• Quiz question

• Another great graphic from ClimateTrunk.

• “The Coalition Strip Show:” the disastrous Conservation Amendment Bill

• From the “Can you believe it?” files 1: antibiotic resistance.

• Front-footing the Future expert guest Dr Mike Joy

• From the “Can you believe it?” files 2: changing how the world smells.

• “Heated” lifts the climate lid on the Football World Cup.

• Front-footing the Future expert guest Prof Colin Butler

• Let’s stop NZ becoming the scrap yard for the automobile industry.

Subscribe now

Share

A picture is worth a thousand words…

We’ve referenced John Lang‘s great graphics before in CM. John has recently launched the Climate Trunk educational platform and here’s a 1000-word equivalent from that (he includes written explanations too!). Have a think about where the toboggan we’re on is heading. (FFTF interview with John from the 8th August).

Quiz

What is a proboscis extension response test, and what is its connection to climate? Answer: See can you believe it 2.

Have a serious laugh then object to the Conservation Amendment Bill

This alarming Bill is open for submissions until 2nd July. It is unbelievable dreadful. Here’s a satirical poem - if it resonates with you, please share it (the link below takes you to a downloadable PDF which has a link to the government submission website.)

A great explainer has been prepared by Forest and Bird.

And here’s a downloadable PDF if you wish! Feel free to share. Soon! Closes 2nd July.

The Coalition Strip Show 2026 06 17

78KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

From the “Can you believe it?” files 1

“Antibiotic resistance is one of the fastest-growing threats to global health", The Guardian reports. Ominously, Climate change is increasing that antibiotic resistance...

Front-footing the Future: Dr Mike Joy.

Mike Joy is a leading freshwater ecologist and researcher whose ecological mindset brings him to engage across very varied fields and to champion wide-boundary thinking. He traverses everything from streams to nitrogen to ending fossil fuels.

Also available as condensed versions on Fresh FM, Plains Media, Arrow FM, and Free FM, and as full or condensed interviews on Spotify and Apple.. Full info on the whole series and guests and a downloadable schedule is at the Resilienz website.

From the “can you believe it?” files 2

Global warming changing how the world smells “In Egypt, increasing temperatures are shrinking yields of aromatic jasmine flowers; in France, extreme drought has reduced the production of fragrant, night-blooming tuberose, a major ingredient in many perfumes; in Italy, climatic extremes are altering the characteristic floral, citrusy scent of bergamot.” writes Hannah Thomasy in Yale Environment 360 .

For example, researchers have discovered that air pollution degrades many of the volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that make up lavender’s characteristic scent, and increasing temperatures dramatically decrease the floral perfumes released by strawberry plants and wild white petunias. Agricultural chemicals, like fertilizers and fungicides, add additional VOCs to the air in fields and orchards around the world.

Stony Brook University pollination biologist Jordanna Sprayberry (Yes, that’s her name. Associate Professor of Pollination neuroethology), and her colleagues taught bumblebees to recognize a particular floral odor, then tested with the proboscis extension response test how three different fungicides affected the bees’ ability to recognize this odor. “We found negative effects of every fungicide we tested,” she says. One was disruptive at every concentration tested. This could be especially problematic for fruit and vegetable production, crops that generally require insect pollination and are often heavily treated with fungicides.

How beautiful is “the beautiful game”?

From the Heated Substack an incisive take on ad breaks at the world cup. Climate change is “boosting the likelihood of performance-impairing heat” during 97 of 104 scheduled World Cup matches. So what do they have to do with commercials?

“You know, these commercials are only happening because of climate change.”

HEATED

3 facts to ruin your World Cup watch party

This year’s World Cup has something no other World Cup has had before: commercial breaks. This means that each match now contains two three-ish-minute opportunities to absolutely demolish the vibe of the party by talking about things that nobody wants to hear about…

Read more

10 days ago · 27 likes · 2 comments · Emily Atkin

Front-footing the Future: Professor Colin Butler

Colin Butler is Honorary Professor of Climate, Energy and Disaster Solutions at the Australian National University and is also a Professor in Epidemiology and Population Health, with a special interest in heat and population health. Colin joins some remarkable dots between political history and present problems; between inequality and addressing the climate crisis.

Also available as condensed versions on Fresh FM, Plains Media, Arrow FM, and Free FM, and as full or condensed interviews on Spotify and Apple.. Full info on the whole series and guests and a downloadable schedule is at the Resilienz website.

“The world is well past the peak of combustion engine car sales. These sales peaked in 2017.” Hannah Ritchie Substack 12th May.

Let’s turn our dreadful EV uptake into an opportunity

Like a binge eater our addiction to fossil fuel vehicles gives us lots of room for improvement. Currently we’re on track to become one of the world’s dumping grounds for obsolete vehicles using obsolete fuel.

Image from Hannah Ritchie. adapted with NZ info from Carbon News

“I’m guessing that if you buy a combustion car [in Norway], people now think you’re a bit odd.” Hannah Ritchie Substack 12th May.

Share

But climate issues don’t pause for our series, so here’s what’s in CM 152:

• A guide to listening to the “Front-footing the Future” series.

• How cool to be cool - a movement of its time

• Full audio of interview with Professor Jonathan Boston, climate policy guru

• The same only different: more nitrogen where it’s not wanted

• “Kiwis in Climate”, an important book from Kiwis In Climate.

• Full audio of interview with Professor James Renwick, climate scientist

• A Goon Gong for finance minister Nicola Willis

• Watch this space! Official advice on what the government should be doing

• A hotter tip for a cooler planet - easy and free!

• A quest for “Anthropocene Intelligence” in university education.

Subscribe now

Ways to listen to Front-footing the Future podcasts.

Interviews on “Front-footing the Future: Getting our climate policy fit for purpose” will be released weekly between now and the 2026 New Zealand general election.

• They will be released in full (40-60 min) and condensed (20-25 min).

• Full interviews will go out in pairs in the first Climate Matters after their release date (just like below, paired because interviews are weekly but CM is fortnightly). They will then be streamed on Spotify and Apple.

• Condensed interviews will be broadcast across Christchurch and Canterbury (Plains Media), the Top of the South Island (Fresh FM), the Wairarapa (Arrow FM) and Hamilton and the Waikato (Free FM), and will be streamed on Fresh FM, Spotify, and Apple.

• More info on the full series and guests can be found on the Resilienz website.

If you like the idea of this podcast series please make it easy for others to follow.

Share

How cool to be cool - a movement of its time

The BCFN, or Baltimore Community Fridge Network, is one of many such networks emerging in a time of increasing need, “fighting food insecurity one fridge at a time.” (See article here). Baltimore reports an awful, but all too familiar, 28% of families dealing with food insecurity.

Locals keep tabs on fridges near them, checking they are clean and tidy. Of course there needs to be a power supply with payment arrangements (grid power to run my home fridge is about 2c/hour or 50c/day), and the system operates a bit like community book swaps (and are often located beside them).

And the climate connection? Food waste causes some 10% of global warming, so reducing waste is a great climate action. Plus, addressing poverty and malnutrition means healthier people who are better able to make positive contributions to society.

“Sadly, sadly, we’ve had a situation where political leaders across the political spectrum, but particularly on the centre right, have simply not been willing to talk truthfully about the seriousness of the climate change challenges we face, and give proper attention to the overwhelming consensus within the science community. ” Climate policy expert Professor Jonathan Boston in “Front-footing the future”

Front-footing the Future: full interview with Professor Jonathan Boston

Listen to climate policy guru Professor Jonathan Boston open our series by taking a helicopter view of climate policy, then discussing the climate crisis as a super-wicked problem; adaptation and mitigation; climate change and household insurance; large scale property and regional insurance; “politics is the art of the possible” - political will and climate policy; lack of scientific advice in New Zealand parliament; and a wish for climate policy in election manifestos.

See further above for other ways to listen.

Subscribe now

“When Petit got out of hospital, he learned that his horse had been sent for incineration by the town hall. He feared crucial evidence might be lost. Yet as it happened, the incineration service was on strike that day. Petit got the horse’s body back and arranged the autopsy privately. The results changed everything. The horse’s lungs contained lethal amounts of hydrogen sulphide.” The Guardian in a long read discussing obstruction to due process on France’s seaweed problem.

The same only different: familiar nitrogen plot, different actors

The beaches of Brittany have endured decades of toxic hydrogen sulphide gas from rotting seaweed, producing illness, deaths, and ecosystem collapse. The main cause? Excessive nitrate run off from intensive agriculture. The families of victims and the professionals that understood what was actually happening were systemically blocked or undermined by politicians, officialdom, and vested interests. In an insightful long-read piece, The Guardian unpicks the sad story.

If you read the story and then listen to our Front-footing the Future interview with Dr Mike Joy (next up) you’ll find alarming parallels between the Brittany Beaches and the Canterbury Plains. For toxic gas from seaweed in France read contaminated drinking water in NZ; for hydrogen sulphide poisoning in France read colorectal cancer in Canterbury; for the pig industry in France read the dairy industry here.

For “What lies behind this explosion of seaweed are the high levels of nitrates in the water, which come from industrial farming’s intensive use of synthetic fertilisers…” read “What lies behind this explosion of substandard water are the high levels of nitrates in the water, which come from industrial farming’s intensive use of synthetic fertilisers…”

For “Before the 1950s, farms in Brittany were small, crisscrossed with hedgerows and dotted with apple trees. … the orchards and hedgerows were chopped down, the farms were consolidated and mechanised.” read “ Before the 1990s…shelter belts…”

For “The only way to make a difference would be to shift to a less intensive system of livestock production,” read “The only way to make a difference would be to shift to a less intensive system of milk production.”

For background, check out “How nitrogen fertilizers changed the food system. Part 1” .

An important, wide-ranging book from Kiwis In Climate

Kiwis in Climate, KIC, have featured before in CM. Founded by climate mover and shaker John Lang (John will be a guest on Front-footing the Future), and with hundreds of members around the world, KIC recently released their milestone book “Kiwis in Climate,” featuring 23 chapters by different New Zealanders active in the climate space. It, appropriately, covers a huge sweep of perspectives, from the role of youth to NZ’s significant part in setting up the Paris Agreement, and from “impossible economics” to a vision for future-proof food, all combining into a chapter structure that makes it easy to read, if not “an easy read.”

“Kiwis in Climate” should be on every Kiwi’s bookshelf. You can order it here .

“The new science, pretty much every time, seems to be coming in worse - things look more dire than we thought.” Climate scientist and former IPCC lead author and Climate Change Commissioner, Professor James Renwick updating climate science.

Front-footing the Future: full interview with Professor James Renwick,

James brings his wide experience to offer us a climate science update, insights on Antarctic sea ice, deep ocean circulation, methane, the “super El Nino” and more.

See further above for other ways to listen.

Share

The Minister of Finance earns herself a Goon Gong

Nicola Willis has run the finances of a government that damaged or negated almost every people-positive and climate-positive long-term initiative it could get its hands on (think social cohesion; think the independence of the judiciary; think honouring Te Tiriti; think effective research institutions; think science-based climate initiatives; think cross-party agreement; think reducing income inequality; think evidence-based educational policy; think environmental protection; think visionary urban design; think…). Yet on budget day she would have us believe her when she says “It’s my responsibility to be careful and prudent now to protect New Zealand’s future.”

Like the Goons getaway car, Minister, you would have us believe you are heading one way when your track record substantiates the opposite. Here’s your Goons Gong:

Watch this space! Advice on what the government should be doing

The Climate Change Commission has just released its National Climate Change Risk Assessment, with links to reports, graphics, and explainers here, including a 3-page summary, here . “The most significant risks are the climate-related risk areas where focused action in the Government’s next adaptation plan can make the biggest difference.” That plan is due by May 2028. But we won’t need to wait that long for the CCC’s assessment of the effectiveness of the last adaptation plan, due August this year. I’m not expecting a joyful read.

Here’s a table of key risks taken from from the new summary.

Give way to buses whenever you can! It’s one of the simplest climate actions you can take. Letting buses out helps them run efficiently, which means everyone on the bus gets there quicker, the buses become more attractive, encouraging more people out of cars and into buses, leaving the rest of the traffic flowing more smoothly, with lower costs, saved time, lower emissions, and easier parking. How cool is that?!

“University education, in particular, has the potential to make people more effective (planetary) vandals…” Robert Stratford, Elena Louverdis, and Mike Joy writing for Cambridge University Press (hear a full interview with Mike Joy in the next CM).

A quest for “Anthropocene Intelligence” in university education.

In a serious, and seriously introspective, paper published by Cambridge University Press, authors Robert Stratford, Elena Louverdis, and Mike Joy discuss the disconnect between current university education and the needs both of their students and the planet. The paper’s title, “From Miserable Pedagogies to Anthropocene Intelligence for Universities in the Meta-Crisis,” points to both the problem and the solution, and to the “academic speak” nature of the discussion.

Addressing a wide sweep of issues, such as the mental well-being of students as well as their knowledge base, the paper doesn’t dismiss current tertiary study per se but does highlight the need for a quantum shift and not just tinkering with present curricula. In particular, there is a stated need for a strongly integrative and holistic approach, and for an openness to dimensions outside traditional academia, such as to indigenous, spiritual, and emotional dimensions.

Well worth braving academic language to engage with this is important discussion.

But you won’t have to brave academic language to listen to Mike Joy’s articulate explanations in the Front-footing the Future series (he’s on from 8th June).

“The description of miserable pedagogies above emphasises the ways in which mainstream university education is part of the meta-crisis — through a continuation of the same tendencies in Western thinking that helped create the Anthropocene.” Stratford, Louverdis, and Joy at Cambridge University Press

Subscribe now

Apologies for CM 151 being so late, which makes it seem a paradox when I say we’re changing up a gear on climate policy. Starting 25th May, and until NZ’s November election I will be conducting weekly conversations with an array of experts on the theme “Front-footing the Future: getting climate policy fit for purpose.”

Full audios will be posted here on Substack, and on Spotify, and condensed versions will go out on our weekly Climate Matters radio shows across most of the South Island and the lower North Island.

For our international readers, I hope you will find plenty of expert insights that have relevance to wherever you are. I’d welcome feedback on that or any other aspect.

I’m still getting my head round how best to weave normal content with the interviews, but CM on Substack will stay fortnightly, with two interviews posted each issue.

To give you a feel for what’s coming, the current schedule of guest interviews is at the end of this CM. It will be updated as other details are firmed up.

We’re paddling this waka as we build it, so kindly forgive progressive adjustments!

You’ll also find see below we’re also introducing the “Goons Gong” for politicians wanting us to think they’re doing one thing while intending to something different.

Okay! On with the show. Here’s what you’ll find in CM 151.

• Make 90 quality minutes and listen to this!

• What “Off scale high” weather might look like - April rain in Wellington.

• A book of its time: “Insuring the Future”

• A quiz

• Prime Minister, here’s more “dumb stuff” you shouldn’t be doing

• And your Freudian slip, PM, that (almost) flew under the radar

• Being hit between the eyes with “Net Zero”

• From the “Can you believe it?” file: A new weather word

• Mind-boggling: an overabundance of the most abundant gas

• Clear the Air podcasts on NZ Trucking Media

• Front-footing the Future: schedule to date

Make 90 quality minutes and listen to this!

I’ve often sung the praises of Nate Hagens and his stellar guests. I have rarely been as blown away as this very recent discussion with guru of everything, Tad Patzek. I’ve listened twice and am trying to find the time for a third. If you find it heavy, try to hang in there, and if it’s still too challenging, skip to the last 30 minutes or so.

Off scale high: a taste of weather coming down the pipeline

As well as intensifying severe weather generally, an emergent feature of extreme rainfall is highly localised concentrations, with the term “river of rain” becoming increasingly familiar. In April, parts of Wellington had “normal” heavy rain while others were slammed with astonishing downpours - “extreme even by tropical standards” wrote climate scientist Professor James Renwick . (BTW James will be our second Front-footing the Future guest.)

This remarkable chart of rainfall intensity tells the story. (Check out the top RH corner).

“But the most damaging rainfall often depends on processes playing out over just a few kilometres, or even less,” wrote James Renwick, “where small variations in temperature, moisture, and wind can determine whether one place is inundated while another escapes relatively lightly. In Wellington’s case, such fine-scale dynamics made all the difference.”

This dramatic photo by John Morrison was sent to me by Professor of Public Policy, Jonathan Boston, who wrote . “12 cars written off and 4-5 houses damaged — that was just our street!”

Share

Which leads to a book of its time: “Insuring the Future”

As if orchestrated to coincide with Wellington’s extreme weather, (or Front-footing the Future!) Jonathan Boston’s authoritative new book “Insuring the Future” is due to be published on 11th June. (More details here .)

Readers of CM will recall us reporting on 2 million American homes becoming uninsurable last year, and on Allianz director Gunther Thallinger warning of regional economies collapsing when insurance retreats. “Markets will reprice, rapidly and brutally,” he wrote. “This is what a climate-driven market failure looks like.” In that context the book couldn’t be more timely.

Anyone who has read or heard Professor Boston’s lucid explanations won’t be surprised the jacket blurb says “In this clear-eyed work, public policy expert Jonathan Boston tackles one of the defining policy challenges of climate change: how can residential property insurance remain accessible and affordable as climate-intensified risks escalate?”

You also won’t be surprised that I’m delighted that Jonathan is front-footing our Front-footing the Future series. Who better to open a discussion on “getting climate policy fit for purpose” than a Professor of Public Policy?! From 25th May.

Quiz question:

What does kokushobi mean and what is it’s climate significance? (Psst - a clue: it’s a new word that has just been introduced to the Japanese language. )

Prime Minister, here’s more “dumb stuff” you shouldn’t be doing

Dear PM, you told RNZ “Make sure we’re not doing dumb stuff, for example, building back into flood plains.” Allow me to quickly offer you a few more for your list of very recent “dumb stuff” you shouldn’t be doing:

• Telling the OECD their warnings about the LNG terminal increasing fossil fuel dependency are “a load of rubbish” . (More on the OECD report here.)

• Trying to give give business “certainty” by trampling over the judiciary.

• Talking out of both sides of your mouth, asking “So over time, how do we get much more knowledge data so that we can actually strengthen New Zealand and make it more resilient ?” (here) while slashing research funding, bypassing the Climate Change Commission (see CM methane special); making climate impacts worse (see CM join the dots special); and loads more.

I think that last item is worth another Goons Gong for you, PM, for pretending your interested in “much more knowledge data” when your term has been characterised by trying to shut down or bypass the very sources of such knowledge data.

And your Freudian slip, PM, that (almost) flew under the radar

Yes, at 3m 40s into this piece on Stuff , you told viewers it was about “being accountable for what we’re doing as a government about driving climate change.” (TBH, PM, it was another both sides of your mouth performance - even after listening several times, it was hard to be sure I had heard you correctly.)

Given that your government is doing far, far too much about driving climate change, how about holding yourself accountable, PM, and resigning? I suspect you won’t as I can’t imagine you’ve finished trying to drive climate change further the wrong way.

