Correspondence.

• Author: Gray, Vincent
• Position: Letter to the Editor

Sir,

I consider that the article 'New Zealand and the Kyoto Protocol' by Dr Jian Yang, in the May-June issue (vol 29, no 3) omits important aspects of the problem.

To begin with, there remain serious doubts about the scientific basis for the Protocol. These were expressed by Chris de Freitas in his contribution to the seminar held by the NZIIA in Wellington on 30 July 1999, and also by me in my comment in the September/October 2001 issue (vol 26, no 5, pp.27-8).

Then, he fails to mention that the Kyoto Protocol has, so far, failed to receive sufficient ratifications to enable it to come into effect. It requires ratifications from countries emitting a total of 55 per cent of emissions in 1990 but, so far, has attained only 41.1 per cent, mainly because of the refusal of the United States and Australia. The only way it could rise above 55 per cent is by ratification by Russia, which would give 58.5 per cent. It is by no means clear that Russia will take this step, and Jian Yang should have discussed the consequences to New Zealand if this does not happen. There is a question ms to whether the measures proposed by the New Zealand government have legal status, and whether there will be a proper way of calculating 'carbon credits' without the existence of the Protocol itself.

In his discussion of methane and the government's 'fart tax', he might also have mentioned that methane concentrations in the atmosphere are not increasing, and may fail. Also he could have mentioned that an alternative method of reducing methane emissions would be encouragement for farmers to drain wetlands, instead of penalising them for it, as at present.

VINCENT GRAY

Wellington

Jian Yang responds:

It was not my intention to make a judgment on the Kyoto Protocol itself or to argue for any particular party. My attempt was, as I say in my article, 'to highlight the conflict of interests and politics in the making of New Zealand's policy towards the Kyoto Protocol.' To have included more pros and cons about the protocol would have made the article more p informative but it was not essential...