Dom Post Editorial on Greens
A useful editorial today in the Dom Post, responding to the Greens scorecard of parties on climate change:
Many New Zealanders do have a philosophical commitment to green policies. It is when it comes to practicalities that the necessary compromises begin between that commitment and their other, equally worthy ambitions, such as ensuring New Zealand has an economy capable of delivering a high standard of living, of providing jobs for its young people, and of financing the welfare state.
If New Zealand was populated by maypole-dancing, beancurd-eating, bicycle-embracing voters, the Greens would be in control of the Beehive and eco taxes would abound.
Instead, most New Zealanders have come to a more pragmatic balance between environmental purity and economic reality, a balance that recognises the West Coast snails need to co-exist with mine development.
Dr Norman chides the Labour-led Government for timidity on climate change, and for being unwilling to challenge the economic orthodoxy of the day. The Greens believe in building consensus. He should recognise that is what is needed on climate change policy, not scorecards.
I’m now trying to picture a maypole-dancing, beancurd-eating, bicycle-embracing voter!
January 16th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
“I’m now trying to picture a maypole-dancing, beancurd-eating, bicycle-embracing voter!”
At least one family of them in my neighbourhood!
Wouldn’t presume to guess who they vote for though (Yeeeaah Right.)
January 16th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
You could look no further than the PM’s ‘husband.’
January 16th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
Actually, a recent story (or stories) in the NZ Herald reveals the real aim of Global Warming. The headline reads “What guilty secrets are in John Key’s Garage?” – or words to that effect.
The piece goes on to speculate that he has an SUV or a BRM or some other gas guzzling car and hence contributing more than “His share” to global warming.
Needless to say this has generated comments about other people’s guilty spending on larger than Lada toys or necessities.
Finally, the watermelons – and all socialists – have achieved their nirvana. They have a “legal” excuse to demand we are all reduced to a common denominator of consumption. Global warming will be used to justify the banning of all cars, boats, houses or anything above what a bureacrat decides is “all we need.” There will soon be no such thing as “business class” or first class. And no pleasure boats bigger than a rowboat or kayak. And no clothes dryers. (Rodney district already has that policy in its planning documents) and indeed nothing which uses more than the minimum of carbon dioxide.
Naturally the end of champagne – but beer too. Those are guilty bubbles in the foam.
Global warming will finally bring about “to each according to his need” – and no more.
January 16th, 2007 at 4:44 pm
Most of those I talk to on the warming bandwagon would be quite happy with a carbon tax. Nobody would stop you owning that boat or SUV, but it would get more expensive to run it (arguably just a full recognition of the externatities). The expectation is that, at the margin, some people would decide that a painting on the wall was worth more to them than the SUV, or that they will decide to walk to the shop instead of drive. I’m not sure it’s quite the communist plot you envisage.
January 16th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
Owen, your anti-AGW scaremongering is just as lame as the AGW doom-merchants.
January 16th, 2007 at 4:51 pm
Perhaps PaulL you should find new friends. Punishing to get change does not work. Certainly harming our economy and losing competative advantage against those who do not carbon tax like Aussie is suicide. We will be worse off and suffer more.
I think you find the SUvs will stay. I note Audi’s comments that they predict 50% of all sales will be diesel.Me, I’m thinking of buying a new range rover diesel. Sure it weighs 2.4 tonne but it does 11 l/100kms not 20.
January 16th, 2007 at 5:05 pm
What, you think I should get communist friends?
A carbon tax is not punishing to get change, it is estimating the cost of an externality and reflecting it in the cost. It doesn’t impact competitive advantage at all if we treat it similarly to GST, namely:
– all imports attract a duty equivalent to the carbon tax that product would have paid if made in NZ (no relative advantage)
– all exports are entitled to a drawback of the tax upon export (no relative disadvantage)
Customs already offer exactly this regime for a range of taxes, it isn’t rocket science.
It doesn’t have the Kyoto downside of paying the Russians because they are good at lying about their compliance, the payment for emitting remains in NZ. We modify the tax rate as necessary in order to manage our total carbon emissions towards whatever global agreements we may have signed up to. Worst case, if everyone just happily pays the tax without reducing emissions, we have surplus revenue to undertake abatement.