So here’s Goon Gong number 2. Two in one CM - go you, PM!

Share

Being hit between the eyes with “Net Zero”

Do listen to Climate Scientist Kevin Andersen call out our preoccupation with “Net Zero.” A full-on ninety minutes of joining the dots in unexpected ways (and unjoining other dots too.) “When you believe your own delusion it becomes very easy to con others.”

Where can we hear “Clear the Air”? Response to a reader inquiry

Readers may recall I have a long connection with the NZ trucking sector and have written in various forms for NZ Trucking Media, including the monthly “Clear the Air” column. That column is also the basis of a monthly “mini-pod” where NZTM director Dave McCoid and I use it as a prompt to “discuss the climate and environmental issues of the day, as they should be discussed – respectfully!”

Dave and I take both pride and sorrow from the comment of a Swedish guru on transport media who told Dave we were the only people he had found in the world holding this sort of discussion. Be great to learn of other cases. You can check it out here if you wish. (24 minutes for this episode).

From the “Can you believe it?” file: A new weather word

Japan's Meteorological Agency has a tradition of using particular words to signify specific forecast temperatures, such as 25 degrees, 30 degrees, etc. After last year’s hottest summer on record, they have just introduced the term “Kokushobi” for predicted temperatures above 40 degrees. Derived from koku - meaning harsh or cruel - it translates to "cruelly hot" or "brutally hot." (Last summer they had ten days over 40 degrees C)Check the BBC for more .

Mind-boggling: an overabundance of the most abundant gas

Check out the Sankey diagrams for changes in nitrogen use over 50 years, read the text after it for where it ends up being used (in the US), factor in that, globally, nitrous oxide is an even more serious greenhouse gas than methane, and then figure out when we lost our sanity and how we might recover it.

If you want a deeper dive, check out this explainer and this one.

“Total cropland in the United States in 2024 was 328 million acres. Over half of that cropland was used to produce exactly two crops, field corn and soybeans. Neither of these crops is produced primarily as food for humans. Approximately 6% to 7% of global soybean production is eaten by humans annually. In the United States, less than 2% of field corn, our largest single crop, is eaten by humans annually.”

Front-footing the future series

We’re on the cusp of launching our interview series. Here are the first four (to be released weekly, starting Monday 25th May). Future CMs will include interview audios and links. Further below you can download the full schedule (to date - a few responses are still awaited. It will be progressively updated)

Front Footing The Future Guest List At 2026 05 16 (2)

189KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Share

Subscribe now

• The biggest lesson from Artemis II?

• “Hoping the ship arrives” isn’t a strategy

• Quiz

• Minister Mitchell, please explain “complacency” to the PM

• The NZ government makes transparency more invisible

• A welcome oxymoron: industrial scale regenerative forestry

• “From the “can you believe it?” files: US gas price goes negative.

• Hot energy tip for winter

• “CPR for a planet” - a blog recommendation

The biggest lesson from Artemis II? Our home planet, our planet home.

I love it when events shine a spotlight into a corner of my brain to send my thoughts spinning off in another direction. Forgive me this indulgence - I hope you enjoy it.

Many of us marvelled and thrilled at the Artemis II expedition, or did double takes at the reversal of the Moon and the Earth in the ”the sky.” Some of us even think the supposed quests to mine the moon and inhabit Mars are the stupidest of ideas, symptoms of our failure to make things work in the wonderful place we already live.

But for me by far the most poignant and compelling lesson has been the refreshing of the perspective of just how precious and lonely is our planet home, our home planet.

I have a treasured book called just that, “The Home Planet,” jointly published in 1988 by Addison Wesley in “the West” and Mir Publishers in Moscow, for The Association of Space Explorers, and “Dedicated to all the children in the world.”

The book features fantastic images of Earth from space, accompanied by quotes from dozens of astronauts. The opening of the preface by Oleg Makarov is telling:

“Cosmonauts don’t say much, especially when we’re on a mission. Usually some five to seven seconds are enough for us to express the most complicated thought. Or so I thought, but then I was asked to listen to recordings of communications between mission control and the cosmonauts in space. To tell you the truth, I was amazed. Within seconds of attaining Earth orbit, every cosmonaut, without exception, be they a dry reserved flight engineer or a more emotional pilot, uttered the same sort of confused expression delight and wonder….

No one has been able to restrain his heartfelt wonder at the sight of the enthralling panorama of the Earth. The emotional outbursts lasted forty two seconds on average.”

Such feelings come through repeatedly.

“A cosmonaut, should he eat bread somewhere near Mars, baked from wheat raised in a space laboratory will, believe me, think of the grain and flowers gathered on Earth!” Dumitru Prunariu, Romania.

“From space I saw the Earth - indescribably beautiful with the scars of international boundaries gone.” Muhammad Ahmad Faris, Syria.

“When a Russian cosmonaut tells me the atmosphere over Lake Baikal is as polluted as it is over Europe, and when an American astronaut tells me that fifteen years ago he could take much clearer pictures of the industrial centres than today, then I am )getting concerned.” Ernst Messerschmid, Germany.

Forty years later, pilot Victor Glover beamed in “We love you, from the Moon,” just before they lost contact.

“What struck me wasn’t necessarily just Earth,” astronaut Christina Koch told us, “it was all the blackness around it. Earth was just this lifeboat hanging undisturbingly in the universe.”

That’s our lifeboat, folks. Let’s do a better job of looking after it.

And speaking if lifeboats, “Hoping the Ship Arrives” Isn’t a Strategy

I love Nathan Surendran’s outstanding Energy and Resilience blog, with lucid insights into how our energy system and our energy economy work. NZ desperately needs clear voices like his, such as “Hoping the ship arrives isn’t a strategy.”

And thanks also, Nathan, for recommending Nate Hagens’ outstanding trilogy on the energy situation - you saved me the trouble! “Oil 101, Oil 201, and Oil 301 are the most useful 40 minutes of ‘primer’ video currently available for understanding why what is happening should be of concern to us all.” Nathan’s blog plus links, here . (Warning: be prepared to watch twice if this stuff is new to you. Still time well spent.).

“We have collectively been energy blind for so long that we don’t know what we’re looking at when it disappears.” Nathan Surendran

And Surendran isn’t alone:

“I am increasingly concerned about the economic heart attack we are going to have as a result of this oil and materials clot in the Strait of Hormuz.” Larry Blair at New Zealand Energy

Quiz:

What’s “ectomycorrhizal fungal mycelium” and what is its climate significance? Bonus points if you can say it ten times quickly! (Answer in “A welcome oxymoron” below.)

Dear Minister Mitchell, please explain “complacency” to the PM.

Dear Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery, Mark Mitchell, you looked in your element in your Cyclone Vaianu briefing. You seemed across the issues, and explained things clearly. A comment of yours that especially struck me was on preparing for a possible emergency: “we don’t have the luxury of being complacent.”

Minister, I urge you to explain that concept to the Prime Minister, because he doesn’t get it, and has a case of complacency on steroids. Whether its his “it’ll be alright on the night” attitude to NZ Inc.’s tenuous oil reserves, his touching faith that the market will sort everything, or his dogged and dogmatic refusal to heed climate science, Mr L clearly confuses complacency with cool-headed leadership.

And you could do worse, Mr Mitchell, than take the PM out to spend a night at one of the emergency stations your ministry has set up. That might sharpen his sense of reality. It would also give you a chance to drill into him that cyclones like Vaianu are increasing in frequency and intensity thanks to a phenomenon known as “climate change,” another thing he clearly doesn’t get - otherwise why would he be so pleased to promote policies that make it worse?

Making transparency more invisible

A sure sign a government is doing stuff it doesn’t want us to see is when it “externalises transparency,” making it harder to find out what’s happening. Under the guise of saving cost, Minister Paul Goldsmith is reviewing the Official Information Act.

Former PM and constitutional law guru Sir Geoffrey Palmer understands this stuff, and his warnings (see Newsroom ) deserve to be heeded. “There are few statutes more important than the Official Information Act,” he writes. But the Act can be “unpopular with ministers and some public servants whose advice may be exposed to public view.”

“The minister has approached his review with a minimum of publicity,” Palmer notes, revealing a particular irony that changes to an Act promoting transparent government are flying under the radar. “But it opens up such a can of worms and so many dangers,that it could easily explode into a significant election issue.” Too right!

Once again our government confuses cost and value, and Palmer hit that nail on the head: “Of course, if the government is concerned with saving money, the best practice would be to increase the amount of official information that is proactively released. Then there would be far fewer OIA requests.” And I’d add a) run a better legislative process in the first place; and b) stop the smoke and mirrors around OIA releases.

A welcome oxymoron: industrial scale regenerative forestry

In what almost seems an oxymoron, The Guardian reports a giant industrialised forestry regeneration project. The key process is inoculation on a vast scale of seedlings with ectomycorrhizal fungal mycelium, a microbial cocktail that’s “teeming with hundreds of species of wild soil fungi.”

Colin Averill, founder of startup Funga that supplies the cocktail, says research found “the composition of soil fungal communities predicts forest growth and carbon sequestration as strongly as rainfall.” That’s staggering! Trials between normal seedlings and inoculated ones are striking. “We’ve seen growth responses in excess of 100% in some locations,” he says, but on average they expect to achieve a 30% boost.

Share

From the “can you believe it?” files: US natural gas price goes negative

While most fossil fuels were skyrocketing in price due to the Strait of Hormuz blockade, oil producers in the US’ Permian Basin were paying customers to take natural gas ($3/million Btu for those interested = approx 1c/kWh). Why? Because natural gas arrives with shale oil extraction and the combination of boosted oil production (due to the Hormuz situation) and some gas pipes being out of service, producers had “a whole lot of gas with nowhere to go.” Check out Chris Keefer talking to Nate Hagens, (20 min) or read BOE news here.

CPR for a planet

I’ve only recently started reading Lyle Lewis’s thoughtful Substacks, and I want to give them a plug, because he weaves unusual strands of thought into his posts. Check out his latest “CPR for a Planet” and see what you think.

Share CLIMATE MATTERS "glimpses into climate's crystal ball"

Subscribe now

An “Externality”, Oxford Languages tells us, is an economics concept referring to “a consequence of an industrial or commercial activity which affects other parties without this being reflected in market prices.” i.e. impacts not reflected in the cost.

“Other parties” can be the environment, and a classic example is an extractive industry that doesn’t fully account for environmental or social harms from their operation. Global warming is an externality on steroids for the oil sector- they continue to pursue record profits while disowning the record harm their products cause.

CM 149 stretches the externality concept to encompass a sweep of things often excluded from decision-making, in many other areas as well as in economics. And it starts by peeking at the flip side - wide-boundary thinking.

Here’s what you’ll find

• “And then what?” Looking through a wide boundary lens.

• Privatising profits and socialising costs

• But before we point the finger too hard…

• There’s no such place as “Away”

• Is the PM externalising reality - again?

• Politicians: externalising what they don’t want us to see

• “Peak indifference” revisited

• Surely we can’t externalise time. Weeeell, yes, we can. And do.

• Bean counting and the meaning of life.

Quiz:

What is 42? And what does it have to do with externalities? (A: see “bean counting”.)

“And then what?” - looking through a wide boundary lens

Nate Hagens puts great emphasis on wide boundary thinking, and for good reason: things can look seriously different as we widen our view. His podcast “And then what?” illustrates this across such diverse fields as debt, EVs, and AI - and even both “growth,” and “degrowth”. Wide boundary thinking leads to better decision-making by considering factors that are often “externalised”. Well worth 26 minutes.

Hagens has also recently added a “wide-boundary news” segment to his regular “Frankly” podcast series. For example here.

Privatising profits and socialising costs

Treating society and nature as “externalities” is widely accepted in the quest to maximise business profit. And the harms are often invisible or hard to detect or manifest themselves long after the activity that caused them. An extreme case is looming ecological collapse due to the slowing of the deep ocean circulation due to diminishing sea ice due to global warming due to carbon dioxide emissions due to combusting fossil fuels…

“Triple bottom line” accounting seeks to internalise at least some of those externalities and better reflect social and environmental costs by reporting against “the three Ps” - Planet, People, and Profit. Check out the Harvard Business School.

But before we point the finger too hard…

It’s impossible to live without some measure of externality - how far do we go considering whether our footfall might squash an ant, or if the rice we bought was produced by exploited labour in a far-off country? I try to own my own actions, and where I find there are climate harms I try to set my own boundaries. But I’m no saint!

Chocolate: The environmental and social harms of chocolate are massive and little publicised. Ivory Coast, the world’s largest producer, has lost some 80% of its rain forest to cocoa plants, and many indigenous people live close to slavery while most up the value chain benefit. “The ballooning global demand for chocolate means that if nothing is done, by 2030 there will be no forest left,” reports “Chocolate’s Dark Secret.” Check out celebrated writer Fred Pearce here. And, in a double irony, climate change now threatens that industry (see UN’s “Crumbling Empire of Chocolate”). Do I buy no chocolate at all? No. Have I dramatically reduced my chocolate purchases? Yes.

Personal flying: Unlike chocolate, the climate harms of flying are well known, and as a society we certainly haven’t passed peak indifference on that. My own circumstances put me on a personal flying roller coaster, and landed me on prioritising the purpose of a flight and rationing the flight’s length and frequency. (To put flying in context, one return economy flight NZ to Europe can counteract the formation of about 60 m2 of Antarctic sea ice/passenger. Business class is three to four times that. It’s a big deal.)

“In the next 20 to 30 years, chocolate could become a rare luxury—or even disappear altogether.” Bezawit Mekonnen writing for UNDP

There’s no such place as '”Away”: nature, the perennial casualty

Thanks, long time friend Tony, for often reminding us “there’s no such place as away.” The classic catchall phrase “just throw it away” typifies how easily we externalise nature and the natural environment at so many levels. Whether it is personally putting something we don’t want in a trash sack, or waste products released from industry, or simply starting our fossil fuel car, it is so easy not to give a thought to the pollution being caused or where it all ends ends up.

Is the PM externalising reality - again?

CM 148 flagged eight important economic factors Mr Luxon did not seem to account for in his self-claimed understanding of the economy. In his handling soft-pedaling the current fuel crisis, Luxon seems intent on ignoring reality again. Whether it’s the alerts sounded by JP Morgan and Westpac’s chief economist (both here), or the detailed the framing of the fuel situation in another excellent Substack post by Nathan Surendran (Schema Consulting).

And, earlier in the crisis, Jesse Mulligan posted “Waiting for what?”, a wonderful, and wonderfully simple, metaphor for the situation that even the PM should be able to grasp. The best Mr Luxon seems able to offer is a “nudge, nudge/wink, wink” type exchange with his South Korean counterpart and searching markets for more fuel.

The PM seems oblivious to the precautionary principle, and to real risk (not to be confused with the risk of losing votes). In a masterstroke of emergency management, he told RNZ he was leaving it to fuel importers and distributors to organise how to allocate fuel. I hope the PM doesn’t drive as casually as he runs the country.

Share

The politics of externalities

Politicians are champions at exploiting externalities by taking a narrow focus on what they want and ignoring counterarguments. We only need to look back at CM’s “Methane Targets Special” in October to find three blatant cases:

1. The government externalised their own legislated independent climate advisory body the Climate Change Commission because they didn’t like the methane advice the CCC was giving. Instead they appointed a (potentially less independent) “Methane Advisory Panel” to prepare fresh “advice”.

2. The terms of reference for the new panel focussed heavily on supporting policy settings the government and farming lobby wanted, a “no additional warming” policy, and “externalised” the ability of the panel to mention that such a policy increased the decarbonisation burden on the rest of the country. (The government also “externalised” the written recommendation of over 30 climate experts not to adopt a “no additional warming” policy. )

3. The ag sector’s political arms, Federated Farmers, Beef and Lamb, and Dairy NZ, had done their best to externalise their own researcher’s advice that “the reduction of agricultural methane represents the greatest opportunity to reduce New Zealand’s contribution to warming.” To quote from a letter the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Simon Upton, wrote to those bodies (here): “…this important policy-relevant finding was buried in an appendix to an appendix in your submission to the Climate Change Commission.”

It’s not hard to imagine the same applies to the contentious LNG terminal and many other projects the government “justifies” by externalising information it doesn’t like.

Peak indifference revisited

It’s exactly seven years since Wired.com reported the US passing “peak indifference” on climate - when more than 50% of Republicans accepted climate change was real (CM 21). Yale has a great set of 27 maps charting US state by state on climate beliefs, perceived risks, and policy. Some interesting results, like 72% on average believe climate change is happening but only 45% think they personally will be adversely affected (see maps). “Optimism bias” at work externalising risk?

Subscribe now

Surely we can’t externalise time. Weeeell, yes, we can. And do.

Our systems are packed with processes that directly or indirectly externalise time. For example every council has a “Long Term Plan” with a 10-year horizon (i.e. 11 years and more is in essence externalised), then we have electoral cycles, and company returns, and Annual Plans and … While related time frames are usually set for good reason, they tend to pull the focus away from wide boundary thinking, and rarely fit well with the much longer time frames that climate issues demand. The term “patient capital” is used to describe “long-term investment that prioritizes sustainable growth and social/environmental impact over quick financial returns.” (Wikipedia).

But then there’s a far more insidious process that tends to externalise the future by default, often in a way we hardly notice. When a report says, say, a climate strategy is or is not “cost effective,” it almost never states the time frame over which such effectiveness is being appraised. The implied default is just a one-year or three-year period, and it gets worse if the cost is just taken as the initial “up front” cost, and disregards ongoing “operational” costs. e.g. on a default 1- or 3-year period we would never insulate our houses because they wouldn’t pay themselves off in such a short period. The same could be said about EVs (if you only evaluate the $$$; then how do you factor in cutting emissions, or appalling labour conditions in cobalt mines, or…)

Put on your wide-boundary glasses, and next time you hear “that climate action isn’t cost-effective” ask “in comparison to what?” Chances are it a) assumes a very short timescale (say one or three years) when results over the more climate-appropriate decades or centuries look very different; and b) it will almost invariably ignore the staggering cost of not taking effective climate action. (CM 148 referenced the giant Boston Consulting Group on the cost of investing in climate action - here).

Bean counting and the meaning of life.

In “The Hitchhikers’ Guide to the Galaxy,” in a prescient nod to AI, the supercomputer “Deep Thought” found that the answer to “the ultimate question of life, the universe, and everything” was 42. In so doing, it highlighted the folly of trying to quantify such profound issues.

The accounting literature around externalities abounds with diagrams seeking to quantify - or at least illustrate - such profound issues. I’ve done enough mathematical modelling to know on the one hand it’s often important to give modelling these things a shot - if only as a framework for discussion - and on the other that they can give quite an illusory sense of explaining complex and nuanced issues.

They can also lead to extremely dispassionate views towards people and nature. So, for example, diagrams like that below might be trying to frame social costs (noise, health, relocation…) and environmental harms (habitat loss, disrupted hydrology, greenhouse gas emissions, water pollution…) against business benefits (profits, employment…).

