spinofflive
A demonstrator dressed as US President Donald Trump waves from a car as he parades with other activists dressed as polar bears during a protest of the action group “No Climate Change” on November 11, 2017 in Bonn, western Germany, where is taking place the COP23 United Nations Climate Change Conference. / AFP PHOTO / dpa / Bernd Thissen / Germany OUT        (Photo credit should read BERND THISSEN/AFP/Getty Images)
A demonstrator dressed as US President Donald Trump waves from a car as he parades with other activists dressed as polar bears during a protest of the action group “No Climate Change” on November 11, 2017 in Bonn, western Germany, where is taking place the COP23 United Nations Climate Change Conference. / AFP PHOTO / dpa / Bernd Thissen / Germany OUT (Photo credit should read BERND THISSEN/AFP/Getty Images)

ScienceNovember 13, 2017

Our rating of NZ’s climate target? Not good enough. The heat is now on James Shaw

A demonstrator dressed as US President Donald Trump waves from a car as he parades with other activists dressed as polar bears during a protest of the action group “No Climate Change” on November 11, 2017 in Bonn, western Germany, where is taking place the COP23 United Nations Climate Change Conference. / AFP PHOTO / dpa / Bernd Thissen / Germany OUT        (Photo credit should read BERND THISSEN/AFP/Getty Images)
A demonstrator dressed as US President Donald Trump waves from a car as he parades with other activists dressed as polar bears during a protest of the action group “No Climate Change” on November 11, 2017 in Bonn, western Germany, where is taking place the COP23 United Nations Climate Change Conference. / AFP PHOTO / dpa / Bernd Thissen / Germany OUT (Photo credit should read BERND THISSEN/AFP/Getty Images)

The Climate Action Tracker reveals the NZ ambition is not ‘fine’ as claimed, writes Bill Hare, a physicist and climate scientist and a former lead author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

New Zealand’s new climate change minister James Shaw is stepping on to the international stage for the first time in his new role at the climate talks in Bonn, Germany.

The New Zealand government’s newly announced climate policies – with the goal of making New Zealand’s electricity system fossil fuel free by 2025 and reducing emissions to net zero by 2050 – has drawn international praise. They are strong new goals and, when implemented, would put New Zealand toward the front of the international pack. These goals appear to be quite consistent with the Paris Agreement’s 1.5C warming limit.

A demonstration by the “No Climate Change” group in Bonn for COP23, the United Nations Climate Change Conference. The participants are not believed to be actual polar bears or American presidents. Photo: BERND THISSEN/AFP/Getty Images

But how can we weigh up countries’ commitments, particularly in relation to others with different populations and economies?

The Climate Action Tracker is a consortium of three scientific research organisations with globally-recognised experts and IPCC authors that have been assessing and rating the details of government climate pledges and actions globally since 2009.

Views on what is fair and equitable analysis of effort-sharing to meet global climate goals can – and do – differ. Rather than choose one approach we use an effort sharing and equity methodology that’s based on a range of more than 40 scientific studies that is put within a transparent framework.

We calculate a “fair share range” based on all available – and scientific – approaches, and apply this framework to all the countries included in our analysis. This allows for a comparison of pledges and/or targets of different countries – based on sound scientific analysis.

This week, we have published our latest assessment of government targets in 32 countries, covering around 80% of global emissions.

We have rated New Zealand’s Paris Agreement target as “Insufficient” because it is not consistent with the Paris Agreement and, if adopted by all, would lead to warming of up to 3oC – indeed we do exactly what Prof Dave Frame advocated in his article for the Spinoff last week, where he asserts that New Zealand’s climate target is “fine”.

He suggested two ways of comparing international climate targets: looking at what would happen if all governments were to take the same approach, and making a direct comparison with other countries.