In my ideal world we reduce either income tax or GST to compensate for the tax take at the chosen emission level, so it is revenue neutral. We would also allow a tax refund for those generating carbon credits, so they would have some incentive to get on and plant trees, or preserve wilderness areas, or whatever the latest craze is. It has most of the benefit of cap and trade, without the downside of giving a windfall profit to those whom currently emit greenhouse gases.
If we let the greenies or the reds get there first, they will set the tax up so that it increases the size of the govt, and continue to nationalise all carbon credits. Or do something loony like paying the Russians to lie for us. Far better that the right put in place a properly designed regime than that the left make a mess.
I am not sure that there is another option, unless you count arguing there isn’t a problem and ignoring public opinion, which doesn’t seem to have much upside from where I am sitting.
January 16th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
Yawn.
January 16th, 2007 at 5:32 pm
Double yawn. Refer it all to the Minister For Farting Against Thunder.
One decent volcanic eruption will undo all the wacky socio carbon taxes these dickwits can dream up. One decent bushfire in Aussie or California will do the same. One day’s spewing of crap from India and China will finish the job. Why, even the UAE is exempt from Kyoto apparently. Now, what is their GDP per capita? Please someone tell me.
Haven’e we got something more constructive to do like providing jobs and incomes?
January 16th, 2007 at 8:14 pm
Not quite right there Adolf. Presuming the bushes that catch fire grow back a bush fire has not net effect on CO2 and the amount of CO2 produced by volcanoes is minimal (long term avg is less than 1% of human production). And FWIF eruptions usually have a net cooling effect because of the aerosols released scattering sunlight.
January 16th, 2007 at 8:14 pm
Not quite right there Adolf. Presuming the bushes that catch fire grow back a bush fire has not net effect on CO2 and the amount of CO2 produced by volcanoes is minimal (long term avg is less than 1% of human production). And FWIW eruptions usually have a net cooling effect because of the aerosols released scattering sunlight.
January 16th, 2007 at 8:49 pm
dw must stand for SickWit. Are you so dull that you think CO2 is the only harmful emission.
January 16th, 2007 at 10:35 pm
With a nation of pacifist tree-huggers, it shouldn’t take long for a few bad boys to roll up the powers-that-be, put a few of them against the wall and make ourselves the powers-that-be…
January 16th, 2007 at 11:45 pm
Adolf,
You’re point is wrong, get a new argument. The effect of something like an eruption or a bushfire is tiny in the face of human emissions no matter what gas you’re talking about. Those victorian bushfires that idiot Tim Blair was crowing about generated ~2% of the heating effect that state’s CO2 emissions generate in a year (and they are of course compounded by methane, nitrous oxide and the rest)
January 17th, 2007 at 9:03 am
The responding comments all seem to miss my point.
There are a whole lot of people out there who know didley squat about atmospheric and climate science and could care less about the impact of greenhouse gases on anything BUT who love their knew found excuse to bag those who are successful.
It’s a loser’s delight.
Just like the Puritans who banned bear baiting – not because of the pain it caused the bear but because of the pleasure it gave the specatators.
January 17th, 2007 at 9:30 am
you really do march to the beat of a different drummer…
eh ?..owen mcshane..?
setting new benchmarks in convoluted thinking/logic there..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
January 17th, 2007 at 9:30 am
Its the command and control brigade at work again as well as Owens observation the green eyed monster.Socialist governments are always looking for new ways to rape the taxpayer They cant help them selves. So along comes a theory that can be dressed up so that any who argues against it can be painted as vile selfish killers of the planet. Way to Go. An opportunity to raise revenue and shout down those who see through the scam all at the same time. The Socialists couldnt believe their luck And the so called scientists pushing this crap are guaranteed as much funding as they could ever want.All they have to do is play along with the pollies and the civil servants.It then becomes an evangelical crusade. I wont be surprised to find myself burned at the stake or subject to the ducking stool for daring to question the fraud. Climate Change has been around since before Adam was a cowboy.I wont repeat the evidence its all been said.But I still cant believe what should otherwise be intelligent people falling for this load of crapola so easily.