I won’t try to unpick the diagram itself beyond noting that “MPB” is “Marginal Private Benefit” and “MSB” is “Marginal Social Benefit”. (“Marginal” here refers to the impact/cost/benefit of producing one more unit of output - a car, or a Acase of apples or…) Do a deeper dive here if you wish.

And now I must externalise more externalities

There is so much more that could be said on so many different externality issues, but I’ve reached the point where I have to externalise them and stop writing! I’d like to have written on externalising research (so fewer facts impede politicians from doing what they want); or more on externalising nature; or externalising people (many Olympics have displaced thousands of people from their homes just so the sports venues could be built); or externalising health impacts (a typical fossil fuel car in NZ causes $2000 per year in health related costs).

And I’d like to have done a deep dive into those sacred externalities that, paradoxically, are so deep inside that we can’t contemplate changing them (things that give us our our sense of identity - I’m a motor-caravanner, or a skier, or a or a widely-traveled socialite or …)

Share

Dear Mr Luxon,

I realise you won’t welcome trying to deal with this on top of the fallout from the ghastly Iranian conflict. However, the rest of us don’t want to deal with the fallout from your government’s ill advised climate policies on top of everything else. And, like in Covid, we can’t park climate action while we deal with the immediate emergency.

So I’m writing to you on what you have just been saying about future generations, and about your perception of your understanding of the economy, and in particular

• energy and the economy,

• minerals and the economy,

• water and the economy,

• gravel and the economy

• the climate crisis and the economy,

• “the economy” and the economy

Bizarrely, while leading a government racing backwards on almost every climate strategy it can lay its hands on, you have just claimed ”The only thing I’m considering is the future of our kids and grandkids, and that’s why I came to politics.” (Newsroom ).

I want to believe you, Mr. Luxon, but might you, like the Goons’ getaway car on their Great Bank Robbery, want us to think one thing when your intention is entirely different? You see, the Goons’ car had a radiator painted on the back “so everyone will think we are going the other way!” Might you have us believe you are focused on a flourishing long-term future for our kids and grandkids when you are actually intent on a swathe of government actions you know will put that future in greater jeopardy?

For our kids and grandkids to have a half-decent chance of a half-decent future we need to rapidly implement robust and ambitious climate strategies. You have zero excuse for not understanding that - I know, because I and dozens of climate specialists have written to you personally on it, not to mention the Climate Change Commission advice your cabinet takes so lightly.

It’s also extraordinary that you still recite your years-old mantra that you understand the economy, when the evidence doesn’t support that at all - except, charitably, in a most myopic sense that belongs back in the last millennium.

Wide-boundary views of the relationship between energy and the economy, minerals and the economy, water and the economy, or even gravel and the economy (to say nothing of the climate crisis and the economy, or “the economy” and the economy) don’t support your claims. They highlight that we are on a trajectory that is anything but compatible with your fixation on GDP “growth, growth, growth,” and anything but compatible with a good future for our kids and grandkids.

“We face a choice - not between growth and decline, but between managed decline and chaotic decline.” Nathan Surendran, here.

Energy and the economy:

Mr Luxon, even without the current Iranian conflict, we simply won’t have enough energy to do what you seem to think we’ll do. Do check out the authoritative white paper “The limits to the energy transition: what physics means for New Zealand’s economy” by Schema Consulting.

“The interaction between rising energy costs, declining soil fertility, climate disruption, and supply chain fragility is not a future scenario. It is a present reality.” Nathan Surendran, Schema Consulting.

For good measure, also check out here how our electricity sector is skewing the economy, and screwing Kiwis in the process, and how dismally successive governments have responded to the evidence. Why don’t you and Energy Minister Watts join the “How do we reform the electricity market?” event, 23 March at 5.30 pm in person, here, or live-stream here?

And do check out “ ‘The Economy’ and the Economy” below for more on energy.

Minerals and the economy

And, Mr. Luxon, our economy simply won’t be able to access enough minerals to do what you seem to expect. Expert Simon Michaux has long sounded warnings about our “mineral blindness,” and the realities of his projections are becoming all too apparent (have you heard the emerging, alarming, stats for copper and silver, for example?). You can read here his paper “Challenges and Bottlenecks for the Green Transition” published by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. The chart below is from that paper (please note that is just for one generation of the renewable transition).

And for an insightful podcast with more experts who understand minerals and the economy, I recommend Nate Hagens interview with Craig Tindale and Michael Every.

Water and the economy

Mr. Luxon, I don’t know if you’ve heard about the array of water crises around the world, but it might also be a struggle to get the water we want. You see we’ve got our own massive infrastructure deficits and associated health, fiscal, and environmental risks - maybe you’ve heard or read RNZ on this recently. And our largest city recently decided to recycle its waste water as the least bad option. And check out IT Brief on NZ’s challenges servicing data centres.

Across the ditch “The Economy” reports a Sydney backlash against data centres (“Water-guzzling giants”) projected to consume 25% of the city’s water within ten years. These are the data centres that are also pushing up the cost of electricity across the world and slowing the transition to renewable electricity - we reported on that in CM146. (BTW, PM, CM is free and fortnightly if you’d like to subscribe.)

Subscribe now

Had you sorted all that in your head, Mr. Luxon, when last week you told the Financial Services Council “leveraging AI is the key to boosting productivity and the economy”?

“…a single 100 MW facility can consume up to 2 million liters a day, enough for 6,500 households. The agency warns such figures could double by 2030, turning water use into not just an industrial issue but a climate-linked risk factor.” The Economy

Gravel and the economy.

Now you can’t get much more basic than gravel, can you? It’s fundamental to the construction sector that is fundamental to the economy - for the new roads your government is infatuated with, for the potholes you think worthy of prime ministerial attention, and for the building sector too. But our extensive road network, servicing our widely scattered population, helps make us “insatiable” gravel consumers, to the point we risk running short (see The Post). The pie chart gives us clues as to how much the “gravel sector” impacts our economy.

“New Zealand is the third largest consumer of aggregate per head of population in the world.” The Post (Why? We have large road lengths for a small population.)

The climate crisis and the economy

We do need to air this, don’t we Mr. L. You should know much of what follows because, with over thirty specialists, I wrote repeatedly to you and Minister Watts on these topics last year.

Insurance and the economy: I can’t imagine you follow Gunther Thallinger on LinkedIn, PM, because if you did you would be pursuing totally different policy settings. You see Thallinger, as a director of insurance giant Allianz, has his finger on the risk pulse of the climate crisis. Here’s part of what he posted last year on LinkedIn :

“…the math breaks down: the premiums required exceed what people or companies can pay. This is already happening. Entire regions are becoming uninsurable…This is a systemic risk that threatens the very foundation of the financial sector. If insurance is no longer available, other financial services become unavailable too...No bank will issue loans for uninsurable property. Credit markets freeze…This applies not only to housing, but to infrastructure, transportation, agriculture, and industry… Markets will reprice, rapidly and brutally. This is what a climate-driven market failure looks like.”

Perhaps you understand “brutally”, Mr. Luxon, because that has been a hallmark of many of your government’s policies.

Deep ocean circulation and the economy: You may recall that the collapse of the massive deep ocean circulation system the AMOC is one of almost twenty critical climate tipping points we definitely don’t want to cross. The AMOC includes the Gulf Stream that keeps northern Europe from freezing up, and removes some of the overheating from the Southern Hemisphere (that’s our hemisphere, PM). When we wrote to you last year, the signs weren’t good, and now they are worse.

An update is in the New Scientist. It includes

“A gradual northward shift in the Gulf Stream has provided more evidence that the system of currents that keeps Europe warm is weakening. What’s more, modelling suggests that any abrupt shift in the Gulf Stream could signal an imminent, catastrophic collapse in the ocean current.” the New Scientist.

And not to be left out, our hemisphere has its own, connected, system, the Antarctic Abyssal Overturning Circulation. Also massive, also critical to global ecosystems and climate, and also in decline. In the last 30 years, the British Antarctic Survey tells us, “…the volume of these bottom waters shrunk by more than 20%, while the rest of deep waters deeper than 2000 m has been warmed at a rate four times higher than the rest of the global ocean.” This, PM, should scare the pants off any remote economy based on agriculture, not to mention fishing, and wine, and tourism, and…

“These results show just how sensitive this region is, specifically the Antarctic abyssal overturning circulation which is a key regulator of global climate.” BAS

Investment in climate responses and the economy: You’ll recall us highlighting to you this time last year, Mr. Luxon, the major report from the massive Boston Consulting Group and Cambridge University. Boston’s related press release is “The Economic Case for Climate Investment is Clear, but Not Broadly Understood” . It seems you are intent on demonstrating the validity of the second half of that title, PM.

“There is a strong case for investing in climate mitigation and adaptation based on the severe economic consequences of failure alone.” The start of the press release.

The main report, here, goes into considerable detail, including five key barriers to climate action. The first is “that the political discussion often overlooks the economic case for climate action.” Does that sound familiar, Mr. Luxon?

“The economy” and the economy

I haven’t heard you discuss that we run an energy economy, not a monetary one, PM. In fact, a surplus energy one. Do you understand that? Or that debt is ultimately a claim on future surplus energy? Have a think about that in the context of the “Limits to the Energy Transition,” and “Challenges and Bottlenecks for the Green Transition” papers above.

And you could do worse, PM, than take Minister Willis and do a deep dive together into the posts of seasoned economics researcher Dr Tim Morgan. Come to think of it, Morgan only does “deep” - 319 times and counting - at Surplus Energy Economics. And, Mr. L., you’ll be interested in post 319 - it’s entitled “The End of Growth.”

Please tell us all once again; and please don’t ever, ever tell us again…

As I said at the start, Mr Luxon, I want to believe you when you say “The only thing I’m considering is the future of our kids and grandkids.” In fact I want very much to believe you because, if what I think you mean is what you mean, you must realise that you are trying to steer our national waka in entirely the wrong direction, and that we urgently need to change course.

So if you mean it, please tell us again (with my clarification): “The only thing I’m considering is achieving a flourishing long-term future for our kids and grandkids.”

But don’t ever, ever try to fool us again by saying that you understand the economy.

Share

A big shout out to all the entrants. There were so many excellent poems that the judges had a real challenge, and their enthusiasm led to us adding a third prize to each category. Yay! I hope nobody is dispirited by not being a winner.

Just to recap, our “Love Letter to the World” competition had two categories, Junior - up to 13 years old on Valentine’s Day - and Open. We received over 60 entries in the junior section and over 40 in the open.

Entries came from all over the country, and from a huge range of ages. I found the variety of approaches inspirational, and many poems keep growing on me.

Chloe, Bruce, Will, and I were struck by the quality and variety of the poems, sharing comments like “beautiful”, and “blown away.”

Also very big thanks to the teachers and parents who obviously encouraged their students and families, and ensured entries were lodged on time. As the competition closed after just the second week of term, that was a fantastic effort.

So, here we go!

Youngest of the young.

Let’s start with a “Junior Junior” category, as we received several entries from very young poets, and what they missed in judging criteria they made up for in joy

The poems of the three children of the Lum family were the first I opened and they delighted me. So even though they and the honourable mentions didn’t receive prizes let’s start with them. Super well done, team!

The judges commended with an Honourable Mention “My love for the Earth” by Aoibhinn Brady. Here’s what they wrote:

“My love for the Earth” was a beautiful, hand-written poem by 9-year-old Aoibhinn Brady, which conveys unconditional awe and excitement, as well as the activities that humans can do to appreciate Earth’s beauty. In the final line, it emphasises that Earth is a beautiful place for everyone - an ambiguous “you” that applies to all living things.”

The other Honourable Mention goes to Pru for her poem “Prince”. “Prince,” the judges wrote, “is an uplifting little poem by Year 4 student Pru. The writer’s love and admiration for their pony is evident, and filled the judges with joy.”

Prize winners in the Junior Category

Third place in the Junior category was awarded to “Trapped in this box” by Harvey Aitken.

“Trapped in this box” is a jarring reflection on humans’ impact on the planet, and our species’ insistence to perpetuate the systems we know in our heart are wrong. It frames consumerism as cowardice, and poses an important question at the end. While change is inevitable, unwillingness to take ownership of our actions and move forward holds us back from realising our true potential.

Here’s Harvey telling us about his poem, and then reading it.

Second place in the Junior section goes to “A Love Letter to Colours” by Katie Anne Ley .

“A Love Letter to Colours” presents an alliterative, abstract commentary on the power of colour to inspire wonder and connectedness to a larger whole. It poses the idea that colours are more than what we see and have the power to remind us of the beauty we too often overlook.

And first place in the Junior category goes to “Did I ever tell you?” by Seraphina Tse.

In its commentary on wonder, temporality, and reclamation, “Did I ever tell you?” draws attention to the beauty of our planet and its unrelenting effort to bring comfort to those with the courage to seek inspiration. In the titular question “Did I ever tell you?” the speaker wonders if she has ever explicitly conveyed her appreciation for the Earth - and proceeds to do so in no uncertain terms. The judges would also like to commend Seraphina for her excellent poem “Before”, which conveyed similar sentiments around beauty and wonder.

And here’s Seraphina telling us about her poem and then reading it.

Prize winners in the Open Category

Now for the winning poems in the open category.

Third place went to “From the Moon” by Olivia Paton

“From the Moon” is a unique and beautiful love letter, conveying unconditional reverence and desire. The judges found its choice of speaker (the Moon) very profound, and felt that humans could benefit from a bit of the moon’s perspective.

The judges awarded second place in the open category to “Weep Little Rimu” by Greg Judkins.

“Weep Little Rimu” positions environmental degradation and disregard close to home, emphasising a natural feature of a plant species endemic to Aotearoa. It uses powerful imagery and repetition to drive its message home, and endures in the reader’s memory.

And here’s Greg reading “Weep Little Rimu.”

Which brings us to the winner of the Open category, “I did not know how fragile you were” by Kaylee O’Connor.

“I did not know how fragile you were” conveyed gentle and thoughtful caring affection for the Earth. It is a clear expression of love - gentle, simple, humble, quietly determined, but still learning. The opening line immediate captures the reader’s attention, and demonstrates that the speaker is beginning a journey of understanding.

Here is Kaylee giving us some background and then reading her poem.

Thanks again to all you wonderful poets with the courage to put your thoughts and feelings out there. They were a total pleasure to receive and read.

Share

Thanks so much for the positive engagement with CM’s “Join the Dots Special” - its stark message clearly resonated with many readers. It also points to an interesting quirk of CM on Substack: while I get periodic pushback about the resultant creep in length, including from valued long-time readers, the greatest engagement occurs with longer-read specials like Join the Dots, or Methane. Sincere apologies to all frustrated readers -I do try to keep the length down!

Anyway, CM 147 offers lots of intriguing pieces, mostly very short reads.

• “How quickly can we add renewable energy?” is the wrong question

• From the “can you believe it?” files: when chess and climate collide

• Pioneering EV research and log⁡𝑦𝑖⁢𝑗=𝛽0+𝛽1⁢(𝑥𝑖⁢𝑗−̅𝑥𝑖·)+…+𝑢𝑖+𝜀𝑖⁢𝑗

• Insightful stocktake of NZ energy.

• More from the “can you believe it?” files: ancient stingless bees

• Do listen to the clever, poignant, “the very first music.” 2 min 43 s.

• Inspired basic plant monitoring technology to enhance plant stewardship

• A sustainability conference running on “truth serum.” Sure.

• More from the “can you believe it?” files: taking the pulse of a forest

• Indigenous wisdom, science, and more

“How quickly can we add renewables?” is the wrong energy question

The news abounds about how much renewable generating capacity is being added, here and round the world, as though that was the miracle answer to our fossil-fuel-addicted climate crisis. But the real metric is not how quickly we add renewables, but how rapidly we subtract fossil fuels - far from the same thing. And the news is not good, as this Our World in Data chart reveals. Renewables are the slim pale bands top right, all increasing with time - yay! But the fat bands of coal, oil, and gas are increasing far faster

Crunching the numbers behind the chart (below), from 2000 to 2024 the world added fossil energy almost six times as fast as renewables. And if we account for the concurrent decline in traditional biofuels, that rises to seven times.

Even in the 2021-2024 period, when renewables have been getting rave reports, fossil fuel additions still outstrip renewable 2.6:1. We-must-get-our-heads-around-living-as-a-much-lower-energy-society.

Share

From the “Can you believe it?” files: when chess and climate collide

The Guardian’s celebrated chess correspondent Leonard Barden recently reported on what he termed the “chess Wimbledon”, the Tata Steel Wijk aan Zee tournament. This year the start was delayed 90 minutes by coal dumped at the entrance, with a “No chess on a dead planet” banner. Why? The 2025 kg (over 2 tonnes) of coal was dumped by Extinction Rebellion Nederlands to symbolise that “2025 is the year in which Tata Steel should have been climate neutral.” (See India Today ) Like cigarette sponsorship of sports, this type of sponsorship should also be curtailed.

If you’ve always wondered about log⁡𝑦𝑖⁢𝑗=𝛽0+𝛽1⁢(𝑥𝑖⁢𝑗−̅𝑥𝑖·)+…+𝑢𝑖+𝜀𝑖⁢𝑗

Pioneering research correlates 11 years of satellite observations with on-the-ground air quality monitoring at ZCTA (Zip-Code, or Post-Code) scale in California. It demonstrates significant local air quality benefits associated with local uptake of EVs, and aligns its findings with studies of improved buses in New York, and trains in Israel. The study centres on the major health pollutant NO2 (not a greenhouse gas) but gives cautious pointers to correlation with other pollutants (such as PM2.5 particulates and potentially CO2). Check it out at The Lancet.

“New Zealand has a fuel security strategy. It is coherent and based on international norms. The problem is that it is designed for a world that no longer exists.” Larry Blair at NZ Energy.

Great insights into New Zealand’s energy system(s)

I’d love to have a coffee with Larry Blair, who has a real knack of making his deep understanding of energy systems accessible to ordinary mortals like me (see quotes above and below). For example, his New Zealand Energy blog has recently run a 4-part series on “New Zealand’s 2026 Energy Stocktake”. I have yet to finish them, but #3 , on refined fuels, fitted lots of pieces into the jigsaw in my head. For example the schematic of oil refining below not only showed the different output streams but also illuminated his commentary on the critically changing nature of crude oil feedstock.

You can also hear him discussing NZ’s newly proposed CNG terminal on RNZ. TBH, in spite of host Jesse Mulligan’s probing, Blair’s answers seemed stuck in conventional energy/industry thinking, and didn’t look that good in a truly wide-boundary view of NZ committing $2bn on an additional long-term fossil fuel energy stream. (Fits with the bleak picture painted in “how quickly can we add renewables?” above).

“The average New Zealander dissipates the energy equivalent of around 45 years of manual labour each year in oil alone.” Larry Blair at NZ Energy.

Subscribe now

More from the “can you believe it? files: Stingless bees for 80m years.