In New Zealand’s case, the CAT has found that if all governments were to adopt the same level of promised climate action under the Paris commitments, global warming would reach well over 2C and up to 3C. We come to a similar conclusion for other countries, such as the EU and Australia. But having a target that’s comparable to other countries doesn’t make this enough – they all need to do more.

The task ahead of us all is to live up to what 192 governments agreed in Paris in 2015: to hold warming well below 2C and to make efforts to limit warming to 1.5C – not to do as little as everyone else.

The Paris Agreement target goes beyond what the international community agreed in Copenhagen in 2010 – to limit warming to below 2C. This is why governments must step up both their targets, and their action to meet them. Most targets put forward are not even consistent with the Copenhagen goal, let alone what was agreed in Paris.

The big problem at present is that the policies of the previous NZ government are, according the scientifically based rating system of our assessment under the Climate Action Tracker, “Highly Insufficient”. In other words, if all governments were to implement climate policies with the previous government’s level of ambition the world would warm 3-4C above pre-industrial levels.

If you compare New Zealand’s climate policies with others, it is immediately obvious that the gap between targets and action is much higher for New Zealand (and for Australia) than, for example, the EU.

Both China and India are set to overachieve their targets.

Previous climate change ministers like Tim Groser and Paula Bennett were always anxious to point out that New Zealand’s emissions are only 0.2% of the global problem.

But the world cannot keep warming to 1.5C unless everyone does their bit: 101 small emitters like New Zealand add up to 23.5% of global emissions. Under the Paris Agreement 1.5C limit we world needs to reach zero emissions globally by 2050: if all these small emitters left themselves out of the equation there is no way this goal could be met.

In Bonn, governments are working on agreeing the rules under the Paris Agreement, on how they account for – and report – their emissions of greenhouse gases, and the transparency of that reporting.

James Shaw would be wise to read up on the real detail of how New Zealand accounts for its emissions, where we have conducted some very detailed analysis over the years. In climate policy, details really matter, and the rules of accounting can make the difference as to whether emissions rise or fall in the real economy, as opposed to in ministerial press releases.

In New Zealand’s Paris Agreement target, it is very unclear as to how NZ intends to account for different “sources” of greenhouse gas emissions and “sinks”, making it difficult for the CAT to assess. We presume the reason is because the Paris Agreement’s accounting rules for land use, land use change and forestry are still under negotiation.

Loopholes created under this set of rules have always been a difficult issue – and New Zealand has a very special reputation for its long history of promoting land use and forestry accounting rules whose end result is to disguise rapidly growing emissions. NZ is not alone in this. Australia has also benefited from a complex set of rules that have been designed and promoted to avoid taking action to cut actual greenhouse gas emissions in the real economy.

The negotiation of the Paris Agreement rule set will benefit substantially if the minister moves to reverse what amounts to a 25-year long stance of promoting these creative accounting approaches for land use change and forestry that ultimately disguise inaction.

James Shaw. Photo: Adrian Malloch

The first thing the minister could consider – and that would help demonstrate to the international community that there is a new regime in town – would be to ratify the Kyoto Protocol’s Second Commitment Period. Right now, New Zealand claims to “follow the rules” of the Protocol, but mysteriously doesn’t want to ratify.

Our assessment of New Zealand shows that there have been few – if any – new policies to cut emissions since 2009. From what we understand about the Ardern government’s policies, we expect a range of new policies that will, for the first time in nearly a decade – tackle actual emissions reductions, rather than relying on offsets and carbon trading. This can move New Zealand to become a role model for other countries – for example, neighbouring Australia.

We look forward to seeing these new policies – and being able to easily measure their effects on New Zealand’s emissions profile.


The Spinoff’s science content is made possible thanks to the support of The MacDiarmid Institute for Advanced Materials and Nanotechnology, a national institute devoted to scientific research.

Keep going!
How wood can be used to quake-safe buildings (Supplied)
How wood can be used to quake-safe buildings (Supplied)

ScienceNovember 10, 2017

Could the solution to New Zealand’s quake-prone buildings already be on a shelf at Bunnings?