January 17th, 2007 at 11:16 am
Forgive my ignoarance as a humble cyclist, but how is it a bad thing to use a more fuel efficient vehicle and spend less money at the pump? Carbon tax on SUV’s? Well from memory its been applied in london and I’m all for it.
January 17th, 2007 at 11:18 am
Forgive my ignoarance as a humble cyclist, but how is it a bad thing to use a more fuel efficient vehicle and spend less money at the pump? Carbon tax on SUV’s? Well from memory its been applied in london and I’m all for it.
January 17th, 2007 at 11:55 am
Cyclist-its not a bad thing at all to use a more fuel efficient vehicle. I think my current leanings towards a diesel and audis research indicate that people will make these choices of their own volition based on what they learn and understand. I though we were banning smacking for being naughty and in my view a tax like this is just the same. If Peak Oil is true people will change anyway without Nanny state. I note that last year when petrol prices were high statistics revealed that people were travelling less and motorway use dropped.
So why the need for punishment? Dont we get credit for being able to think for ourselves.
Also, on SUVs, families need big cars. That need wont go away.
Last time I was in New York staying with friends I was intrigued to learn that very few in the building owned cars. They didnt need to because the Body Corporate owned and operated several cars for the occupiers to use. Great idea and works in NY because cabs, walking and subway are the go.
We may see similar trends here where you drive a small car during the day but for holiday or family trips you hire one.
January 17th, 2007 at 11:58 am
Phil,
Given Owens qualifications and your own many many examples of no thinking at all, your comment is somewhat out of context with the example you set yourself.
January 17th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
I find myself in general agreement with PaulL. There may be merit in the Greens basic proposal of a carbon tax offset by income tax deductions.
Having said that, anyone who reads my various posts about the Greens will understand that I may have significant differences in implementation of the entire package, as we are coming at the same issue from a different ideological perspective.
In some ways, the issue is one of property rights. If the New Zealand people collectively “own” their atmosphere, we don’t necessarily want to give it away to any other party to pollute as they feel. There is something of value to protect, fund its maintenance and identify as a property item. Typically, property owners are keen to invest in the long term management and sustainability of their property.
As some people mention, when the fuel prices went up, road usage dipped. Obviously, increasing prices does have some effect on discouraging use, so a carbon tax on fuel could hasten the switch to more fuel efficient transport. Will I buy a more economical car this year to replace a 10 year old big engine car, or will I wait another 3 years? A hike in fuel combined with a tax break on a more efficient car might make me jump earlier. Restructuring other taxes can either offset this, or boost salaries for those that reduce excess consumption or invest in the latest technology.
This kind of issue deserves a much more detailed response, because I am not happy about the “detail” of the Green eco-policies, but there is merit in making sustainability and protection of our environment (property) more important than it has been. I see no reason this could not be integrated into a longer plan that also includes moves to attract more commerce and business into New Zealand.
Hopefully, I’ll get time to detail this better over the next month or so.
I’ve often thought a centre-right party that articulated a comprehensive environmental policy would be a good thing for New Zealanders, and be an interesting challenge to the Greens, who have just as many policies that have nothing to do with the environment, and every-thing to do with excessive government control.
January 17th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
Yep, Paul L’s comments indicate the considered view that the Dom editorial seems to want to assign to “most New Zealanders [that] have come to a more pragmatic balance.”
However the editorial has the wrong take on the necessary “global perspective”. Contrary to the article, there is every “point in New Zealand being a world leader” – our high value export destinations value environmental leadership.
The business case for adopting a pro-environment stance is strong. It’s not necessarily a climate change argument (Owen). Climate Change is simply one result of not pricing externalities. The argument probably resonates more strongly with many consumers on a water quality, air quality, habitat protection, recreation opportunities, etc, level rather than a climate change level.
The editorial is correct in pointing to the balance perceived as important by many. But the simple fact is that not everything is priced. Damage is being done – that much is certain. Pricing the damage is essential. We may just find that the most lucrative global markets love us for it.
January 17th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
I wonder how much the wealthy billions of the future will value the “environmental leadership” of those eco-imperialists who killed over sixty million Africans and other poor people as a result of their totally unfounded ban on DDT as an insecticide against the malaria carrying mosquito.
