards and how to prepare the population for them.He kicks off with a series on the unprecedented flooding in Pakistan.

Chris McDowall, an informatics researcher working at Landcare Research looks at data visualisation from a science perspective in his blog Seeing Data. His first post looks at the compelling reasons for visualising data.

Finally we also welcome Dr Peter Dearden and fellow bloggers from Genetics Otago, who will be blogging under the Southern Genes banner. Check out their first post The Joy that Follows Sex!, and followup post Are you descended from Neanderthals?.

Herald Online syndication – You’ll also find Sciblogs content now featured on the Herald Online in a new section The Changing World, which is the result of a tie-up between the Herald and AUT. The section aggregates science and technology-related stories from across the Herald website. Check it out!

100 newsletters: what’s next?

It seems like only yesterday that we decided to start our weekly Heads-Up, aimed at scientists, journalists and key stakeholders.

Intended to update people on both the science-related happenings of the last week, as well as giving a pointer to what could become news in the upcoming week, the newsletter now reaches over 1,100 people all over New Zealand and internationally.

We want to continue to provide a useful service in the coming months and years, so please, if you have any suggestions, drop us a line.  In the meantime, we hope you’ve enjoyed reading this – we’ve certainly enjoyed writing it!

Overnight in New York, an independent report was released which recommended a major overhaul of procedures and management of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The report, undertaken by a 12 person team from the InterAcademy Council which represents the world’s major science academies, outlines some sweeping changes, such as the installation of an executive committee for the panel to give it stronger leadership, a “rigorous conflict of interest policy” for that leadership and more rigorous review processes to deal with “grey literature” – material from non peer-reviewed sources.

The report can be downloaded here. Videos of the press conferences held to launch the IAC report are available here.

The SMC sought comment from local climate scientists who have contributed to IPCC reports and/or represented New Zealand on the IPCC.

Further comments will be posted on the Science Media Centre website.

Professor Martin Manning, Director, Climate Change Research Institute, School of Government, VictoriaUniversity of Wellington comments:

“The InterAcademy Council (IAC) has run a detailed review of the process used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for assessing scientific understanding and this has produced a number of useful comments that I think most climate scientists will agree with.

“Their report accepts that scientific understanding of climate change is developing rapidly and this means that the process for assessing it for policymakers needs to become more dynamic.

“The IAC recommends a stronger management structure for the IPCC process and more emphasis on a broader communication strategy. That is important, however, it will require a higher level of support from governments, and so government responses to this review are now a key factor. The review has not fully recognised that the IPCC process is controlled by what governments formally agree to in plenary sessions each year, and that there have been instances when this has specifically limited a broader communication strategy.

“The open review process for the drafts of IPCC reports means that authors have to deal with an extremely large number of comments and the IAC has followed a recommendation that I, and probably others, made about the need for some screening of these comments by independent review editors to ensure that the authors can focus on the key questions.

“The IAC puts considerable emphasis on the need to cover uncertainty in this rapidly moving field of science. Their report includes a full copy of the Uncertainty Guidance note that was written for IPCC lead authors by me and two co-authors in 2005. Recommendations for more development in this area match similar comments made by others and steps have already been made to address these in an expert meeting held by the IPCC in July.

“However, those of us who have considered this issue in detail know that there are some fundamental differences in approaches to uncertainty in different scientific disciplines and so because the assessment has to be based on other scientific publications this is not quite as simple as the IAC suggests.

“The key points in this report are that governments should now reform the IPCC management structure and that assessment of the science does need to meet very high standards because climate change has major implications.”

Dr Andy Reisinger, Senior Research Fellow, New Zealand Climate Change Research Institute, VUW comments:

“The IAC review of the processes and procedures of the IPCC contains important recommendations for improving the management of this increasingly complex organisation. It also includes several suggestions to improve aspects of the IPCC’s processes that have already been discussed and in some cases even partially implemented, with various degress of success.

“The most important recommendation in my view is a step-change of the management of the IPCC by creating an Executive Committee, including a senior scientist to act as Executive Director of the Secretariat. Implementing this recommendation would be a significant departure from the current de-centralised model that the IPCC follows, where nearly all scientific work is carried out in the three Working Groups and its Task Force on Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Moving to a more centralised management structure would have clear advantages, such as improved coordination and better ability to respond to comments and criticism in a considered yet efficient way. It would also have some disadvantages though: one of the strengths of the IPCC in its current form lies exactly in its distributed organisation, which is one way of ensuring that its outputs cannot be hijacked by any particular viewpoint or individual. Placing more weight on central management will require considerably greater resources to ensure those management processes are up to expected standards. It will be up to governments to decide whether they are willing to provide such resources, and to consider carefully how the positive outcomes sought by such a change can be achieved without the negative consequences that it could entail.

“Similar considerations apply to suggestions for how to streamline the review process. Increased efficiency would come at the price of placing greater responsibility in the hands of fewer people, that is, the two or three Review Editors assigned to each chapter of the assessment reports. For such a change to work effectively, one would need to ensure that those relatively few people can and will carry out those tasks with the time dedication and expertise that is required to carefully vet thousands of review comments.

“Many of the other recommendations, such as increasing transparency of selection processes and the overall procedures of the IPCC, are well taken and I believe are already receiving attention by those in charge of the current assessment process. Some of the IAC’s minor recommendations, such as staggering of impacts assessments for sectors and regions, seem to me somewhat narrow and short-sighted, since it would increase the risk of internal inconsistencies. Such options have been discussed extensively by government representatives on the IPCC and participating scientists, and the implications of various alternative arrangements would require more careful attention than the IAC appears to have been able to give to those issues. But such options are of comparatively minor importance that hardly affect the main perceived or real challenges concerning the IPCC management.”