It says something about survival that the Amazon’s stingless bees have been around for 80 million years (since before T Rex roamed the world), producing “runny honey,” and being a critically important pollinator. But humanity is doing what 80,000,000 years in the Amazon couldn’t, and that’s threatening the bees with extinction, through habitat loss and pesticides. In recognition of their significance, the rights of the bees have been awarded legal status. Check out campaigner Rosa Vásquez Espinozá here , consider signing the petition, and do check out her long conversation with Nate Hagens linked at the end.

“The Very First Music”: is this what the title leads you to you expect?!

“The very first music” was the very last piece played on the very last episode of RNZ’s wonderful “Matinee Idle” show. “Do stay and listen to the end” urged host Phil O’Brien, and he was right - it was so worth it. A big thanks, Phil, for that, and for the many years of MI. So I, in turn, also urge you to listen, and listen to the end. 2 min 52s.

Share

And for an ingenious, satirical take on sustainability conferences

A tech entrepreneur added ‘“We’re promising miracles to avoid saying ‘less’.’’

A conference on truth serum. Clever and insightful. Do check out Lyle’s Substack .

A venture capitalist said “We don’t invest in solutions. We invest in stories.”

More from the “can you believe it?” files: taking the pulse of a forest.

Forestry EDM “Friday Offcuts” reports NZ Bioeconomic Science Institute’s “autonomous biochemical sensing system” is ranked in the world’s top 10 emerging technologies. “For the first time, we can dynamically track a specific ion pattern in vivo [inside a living plant] over several weeks,” says lead researcher Dalila Pasquini

The biosensors currently focus on the ions of key indicator potassium, and are an “innovative and cost-effective solution to plant monitoring” with potential benefits for forestry, agriculture and horticulture. 2-minute video linked below.

Indigenous knowledge, indigenous wisdom, indigenous science

I’ve received fascinating items at the intersection of indigenous cultures, climate, and more.

Nadine Hura’s remarkable book “Slowing the Sun” is challenging, insightful, and heartwarming as it weaves strands of family, colonialism and climate into a series of essays. I want to read it again to better understand her messaging - challenging and otherwise - so I won’t review it more at this stage, except to say she had some pretty terse things to say about what she sees as BS language that cloaks a lot of climate discussions. I hope to write more on this in another CM.

Maybe not quite “indigenous wisdom”, but certainly with an indigenous name, Ynysybwl, in Wales, has residents with the dubious distinction of becoming the UK’s first climate refugees. The Guardian reports extreme flooding had made dwellings on pleasant-looking Clydach Terrace among the most dangerous places to live in the UK, and they have been bought out by the local council.

And on a note that captures Indigenous knowledge, indigenous wisdom, and indigenous science in spades, Rosa Vásquez Espinozá is so worth listening to in her long conversation with Nate Hagens: “Two Ways of Knowing: How Merging Science & Indigenous Wisdom Fuels New Discoveries .”

Subscribe now

Firstly my truly heartfelt sympathy to the loved ones of those who have perished in this latest catastrophe - whatever the cause or the the fault, it is heart-wrenching.

This all unfolded the same week the Prime Minister announced the next election date. The disaster holds more big lessons that should influence how we vote in November.

Here’s what you’ll find in this issue:

• NZ Govt knowingly increases the risk of floods and slips

• Big little dots: looking after our tamariki

• Who should give warnings and who should be warned?

• Dots of a different kind: a refreshing look at a bleak future

• More big dots on national security

• Revisiting a geeky big-picture mind-game (with a fabulous “big picture”)

If the pieces written below resonate with you, then please do two things: share this post with others, and keep these messages in mind until election day.

Share

This CM gives a lot more encouragement than usual to share it with others. That’s because this is an election year, and the more people that realise just how irresponsible this government is on the biggest threat to our future, the better.

Subscribe now

The NZ government is knowingly increasing the risk of slips and floods

Make no mistake, the current NZ government has chosen to ignore wide-ranging robust climate advice from numerous sources. In so doing, it is knowingly choosing policies that intensify storms, floods, sea level rise, ocean acidification, heat waves, and much more, in favour of policies they think will make more money.

More details at Climate Change Commission, NTCF correspondence, Methane experts.

Hold these thoughts until election time. And if this resonates with you please share this post with others.

Share

“If you read with your eyes shut, you’re likely to find that the place that you’re going is far, far behind”. The Cabinet Manual Dr Seuss in “I can read with my eyes shut”

Joining little big dots: “Tie your tamariki to you.” (RNZ 22nd January.)

RNZ, in its official emergency radio station capacity, has advised people subject to flooding risk to tie their tamariki to them.

Think about that.

It’s saying the threat is so extreme that tying small children to adults might be the best chance of keeping those children safe - “safe” being a purely relative concept. I teared up at the thought of children, and their carers, in such a desperate plight.

But my tears gave way to outrage at a government consistently turning its back on climate-responsible policies, instead favouring ones that either make the crisis worse (e.g. coal, oil, and gas exploration, and major highway construction), or soft pedal on making it better (e.g. feeble methane targets, and removing clean car incentives).

I’m not laying the blame for these particular storms at the feet of Cabinet, but I am outraged at their pursuit of policies expected to make such storms - and numerous other adverse climate impacts - worse, precisely when we should be pulling out all the stops to make them better.

A government should strive to safeguard its citizens, not increase their risk.

While I’ve yet to see the attribution science for the latest storms (i.e. analysis of the additive effect of climate change), their intensity is consistent with the basic physics: atmosphere that’s 1.5C hotter - roughly the current level of global heating - can hold about 10% more water vapour, and deliver it in more energetic storms...

Let’s join the dots: this government knowingly adopts irresponsible climate policies that increase the likelihood that some of us will need to tie our tamariki to us for the their safety. Hold that thought until the election date.

And if this resonates with you please share this post with others.

Share

When should a warning be given? And to whom?

In the aftermath of the tragedy at Mt Maunganui and elsewhere, serious questions are being asked about who knew what, and who should have told whom.

I’m not going to write more about that particular, tragic, event, except to highlight the sickening parallel with the present government failing to heed, or publicise, expert advice and well-founded warnings on climate. (See the first image above.)

Does anyone think that the PM and climate change minister actually believe they are so powerful that their opinion stands above the laws of physics, above the history of this planet, or above extensive scientific evidence? Of course not.

Does anyone then believe the PM etc. are so dogmatic they are willing to cherry pick information (or even have it manufactured - see CM Methane Special) to suit their immediate objectives, and ignore stark warnings to the contrary? That seems likely. Even when they know it likely exacerbate harm? That still seems the case.

“People are entitled to their own opinions but not to their own facts.” Famously said by U.S. Senator Patrick Moynihan.

“This phrase is a cornerstone of critical thinking and rational debate, separating personal belief from observable reality.” Google AI on Moynihan’s saying.

In ignoring this “cornerstone of critical thinking” our coalition government is selling us desperately short and putting us at escalating risk.

But there’s more. CM 146 referenced the UK National Emergency Briefing (a good commentary here), and that highlighted UK media’s statutory duty to keep the public informed on emergencies. The Briefing then called out the UK media for failing in their duty to keep the public informed on the climate emergency.

So what might RNZ’s statutory obligations be to keep us informed on the climate emergency (after all, we declared one in 2020)? The station regularly reminds us it’s the “lifeline radio broadcaster” (under the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002) - and I have to say I think they do a fine job at the level of immediate disasters - floods, earthquake, wildfires and the like.

Their 2025 media release 276 is headed “RNZ helping New Zealanders get prepared for an emergency.” So what might RNZ’s duty be regarding helping us get prepared for the climate emergency? Let’s start with how the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002 defines “emergency” (sorry for all the detail - it’s important.) .

“emergency means a situation that—

(a) is the result of any happening, whether natural or otherwise, including, without limitation, any explosion, earthquake, eruption, tsunami, land movement, flood, storm, tornado, cyclone, serious fire, leakage or spillage of any dangerous gas or substance, technological failure, infestation, plague, epidemic, failure of or disruption to an emergency service or a lifeline utility, or actual or imminent attack or warlike act; and

(b) causes or may cause loss of life or injury or illness or distress or in any way endangers the safety of the public or property in New Zealand or any part of New Zealand; and

(c) cannot be dealt with by emergency services, or otherwise requires a significant and co-ordinated response under this Act”

Bingo! The climate emergency ticks all of those boxes.

So how is RNZ, in acting as our lifeline radio broadcaster, “helping New Zealanders get prepared” for the climate emergency? Very sadly, it’s not even close, and it hurts to say that about my radio station of choice.

Sure RNZ has some interesting/topical programmes on climate, and some fantastic programme hosts, but before you think it’s doing even a fair job keeping us informed on climate, check out the National Emergency Briefing (26 min), or climate guru Johan Rockstrom’s TED talk on tipping points (18 min), or the item just below. (E.g. is RNZ getting us prepared for the prospect that ““Every critical ecosystem is on a pathway to collapse.”?)

If this item resonates with you please share this post with others.

Share

Dots of a different kind: a refreshing look at a bleak future

Heaven knows why such a portentous document might seem refreshing - perhaps it’s a symptom of just how systemically negligent officialdom has been on climate issues. Because, at least, one government might be trying to open its eyes to what is really unfolding, and so open our eyes a bit more too (“might” because 10 Downing Street reportedly tried to block the report’s release).

Hot on the heels of the (non-government) UK “National Emergency Briefing” (see CM 144), the UK Government has released this milestone paper . It’s just 13 pages and everyone everywhere should read it. It’s not joyful news we want to hear, but certainly news we need to hear. “Impressive it is so hard-hitting for a government document “ emailed one expert I know.

The tone is set by the first page - no disclaimers, no credits, no euphemistic introduction, but seven blunt “key judgements.” e.g. number 4, assessed with “high confidence”: “Every critical ecosystem is on a pathway to collapse.”

The report is framed around three questions:

• What are the most significant implications of global biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse for UK national security?

• Which ecosystems are more critical for UK national security?

• What would be the impact on UK national security from the collapse of individual critical ecosystems?

P9 is headed “Ecosystem collapse is highly likely to drive national security risk,” and goes on to describe nine security consequences of ecosystem collapse.

However, let’s keep in mind national security is just one of myriad consequences of how we are abusing our planet.

The NZ government must be confronted with the same questions. Hold that thought, consider how you can pose those questions to government, and do it.

And if this resonates with you please share this post with others.

Share

More big dots on national security

CM 146 recommended Nate Hagens’ interview with Australian investor Craig Tindale, who had lots to say about mineral flows round the world, China’s growing stranglehold on them, and how vulnerable that makes “the West.” Like how Russia’s access to critical minerals enables it to manufacture missiles 10 times faster than the US; and, when the chips are down, nations might have to choose whether to use scarce minerals to defend themselves or to transition to renewable energy - because there may well not be enough for both .

“There’s about 500 ounces of silver in every large missile. That’s enough silver for about 800 solar panels… Does the silver go to the missile or does the silver go to the solar panels?” Craig Tindale, about 44 minutes in here.

“The story of CO2 …” - a geeky revisit of a (fairly) familiar mind game

I’ve already mentioned Peter Brannen’s remarkable book “The Story of CO2 is the Story of Everything,” and with the arrival of my own copy I’ve done a slow read right through - worthwhile, but not easy, and I’m still collating 17 pages of notes (more on that another time). However, dealing with geological time prompts me to revisit a mind game that looks at our place in the scheme of things.

By chance the book is near enough 450 pages long and, on a planet 4.5 billion years old (“4567.3 Ma” inside the spiral), that’s10 million years per page (if written in a proportional chronology, which the book isn’t!). With 34 lines/page each line is 300,000 years long, and with 12 words per line each word about 25,000 years.

So, half way through the final word of the whole book, the last ice age “ended” and agriculture began (Brannen makes the point that geologically we’re still in an ice age and humans are “an ice-age species” - food for thought when we think how far things might heat up). The Fall of Rome happened about very the last letter, and Māori voyagers first reached Aotearoa just before the final full stop.

Plus, we share that final full stop with everything else on our tiny speck in the cosmos.

Putting that in terms of the wonderful image below, see the tiny brown line at the extreme left? The height of that tiny streak represents 2 million years of hominins (the lineage to us after we split from chimpanzees), and human occupation of Aotearoa is an imperceptible sliver at its top edge (1/2000th the height of the brown line).

And to be insufferably geeky, even the brown line is deceptive. The spiral runs to a logarithmic scale, with time becoming more compressed as it nears the middle - so our brown sliver is an even smaller part of the whole than it seems here.

It all makes a political electoral cycle look pretty darned trivial, doesn’t it?

But before your eyes glaze right over, do have a squizzy at some of the notes around the curve. Like, for the first half of its life, Earth had no permanent oxygen in its atmosphere; or when the miracle of photosynthesis started. (BTW, folks, photosynthesis - AKA planting zillions of trees - is still our best bet to combat rising CO2, which is a no contest as long as our fossil fuel craze releases that gas faster than at almost any time in planetary history. Brannen has a lot to say about that.)

Thank you for enduring that indulgent excursion! (PS Did you notice when the Earth’s magnetic field formed? Or the Sturtian Glaciation - when “Snowball Earth” all but snuffed out life completely? Or…?! )

Share

Here’s what lies ahead:

• A climate game that doesn’t feel like a game…

• Reminder: poetry competition

• Another way fossil fuels gain from AI

• Be amazed: Craig Tindale talks with Nate Hagens

• Have a serious laugh: an EV view of fossil fuel cars

• BlackRock keeps playing NZ government for suckers

Share

A no win game? Gamifying adaptation and resilience.

NIWA’s new online “game” Future Coasts Aotearoa is a great idea and a great start, but feels a long way from a great finish. Played individually or in groups, the scenario fits: a coastal settlement at a river mouth, with vulnerabilities to flooding, storms, and sea level rise. Players select roles from a modest menu, and make progressive investment choices ahead of, or due to, climate impacts. So far so good, but a feeling of inevitability grows as climate impacts escalate, and clunky choices can’t stop properties progressively succumbing.

That may be a harsh reality we need to take to heart, maybe our reality is we are in a game with only losers - but then it’s hardly a game, and this may not be the best way to get that reality across. From the times I’ve played, the nearest to a “win” seems to be to sell up on your first turn and move to the city (at which stage you drop out of the game). Give it a go, and give NIWA feedback. I do hope they get to refine it.

Three weeks to get your poem in!

First entries are in - and three weeks left for you to enter our “Love letter to the world” poetry competition. Free entries, great prizes. Closes Valentine’s Day. Details here.

Another reason the fossil fuel sector loves AI

It’s high time we looked at energy the other way round - not “how quickly can we add renewables?” but “how quickly can we subtract fossil fuels?” The insatiable rate AI is claiming energy outstrips our already-challenged quest for an energy transition, prolonging fossil fuel use, and adding pressures for nuclear. Yale e360 reports “Energy-hungry data centers have been a lifeline for ailing U.S. coal plants.” (These plants are meant to be closing, folks.) “Since the beginning last year, at least 15 coal plants [in the US] have had their planned retirements delayed, some indefinitely.”

We learn US’s new AI master will demand some 8 GW more electricity per year until 2035. Like opening a new Huntly Power Station every seven weeks for a decade. Duh! In a world suffering the severe mineral blindness Simon Michaux has lamented for years, we have to wonder who in government has a clue about long term infrastructure planning. Michaux, like many visionaries (think the Club of Rome and “Limits to Growth,” or Kate Raworth and “Doughnut Economics) has his critics. He has answered them, but if that’s not enough, check out the Nate Hagens interview below.

Nate Hagens pulls yet another rabbit from the hat

CM 145 sang the praises of Nate Hagens’ interview with Kelly Erhart, and already, in CM 146, we do the same for his astonishing 1 hr 46 min with Aussie Craig Tindale. It’s clear Tindale’s grasp of almost everything, from global mineral flows to G-forces on the human body to drone-seeding forests to Sydney’s birds, wowed even Hagens. “It’s contractual spaghetti:” Tindale said, describing China’s tightening grip on global minerals. “Australia might have a tin mine…the total offtake of that mine is committed to Chinese smelters, yet tin is the lifeblood of the new age… really it’s just a quarry for the Chinese…”

“We use modern technology to reforest the world…a drone can drop 40,000 seedballs a day…we can use them in swarms…” Check out Airseed.

Subscribe now

An EV view of fossil fuel cars

Do take two minutes to be refreshed by this wonderfully witty take by Rory Sutherland. “Many a true word is spoken in jest.”

Feeding the hand that bites you.

I’m not big on “told you so,” but in CM99 (Aug 2023) I wrote “Alarm bells are drowning out the fanfare Labour would like me to hear” re a $2bn investment in a “climate infrastructure fund” by massive fund manager BlackRock (I first heard of them running a scheme that ground Spain’s poor into the dirt). Recall in late 2024 BlackRock abruptly ditched Solar Zero (with 170 job losses and over $40m debt)? Newsroom now reports them walking away from the entire $2bn deal. Seems BlackRock continues to live down to its reputation.

Not to be outdone by Labour, soon after BlackRock dumped Solar Zero, National invited them to an investment summit…with friends like that, who needs enemies ?

Subscribe now

Here’s what you’ll find in CM 145:

• Kelly Erhart: How can someone so young be so articulate and insightful?

• New Zealand expanding the reach of the UK “National Emergency Briefing.”

• “Love letter to the world” poetry comp: update on prizes and judges.

• Climate-friendly and pocket-friendly eating: having our cake and eating it!

• Hotter Tip for a Cooler Planet

• Unpicking some of the latest from Surplus Energy Economics.

• A Planetary Boundaries update we need but don’t want

Subscribe now

Make an hour to watch this astonishing interview

With 29 year old Kelly Erhart, Nate Hagens continues his run of stellar guests. Erhart, a leader in the non-profit and sustainability finance field, blew my socks off with her astonishing grasp of what’s going on and what we might do about it. e.g. “Climate change is non-linear, and that means we need to take a non-linear approach…” and ”We need to look upstream and be more clear-eyed about the risks that are on the tail end…” How about risk management; mitigation versus adaptation; forecasting? Not to mention governance; coastal olivine weathering; or whether or not to have a baby.

Share

Making the National Emergency Briefing an international briefing

CM 144 encouraged readers to view Dave Borlace’s commentary on the enormously important National Emergency Briefing held in the UK last month. If you did, you’ll understand why there is serious interest in a local edition. In fact “The Reality of Everything” was already in the pipeline well before the UK event, and there’ll be lots of synergy between the two. Spearheaded by the widely-acclaimed Catherine Knight, you can keep in the know on the event via her SubStack here, and if you have the means to push it out further please do so. It’s important.

How’s your “Love letter to the World” poem coming on?!

Here are the promised additional details (other info and T&C are in CM 144 here). Reminder: closing date Valentine’s Day, Sat 14th Feb. Email Lindsay@resilienz.co.nz .

Prizes:

Junior: 1st prize Steve Mushin’s amazing “Ultrawild” plus a 12-pack of Chia Sisters beverages 2nd prize: 12-pack of Chia Sisters beverages.

Open: 1st prize: Peter Brannen’s astonishing book “The Ends of the World” plus a 12-pack of Chia Sisters beverages. 2nd prize: 12-pack of Chia Sisters beverages.