And before you leap to defend Rachel Carson I read the book when it was first published and her camaign was against the use of DDT as a blanket sprayed AGRICULTURAL chemical – not against its use on the bedroom walls of African children.
Her campaign was well directed and led to the development of the more efficient and eco-friendly degradable chemicals we now all use.
(except organic gardeners who have to persist with persistent compounds like copper sulphate.)
The persistence of DDT was a serious deficiency when sprayed onto soil but a great merit when one coat of the stuff would protect a child from malaria for six months or more.
Leadership needs to be well-informed – not based on junk science and hysteria and romantic guilt.
January 17th, 2007 at 6:59 pm
There is a lot of poor analysis here, due to both misinformation and lack of information of relevant science and technology , to provide objective or innovative solutions to a problem that is either real ,or existing within the models of the circuit boards of various scientific organizations.
First you presume that the Russian federation is to sell all of its carbon credits,indicators are that only 5% may be available. A small tranche was sold by the worlds largest energy company Gazprom to Europe,but a substantial portion may be used for industrial expansion.
Second the assertion that fiscal restraint is the only option ie tax restraint and pseudo technological renewable energy sources will provide adequate energy security at realistic pricing and indeed whether these products will be carbon free or provide an energy advantage viz a vis cooling /warming of the environmental envelope.
Here is the consensus statement from the Inter-academy council.
Joint Science Academies’ Statement: Energy Sustainability and Security g8
The g8 Joint science academies have released the outline for the global situation and the security of the energy complex for sustainability, innovation,and development.As we have suggested there are a number of interesting developments ,that will see a mix of new technology,efficiency and evolution of existing technology.
Broad international consensus recognizes three principal, inter-related components of sustainable development: economic prosperity, social development, and environmental protection. Sustainable and reliable supply of energy is one of the major conditions for achieving these three goals ,for all countries of the world: if energy sustainability and security fail, the primary human development goals cannot be achieved.
Last year we addressed the major challenges of climate change. These challenges are predominantly related to energy systems and use. We therefore welcome the opportunity to address energy sustainability and security on the occasion of the 2006 G8 Summit – and we expect to continue our focus on these critical issues in future years. The InterAcademy Council, established by the Academies of the world, is now engaged in an in- depth examination of this energy technology transition challenge, to be completed within a year…..http://outsidethecube.blogspot.com/2006/06/joint-science-academies-statement.html
From looking at the statements from the Government , this seems to be a responsive reaction to the Greens policy and rhectoric.
The attack on the pastoral farming sector by the greens and any of the subjective taxation policies will make a difference to the temperature regime of the NZ envelope of 0 in the short-term and slightly warmer in the local climate in the long term.
I use the nitrous oxide emissions as an example.
Atmosphere is a gaseous envelope – N2 – 78%, O2 21% trace gases, every day the suns shines high energy particles in the upper atmosphere ,produce nitrous oxide by photochemical reactions.The precipitation to the middle and lower atmosphere happens each day that coupling produces a cooling effect on the radiation exchange process.
So if climate warming is not their objective ,what is it ?
January 18th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
In this morning’s Herald Dominic Lawson reports that “the Journal World Economics unleashed a might barrage of academic anathemas against the Stern Review”, and that “World Economics is the most respected publication of this sort.”
The major paper is in two parts – the first part critiques Stern’s climate science, while the second part critiques his economics. Five authors wrote the science section, and ten wrote the economics section – making fifteen authors in all.
Readers might be interested to know that three of the authors – R M Carter, Ian Castles and David Henderson are members of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, and a fourth, Chris de Freitas is an advisor to the Coalition.
This is a significant contribution from a New Zealand based group which Minister for Climate Change Issues David Parker dismissed as a “lunatic fringe”.
January 18th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
In this morning’s Herald Dominic Lawson reports that “the Journal World Economics unleashed a might barrage of academic anathemas against the Stern Review”, and that “World Economics is the most respected publication of this sort.”
The major paper is in two parts – the first part critiques Stern’s climate science, while the second part critiques his economics. Five authors wrote the science section, and ten wrote the economics section – making fifteen authors in all.
Readers might be interested to know that three of the authors – R M Carter, Ian Castles and David Henderson are members of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, and a fourth, Chris de Freitas is an advisor to the Coalition.