How wood can be used to quake-safe buildings (Supplied)
How wood can be used to quake-safe buildings (Supplied)

Auckland University researchers say beams of timber stuck onto the backs of unreinforced masonry façades could be a cheap and simple way to stop them collapsing in an earthquake. Laura McQuillan investigates.

Owners of nearly 140 buildings from Lower Hutt to Canterbury have been given until the end of March to secure unreinforced masonry façades and parapets that pose an “immediate danger” to passers-by. After that deadline, building owners who haven’t done the work face non-compliance fines of up to $200,000.

But councils are saying that work to secure masonry is only underway on about a quarter of the buildings, and just one (in Wellington) has so far completed it.

With the clock ticking, Auckland University seismic engineering lecturer Dr Dmytro Dizhur is encouraging owners and engineers to consider wood to quake-safe their buildings.

How would wood work?

The idea for using wood to secure façades arose out of the Christchurch quake, where timber frames stayed standing while the masonry in front of them collapsed.

Dizhur thought: why not fasten the two together?

His solution is almost as simple as popping down to Bunnings for a load of timber strongbacks, then fastening them vertically along a brick wall at certain intervals, and to horizontal beams connected to the floor and ceiling.

How wood can be used to quake-safe buildings (Supplied)

“Masonry has very little tensile strength, so it’s just sort of a stack of bricks on top of each other, and as soon as you push them sideways, they tend to just [fall] as a stack of bricks,” he says.

“What the timber does, in the regular spacing, is just holds everything together, so you actually engage the weight… You’re actually using the heavy aspect to your advantage.”

Both the wood’s thickness, and the size of the space between beams, need to be carefully calculated, and Dizhur presented those calculations to the Structural Engineers’ Society conference on November 2. His team is currently in the process of manufacturing special screws to anchor the timber to masonry, with nothing on the market quite right for the job.

In Dizhur’s tests, the timber and masonry combo “seems to have performed extremely well”, withstanding three times as much ground acceleration as a wall without it.

“We took it up to as high as 1.3g, which, in a New Zealand context, is quite high,” Dizhur says.

That’s the same ground force acceleration measured at Ward in North Canterbury during the Kaikoura quake, though 3g was measured in Waiau during the same quake and 2.2g during the Christchurch quake.

Dizhur says there’s no reason why the wood technique wouldn’t work on a two or three-storey building on Wellington’s Cuba Street, though some buildings – including those with parapets – will need additional retrofitting methods.

Glass and rubble covers the footpath on Wakefield Street after the November 14 earthquake. Photo by Hagen Hopkins/Getty Images

“There will be cases where it’s going to be a sole solution, but in other cases, it will be part of a package. It’s not a magic bullet, but it addresses one of the biggest concerns and one of the most expensive concerns.”

As for why no one’s thought of using wood before, Dizhur points out they did – 3000 years ago.

“Ancient Greeks and ancient Romans already had ideas of combining timber and masonry, in a slightly different fashion, but the basic principles are the same. We’re not actually technically inventing anything new, we’re just rediscovering the old knowledge.

“People get on a tangent with over-complication and sophistication with all the technology that allows you to do that, but if you just step back and look at the principles, usually the answer is right in front of your nose.”

Canada’s magic concrete

While the Auckland team was screwing wood onto masonry, researchers at the University of British Columbia in Canada were mixing fibre with cement and spraying it onto concrete walls.

The new material, called eco-friendly ductile cementitious composite (EDCC) and nicknamed “quake-resistant concrete”, can make a wall “bend” enough to withstand nearly twice the force of the magnitude-9.1 quake that hit Japan in 2011.

It’s not the first fibre-reinforced concrete in existence: a similar New Zealand product, Flexus, was launched about seven years ago but discontinued in 2015.