About the prizes

Ultrawild: “If this book does not fire your imagination, nothing will.” (Professor James Renwick, climate scientist). It has deservedly won top awards in NZ and Australia. “Mindbendingly original” say publishers, Allen and Unwin.

The Ends of the World: Here’s what I wrote to friends when I discovered it: “it amazes me that it took 8 years for such an astonishing piece of writing to make it onto my radar….’The Ends of the World’ is a geological and ecological tour de force that reads like a thriller, with a storyline and evocative language that any mystery writer would be proud of.”

Chia Sisters: Pioneering health beverage company, Nelson-based Chia Sisters ticks almost every environmental box you can think of, and likely some you can’t . Check out their story.

The judges: We’re delighted to have Bruce Gilkison and Will Stovall as our judges.

Bruce Gilkison is a chartered accountant who has had a lifetime engaging with climate and wider environmental issues, including writing the pioneering book “Accounting for a Clean Green Environment,” and many articles on accounting and climate change. Plus Bruce was a prizewinner in CM’s first Valentine’s Day poetry competition. Yay!

Dr. Will Stovall has a PhD in Culture and Sustainability, has been active in numerous environmental and climate initiatives in New Zealand and the US, and is the founder and director of Lighthouse Aotearoa (you can see Will in CM 144 in the item on that terrific group). Yay!

Subscribe now

Maybe we can have our cake and eat it!

“People can’t see or taste the emissions caused by each food, but everyone can see the item’s price—and within each food group, less expensive options generally cause less emissions,” Prof William A. Masters.

Contrary to common assumptions, but in line with the widely-recognised correlation between expenditure and emissions, lower-cost food selections can help the carbon budget as well as the household budget, all without compromising health. A major study across 171 countries comparing “typical” diets with low-cost and low-emissions options “finds that diets which are good for people and the planet are typically some of the cheapest, too.” (See Anthropocene )

On a global average basis, costs could be cut 2/3 while emissions also reduced 1/3. “At the grocery store, frugality is a helpful guide to sustainability.” What’s not to love about that in an era with chronic crises in both affordability and climate?

“Our principal finding is that differences in the cost and GHG emissions between these four diet scenarios are due primarily to choices within just two food groups: animal-source foods and starchy staples.” (Nature , which hosts the paper behind a paywall)

Try a “small move for a big change.” We’re enmeshed in cognitive dissonance on a global scale. Countless scientists are sounding louder alarms on climate, and governments and industries are promoting actions going totally the wrong way. So I’m asking you to reflect on how you might personally step up a little more in 2026 to help move things in a direction that offers more hope for the future.

We’re all in different places on what we’re able to do. Some might join an organisation like the Nelson Tasman Climate Forum (or simply sign up for their newsletters); or decide to travel less on vacation. Maybe you’ll check out Katharine Hayhoe’s great list of inspiring “Books Podcasts and Newsletters” we gave in CM 144 (here again) and some might happily write to your MP or council; or perhaps I’ll even meet some of you in June at “The Reality of Everything” seminar (see above).

Whatever else you do, I urge you to a) invest 1% (about 20 minutes/week) of your spare time to further understand the unfolding climate crisis; and b) become a multiplier and encourage someone else to also engage - ask a climate question; have a conversation; share Climate Matters or another newsletter.

“A decrease in the over-consumption of energy and other resources might be our best hope of staving off worsening environmental deterioration.” Dr Tim Morgan

A quick peek into the surplus energy rabbit hole

Dr Tim Morgan’s “Surplus Energy Economics” blogs are pithy and meaty, and 316 is no exception. (The blog’s name comes from the pivotal, but largely unrecognised, way societies are shaped by “surplus energy” - the energy left to use after deducting the energy needed to obtain it.)

Morgan is harshly critical of politicians and mainstream energy commentators who - accidentally or deliberately - cloud or ignore this aspect of our energy trajectory. “Our fundamental problem today is resource depletion, which is driving a wedge between preference and possibility, We want growth to continue; it can’t,” Morgan writes. “This problem is most acute with fossil fuel energy.”

Surplus energy must first be used for essential services and what’s left is available for discretionary activity (AKA lifestyle). In the 1980s it took about 2% of the energy extracted to get it in the first place, leaving 98% for use. That has risen to over 11%, leaving under 89% for use. That might seem plenty but as most societies need over 90% for essential services, lifestyles get eroded. As they are.

The charts show: Left, declining surplus energy (i.e. available for stuff other than getting more energy). Only renewables offer increasing surplus energy, but the killer blows are the expanding pink “Energy cost of energy” and the huge energy load renewables need to make up. Right: In spite of all of our efficiency gains, we are on a steady decline in economic output per unit of energy.

Bottom line: We must learn to live well with far less energy. (Heard that before?)

Climate matters, and so does a whole lot more

Not everybody has heard of the Planetary Boundaries Framework, or “the polycrisis,” but while the climate crisis does matter hugely, it’s just one of a suite of nine areas vital to planetary health, and all are under threat. Humanity is harshly challenging our planet in all of these, exceeding safe operating limits in seven out of the nine.

The Stockholm Resilience Centre, a world-leader in the study of these critical areas, has released the 2025 update (explained here). The green circle represents the “safe operating zone” for each sector, with risk increasing away from the centre. It is obvious how our threat to our only home has escalated in under twenty years.

Key takeaways from the 2025 update:

• Ocean acidification has breached its safe operating limit for the first time.

• Climate change continues to trend the wrong way.

• While freshwater change appears to have improved, that is due to a change in calculation method and it is, in fact, still worsening.

• The relative stability of the ozone sector demonstrates the potential for limiting harm with concerted international action ( via the 1987 Montreal Protocol).

• Aerosol loading is a “watch this space” sector. Shipping exhausts are a serious contributor and there is a 2020 protocol to clean them up. However, some of those aerosols are sulphurous, causing climate cooling, so reducing them increases warming. (See CM 137 . Of course it’s much more complex..)

Here’s the 2025 update enlarged:

Share

My heartfelt thanks to all of you who accept CM into your mailbox, and further thanks to those who share CM with others, or who email me with comments and suggestions. I wish you all a joyful and fulfilling holiday.

However, I am drawn to at least summarise the climate stance of NZ’s government by adapting the well-known children’s chant: “Denier, denier, pants on fire.”

Below you’ll find all of these (and they’re all short-reads!).

• The inspirational young (mostly!) people at Lighthouse Aotearoa

• A great collection of user-friendly ways to engage with climate

• From the “can you believe it?” files 1: listening to the soil and to animals walk

• Announcing our Valentine’s Day “Love letter to the World” poetry competition

• From the “Can you believe it?” files 2: who owns the Arctic Ocean?

• A hotter Tip for a Cooler Planet

• Even more on the great cost/benefit ratio of cycling infrastructure

• An insightful retrospective from a lifelong journalist

Subscribe now

A big thumbs-up for Lighthouse Aotearoa

I first encountered members of Lighthouse Aotearoa as a discussion panel after Nelson’s screening of “Future Council” (great film BTW), and the group so impressed me that I invited them to be guests on my CM radio show.

The resultant double interview with Chloe, Amy, Cadence, and Holly, plus their coordinator Will, can be found here (first episode broadcast 8th December, second due 22nd December). More info at Lighthouse Aotearoa: “Empowering the next generation of climate leaders.” Go you guys!

A terrific catalogue of climate resources

I’ve often referenced Katharine Hayhoe’s great newsletters, and her end-of-year special (here) offers a terrific compilation of different ways to engage with climate issues, from books and podcasts to newsletters and activities. (e.g. a 1 min 26 take on COP30 and lots more at “We’re still here so climate change must be a scam …right?” )

“…I had stumbled into a knowledge gap so wide that humanity could fall through it. Soil is a fantastically complex biological structure…” George Monbiot discussing soil properties - see next item

Share

From the “Can you believe it?” files: seismographs, cellphones, and soil

Do check out George Monbiot’s fascinating article “Over a pint in Oxford,” describing a Eureka moment leading to the “The Earth Rover” programme (inspired by the Mars Rover). Monbiot describes using seismographs (earthquake sensors) to identify animals by their footfall; getting instant assessment of elusive soil metrics using a smartphone to listen to someone whacking a steel plate; and reducing the cost of sensors from $10,000 to $100 to $10 to free.

Climate Matter’s “Love Letter to the World” poetry competition

In 2019, inspired by rupi kaur’s beautiful “love letter to the world”, CM ran its first Valentine’s Day poetry competition and I figure it’s time for another. (BTW kaur never uses capitals.) So stir up your creative juices, sharpen your poetry pencils, and get writing! Great prizes: wonderful books plus Chia Sisters outstanding health beverages. We’ll update you further in coming CMs. T&C below.

Poetry competition T&C:

• Entry is free. Poems must be the original work of the entrant, with a maximum length of 30 lines. There is no limit on how many entries a person can make.

• There are two categories, each with a first and second prize: a) junior (up to and including 13 years old on Valentine’s Day 2026), and b) open.

• Poems must be as a PDF attachment to an email with the subject line “poetry competition” and to Lindsay@resilienz.co.nz. Each entry must be clear as to which category they are in, and must be received by Saturday 14th February 2026. Please give the full name of the entrant, and birthdate for junior entrants. Winners will be contacted by email.

• While entrants retain copyright in their entries, by entering they grant Resilenz Ltd unlimited free rights to publish the entry in Climate Matters and/or otherwise.

“Use your tears to put out the fires scorching the Earth, and your breath to redirect the waters of your heart towards wellness, justice and harmony.” Dr. Larry Ward, Senior Plum Village Dharma teacher

From the “Can you believe it?” files 2: Who owns the Arctic Ocean?

In a bizarre spin on the impacts of the climate crisis, Lieutenant General Richard Levy (19 minutes into the National Emergency Briefing - see Hotter Tip below), discussed the progressive melting of the Arctic sea ice. He then described Russia as claiming that the Arctic Ocean is really a Russian inland sea, while everyone else classifies it as international water. I wouldn’t pretend to guess how that will play out, but it is yet another reason to do our utmost to reverse our home’s overheating (as if we didn’t have reason enough).

Please spend 26 minutes watching Dave Borlace report on the remarkable and crucial “National Emergency briefing” event held recently in London. Every elected politician everywhere, and everyone in media everywhere, should watch it. (Maybe suggest that to politicians and editors in your orbit). Borlace is a very good, and watchable, host.

“Retailers generally overestimate the importance of on-street parking outside shops. Shoppers valued high-quality pedestrian and urban design features in shopping areas more than they valued parking”. December 2025 cycling infrastructure report.

Even more benefits of cycling infrastructure

The key people who seem unaware of the staggeringly good investment offered by good cycling infrastructure for commuters (think better than a 10:1 return) are the politicians who spend precious national funds on roads with a staggeringly poor return on investment (think struggling to reach 1:1).

CM 140 was a cycling special with many references. Here’s yet another, focussing on public support for active travel infrastructure, and including some surprises.

‘I have watched politicians failing yet and yet again’: Paul Brown on 45 years of “lessons from a life as an environment writer.”

The swansong of a long-time journalist and editor in chief

Written from his hospital bed following a terminal diagnosis, Paul Brown’s final column, on 45 years as an environmental journalist and then Editor in Chief with the Guardian, makes for sobering reading. If you are interested in democracy, or in the environment, or in journalism, I urge you to read it. Written by someone with vast experience and nothing to gain (or lose) by pulling his punches, it offers rare and authoritative insights. You can find it here.

“…this pattern of politicians learning the inconvenient truths of climate change and then falling short in the actions required to solve the problem has continued ever since. In fact, with the recent advent of blatant climate deniers, it has got far worse.”

Share

I’ve often said topics come in waves, and it’s geoengineering this time. And that’s joined by other macro issues, from COP30, to joyriding on steroids, to nuclear energy, to “The Story of CO2 is the Story of Everything.” Plenty to bend our minds.

People thank me for pushing the climate barrow, and I really value that - it’s great to be appreciated, especially on big issues. But let’s not think that Mike Joy (Dancing with the Devil), or Nate Hagens (Engineering the Earth), or even Lindsay Wood are doing all that’s needed.

This isn’t a hobby we’ve chosen over golf or gardening - we’re scouting a future so bleak that we’re driven to do our utmost in our own ways to help navigate a less catastrophic course. Our efforts bear fruit only to the extent that we get others to also rethink how they, in their own ways, can engage with the issues.

When you read Engineering the Earth, below, I invite you to pause and reflect what it’s really saying about our best chance of a least awful future. Then I invite you to give that serious thought when making your plans and New Year’s resolutions for 2026.

In CM 143 you’ll find

• Glimpses into corners of COP30.

• Nuclear power: different year, same strategy

• “The Story of Everything”

• Horse meat feedback

• Dancing with the Devil: the crazy cost of our indulgences (mid-length read)

• Engineering the Earth: time to think the unthinkable? (Longer read).

Share

Quiz: What is SAI and what is it’s significance for climate?

Glimpses into corners of COP30.

I’ve had the good luck to interview climate specialist Daniela Ramirez while at COP - over coming weeks you can catch the interviews here . Here are a few takeaways:

• COP is so vast and with so many parallel events it’s impossible to take it all in;

• A huge contrast between the formal Blue Zone (government delegates; special access pass - which Daniela had) and the informal Green Zone with everything from NGO pavilions to school parties to ethnic cultural groups. Kia ora to the Māori youth group, which Daniela reports was a star attraction.

• The NZ delegates were excellent and gave superb briefings, but were isolated and asked others what was happening everywhere else.

• The first Blue Zone week was very technical, with arguments over commas and subtleties of wording; the second week was very political;

• The fossil fuel lobby was astonishingly well prepared and adept. The final edit of the documents removed every reference to “fossil fuels” - which happens time again. A last minute challenge by Colombia was seriously disruptive and so it should be - as an oil producer calling for stronger wording on removing fossil fuels, Columbia had both a symbolic and a political role.

• The nuclear power lobby presented like they were young activists with a cool climate fix. (See Nuclear Power: different year, same strategy, below,)

• The fire was well handled even though there were no alarms, and language was a challenge. The first sign was a lot of people running towards the fire to tackle it.

And two items Daniela didn’t mention:

• The outcome of COP30 was, like so many before, seriously underwhelming.

• A parting gift with a final irony: various reports (e.g. BBC) of a chocolate bar reading “last chance for our rainforests.” And the irony? Chocolate demand is a major cause of African deforestation: the world’s largest producer, Ivory Coast, has lost 80% of its rain forest, mostly for cocoa production (The Guardian) .

Nuclear power: different year, same strategy, plus more

In an interesting coincidence, the day after I interviewed Daniela Ramirez one of a group I was having lunch mentioned going to a previous COP many years ago. She particularly mentioned the nuclear industry being represented by well-trained young people with almost evangelical advocacy for the “clean” nuclear industry…

And Hannah Ritchie shone some interesting light on nuclear: that the real issues are cost and logistics, not safety. “Burning fossil fuels, through air pollution, kills millions of people every single year. And you compare that to the biggest nuclear disasters we’ve had. No one died in Three Mile Island. No one died directly from Fukushima, even though a tsunami hit the nuclear power plant… The key challenge is, one, cost and, two, construction time.” And she didn’t mention the astronomical climate impact of fossil fuels, nor question whether we might be better to reduce energy demand. Then there’s the long-trem storage of radioactive materials…

Feedback on horse meat.

Matthew knows animals, and put a different perspective on the horse meat/beef debate (see “Thought for food,” CM 142). “Horses are highly inefficient feeders,” he explained,likely eating three times the grass as cows to grow the same amount of meat. That would certainly shift the balance. Several research papers (e.g. here ) point in a similar direction, though less strongly, and suggest it’s not so clear cut: horses feed 50% longer in a day than cattle, eat the grass shorter (so out-compete cows), and in the same period mares generally have better weight gain but foals less than their bovine counterparts. Okay - time to back out of that rabbit hole!

Subscribe now

The Story of Everything

It’s hard to imagine a worthy sequel to Peter Brannen’s astonishing “The Ends of the World”, but “The Story of CO2 is the Story of everything” is just that. With an even more complex narrative, it ties the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and tectonics to the ebb and flow of life and the rise and fall of atmospheric CO2. Sound boring? It’s anything but, and Brannen’s evocative descriptions breathe vitality both to the astonishing (Snowball Earth) and the mundane (a billion years of gunge).

It’s full of intrigue and surprise (I thought “snowball Earth” was a sci-fi concept, but it happened; and I‘d never thought of homo sapiens as an ice-age species, but we are).

Perhaps the biggest takeaway: we are playing with fire on steroids. Our present human effort is like exploding millions of years of accumulated energy in a heartbeat, adding CO2 to the air 10x faster than in “The Great Dying” (the end-Permian extinction 250 million years ago), and 100x faster than other mass extinction events.

“In this crazy world of delusion the carbon budget to avoid armageddon is almost used up” Dr Mike Joy on LinkedIn

Dancing with the Devil - the daunting price of indulgence

Mike Joy has a knack for joining dots, cutting through BS, and grounding discussions on core issues. His recent LinkedIn post pulls no punches: “The latest forecast by Airbus is that more than 40,000 new jetliners will be needed between 2023 and 2042…” Check out the Airbus forecast here or 1-page summary here : “Over the next 20 years, we anticipate a global demand for 43,420 new passenger and freighter aircraft.” (Their emphasis.) That’s adding a large plane to the fleet every 4 hours for 20 years.

Airbus notes several drivers, firstly “People! +1.5 bn more middle classes - the likeliest demographic to travel by air,” and gives an unconvincing nod to the environment: “crucial replacement of older, less fuel-efficient fleets.” Jevons Paradox suggests that will mean an increase in flying not overall reduction in fuel use. The crazy escalation of routes in India shows that trend already happening.

Back to Mike Joy’s post: “Orders for 56 massive diesel-powered cruise ships were signed up by August 2023 and most will not be launched before 2030.”

Let’s join more dots:

In 2019, Transport and the Environment published ”Luxury cruise giant emits 10 times more air pollution (SOx) than all of Europe’s cars.” Carnival, the world’s largest cruise company, currently has 29 ships and Europe has approaching 300 million cars, so each ship emits equivalent SOx to some 10 million cars. (Note SOx are serious pollutants but not greenhouse gases. )

Comparing cruise ship emissions and “Engineering the Earth” (below), a critical difference is that very high altitude atmospheric sulphur lasts 50-100 times as long as lower level from ships etc. This gives dramatically more cooling for the same amount of gas and dramatically reduced harmful effects from it.

The International Council for Clean Transportation compared 7-day luxury cruises with 7-day SUV road trips staying in up-market hotels (with connecting flights for both). The “best” cruises had 2.4 x the emissions of the worst road trip (3 x without flights).

And let’s not for a moment think luxury SUV holidays are okay for the climate.

A key take-away? Nearly all of the consequent emissions are discretionary, from people spending their spare cash, not working, or doing business, or enriching their community. “The price of indulgence” indeed.

“If you’re not waking up every single morning and trying to save our planet, what exactly are you doing?” Flip Grater in The Press “The price of indulgence” indeed.