This is a significant contribution from a New Zealand based group which Minister for Climate Change Issues David Parker dismissed as a “lunatic fringe”.
January 19th, 2007 at 11:52 am
I see it now….the Church of the Anthro Glorbell Werming…
With a cathedral as close as possible to NZ’s most easterly point where the religious faithful can be first to throw rotten tomatoes at the rising sun
Motto is “think of mother earth, don’t breath out”…..not a bad idea for the Greens.
January 19th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
Owen
I like that, We’re not a fringe group we just got a scientific article published… in the 71st most importnant journal… in economics.
You guys sound more and more like creationists by the day
January 20th, 2007 at 12:09 pm
DW
Maybe you cannot read. The Critique of the Stern Review is primarilly an article about economics. Hence it is in the World Economics Journal and the economics critique has ten authors. One of whom David Henderson, ex Head of Economics at the OECD, is a member of the NZ Climate Science Coalition.
Because the economic arguments are dependent on certain scientific assumptions (as recognised in the Structure of the Stern Review) this critique opens with a section which critiques those relevant scientific issues. Three of our members are authors of that section.
“We” did not get it published. The authors got it published – four of our team were authors.
How this relates to creation “science” is beyond me. Maybe you should begin by reading the Stern report and the critique.
But it does seem as though you are unwilling to allow facts and argument to get in the way of your prejudice.
April 6th, 2007 at 8:54 pm
Very interesting reading, especially.
http://spartan.cis.temple.edu/synergy/_knobas/0000031e.htm
June 2nd, 2007 at 9:11 pm
New google surprise!
http://www.yahdex.ru test [url=www.yahdex.ru]test[/url]
http://www.yahdex.ru test [url=www.yahdex.ru]test[/url]
http://www.yahdex.ru test [url=www.yahdex.ru]test[/url]
http://www.yahdex.ru test [url=www.yahdex.ru]test[/url]
http://www.yahdex.ru test [url=www.yahdex.ru]test[/url]
http://www.yahdex.ru test [url=www.yahdex.ru]test[/url]
Click adsense and win new car speakers !
July 1st, 2007 at 9:33 am
http://www.fridae.com/common/images/headers/viagra/Cheap-Viagra.html “>Cheap Viagra
July 1st, 2007 at 9:34 am
http://www.fridae.com/common/images/headers/viagra/Cheap-Viagra.html “>Cheap Viagra
July 1st, 2007 at 9:34 am
http://www.fridae.com/common/images/headers/viagra/Cheap-Viagra.html “>Cheap Viagra
July 2nd, 2007 at 12:24 am
http://www.fridae.com/common/images/headers/poker/Party-Poker.html “>Party Poker
July 2nd, 2007 at 12:25 am
http://www.fridae.com/common/images/headers/poker/Party-Poker.html “>Party Poker
July 2nd, 2007 at 12:26 am
http://www.fridae.com/common/images/headers/poker/Party-Poker.html “>Party Poker
July 2nd, 2007 at 12:26 am
http://www.fridae.com/common/images/headers/poker/Party-Poker.html “>Party Poker
July 2nd, 2007 at 2:56 pm
http://www.fridae.com/common/images/headers/strip/Adult-Poker.html “>Adult Poker
July 2nd, 2007 at 2:57 pm
http://www.fridae.com/common/images/headers/strip/Adult-Poker.html “>Adult Poker
July 2nd, 2007 at 2:58 pm
http://www.fridae.com/common/images/headers/strip/Adult-Poker.html “>Adult Poker
July 2nd, 2007 at 2:58 pm
http://www.fridae.com/common/images/headers/strip/Adult-Poker.html “>Adult Poker
July 3rd, 2007 at 8:21 am
http://www.fridae.com/common/images/headers/viagra/Discount-Viagra.html “>Discount Viagra
July 3rd, 2007 at 8:21 am
http://www.fridae.com/common/images/headers/viagra/Discount-Viagra.html “>Discount Viagra
July 3rd, 2007 at 8:22 am
http://www.fridae.com/common/images/headers/viagra/Discount-Viagra.html “>Discount Viagra
August 3rd, 2007 at 6:35 pm
Great site… review http://www.4viagraonline.com