Dr. Mike Joy's editorial on the accelerating dissolution of the life-supporting capacity of our planet

This cris-de-coeur from New Zealand's leading academic on New Zealand's water coincides with my own position.

I can't imagine any academic in the public arena saying more and holding down a job.

Dr. Mike Joy's editorial

I am reproducing Mike Joy's editorial from the last IGPS newsletter in its entirety to ensure that this has a wider readership.

It echoes my own thinking but more eloquently put - that we must stop business as usual immediately and take action with extreme urgency to avoid the end of our life support systems. Also to save other species - we have no right to destroy their lives and futures.

Scientists have issued us with dire warnings about what is ahead: the time to take commensurate action is NOW!

Senior Researcher Mike Joy reflects on our ongoing failure to save ourselves from environmental disaster.

Via Facebook

"Because of my research arena, I’m inundated daily by revelations of the accelerating dissolution of the life-supporting capacity of our planet. While this realisation is depressing, what is worse is that as I absorb this information I feel more and more detached from society. Because despite all these warning signs, all I see and hear around me is business-as-usual with economic growth still the supreme imperative.

I guess my feeling of disconnection comes from the fact that there seems to be so little awareness of the reality of the dilemma that we're in, and no sign of any urgency, panic or concrete movement towards the monumental changes required for civilization on anything like its current scale to have a future.

I constantly struggle to understand this cognitive dissonance, while also realising I’m guilty of it myself. Why haven’t we made the changes, or even slowed down? It’s not as if there is doubt about what is happening. Since I was child we have wiped out 60% of animal species and this destruction is speeding up with the current extinction rate 1000 times higher than background rates.

The species loss is not surprising when you consider that now the biomass of humans, our food and pet animals are more than 30 times higher than that of all wild animals on the planet.

In my childhood there were warnings about our increasingly perilous environmental situation. Back then the idea of modelling limits to growth came into being, and despite being ridiculed at the time the predictions have turned out to be chillingly accurate.

Then in the early 1990s came the World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity followed up last year by a more strident “Second Warning to Humanity“ this time signed by 25,000 scientists. Both warnings unambiguously declared that if we don't radically change the way we live the planet the planet will soon no longer support us.

In my lifetime carbon dioxide emissions have more than doubled. Even just since the UN Climate Change Convention in 1992 they've grown by another 60%. Fossil fuel use is now more than five times higher than when I was born. We are burning 80% more coal now than we were as recently as the year 2000. Looking around, the impacts of this fossil fuel largesse on the climate and thus the planet are obvious; in the last 22 years we have had the warmest 20 years on record, the ice loss from Antarctica is 6 times higher than it was when I was a child and the Arctic ocean has lost 95% of its old ice in that period.

There is much optimism about techno-solutions to our dilemma. Sadly this has become a real opportunity for snake-oil salespeople to promote their hype, and often it is lapped up by a following desperate for a sign that we won’t have to change. Here in New Zealand many assume that because we have a high proportion of renewable electricity, we have started the needed transition. They don’t realise that electricity is a small proportion of our primary energy use. Despite the hype around renewables, globally our energy supply is not transitioning to renewable sources. In fact renewable energy has not replaced any other form of energy: it has only added to the mix. We now use proportionally more fossil energy than at any other time in our history.

The sobering fact is that the world economy remains hopelessly coupled to fossil fuel use. As my colleague Robert McLachlan from Massey University showed, we must reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 6% per year from now until 2050 to have a hope. Given that GDP is inextricably locked to greenhouse gas emissions, achieving that reduction would require a 6% per year reduction in GDP. You would think this reality would have economists worked up, but they seem oblivious. Will we just march on to the inevitable collapse?

The only change I see is a ramping up of rhetoric about making change. Despite dozens of international conferences on fossil fuel reduction and even an international treaty that came into force in 1994, human-made greenhouse gas emissions are still rising. The agreements sound splendid, but they are unenforceable, they have no verification requirements and they do not require anything remotely close to the level of change needed to avoid catastrophe. Worse, they engender a false feeling among much of the public that the problem is being dealt with.