This is an important rabbit hole. Please have a burrow.

Engineering the Earth: time to think the unthinkable?

Say “geoengineering” to almost anyone engaging seriously with climate change, and their eyes will roll, they’ll muster a condescending look, and try to change the subject. Say it to anyone else and chances are they won’t know what you’re talking about.

So what is it? Google’s AI tells us “Geoengineering is the deliberate, large-scale intervention in the Earth’s climate system to counteract climate change.” It is commonly split into “Solar radiation modification” (to reflect more sunlight back into space) and “Carbon capture and storage” (CCS, sucking CO2 out of the air and keeping it out).

Let’s first look at CCS. We’re familiar with trees absorbing CO2, with carbon stored in wood until it rots or burns. Many natural processes help (soil regeneration; rock weathering…) but fall desperately short of counteracting the enormous CO2 explosion of our fossil fuel frenzy.

Which is why scientists and engineers are spending a fortune (often as government grants) developing devices to remove CO2 from the air. There’s some success where CO2 is concentrated at industrial processes (e.g. coal-fired electricity generation - see Wikipedia). And lots of hype and pilot projects, but far less success, trying to suck CO2 from the air at large.

All up, man made CCS systems remove about 1/1000th of what’s needed, with little prospect of serious upscaling.

So let’s turn to the unthinkable.

Suggestions about deliberately changing the atmosphere to reflect more sunlight are almost invariably met with overpowering skepticism at the improbability of it, and horror at the prospect of a vast experiment that might go terribly wrong. Which is how Nate Hagens opened his long conversation with Professor Ted Parson (below).

Hannah Ritchie, here, comments “we currently have insufficient information on the potential impacts of solar geoengineering,” but then goes on to say “…I don’t think the odds are that low that over the next 50 years a country, or even a small group of countries, decides on their own that they’re going to do this.” And Ted parson suggests odds as high as 90% that SAI will be undertaken in the next few decades.

Did you get that? The answer to the quiz? “Stratospheric Aerosol Injection.”

Parson makes an impressive case: essentially we’ve run out of time to keep the world liveable by just slashing fossil fuels, and we desperately need to buy time to get our oil and coal and gas habits under control. “Stratospheric aerosol injection” - releasing chemicals to form reflective aerosols 20+km up in the upper atmosphere - might offer our best chance. Parson describes 200 huge jet planes “running like dump trucks” to deliver 10 million tones of SO2/year.

The idea sends a shiver down my spine, but I’m persuaded by Parson. And that puts a mind-bending perspective on the climate crisis: when we’re facing such an apocalyptic climate future that our best chance is squirting millions of tonnes of reflective chemicals high into the atmosphere, and our government is hell-bent on policies that make the climate crisis worse, we really have to question the sanity of the government.

Parson cites the 15 June 1991 eruption of Mt Pinatubo as an important natural example. It ejected around 15 million tonnes of aerosol-producing sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere. “Over the next 15 months,” NASA tells us, “scientists measured a drop in the average global temperature of about 1 degree F (0.6 degrees C).” That’s huge when we’re currently sitting on 1.5 degrees C global overheating.

Take a minute to unpick the following NASA images (red annotation by me). They show ”aerosol optical depth” (aligned with reflectance) of the atmosphere before and after the eruption. Note the astonishing - and encouraging - spread of aerosols around the globe and across hemispheres, creating almost universal benefit and, even after 2.5 years, reflecting around ten times normal (blue).

Hagens and Parson cover heaps more important detail, especially on risk, but you’d be better to listen to them (1 hr 20 min) than read an even longer summary from me! However I’ll add that the 28 June New Scientist discusses the benefit of using rockets to disperse aerosols even higher than planes (as in 50 km up), and includes a piece on “how to think about geoengineering.”

One thing seems clear: the taboo around discussing “geoengineering” is waning.

Subscribe now

Thanks for great feedback on the CM Methane Special (here) - it seemed to offer welcome help in joining some of the dots on the shonky game this government is playing on climate (and other things). CM 142 covers the usual potpourri of topics, and includes a quiz for fun and interest, but not (yet) the government’s further backtracking on climate. Here’s what you’ll find in this issue:

• Food for thought: Hannah Ritchie on nuclear power and lots more

• Thought for food: something to ruminate on

• Big questions we’re not asking

• A glimpse into COP30 and “PreCOP” in Brazil

• Are plug-in hybrids plug-in hype?

Quiz: What is Kaya decomposition, and what is its climate significance? (Tip: it’s not a special form of composting!)

Food for thought: Hannah Ritchie on nuclear power and more

I’ve often quoted both Hannah Ritchie and Yale e360, and here they arrive in one package. Ritchie, of Our World in Data fame, is known for her analytical thinking and doesn’t disappoint, offering unexpected angles on China’s coal fired power stations, nuclear power, EV uptake, AI and energy, and more. Well worth a read, but also check out “big questions we’re not asking,” below.

Thought for Food: something to ruminate on

Switch off denial and switch on “do stuff differently” mode. Henry in Nelson posed me two questions: “What percentage of methane emissions come from beef and lamb livestock in NZ?” [A: roughly 25% each - with the other 50% from dairy] and “How much methane do horses emit?” [A: according to Elsevier about 1/3 of the emissions, through “hindgut fermentation”]. I suspect you’ve got Henry’s drift…

“We should get over the Anglo Saxon bias that horses are too noble to eat,” Henry added, putting his idea in context. Google landed me on the measured article “Horse Meat Tastes Exactly Like Beef And I Bet You Couldn’t Tell The Difference”

Okay, there’s a lot more to switching from beef to horse meat than than just the above figures (e.g. fencing challenges; horses’ reputation as mean feeders; why not just reduce meat in our diets…). But this is a case for “yes if” rather than “no because”.

For me the core point is we have to get our heads around doing things differently, and Henry’s line of thinking is a great example. Definitely worth a thought.

But even with bovine meat there are studies on dairy cows as a lower-emission source of beef. “Integrating dairy and beef production would enable the NZ beef sector to reduce annual GHG emissions by nearly 2000 kt CO₂e” NZ’s Agresearch tells us (that’s a whopping 3-4% of our national emissions). “Beef produced from cattle from New Zealand’s dairy sector could provide reductions in greenhouse gas emissions of up to 48 per cent.” Science Direct is more cautious but still reports reducing NZ methane-from-beef by 22%.

Share

Big questions we’re not asking

In spite of my great admiration for Hannah Ritchie, her above article illustrates blind spots that, to our peril, permeate so much of our thinking on big issues. I wish she’d apply wider-boundary thinking to her otherwise admirable work. I also stress Ritchie is far from alone in this - it just happens the one Yale article illustrates so many points.

Q1: Why do we almost always discuss the energy transition just as cranking on using energy at present levels but from different sources? It’s critical we discuss how best to get to the inevitable lower-energy society ahead - and we’ll be the better for it in so many ways . (“A species that causes the extinction of 150 other species a day doesn’t need more energy to do more of the same.” Hart Hagan, journalist. )

Q2: Why is “net energy gain” (or EROEI or Energy Cost of Energy) still off the energy radar? There is extensive literature on us running an energy economy not a monetary one (e.g. here). The related concept of “net energy gain” (what’s left to use after deducting the energy to access the energy) points convincingly to the already- unfolding constraints of every current energy source, from wind to shale oil to nuclear. I’ve asked Hannah Ritchie to do a piece in this, and she is interested. Watch this space!

Q3: Why aren’t we discussing “minerals blindness” as guru Simon Michaux exposes (like in CM134 or this full discussion with Nate Hagens)? The world will struggle to achieve one generation of renewable energy hardware let alone keeping it running. Which calls the bluff on Ritchie’s “AI doesn’t really matter” take on energy.

Q4: Do we really want to replace all of our fleet with EVs? With attendant traffic jams, endless demand for more highways, loss of valuable city space to store cars (aka car parks), worsening of housing affordability to store cars (aka garages). To say nothing of minerals blindness…

Glimpses into the COP30 vibe

Daniela Ramirez, one of Nelson’s great climate team, is on a self-funded trip to COP30, and has given me fascinating insights into what she’s finding ahead of the main event. Like a strong focus on action rather than negotiation. And a serious elevation of local government into the COP arena. Then there’s the intriguing “Climate Mutirau”. You can hear all that and more, including a lovely encounter with Christiana Figueres and Jacinda Ardern, at the webpage for my Climate Matters radio show,

Are the emissions of plug-in hybrids really plug-in hype?

Hybrid electric vehicles combine a low-range (e.g. 60 km) electric battery and motor with a conventional fossil fuel engine. “Plug-in hybrids” (PHEV) can charge direct from the mains or from the fossil fuel motor (straight hybrids only charge from the fossil motor so are really just fossil fuel cars).

A selling point with PHEVs, especially before EVs developed a good range, was the ability to commute all week in electric mode, then go on long weekend trips on petrol (which worked well for years for part of my family). But The Guardian reports a massive study casting a long shadow over the benefit of PHEVs. “Analysis of 800,000 European cars found real-world pollution from plug-in hybrids nearly five times greater than lab tests.”

The study “Smoke screen: the growing PHEV emissions scandal” delved into driver behaviour, vehicle operating modes, and more, and found vehicles claiming on average to reduce emission 75% generally only achieved a 19% reduction. If you have a PHEV and are serious about emissions reduction, please take good note, including figuring out the settings your car can operate on.

Quiz answer

“Kaya decomposition” is not only not a composting term, but is not a way greenhouse gases decay. But it is a means of disaggregating climate emissions into their component sources, making it useful for analysing, say, policy approaches to reducing emissions. Based on a seemingly naive, self-cancelling formula, C=P×G/P×E/G×C/E, incorporating such key variables as Carbon emissions, Population, GDP, and Energy, it underpins graphs like that above (one of an amazing array of charts here) .

Subscribe now

This issue really is a long read, not because I like writing screeds but because it deals with a hugely important issue - that’s why it’s a “special”. Please take it seriously - it tries to unpick some of the smoke and mirrors games the government is playing over methane and our future, insulting the farming community on the way, and short-changing pretty well everyone else.

Cutting methane rapidly is crucially important to preserving an outside chance of giving us a liveable future. Our government’s approach to that is irresponsible.

A lot has already been written on this month’s methane targets, often by people more qualified than me, but here I offer my glimpses into a disturbingly murky landscape.

Share

The new targets: rotten mutton dressed up as lamb

When, in CM 141, I wrote “Stats NZ shows the inequity of ‘no additional warming’ methane policy” I was unaware the government was poised to announce its latest methane targets. It soon transpired the targets were far more feeble than feared.

On 12^th October the government press release announced “the target will be set at a range of 14–24 per cent below 2017 levels by 2050.” That’s a whisker over half of the then-current range of 24–47% (which also aligns with New Zealand’s 2019 cross-party Zero Carbon Act); and the new target’s lower figure is only forty percent of that recommended by the Climate Change Commission.

In spite of the impression the government press release tries to convey, the adopted range is seriously out of step both with widely held scientific opinion and with New Zealand’s own obligations.

First up, a word to the farming community.

I have huge respect for farmers. Those I’ve known are as fine a bunch as I could hope to meet. This CM is not anti-farmer, it is against stacking the political pack to bypass overwhelming expert opinion on climate, to set emissions targets that disadvantage almost every Kiwi not in the ag sector and, dare I say it, to dupe the farming community into thinking they are somehow winning with strategies that will make us all bigger losers in the longer run.

Farmers know only too well the harsh impacts of the likes of Cyclone Gabrielle, the recent Tasman storms, and extreme droughts. And, as I write, most of the East Coast is under life-threatening red wind warnings, and power is out to almost 100,000 homes.

But because of prolonged obfuscation by vested interests here and around the world, including seemingly behind the new methane targets, those events are mere curtain raisers for what’s in the pipeline. Had the global climate effort not been so severely hampered by such obstruction and paltering, we might now be hauling ourselves out of the climate crisis swamp instead of still careering headlong into it.

A final heartfelt comment to farmers: do you realise what a gross injustice the latest methane targets have bestowed on you, or how they have insulted the standing of the farming community? The farmers I have known don’t hesitate to put their shoulder to the wheel, and take pride in their willingness to do the hard yards in times of need. And that fits with our national commitment under the Paris agreement to pursue targets that represent our “highest possible ambition.”

And yet the government’s 12^th October press release on the one hand announced targets meant to represent our highest possible ambition of “14–24 per cent below 2017 levels by 2050,” but on the other hand said that, with the uptake of imminent technologies, “total agricultural emissions could reduce by between 7 to 14 per cent over the next decade. That’s on top of any reduction in emissions that may come from efficiency gains on-farm or changes to farm systems.”

That frames as a real possibility meeting the target in just ten of the twenty five years until 2050. Which is like framing farmers’ “highest possible ambition” as reaching morning smoko and then claiming that’s the end of a hard day’s work. I think far better of our farming community than that.

Why is rapidly cutting methane critically important?

Human caused emissions are accelerating the overheating of our planet into truly alarming territory. If you are unsure, please check out “The 2024 State if the Climate Report: Perilous times on planet Earth”, written by fourteen international experts and published by Oxford University Press (there’s also a 1-page summary further below).

Humanity is currently losing the race to slow global overheating before it’s totally too late, and slashing human-emitted methane, causing around 30% of that overheating, is a stand-out opportunity to buy the time we so desperately need.

Of the four major “anthropogenic” greenhouse gases (CO2, nitrous oxide, methane, and the fluorinated “F-gases”) only methane is “short lived,” abating rapidly once emissions cease.

The others (except for just a few of the many F-gases) take centuries or millennia to abate, and even if we stopped emitting them immediately, those already in the air would remain overheating our planet for generations. But quickly after methane emissions are cut, equivalent atmospheric methane dies away, taking its contribution to global warming with it as it goes.

Slashing methane emissions is far and away our best bet for reducing short-term global warming at scale and speed, and do we ever need scale and speed. This is signalled over and over in leading reports on the climate, but is ignored by the new methane policy.

The deceptive innocence of “no additional warming.”

We need to be clear that greenhouse gases represent pollution.

“No additional warming” means claiming the right to continue polluting with methane.

In 2023, Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Simon Upton, called out Federated Farmers, Beef and Lamb, and Dairy NZ. He wrote to them explaining that, in their submission to the Climate Change Commission, they had made false claims about their research covering new ground, and had ignored an important statement made by their own researchers (the PCE’s letter is here).

“This is not ‘new science’ ,” Upton wrote about their claim. “And it leaves us exactly as I had previously stated the position to be [in 2018] – namely, that the sustained contribution to atmospheric warming that New Zealand makes through the emission of agricultural methane is a matter of choice, and choosing to maintain this warming at the current level is to claim a “right” to a certain level of warming from agriculture indefinitely.” i.e. claiming an ongoing right to pollute.

Upton noted that the ag sector’s own researchers had stated “the reduction of agricultural methane represents the greatest opportunity to reduce New Zealand’s contribution to warming.” Upton then lamented “…this important policy-relevant finding was buried in an appendix to an appendix in your submission to the Climate Change Commission.”

Again we see farmers being indirectly insulted by their own lobby groups. In a regime where we are internationally committed to exercising our “highest possible ambition,” the lobby groups promoted courses of action contrary to the “important policy-relevant finding” of their own researchers, and in doing so turned their backs on “the greatest opportunity to reduce New Zealand’s contribution to warming.”

Lest we think that stance is a one-off aberration, Federated Farmers (and please don’t confuse them with farmers as individuals), have a long history of denying or downplaying climate change. In 2007, five years after NZ’s Climate Change Response Act was passed, Fed Farmers’ global warming spokesperson told RNZ listeners that climate change didn’t exist and was a political ploy, and in 2014, just one year before the Paris Agreement was signed, then-president William Rolleston told RNZ listeners that Federated Farmers “has no opinion on whether climate change is even real.”

Backtracking on the world stage

It is one thing for industry lobby groups to be pushing for a self-centred position that is contrary to the public interest, but quite another for it to then be enshrined into government policy. So how come our legislative checks and balances didn’t filter out such skewed advocacy?

Well, in short because the present government was/is so closely aligned with the farming lobby that it chose to ignore the legislated checks and balances, especially (but not only) in the form of its legislated climate advisory group, the Climate Change Commission. The government didn’t like the Commission’s 2024 advice so bypassed it by establishing a “Methane Advisory Panel”.

As I noted in CM 141, that panel was set up with terms of reference (TOR here) that in essence ring-fenced the conclusions of the panel so tightly that it yielded a so-called “science-based” review in about the narrowest sense imaginable. (Of the three purposes in the TOR, purposes 1 and 2 both required consistency with “the principle of no additional warming,” and purpose 3 directed the panel to provide independent targeted advice to inform the government’s response to the Climate Change Commission’s advice.)

To constrain the panel even more, clause 7a) of the TOR placed out of scope “making any conclusions or recommendations that go beyond performing the scientific review and providing the evidence-based advice required by these terms of reference. For example, the advice will not cover implications of any new proposed target on the broader climate strategy. It will not try to make values-based judgements about the burden sharing responsibilities of different sectors or nations.”

It thereby precluded exactly the sort of comment that the ag lobby’s own researchers had made (“the reduction of agricultural methane represents the greatest opportunity to reduce New Zealand’s contribution to warming.”)

It would be interesting to know if the review panel considered making a pertinent comment that would not be values-based: that the smaller the methane targets the larger must be the reductions of other greenhouse gases in order for our national effort to align with our Paris commitment. i.e. passing the buck.

But passing the buck doesn’t end there. New Zealand is a signatory to the Global Methane Pledge, which states: “Participants joining the Pledge agree to take voluntary actions to contribute to a collective effort to reduce global methane emissions at least 30 percent from 2020 levels by 2030. This is a global, not a national reduction target.” Once again, caving in to the pressure of the farming lobby, the government has allowed our farmers to become bludgers on the world stage, leaving other countries to do the hard yards so we can meet our insipid methane target and pack our bags at smoko time.

Good grief, the high end of our new official 2050 target doesn’t even come close to the Pledge’s level of emissions reduction by 2030. It’s not hard to agree with Simon Upton when he also wrote “Industries that claim leadership on this issue, as New Zealand’s agriculture sector does, have to show that the target they support is consistent with that.”

Might the PM and Minister plead ignorance and deserve the benefit of the doubt?

Yeah? Nah!

There is an ongoing stream of highly authoritative reports giving consistent messaging on the importance of rapidly cutting methane emissions.

The UN IPCC milestone 2023 Synthesis Report to AR6 (the Sixth Assessment Report) makes numerous references to the importance of methane reduction (e.g. “For example, in modelled pathways that limit warming to 1.5°C (>50%) with no or limited overshoot, global methane emissions are reduced by 34 [21–57] % by 2030 relative to 2019,” and “Strong, rapid and sustained reductions in methane emissions can limit near-term warming.” (BTW “>50%” refers to better than a 50% chance of success – grim odds for averting global catastrophe).