But at just $10 (NZD $11.20) per square metre, EDCC is touted as the cheapest on the market – ideal for use in quake-prone developing countries.

Releasing an impressive video of an EDCC-coated wall surviving an earthquake simulation, UBC said it “could save the lives of not only British Columbians but citizens throughout the world”. Canada’s so amped about the innovation that it’s already been added to British Columbia’s seismic retrofit program and will soon be used to upgrade schools in both Vancouver and India.

Researcher Salman Soleimani-Dashtaki said it’s also perfect for Wellington’s heritage buildings, saying it can be applied to just the rear of a wall, without altering the front.

And he’s “very confident” that, had the material been used in Christchurch prior to 2011, it could have prevented deaths from falling masonry.

“Maybe the buildings still needed the restoration after the earthquake, but the number of bricks, clay bricks, and debris that was flown away could have been prevented, could have been avoided by a factor of 10, I would say.”

If further testing outside the lab proves it’s as good as the researchers believe, they hope to have it on the market next year.

The idea of using EDCC in Wellington was run past property mogul Ian Cassels, who said he’s “mad keen” to try it on his buildings, which include Island Bay’s red-stickered and empty Erskine College, and others on Cuba Street.

“$10 a metre is a very, very low price for any type of coating, particularly if it’s engineered-type coating, it’s gotta have reasonable thickness and volume to it,” the director of the Wellington Company says.

“I think it’s a fabulous idea but I just can’t believe it’ll work.”

Plastering a wall with seismic-resistant concrete (UBC)

Neither can a Kiwi expert who attended a technical presentation by the Canadian researchers in Los Angeles.

“On the [UBC] video, it appears that people are getting earthquake-resistant concrete. There’s nothing as such,” says University of Canterbury engineering professor Stefano Pampanin.

“It’s not one single technology or technique which is going to save the building from being earthquake-prone or not… It’s just that this can become part of a toolkit of an engineer.”

Pampanin was quick to add there were positives to the Canadians’ research – but it wasn’t the silver bullet it had been made out to be.

“New materials are being developed further and further. They are reaching a point where they’re becoming cheaper – that’s absolutely fundamental – and they’re becoming more and more feasible to be applicable.

“The more we go, the more people will be able to use simple and cheaper, but very performant, materials and technology. That’s the good news. But yes, it has been oversold.”

Would either fly in New Zealand?

Neither the Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) nor Wellington City Council wanted to endorse an innovation, saying it’s up to owners to decide the right way to improve their building’s performance.

If EDCC were to be used in New Zealand, its manufacturers would first have to prove it meets Building Code standards – so if it makes it to hardware store shelves, it’ll be long past the March deadline.

But while most owners of Wellington’s 96 must-fix buildings will use steel beams or strapping to secure their façades, wood could be used on some, the city’s chief resilience officer Mike Mendonca says.

How wood can be used to quake-safe buildings (Supplied)

“There’s a guy who owns a garage in one of the suburbs, and his is a pretty simple job where he just needs to remove the parapet, weather-tighten what he’s done, and just get on with it… I wouldn’t say it’s quite as simple as go to Bunnings and get a bit of 4×2, but it’s not too much more than that,” Mendonca says.

“There are a bunch of those, but we’re being very careful not to generalise because you simply can’t do that on the building that’s on the main corner outside the hospital, for example.”

He’s referring to the iconic Ashleigh Court Private Hotel, at the corner of Riddiford and Rintoul streets, a heritage building that “needs architectural services, professional builders, traffic management, that kind of thing”.

But, adds Mendonca, “horses for courses – in some cases, yep, Auckland University’s actually right.”

So mark that down as a win for the wood team – though the real champs are those building owners who are putting in the effort and expense to secure their masonry, whichever way they choose to do it.


The Spinoff’s science content is made possible thanks to the support of The MacDiarmid Institute for Advanced Materials and Nanotechnology, a national institute devoted to scientific research.