In a few hundred years we have expended energy which was stored up over millions of years. In doing this we have grossly overshot the Earth’s carrying capacity. Every year we have an extra 90 million people on the planet. That means 90 million more mouths to feed, 90 million more to house and supply with consumer goods mostly made from non-renewable resources. Take away fossil fuels, and we no longer have the ability to support our current population. Fossil fuels reserves are like a battery that was charged over millions of years, which we are recklessly discharging in a few decades.

I hope that through my role at the IGPS I can do something to reduce the cognitive dissonance that is impeding action. I am convinced that one big reason the required changes are not made is because people are not aware of how bad things are. Thus, politicians and policy makers avoid the required changes, because they know they will be rejected by voters, because voters lack the necessary sense of urgency. I want to push for real change through information dissemination; and I want to challenge others, especially academics, to be more outspoken."


This talk is from last year

These photos taken by Pam Crisp on a hike into Wellingtons' water catchment after a good flush of rain shows what we have to lose

Dr.Mike Joy on Peak Oil

Energy makes the economy go round

Dr Mike Joy tackles some disturbing truths about our reliance on oil, suggesting how we might transition to a 'de-carbonised world'

Newsroom,co.nz,

30 Octoer, 2018

How many barrels of oil does it take to power the economy? Far from the punchline of a joke, the answer outlined by Dr Mike Joy, a senior researcher at Victoria University of Wellington’s Institute for Governance and Policy Studies, in a public lecture highlights some disturbing truths about our reliance on oil, the importance of energy to the economy, and how we might “transition to a de-carbonised world”.

Starting with the dire warning from more than 20,000 scientists worldwide that “if the world doesn’t act soon, there will be catastrophic biodiversity loss and untold amounts of human misery”, Joy went on to introduce the field of Biophysical Economics and one of its key concepts—Energy return on energy invested (EROI), or “how much energy do you have to put in to get that back?”.

“Biophysical Economics uses material and energy flows, rather than prices, to evaluate the economy, and it’s clear economists have underestimated the significance of energy in production. People also seem to underestimate how hard it is to replace energy production and how much it takes to produce energy,” said Joy. 

“They don’t realise most of the food that is produced for people on this planet comes from using fossil fuels. But the net energy from our oil and gas supply is declining, which is going to have implications for everyone.”

There is a “double whammy” of the current need to use fossil fuels continuing to expand globally, and the fact that the easily accessible fuel is gone and what is left requires much more effort and therefore energy and capital to extract and refine.  

We need to find four Saudi Arabias in the next 20 years to keep up with consumption.

Guest speaker at the lecture and a transition engineering consultant, Nathan Surendran put this assessment in perspective by pointing out that “we’re now producing and consuming two to four barrels of oil for each barrel we find”. 

“Put another way, we need to find four Saudi Arabias in the next 20 years to keep up with consumption. The reality is that oil is the weak link in the production and delivery of virtually all other forms of energy, commodities, food, goods and services. Oil is, in many respects, the master resource,” Surendran said. 

In spite of acknowledging the importance of oil to economies, both Joy and Surendran are in agreement about the need for New Zealand and the world to be carbon neutral by 2050 to keep global temperature rise under 1.5°C. 

So what about the promise of renewable energy in achieving this goal?

While many people may think a transition to renewable energy will be a “lovely carry-on-as-we-are world with no more petrol pumps”, Joy is sceptical about the “bright green future we’re being told awaits us”. 

“Contrary to what most people believe, we are using proportionally less renewable energy than we did previously. That is a huge issue. But there’s also the fact that the EROI on renewables like photovoltaic (solar panels), wind and biofuels poor and can’t sustain our current energy needs,” said Joy.

“The best way to compare all the possible energy sources and realise limitations on that green future, is by looking at these renewable energy sources in terms of watts per square metre—how much area of land does it take for each renewable energy source to meet current energy demand.” 

Applying the formula of energy used per person and population density, Joy used the example of Britain to highlight the issue of relying solely on current renewable energy sources, as every square metre of the country would need to be covered in wind farms and solar panels to meet energy needs. 

“The energy density of our alternatives is so much lower than fossil fuels, but if we want to keep under the 1.5oC threshold, we have to reduce our emissions by 6 percent per year from today,” said Joy. 