In January this year, along with over 30 scientists and other specialists, I was a signatory to a letter to the PM which drew his attention to the authoritative “The 2024 State of the Climate Report” mentioned above. The report specifically aimed to “communicate directly to researchers, policymakers, and the public.”

In terms of decarbonisation, it first focussed on fossil fuels: “Rapidly phasing down fossil fuel use should be a top priority…”

It then turned its attention to methane: “In addition, pricing and reducing methane emissions is critical for effectively mitigating climate change… methane has a relatively short atmospheric lifetime, making reductions impactful in the short term. Drastically cutting methane emissions can slow the near-term rate of global warming, helping to avoid tipping points and extreme climate impacts.“ [my emphasis.]

In June this year, leading EU environmental programme Copernicus issued its annual update of key climate indicators, authored by over sixty experts. (at https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/17/2641/2025/ ). Lead author Piers Forster told Yale E-360 . “…if the world were to rapidly act on carbon dioxide and methane emissions, we could halve the rate of warming.”

And in case you somehow feel the PM and Minister of Climate Change might be excused for missing such seminal global reports, also in June twenty six world authorities in the field wrote directly to the Prime Minister on this (their letter is here ).

The letter said it was “to warn against adopting a new biogenic methane target based on the goal of achieving ‘no additional warming’…” and closed with “Adopting targets consistent with “no additional warming” ignores the scientific advice. It implies that current methane emissions levels are acceptable. They are not.”

Conclusion

The kindest thing I can say of the cabinet ministers who approved the latest methane targets is that they, astonishingly, had minimal understanding of what they were doing: that they had minimal understanding of the climate change trajectory the world is on, of the escalating peril to life as we know it, and of the role of methane both in contributing to the overheating (about 30%) and, potentially, in being a critical part of a rapid response.

The alternative to Cabinet displaying such an astonishing level of ignorance - i.e. that they further enfeebled methane targets with good knowledge of the looming climate consequences, and in the face of overwhelming scientific opinion - is unthinkable.

Share CLIMATE MATTERS "glimpses into climate's crystal ball"

A summary of “The 2024 state of the climate report: Perilous times on planet Earth” from Oxford University Press.

Welcome to CM 141. Below you’ll find

• Downstream consequences of Tasman’s devastating storms.

• Another nail in the coffin of the ETS.

• The great NTCF Climate Action Festival is almost here!

• From the “can you believe it?” files - shark dentistry anyone?!

• A not-what-you-expect infrastructure litmus test.

• A hotter tip for a cooler planet.

• StatsNZ and the inequity of “no additional warming” methane policy

Enjoy! (No longer read this time.) And do please do share with anyone else you think might be interested.

Share

The sort of circularity we don’t want.

CO2 from fossil fuels causes global heating > global heating causes more severe storms > more severe storms “windthrow” carbon-sequestering trees in Tasman’s two massive July storms > 50,000 urgent extra truck trips needed to rush the trees to Port Nelson > those trucks will emit about 6750 tonnes CO2 (see below) plus many trees get used for short-life products (pallets, cardboard etc.) > the diesel and short life wood products rapidly return fossil and sequestered carbon to the air > press repeat.

Back of an envelope numbers: 50,000 trucks x say 100 km round trip @ 2 km/litre = 2.5 million litres diesel @ 2.7 kgCO2e/litre = 6750 tonnes CO2 (without counting the logs). That’s over 30% of the annual decarbonisation needed for the whole of Nelson.

I don’t know if the image is a “carbon forest”, and I genuinely feel for any forester that suffers that sort of body blow, but it suggests the system seems to need a rethink.

And talking about rethink, time to rethink offsets and the ETS.

The Guardian reports scientists confirming what we basically knew: that the current carbon offset system simply doesn’t work. “We must stop expecting carbon offsetting to work at scale,” said Stephen Lezak, from the University of Oxford. “We have assessed 25 years of evidence and almost everything up until this point has failed.”

In an accompanying video ( “How countries cheat their net zero targets” 5 minutes) Finland is taken as an example. While they have actually cut their emissions over 40%, their net emissions have flatlined. Why? Because ongoing deforestation, plus drastic climate impacts on remaining forests, have cancelled out three decades of reductions.

And check this out! Another great NTCF Climate Action Festival

From 16th to 25th October the Nelson Tasman Climate Forum is running yet another amazing festival under the theme “The world we want”. A great variety of in-person and online events ranges from the NZ premiere of an award-winning movie to washing compost buckets - something for everyone no matter where you are based. Check out the programme and take your pick from almost 40 events, such as these:

From the can you believe it files: a new career filling sharks’ teeth?

Not quite, but a study at Dusseldorf’s Heinrich Heine University, reported in Frontiers in Marine Science points to ocean acidification compromising shark's’ teeth.“They are highly developed weapons built for cutting flesh, not resisting ocean acid,” said lead author, Maximilian Baum. The findings, on discarded teeth from an aquarium, are not definitive, but “show just how vulnerable even nature’s sharpest weapons can be.”

Share

The Strong Towns infrastructure litmus test

I’ve often referenced Strong Towns, not because they are a climate organisation - they’re not - but because they talk refreshing, well-founded, open-minded sense about our built environment. Their president, seasoned civil engineer and planner Charles Marohn, recently posted their Infrastructure Litmus Test and every politician everywhere should read it.

Here’s the core of the test:

“I listen for how they talk about infrastructure. If they describe it as a top-down program, a confidence game where smarter elites can finally make the system work… that repeats the mistakes of the past…If, on the other hand, they describe infrastructure as something that must be humble, incremental, and rooted in place, then I hear the beginnings of a shared vision...”

Stats NZ shows the inequity of “no additional warming”methane policy

Covid-19 plus this graph from StatsNZ show the huge inequity of the government’s cosseted “no additional warming “policy for methane. Check out the lockdown dip - a 25% drop in CO2 from Dec 2019 to June 2020 (remember those deserted roads and empty airports?) but hardly a wobble in the other sources, including methane (AKA “no additional warming”). Given the dominance of CO2 and methane, letting dairy’s methane off the hook near enough doubles the rate at which everyone else must decarbonise to meet our Paris commitment. Govt knows this full well - that’s why they prevented the methane review panel from commenting on it (check out clause 7a in the panel’s terms of reference).

Leave a comment

There is a massive irony that a government that paints itself as being tightly focussed on economic efficiency is pushing flat out to build hugely inefficient highways that struggle to break even. Yet they are cutting support for cycling infrastructure that typically yields better than 10:1 benefit to cost ratio (and brings multiple other benefits).

Subscribe now

“80% of climate solutions end up being cheaper over 30 years than what we do today.” Jon Foley, director of Project Drawdown, with Simon Clark here (4 min in).

Bike infrastructure is the most cost-effective climate strategy globally.

If you like fast-moving expert podcasts, you’ll love Simon Clark’s quest for the most cost-effective climate strategy, here. Clark uses his PhD in atmospheric science to engage with Project Drawdown leader Jon Foley to explore climate strategies and costs. After crunching countless numbers, the result is clear: cycling infrastructure wins by a country mile.

(BTW “Water distribution efficiency” is basically fixing leaks! Sound familiar?)

Professor Ralph Chapman: Active travel infrastructure pays 11:1

In 2018, urban economist Professor Ralph Chapman and colleagues pioneered ways to assess the economics of active travel infrastructure, particularly in middle-sized New Zealand towns (here). They went to lengths to test their calculations with different scenarios, and by comparing towns with and without suitable infrastructure programmes, and concluded “The benefit/cost ratio of the programme (over 10:1) is well in the range to justify the investment involved.” The increase in active travel also resulted in reduced vehicle km traveled and lowered emissions by 1.21% p.a.

Chapman isn’t the only Kiwi pioneer in this field. Otago’s Professor Alexandra Macmillan has a background in environmental health: “For every dollar we spend on gold standard cycling infrastructure we get tens of dollars back in health benefits.” (At 23 minutes in here if you want to hear for yourself!)

So much for the economics of cycleways, what about the climate?

The US Institute of Transport Development and Policy (ITDP) has compared roads and cycleways in terms of climate impacts. In summary, cycleways giveth and roads taketh away - almost in equal quantities. $1m spent on roads was found to cause almost 5000 tonnes of CO2, while $1m on cycling infrastructure resulted in almost 5000 tonnes of CO2 reduction.

“As part of ITDP’s global Cycling Cities campaign and with support from the FIA Foundation, this report finds that networks of protected bicycle lanes in middle-income cities reduce greenhouse gas emissions, lower transport costs, and prevent premature road fatalities in a highly cost-effective way.” Institute of Transport Development and Policy

And Waka Kotahi (NZ Transport Agency) understands too.

In 2023 they brought out the “Waka Kotahi Cycling Action Plan” (here). It’s got lots of good stuff and their first priority is “plan connected cycle networks which support safe, everyday, local trips for everyone.” It’s so simple it’s worth pausing to make sure it sinks in. “plan connected cycle networks...” So many towns, like Nelson where I live, or New Plymouth at the start of Ralph Chapman’s study, have badly fragmented cycleways: lots of good bits with gaps crying out for investment. “…safe, everyday, local trips for everyone…” - we’re not talking tourist trips like the Otago Rail Trail or Nelson/Tasman’s Great Taste Trail, but making it easy and safe for locals to get-to-the-shops, get-to-study, get-to-work, get-to-sports.

Got the message? Good cycleways pay big time!

Share

A New Zealand cameo inspired by “The Ends of the World”.

CM 139 sang the praises of Peter Brannen’s book “The Ends if the World.” And that led to me learning that the same book inspired Newsroom’s Marc Daalder to write an echoing snapshot of Aotearoa New Zealand. It’s a long read and well worth the time. “In 1996, scientists found a time machine buried deep in the Antarctic ice…”

Share

I feel an Aussie special coming on…

Not enough space in this CM, but there’s been lots on the Aussie front. Here are a few thought-bites for starters.

Today the Government gave final approval for the North West Shelf extension, one of the largest fossil fuel projects in Australian history, locking in huge quantities of gas exports until 2070. The scale of this project is jaw-dropping. Over its lifetime, it will release around 4.4 billion tonnes of CO₂, roughly ten times Australia’s current annual emissions. [or 60 years of NZ emissions at current rates.]

Australia needs a contemporary framing of security that places the biggest threat to our future — climate disruption — at the centre of defense and foreign policy.

The Government has just set Australia’s 2035 climate target: a 62% - 70% cut to climate pollution based on 2005 levels. The low end, in the 62% range, falls dangerously short of what’s needed to protect Australians and our way of life. In the face of catastrophic risks, this is simply too timid for our times. The top end, 70%, is a step forward. It’s closer to what’s needed, but still not enough to protect our kids’ future. But a 7 in front of the target indicates that public pressure - from the thousands of you who spoke up - has shifted the dial.

Remember “Wet Feet: Insurance Retreat”?

CM has referenced Belinda Storey’s podcast a couple of times. Earlier this year we also quoted Gunther Thallinger, a director of global insurance giant Allianz, on how entire regions could suddenly become uninsurable and collapse.

Yale’s Environment 360 has just sounded fresh warnings - well, the same but freshly made. “We are marching toward an uninsurable future in this country and across the globe; marching into the abyss.” From 2018-2023 nearly 2 million US homes became uninsurable due to rising climate risks.

“The insurance crisis in the U.S. is the canary in the coal mine, and the canary is dead,” Dave Jones, former insurance commissioner of California.

Where/how do we balance capex carbon and opex carbon?

If you read the comments on CM 139 you’ll have seen Tur asking for clarification: “I can’t find the impact of capital expenditure and depreciation in the analysis you quote above.“ I replied with a poorly chosen example (an extreme case that did little to illuminate help the discussion). So, take 2.

Firstly a caveat: Tur couched his query in business accounting terms. At the risk of losing nuance, I am transposing them to carbon accounting terms.

A core issue with a mix of capital and operating transactions, money or carbon or whatever, is how to compare the two, one fixed and one progressive, to get a coherent picture. The initial cost of say a building can be “amortised” over a certain number of years and so be related to the building’s ongoing operating costs.

Take building insulation. If we were fixated on minimising upfront costs, we wouldn’t insulate our buildings at all. However as soon as we factor in the cost of heating, or health benefits, we need to weigh up the upfront cost of insulation against ongoing benefits and savings.

The same applies to carbon. Insulation comes with a carbon footprint, “embodied carbon” (about a tonne of “CO2e” for a modest house). This year the national grid has run at average emissions of 102 gCO2 per kWh, meaning the insulation would need to save some10,000 kWh before “breaking even” from a carbon perspective.

That comparison can also translate to dollars, At 30c/kWh for power, the saving from10,000 kWh saved would be $3000. (FYI the price of those batts is more like $9000. They would have to save 30,000 kWh before paying for themselves on cost).

But the rabbit hole gets deeper.

Sticking with buildings, a distinction is made between “embodied carbon” from GHG gases emitted in the production of the building, and “operational carbon” associated with running it. In 2022, MBIE issued a methodology for “Whole of life embodied carbon assessment” , and a parallel “Operational efficiency assessment: Technical methodology” for operational carbon.

The image below shows all the processes to be assessed for “whole of life embodied carbon” (with green background) and the two for “operational carbon” (bright green outline). These form part of the wider discipline of “Life Cycle Analysis.”

And to make it even more complex, note “repairs and maintenance” are treated as embodied carbon (i.e. “capital” in financial terms). In houses, carpet replacement is a major source of emissions. Which brings us back to Tur mentioning “depreciation”.

To make sensible predictions of emissions for the replacement of items, we need a realistic idea of their “service lives.” However, these are often hypothetical, with little relationship to the real frequency of replacement. Making predicted carbon emissions for R and M is similarly hypothetical.

The image below, from the Building Research Association, BRANZ, (here ) illustrates some of these points for the lifetime emissions for ten house designs. The green (“materials”) is the embodied carbon from construction, the red and blue are operational carbon from using energy and water.

It’s easy to see lifetime operational carbon, and energy especially, greatly exceeds the embodied carbon (a bit more insulation might not be a bad idea!).

And one other thing: the orange dashed line shows a lifetime carbon footprint to fit our Paris Agreement commitments. As green represents the construction carbon, nine of the ten houses had used their entire lifetime budget of carbon before anyone had even moved in. Food for thought.

Before ending I must veer into another branch of the rabbit warren, and that is the carbon from making our energy infrastructure,.

So far nobody has figured how to make renewable energy infrastructure using just renewable energy. e.g. lots of the ingredients in a wind turbine involve mining and manufacturing processes that remain dependent on fossil fuels. The best we can hope for at present is to get a really long and productive life from the turbine, before repeating the cycle of mining, processing etc.

So putting that back into Capex carbon and Opex carbon terms, there is no such thing as “100% renewable electricity,” at least not if we mean with zero emissions. The best we can currently hope for is to optimise the efficiency and longevity of the components, so as to maximise both their output and their life, and thus also minimise the associated emissions.

We need to learn to use our energy far more wisely.

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

Here’s what lies ahead:

• A Country Life show with lots of interest on beer and beef and soil.

• Nate Hagens with a “Walrus” reality check for activists.

• An older book that blew my socks off (and a sequel just landing).

• Bill McKibben interview on renewable energy - amazing stats plus a blind spot.

• A musical quiz (of sorts)

• Calling out CM129’s use of a Visual Capitalist energy graphic.

From the “can you believe it?” files: beer and cattle decarbonise each other

RNZ’s Country Life is always feel-good, even when things are tough - like for cattle in an Aussie drought. University of Technology Sydney joined the dots between drought-stricken cattle surviving on brewery waste, the role of microalgae in reducing methane from cattle, and CO2 from brewing being potential algae feedstock. Then microalgae that absorbs the brewery’s CO2 can add protein and carbohydrate to cattle feed while also reducing methane burps. That’s already cool, but add in better animal health and improved meat quality and it sounds a winner, Check out that at 5m 50s on the 29th August Country Life . What’s not to like about circular decarbonisation?!

The answer lies in the soil

And while you’re on Country Life , fast forward to 58m 26s and get the goss from a regenerative agriculture symposium at Leeston, Canterbury. “A lot of biology happens under the ground” says organiser Chloe Dear, who explains the benefits of deep-rooting plants that boost soil biology and allow farming that is “less intensive , with lower inputs, but still getting really good returns.”

And The Soil Hub is such a new organisation its home page still says “Launching soon,” but scroll down a little and you’ll find a lot has already launched! Including a link to the UK movie “Six Inches of Soil”.

“If a cargo ship is loaded with solar panels, over its lifetime that cargo will generate five hundred times the energy of the same cargo of coal.” Bill McKibben on “Why is this Happening?” (see below also).

An amazing not-so-new book I couldn’t put down

Even though Peter Brannen’s “The Ends of the World” is eight years old I hadn’t read it. When I did I was so blown away I emailed a rave review to my friends, and I don’t think many of them had read it either. Maybe you haven’t, so do try it - you don’t need to be a climate geek to enjoy it. Here’s a snippet from what I wrote:

“The Ends of the World” is a geological and ecological tour de force that reads like a thriller, with a storyline and evocative language that any mystery writer would be proud of. “When India crashed into Asia around 45 million years ago, this CO2 factory – in operation for tens of millions of years – shuttered its doors and the volcanoes went quiet.”’

I’ve ordered a copy, and also Brannen’s just-hit-the-shelves book “The story of CO2 is the story of everything.” Feels like another can’t-put-it-down sleepless night coming.

A reality check we might not expect from Nate Hagens

Nate Hagens is one of my goto climate commentators ( “The Great Simplification” for deep dives, and “Frankly” for shorter pieces). Having recently called out the myths of standard business school teaching (here - he holds a master’s with honours in finance, a Ph.D. in natural resources, and had ten years on Wall Street) he posed himself the question “what would be the opposite of business school beliefs?”. The answer is “The key blindpsots of the Walrus movement” which, with true Hagens’ wide-boundary-thinking, looks at traditional climate villains through a very wide angle lens.

Is profit bad? Are fossil fuel execs arch-villains? Can renewables replace fossil fuels? What about capitalism? (“Capitalism is just the latest software running on the human hardware…”) All we climate advocates, campaigners, activists and others should watch with an open mind and then think hard about what Hagens says.

Share CLIMATE MATTERS "glimpses into climate's crystal ball"

McKibben on solar: ”Energy from heaven, not from hell.”

Pacey podcast host meets seasoned climate campaigner: Chris Hayes and Bill McKibben cover fascinating ground (here) - like solar becoming so dominant we should stop calling it “alternative energy”; and the eye-watering rate at which China is erecting PVs (can you believe 3 Gigawatt per day? That’s around 6 Benmore Hydros daily, folks…); andthe philosophical differences between the sun and coal (guess the two songs that epitomise that difference! Answers right at the end!); and lots more.

A feature for me was how grounded McKibben is in all of this, and how well he can join dots that we might not even realise are there. Easy and important viewing.

If I have a grizzle it’s the portrayal all this solar enabling our hyper-industrialised society to keep on hyper-industrialising. It’s time we reversed Jevon’s paradox.

And the two songs? “16 Tons” for coal, and ”Here comes the Sun” for solar!