Wrangling over water issues

Polluted rivers, dirty dairying, greening the MacKenzie Country, dams for hydro-power and water allocation — these are just some of the big water issues that have been in the headlines in recent months.

Although freshwater is relatively abundant in New Zealand, uneven distribution of water resources and increasingly intensive use have led to a growing crisis for existing water management regimes.

Next week, the Land and Water Forum‘s highly-anticipated recommendations are due out. The forum, created to draw consensus recommendations from across industry, agriculture, iwi, NGOs and other stakeholder groups, has already pushed back its report date. Barring further delays, the forum will report to government 31 August, and a public consultation on proposed water management options will likely follow.

This week, the Science Media Centre hosted a media briefing on an often neglected aspect of water management: groundwater quality. Speakers included the Director of the newly-launched Waterways Centre for Freshwater Management at Canterbury and Lincoln Universities, and experts on a diverse range of groundwater issues from GNS Science, ESR and NIWA.

You can listen back to audio from the briefing on our website, and we’ve posted up the speakers’ slides as well, for all to access.

Food insecurity: who is suffering?

With journal papers dwelling on the problem of obesity in society coming thick and fast, its easy to forget that a sizeable segment of the population struggles to afford a decent diet.

The issue of food insecurity will be lead topic for discussion at the Dietitians New Zealand conference taking place in Dunedin next week. Professor John Coveney from Flinders University, Adelaide headlines the list of speakers and will bring New Zealand dietitians up to speed on the research he carried out in South Australia looking at the affordability of healthy foods.

He found a big disparity in the proportion of a family’s income access to a “healthy food basket” consumes – 9% of income for high-income families and between 28 and 34% for households on a low income.

So what’s the situation like in New Zealand? University of Otago research Claire Smith has been looking at exactly that issue and will give journalists an overview of her findings in an SMC Online Briefing featuring her and Professor Coveney at 11am, Tuesday August 31.

As usual, you don’t need to leave your desk to participate in an SMC Online Briefing – dial in and log onto the conference website to watch the experts’ slide show. Registered journalists have received log-in details. For further information, contact the SMC.

Is our Energy Strategy realistic?

The Developing our Energy Potential – Draft New Zealand Energy Strategy and Draft New Zealand Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy consultation document is currently open for submission, and lays out government’s plans for the direction and role energy will have in the coming years.

But how realistic and achievable are the goals set out in the Strategy? The SMC will be holding a briefing at 11:15am, Wednesday 1 September in which experts will will look more closely at the document.

How to improve the IPCC?

Public scrutiny of the inner workings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reached unprecedented levels following the highly-publicised revelation of minor errors in the group’s most recent assessment report.

Capping off several official reviews into climate science integrity, the UN itself requested a thorough audit of the IPCC’s procedures from independent science body the InterAcademy Council (IAC). The IAC is the multinational peak body for academies of science from countries throughout the world.

Results of the review are due out 31 August. Any changes recommended will need to be rapidly put in place — work on the IPCC’s forthcoming fifth assessment report is already underway.

The Science Media Centres of the world will be rounding up comment from scientists on the IAC report’s findings, so keep an eye out in the coming week.

Source: Sea Level Rise Explorer

A major review of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report by the Netherlands Environment Agency wrapped up this week, finding no significant errors in the report’s main conclusions on regional impacts of climate change. It is the latest in a series of reviews that have largely validated mainstream climate science conclusions, while calling for further transparency in the working process.

The review was spurred by a Dutch media and political furore in February over an incorrect figure for the Netherlands’ area below sea level. This figure had been provided by the Dutch Environment Agency (PBL) to the IPCC and was published in the 2007 IPCC Assessment (AR4).

The exposure of the error came alongside a much-publicised mistake over the melting rate of Himalayan glaciers, and led the Dutch Minister of the Environment to call for a review into whether there were other errors in IPCC AR4′s section on regional impacts. The PBL has now released its findings and recommendations, which are summarised below.

The Netherlands Environment Agency (PBL) review found:

• No significant errors found in summary conclusions
• Provenance of summary statements needs to become more transparent in future reports
• The regional chapters contained one additional significant error (regarding a projected decrease in productivity of anchovy fisheries on the African west coast)
• Examples of negative impacts dominate at summary level
• No consequences for overarching conclusions

It also recommends that for future publications, the IPCC should:

• Create a public website for the submission of possible errors found in the published reports
• Provide stronger underpinning of generalisations of case studies to entire regions or sectors, also making use of regional modelling studies
• Ensure that statements that attribute impacts to climate change are well founded in scientific research, including systematic observations, modelling and statistics. The climate change component of impacts should be carefully characterised
• Be careful with phrasing of statements that could be perceived by readers as heightening the projected impacts of climate change
• IPCC governments should provide financial support for hiring chapter assistants to assist with quality control
• Assure that the reviews of all draft texts are fully covered by several expert reviewers
• Strengthen the expert and government reviews of the foundation for and provenance of statements in the summaries
• IPCC governments should increase their investments in climate-change observations and modelling in developing countries.

The full report can be downloaded here.

Q+A’s Paul Holmes interviews the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor Professor Sir Peter Gluckman about the Global Research Alliance, an international initiative set up by New Zealand to investigate how best to reduce agricultural emissions.

The GRA’s first meeting took place recently in Wellington, and Gluckman commented on the GRA and its purpose, as well as touching on other subjects including the influence of anthropogenic carbon dioxide on the atmosphere, the IPCC errors and the ETS.

An excerpt: (read in full here, and video can be found here)

“Well what it is is an agreement for now some 30 countries to cooperate to do research which is aimed primarily to reduce the amount of emissions that come from agriculture, and in doing so to do so in the environment knowing that we have to increase the global world food supply by about 50% over the next 30 years.”