“Basically we’re going to have to get used to having a whole lot less energy than what we had before, and that’s our only future. We have to figure out how we’re going to do that.” 

Contrasting NZ views on the CO-21 Paris Agreement

We do have ONE honest person in New Zealand public life. 

Green Party leader, James Shaw is not amongst them.

Dr.Mike Joy examines the COP21 Paris Agreement

Mike Joy, via Facebook

In another FFS moment for me, on a tip off from Ian Dunlop i checked out the COP21 Paris agreement and guess what? nothing at all in it about human induced climate change, using word search I found that 'carbon dioxide', 'coal', 'oil', 'shale oil', 'fossil fuel' and 'fracking' were not mentioned once. Also never once is 'ban' or 'zero' or 'stop', 'halt' or 'prohibit', or 'liability' or 'compensation' mentioned but heaps of words like "adaptation".

Bloody hell, there is a goal but no action plan heaps of "enhance" and "capacity" words, and its all voluntary no binding agreements....

Why am I so gullible? given all the moaning about it i thought it might actually have been worth the paper its written on

The text of the Paris Agreement is HERE and HERE

Here is the Green Party’s leader, Tory-in-drag and liar James Shaw positively gushing about the Agreement.

All he can talk about now as minister is f...king electric cars.

Why is NZ’s environmental regulator trying to muzzle scientist Mike Joy?

The Environmental Protection Authority CEO’s complaint to Massey University about the freshwater ecologist sparked a disciplinary process, yet the agency seems strangely disinclined to speak out on climate change denial, writes Shaun Hendy.

The Environmental Protection Authority (EPA), New Zealand’s statutory environmental regulator, says that it is worried about science denial in New Zealand. “Debate the decisions, but don’t deny the science,” wrote its chief executive, Dr Allan Freeth, in an op-ed last December. “What we find difficult are objections and criticisms of decisions not based on scientific evidence, but rather on alternative truths or theories,” he said.

What about alternative truths such as the claim that the globe hadn’t warmed for “17 or 18 years” made by Dr Doug Edmeades during a radio appearance last April? The EPA was so concerned that its Chief Scientist, Dr Jacqueline Rowarth, who was also being interviewed, responded with a nervous chuckle.

To be fair, Rowarth had been caught on the hop. She hadn’t come on the radio to debate climate science, she had come to discuss whether Massey University freshwater ecologist Dr Mike Joy was abusing his academic freedom (“Is Dr Mike Joy an extremist, or does he have a point?”). The interview was a follow up to a column Edmeades had written (“Is Mike Joy a Biased Scientist?”) in NZ Farmer a few weeks before.

What are the limits of academic freedom in New Zealand? According to Rowarth, “a whole PhD was written on that [sic] the Holocaust didn’t exist and it was then revoked”. (I can find no evidence for this claim.*)

Doubling down on Rowarth’s reference to the Holocaust, Edmeades later dismissed the interviewer’s attempt at balance (Joy is “passionate about water”) by noting that Adolf Hitler had been a rather passionate individual too.

As documented in the 2010 book Merchants of Doubt, this sort of attack is one of the tactics used in science denial. By labelling scientists as extremists, it is much easier to dismiss them and it discourages other scientists from speaking publicly on issues.

So maybe Freeth has a point – maybe New Zealand needs to pay more attention to science denial. But what did Freeth do after his chief scientist’s participation in this extraordinary radio interview?** He wrote to Massey University’s vice chancellor to complain about Mike Joy.

Joy is no snowflake. He has been a strong critic of the impact the dairy industry has had on our waterways, and in return he cops a fair deal of criticism. When prime minister, John Key once famously compared Joy to a lawyer.

But this time Freeth’s complaint hit Joy hard, because in response, Massey University initiated a formal disciplinary process***.

What were Freeth’s beefs? He said that Joy’s media appearances and Facebook posts had become “increasingly personal” and “close to libelous” (a copy of the letter, which Joy has shared with me, is here.)

He first objects to Joy raising Rowarth’s financial stake in a dairy farm and the bias this may bring. But the public sector code of conduct says that public officials must avoid situations where there could be an appearance of a conflict of interest. Rowarth’s potential conflicts were a matter of legitimate public interest.