“You load sixteen tons, what do you get? Another day older and deeper in debt”

“Here comes the sun, And I say, ‘It's all right’ “

Fits.

When a respected climate consultant calls you out, you take notice

CM has used many Visual Capitalist graphics, and CM138 included one showing the world still 86.7% reliant on fossil fuels. “It's wrong,” wrote climate consultant John. “Visual Capitalist shouldn't be your source.” He noted the correct figure is 81.26% (referencing Our World in Data ), “and soon to fall under 80%.” John shared links to other authoritative sources, and highlighted that the appalling inefficiency of fossil fuels means the real figure is more like 68%. (Flipping that round, non-fossil fuels account for 32% of actual work - very different to the 13% the VC chart implies).

Rabbit Hole 1 led to the source of data for the VC chart. It was the “Energy Institute Statistical Review of World Energy 2025.” It sounds robust, but Google quickly triggered my BS antennae: “The Energy Institute is, as of 2023, the home of the Statistical Review of World Energy, published previously for more than 70 years by BP.”

BP? Helloooo! And what might the source be for Our World in Data? Rabbit Hole 2: ”Energy Institute Statistical Review of World Energy (2025).” Okaaaay. Why the diff?

John offers a clue: “Using the substitution method to counter the primary energy fallacy.” Rabbit Hole 3: Google’s first, AI, hit said there was no such method, but it next landed me on an Our World in Data explainer for it (so much for AI). Here’s an extract:

“In popular datasets, such as the Statistical Review of World Energy, published by the Energy Institute (it was formerly published by BP), coal and gas are reported in their primary energy terms – as the fuels going into the power plant.

But this is not how renewable electricity – such as solar and wind is recorded. It’s reported in terms of its electricity output.

Think about what this means. We’re comparing the amount of energy generated by fossil fuels with all of the wasted heat, to the amount generated by renewables without this wastage. If you were to replace the electricity from coal and gas with renewables, the energy requirements would be much lower.”

The “much lower” points to John’s 68%.

(And by chance just out is Rabbit Hole 5, a “Just have a think” podcast that also references the VC chart and cautions about the “primary energy fallacy,” even though it doesn’t actually unpick the latter. (You’ll find that about 5 min 30s into RH5).

OWID continues: “However, this still fails to account for many other inefficiencies that are removed when we decarbonize our energy systems. For example, electric vehicles are around four times as efficient as petrol or diesel cars…”

To illustrate, here’s a relevant image from EECA, New Zealand’s Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority (I’ve made the text bolder). The high dark green at the trucks’ rear represents 100% of the energy source for the particular truck, and the height of the lower green at the cab illustrates the amount of useful work delivered by the system. Adapting OWID, it’s easy to see “battery electric trucks are around four times as efficient as petrol or diesel trucks.” Hydrogen really struggles too.

But even then, EECA seems to have taken the source of “fossil fuel” as after it leaves the refinery. Extracting oil, transporting it from the wellhead, and then refining it, can consume over 10% of the energy the oil can deliver, making its energy efficiency that much worse again.

TBH I should have been more onto this at the start. I’ve often struck this issue when engaging with “ERoEI” (energy return on energy invested), where it’s necessary to carefully harmonise the metrics for different energy sources before comparing them. (And if that sort of stuff floats your boat, check out Rabbit Hole 6: Murphy et aI .)

So what are my main take-aways? Not only check the sources carefully, but ensure you know how to interpret them (after all, we had two different lots of data derived from the same source); try not to be captivated by appealing visuals; always welcome help to do things better. Thank you, John.

And if Our World In Data holds appeal, check out author Hannah Ritchie’s blog “Sustainability by Numbers”.

Share

Great reader feedback on CM 137, thanks, hence two explanations below. With local government elections hotting up, this CM links to all 16 experts I interviewed last time. Still highly relevant. Links below to a big variety of listening for a little reading.

And here’s what else you’ll find:

• Stop press! Bottom trawling called out in Nelson.

• Are we on a fools’ errand with energy for data centres?

• The return of “Hotter tips for a cooler planet”

• Shane Jones sings from the same energy songsheet as Donald Trump

• The missing answer to “what is hydrogel bioink?”

• Longer read: answering a reader challenge on “agriculture” versus “ruminants”

STOP PRESS! Activists in my home town call out bottom trawling

CM 138 was finished when this event hit Nelson. Firstly, a big salute to the courage of the campaigners. Thanks to the “Oceans” film, we all know the terrible harm bottom trawling does, but few have the resolve to go to these lengths to try to stop it.

And David Attenborough didn’t even mention the terribly damaging climate connection. A new report from The Lancet Planetary Health notes the huge carbon emissions resulting from the disturbance of carbon rich sediments on the sea floor.

“Globally,” the report found, “bottom trawling emits about 1 gigatonne of CO2 annually, matching aviation’s footprint.” In a further irony, the report analysed the EU fisheries and found “the costs of the carbon outweigh the value of the fish caught.” Duh!

And in yet another irony, RNZ reports “Talley's accused the protesters of having ‘no regard to health and safety’”. If only Talley’s had better regard for the health and safety of the oceans and our future. Here’s the Greenpeace petition against bottom trawling.

Share

Energy for data centres: a fools’ errand?

It’s time to take a big step back and figure just how much is the real gain and how much a mirage from all our data processing and storage and AI. In a world with a bleak energy future, and desperate to reduce fossil fuel use, we have to wonder at the intelligence of pursuing artificial intelligence. Already almost 9% of all electricity in the US is used to power data centres, expected to rise to 12% in three years on the back of AI. Virginia is already at 26%. ( Visual Capitalist )

We lack the minerals to even make the system work

When minerals gurus like Finland’s Simon Michaux explain we can’t even produce the minerals for one global round of renewable electrification, we must get our energy priorities very clear. And for me it’s not for AI or data centres. (Check out Michaux here - 300 pages of eyewatering numbers - and the image below).

That limitation plays into oilcos’ hands, because the more we get hooked on AI the more energy we use, and the more that will make it harder to get off fossil fuelled power generation (and check out the “Yet another…” piece below).

We’ve got a precedent right here right now in NZ: RNZ just reported Minister Shane Jones pushing for more coal because Ballance Agri-Nutrient was outbid for natural gas by Contact Energy. What did Contact want it for? Electricity generation.

From another angle, when push comes to shove and there’s not enough electricity to go round, where will power-outages occur first, data centres, or poorer communities? Have a guess. We should very think hard about the AI trajectory we’re so keen on.

And Hannah Ritchie has a foot in both the energy and the AI camps

Ritchie’s new post ( Sustainability by numbers) reports ChatGTP has a smaller carbon footprint than originally thought. But, she concludes, “The fact that AI chatbots are a small part of most individual footprints does not mean…AI and data centres as a whole are not a problem for energy use and carbon emissions. I think that, particularly at a local level, managing load growth will be a challenge.” And she doesn’t even factor in the challenge of keeping on making the generating hardware.

Yet another stark energy perspective, also from Visual Capitalist

It’s not hard to join the dots, is it?

• The Earth is racing towards increasingly unlivable “hothouse” conditions

• The vast majority of that is due to CO2 released by burning fossil fuels

• 86.7% of global energy still comes from fossil fuels…

• Question: how many of us still burn fossil fuel for non-essential purposes?

And famed climate scientist Homer Simpson (AKA NASA’s Peter Kalmus)

Climate Human

This is the coolest summer for the rest of your life

This summer has been hot. In Chapel Hill, North Carolina, it was so hot in July that even standing still I could feel the sweat start to drip after a few seconds. After a few minutes I’d be drenched and could feel my body gradually heating up.Climate Human is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a f…

Read more

a year ago · 95 likes · 1 comment · Peter Kalmus

Trump on energy/Shane Jones on energy - spot the diff.

Two politicians, same songbook.

Energy cost. Trump: “cut energy and electricity costs by half in12 months”. Jones: “make NZ the most competitively priced energy in the OECD”. Both governments undermined the renewable transition, and what did prices do? In the US “Skyrocketed”, (McKibben ), in NZ ”rising faster than inflation.” ( RNZ )

“We live on a planet where the cheapest way to make power is to point a sheet of glass at the sun”. Bill McKibben

Energy supply. Trump: “Energy supply all far too inadequate… to drive our Nation’s manufacturing, transportation, agriculture, and defense industries…” (First day in office). Jones: “Manufacturing is threatened, jobs are on the line.” (At least Jones is calling out our appalling gentailer cabal.)

Coal. Trump: “Reinvigorating America’s Beautiful Clean Coal Industry.” (The White House). Jones: “We… are the only Western nation that I know of that is transitioning to coal.” (Hansard)

Experts discussing local government and the climate crisis.

Three years ago I was pinching myself that 16 outstanding experts said they’d front up for interviews for a series connecting local government and the climate crisis. The interviews have stood the test of time - in a way a bad thing as it reflects lack of progress, but also meaning the interviews still have a high relevance. They are mostly about half an hour long, a few run longer. Take your pick!

Setting the scene with Prof Susan Krumdieck professor of energy transition at Heriot Watt University and Hon James Shaw then Minister of Climate Change.

Share

Climate connects everything: Dr Olivia Hyatt links climate science to the human dimension, and Miriana Stephens, a director of Wakatū Incorporation, brings insights into addressing climate from a te ao Māori (Māori world view) perspective.

Penny Molnar, QSM, pioneering champion of community initiatives and Dr Joanna Santa Barbara, co-chair of the Nelson Tasman Climate Forum, discuss many facets of achieving a just transition in our climate responses.

Dr. Simon Stewart, award-winning freshwater ecologist, and Simon Millar, CE of Pure Advantage (“Think like a Forest”see CM 137), explore “regenerating nature”.

Ali Boswijk and the late Rod Oram offer their insightful perspectives on “Making our regional economy less vulnerable to climate.”

Prof Ralph Chapman of VUW, and Sam Archer, director of the NZ Green Building Council, discuss links between the built environment, transport, and the climate crisis.

Emeritus Prof Pat Bodger takes a deep dive into our energy future

Prof James Renwick, then a Climate Change Commissioner, and Councillor Sophie Handford of Kapiti Coast District Council, challenge us to think what the future might look like and what changes we might expect in getting there.

Professor Bronwyn Hayward sums it up, linking climate reality and human experience.

When is an answer not an answer?

Big apologies to readers who tried to find the answer in CM 137 to the quiz question “what is hydrogel bioink?” And thanks to Roger who gently pointed out I hadn’t given the answer - just repeated a bit of an article that mentioned it. A hydrogel bioink is a specialised product for 3-D printing matrix structures capable of holding large quantities of water, so simulating the environment of living cells, largely developed for “tissue engineering.” The article in CM 137 referenced its use as the basis for “green” coatings for products like building materials that can progressively sequester carbon from the air. If you want a deep dive into hydrogels, plunge here.

Share

And a reader challenge in response to CM 137

In CM 137, on global warmers and coolers, I wrote “ ‘Agriculture,’ the paper notes, ‘emits few cooling species [gases].’ Which, when we think it through, is yet another reason to slash methane production ASAP (because that’s a way of rapidly reducing warming without also reducing cooling effects).”

Peter, of Nelson sent the following in response: “I squirm to criticise anything in your fantastic and long running Climate Matters [thanks Peter!], but I really think we shouldn’t just talk about methane from “agriculture”… it feeds the narrative that it’s all of agriculture that is producing this methane. I think we need to continually reinforce that agricultural methane (in NZ) is almost all from ruminants and almost all ruminant methane worth talking about is from dairy cows and beef cattle… There is hardly any methane from our poultry, our pigs and none from our kiwifruit, our avocados, our wine industry etc...”

Firstly, many thanks, Peter. I could get defensive about lack of space, or focussing on a different issue, or an international perspective, but Peter’s query is worth unpicking.

This chart, from the New Zealand Greenhouse Gas Inventory (red circles by me), shows the amounts of different GHG from different sectors. Methane from ruminants accounts for 43.1% of national emissions, with dairy emitting just over half of that and sheep and beef about a quarter each.

Crunching the numbers, methane just from cattle and sheep accounts for 80% of all GHG emissions from NZ agriculture (not counting 5.4% from nitrous oxide associated with the same animals). Peter’s point is well made

To pick up on his comment about low emissions from other sectors, we can see that all the rest of NZ ag (“other”) only accounts for 4.6% of national emissions, or around a tenth of the heating impact of ruminant methane.

Which leads us to ask why there’s such resistance to reducing ruminant farming generally, and dairy farming especially. I have often saluted farmers and the challenges they face, and made the point other sectors, like construction, have yet to feel the decarbonisation heat like farming. But I’ve also been deeply critical of farming organisations, and Fed Farmers especially, for obstructing change that’s so much in the long term interest of their own members as well as the rest of the world.

We might also keep in mind much of our huge dairy sector is quite recent (see below, or at StatsNZ ), along with a steady reduction of land under ruminant farming. So is dairy farming a traditional holy cow? For a few, maybe, but many farmers have been happy to change farming mode, or sell their farms, when that seems lucrative.

And let’s also keep in mind that trying to lift milk production on less land is a major driver of intensive dairying, in turn causing so much of the other 5.3% of emissions due to nitrous oxide, to say nothing of escalating damage to our freshwater systems.

Finally, let’s never forget that, despite this governments smoke and mirrors with its “methane review panel,” slashing agricultural methane emissions remains one of the greatest single contributions New Zealand can make in the global quest to preserve a livable future for our children and their children.

So thanks, Peter, for your challenge.

Subscribe now

• Expert climate tips for local government elections

• Warming, cooling and a Sankey diagram on steroids

• Stream a great film premier on 20th August: “Think Like a Forest”

• If you’ve always wondered about methacrylate polimerisation…

• A marvelous book and an(other) amazing college student presentation

QUIZ: What is a hydrogel bioink, and what is its climate significance?

Subscribe now

Expert climate insights for the local government elections

Three years ago I had the great privilege of interviewing sixteen experts on how local government could respond to the climate crisis. The interviews are still hugely relevant, and can all be streamed at Climate and Councils (they are each about half an hour). And, for time-strapped readers, I‘m including a couple of short clips in each issue of Climate Matters up till election day.

For starters here are two from the late Rod Oram, a commentator par excellence on business and climate. (You can find the full conversation on Spotify )

In the first clip, I had asked how businesses might get a handle on what lies ahead and what options they might have for dealing with it.

(I love “They are trying to make their future rather than defend their past.” )

In the next clip, I had charged Rod with being a long-term policy advisor to local government in the quest to help their communities still flourish in 30 years time.

A mind-bending double whammy: climate coolers and climate warmers

Nature Journals brings us an insightful climate paper on how different emissions from one sector can create both global warming and global cooling - and how we had better understand that if we want to mitigate climate harm effectively.

Summed up in the astonishing Sankey diagram below (solid bands are heaters, dashed bands coolers, and their widths reflect quantity), the paper stresses the need to understand their combined effects. E.g. coal-fired electricity generation (in “POWER”) is not only a major emitter of greenhouse gas CO2 (a “warmer”), but also emits sulphur dioxide (SO2), a “cooler” which, in the upper atmosphere, reduces how much solar radiation reaches Earth.

Their research finds that SO2 from burning coal counteracts about 50% of the coal’s CO2 emissions (and 33% of all current global warming). That’s something we should be very thankful for right now, but points to extra challenges for decarbonisation strategies. Why? Both coolers and warmers will abate as we get off fossil fuels, but CO2 stays in the air for centuries, while SO2 abates in days. In the short term that means we can expect additional warming due to the far more rapid decline of coolers.

“Agriculture,” the paper notes, “emits few cooling species [gases].” Which, when we think it through, is yet another reason to slash methane production ASAP (because that’s a way of rapidly reducing warming without also reducing cooling effects).

Share

Seeing the wood and the trees: the premiere of “Think Like a Forest”

At a time when so much is going backwards on climate policy it’s wonderful to have “Recloaking Papatuanuku,” a home-grown initiative of Pure Advantage, ticking so many boxes. At 5.30 on 20th August join thousands online for the Beehive launch of it’s promotion film “Think Like a Forest”. Register here. (For overseas readers: “The Beehive” is a local name for the home of NZ’s government after the building’s shape.)

Recloaking Papatuanuku can be on the grand scale we so badly need for climate responses. It has the potential to restore huge tracts of indigenous forest, inject $12 billion into the local economy (instead of paying $24 billion offshore), and soak up around a quarter of New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions over the rest of this century. (For its business case, check here ).

For good measure, Pure Advantage’s Executive Director Simon Millar was also a guest on the 2022 Climate and Councils series. So here’s Simon starting his response to me making him a “mayor” charged with redirecting council expenditure. (Full interview )

And another mind-bending double whammy (if we look closely)

Nature Communications (here) reports on “Dual carbon sequestration with photosynthetic living materials” in which “photosynthetic living materials are capable of CO₂ sequestration via both biomass accumulation and carbonate formation” (carbonate in essence being limestone). This is a technically impressive mix of biology, micro-engineering, and complex topology to yield a 3-D printed organic carbon-sequestering lattice surface for, say, construction materials, that sequesters carbon two ways - firstly by photosynthesis, and secondly by “carbonation” which converts excretions from the organism into carbonate.

Photosynthesis greens the tiny structure below, and the formation of carbonates over time causes the progressive stiffening of the shape.

The complexity of the process is easy to sense from the descriptions: “Photosynthetic living materials were fabricated by combining PCC 7002 with a hydrogel bioink [got that?! The Quiz answer], that was structured via 3D printing and stabilized via photopolymerization…” followed by adding “the photoinitiator lithium phenyl-2,4,6-trimethylbenzoylphosphinate…”

But, impressive as the technology is, it’s far from ready to go - after 400 days it stored about 1/40th of its weight in carbon (wood stores half its weight) and is reported as “less efficient than carbon capture and storage.” And carbon capture and storage has a very, very long way to go to be viable at scale.

And if you’ve always wondered about Methacrylate polimerisation, it’s the process where 405 nm wavelength (violet) light converts the biological medium into polimers, helping make the system viable.

A marvelous book: “Human Nature”

With an author named “Marvel” we might expect great things from “Human Nature,” and climate scientist Kate Marvel doesn’t disappoint. From the get go her writing sparkles with imaginative language that breathes life into an extraordinary array of science, history, and emotion.

And the emotion is no accident: the book’s subtitle, “nine ways to feel about our changing planet,“ headlines a chapter structure starting and ending on the high notes of “wonder” and “love,” and traversing a roller-coaster of feelings in between.

In a way that is reminiscent of Joelle Gergis’ book “Humanity’s Moment,” Marvel’s is all the better for her blend of remarkable scientific insights and her passion for protecting a planet which is suffering so much damage.

Read it! And catch a 7 min audio or text interview with Marvel at National Public Radio.

And another inspirational college student

CM 135 brought you the moving talk by student Fili Fepulea’i Tapua’i, and I’ve just come across Leo Mwape, equally compelling, equally impressive, albeit in different ways. Mwape doesn’t even mention climate, but he’s championing a cause that is central to us successfully tackling it. Check him out! 9 minutes.