 

Freeth then complains that Joy had mistakenly called Rowarth the leader of the EPA. Yet before she quit in late February, she was listed as #2 on the EPA website. I’m not a lawyer, but I’d be very surprised if this is grounds for libel.

 

Finally, Freeth complains about Joy’s claim that Rowarth’s appointment had been political. But he was not alone in asking the question. When the Greens put it to then Minister for the Environment Nick Smith, he denied it.

 

Freeth finishes by suggesting that Joy should raise any concerns he had directly with him.

I wanted to find out whether the EPA had extended Joy the same courtesy, so I asked the organisation whether it had contacted Joy directly with its concerns.

“No, this is just what we do,” said Diane Robinson, its Group Manager of Communications and Strategy. “We wanted his vice chancellor to know what was going on.”

I also asked whether the EPA should have made an effort to challenge some of Edmeades’ alternative truths. “We can’t control what others say,” Robinson said. “We live in a free country.”

What about Edmeades’ statement that world hadn’t warmed for the last 20 years? Should that have gone unchallenged given the EPA’s role in protecting the environment? “Climate change is one of those things where half the people say one thing, the other half say another”, said Robinson. “We can’t correct everyone.”

So there you have it. The Environmental Protection Authority is not fussed if you want to deny climate science, but will write to your boss if you get the name of its CE muddled. Good to know what it considers worth protecting.

---

* Rowarth may have mixed up a couple of different incidents here – while there have been several controversies at New Zealand universities concerning studies of the Holocaust, a check with the Jewish Council did not turn up any that had involved revocation of a PhD.

** The interview was so concerning that the New Zealand Association of Scientists sent an email to its members reminding them of the Royal Society’s Code of Professional Standards and Ethics.

*** I found out about this when Joy invited me to come along to the disciplinary meeting as a supporter. I was not able to make the meeting, but I wrote to Massey in support of Joy. I understand that although a formal disciplinary meeting between Joy and his Dean took place, Massey University took no further action.

Shaun Hendy is Director of the Te Pūnaha Matatini, a Centre of Research Excellence, and a Professor of Physics at the University of Auckland.

---

Dairy production: Threats and challenges to NZ rivers

There are 6.8 million cows in New Zealand. In terms of their ecological footprints this equates to a human population of 90 million.

Mike Joy on dairy production and the destruction of New Zealand’s environment

“Threats and challenges to our Rivers”

Dr. Mike Joy, lecturer in environmental sustainability an teacher of ecology and environmental management at Massey University spoke last night in Upper Hutt. I was unable to make the talk but my partner Pam was able to debrief me. Our conversation is below.

In this interview with BBC's Hard Talk PM John Key was deeply uncomfortable when confronted with the name of Mike Joy and the truth of the effects of dairy production on our waterways and the myth of NZ's "clean, green image"

Key grilled over NZ's clean, green image

Here is a 2013 talk given by Dr.Mike Joy  on the impact of dairy production on the environment

White Gold -- Dairy Production in New Zealand - Mike Joy

A 2011 articke from the New Zealand Herald

Mike Joy: The dying myth of a clean, green Aotearoa

Has anyone noticed that "100 per cent pure New Zealand" has quietly been changed to "100 per cent pure you"?

Having been hung out to dry over their impacts on the environment, the exploiters, including Federated Farmers, have successfully lobbied to lower environmental expectations.

The irony is that overseas consumers' perception of New Zealand as clean and green will soon be our only marketing edge. The rest of the world will catch up and easily beat us on commodity prices, because their land and labour costs are so much cheaper.

We are delusional about how clean and green we are. Last year New Zealand honoured the United Nations Year of Biodiversity with the revelation that we are among the world's worst biodiversity losers....

.....

We made reference in our discussion to Fresh Water for Life, which aims to independently report on the freshwater situation in New Zealand.

“We will provide information on NZ’s water quality and the main threats to good water quality and the life in our freshwater. Our goals are to safeguard and protect our freshwater, so present and future generations can enjoy what we all love.”

Go to the website HERE