Greenpeace attacks Govt emissions trading scheme
March 4th, 2008 at 5:02 pm by David FarrarGreenpeace has commissioned a report on the proposed NZ Emissions Trading Scheme.
Now I blogged last Friday on how the Flexible Land Use Alliance warned that the proposed scheme would lock up land into uneconomic uses, and could cost billions of dollars. Almost every party in Parliament has backed their compromise option.
So what does Greenpeace have to say? Are they defending the proposed scheme? Let’s read the report and see what their summary is:
The current proposal for the structure of the ETS will deliver no significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, will act as an impediment to the rapid implementation of less carbon intensive production technologies in the manufacturing industry and will do nothing to slow the destruction of forests to make way for increasingly greenhouse gas intensive forms of dairy farming.
They then ask Will the NZ ETS deliver significant emission reductions?
The simple answer to this question is no.
Wow that’s a blunt answer. The ETS simply won’t work in reducing emissions significantly. And what will it cost?
If emissions growth is at the higher end of the Treasury forecasts then, at a world price of $25 per tonne, New Zealand would need to import at least $3.1 billion worth of emission permits.
So Greenpeace are saying the ETS will cost NZ $3.1 billion and it won’t actually significantly reduce emissions. Ummm, doesn’t that mean if Greenpeace are correct, you’d have to be pretty crazy to implement such a scheme?
Related posts:
- NZIER on Emission Trading Scheme
- Emissions Trading Scheme Poll
- Key on Emissions Trading Scheme
- Australian Emissions Trading Scheme
March 4th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
And what does GREENPEACE actually want us to do? Back to the Stone Age?
Vote:March 4th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
doesn’t that mean if Greenpeace are correct, you’d have to be pretty crazy to implement such a scheme?
Not if your objective is control of a large fraction of the economy.
If your objective is either helping the environment or increasing wealth and raising living standards, then its crazy.
Vote:March 4th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Ben, solid energy(forget the snails),export most of our coal too Japs and Chinese, who burn it to make warships !
Vote:What a load of hypercritical rubbish.
March 4th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Tane is too upset to type up a comment on this one, so has asked me to pass this on, and I repeat it verbatim:
“Stupid hollow man. If you are heading in the wrong direction, wouldn’t a giant step backwards be a good thing? Ergo, the fact that the ETS wont do anything to fix the problem (heading in the wrong direction) and will in fact still cost a fortune (a giant step backwards) it is fairly obvious the outcome MUST be positive. Hollowman, hollowman, gollum… and cheese”
Vote:March 4th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
The science is not settled. At the moment there is a conferance in New York that Dr Murial Newman and Owen McShane are attending. I would like to think that it will gain some attention from the media if they can take their heads out of the sand and do their job and investigate the science. Then again they just might upset too many people who pay their wages.
Vote:March 4th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
Greenpeace actually want us to drive in cars made of recycled wood and powered by natural rubber bands.
Vote:True! my Mum told me.
March 4th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
I don’t believe “back to the stone age” is what Greenpeace are suggesting, those are your words Phil! Please actually read the report, so you can make informed comments. Farrar has provided a link to the report, and there it has an executive summary on page 3.
They are criticizing the Emissions Trading Scheme proposed by the Govt; and as you yourself along with nearly everyone else on here have just carte blanche rubbished the ideas of Emissions Trading / Carbon Credits / The Kyoto agreement too, I would have thought you’d welcome agreement (researched agreement) from the main environmental lobby group.
What amazes me is the mindset of people who maintain “OF COURSE there’s no such thing as (global warming / climate change), and I should know, It’s a complex scientific issue but I’m a well informed expert on it, because I’m a (plumber / accountant / receptionist / etc)…”
Vote:March 4th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
I heard an excellent comment from a fed farmers rep on the news on the way home in response to Greenpeace. It went roughly : There is currently no proven technology available for farmers to reduce their carbon outputs. The only way for them to do this is to reduce production. If they reduce production the whole country suffers. The world is rapidly facing a food shortage, partly caused by basic commodities being used for bio-fuels which environmentalists demand we use. NZ exports food. If we reduce food exports not only will the NZ economy miss out on new opportunities but the supply from NZ and other food producers like Australia of basic foodstuffs like milk powder, wheat, and protein to China, India and the developing world will be reduced. Are Greenpeace therefore prepared to start advocating foodless days here and overseas?
Vote:March 4th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Actually, I disagree with ANY measures to combat global warming other than newer, better technology.
THIS is amusing: (Michael Crichton)
“Notice that in 1968, when Ehrlich published his book The Population Bomb, world fertility was already in decline. Ehrlich was thus urging people to do what they had already been doing for about 10 years. It’s not clear whether he knew this or not. But certainly when he said, “The battle to feed all of humanity is over….At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate…” he was simply wrong. As you see, after his book appeared the death rate remained flat in developed countries, and it continued to fall for another 10 years in developing countries.
Ehrlich’s procedure—crying out in desperation to urge what’s already happening—isn’t unique. We have a contemporary example in the call of politicians and activists to end our dependence on fossil fuels, and move to a “carbon neutral” lifestyle. Their call to action is, however, a bit late.
According to Jesse Ausubel of the Rockefeller Institute, industrialized nations have been decarbonizing their energy sources for 150 years, meaning we are moving away from carbon toward hydrogen. In other words, the ratio of carbon to hydrogen decreases as you go from wood and hay (1:1) to coal to oil to gas (1:4). Here is an illustration from one of his articles:
(doesn’t reproduce here)
Ausubel expects the trend to continue through this century as we move toward pure hydrogen—without the assistance of lawyers and activists. Obviously if a trend has been continuously operating since the days of Lincoln and Queen Victoria, it probably does not need the assistance of organizations like the Sierra Club and the NRDC, which are showing up about a hundred years too late.
Ausubel’s ideas are controversial to some, but not to sites like Sustainability Now:
(diagram doesn’t reproduce here)
All right. Then in summary, when I went back to examine old fears, the first thing I found was that newspapers were focused on momentary concerns; the second thing I found was that the language employed was excessively frightening, and the third thing I found was that a lot of advocacy was encouraging what was happening anyway.”
Vote:March 4th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
Sorry, I forgot to include a link to the whole Michael Crichton presentation:
http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speech-complexity.html
Good stuff.
Vote:March 4th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
The recent NZ “Sustainable Transport” working paper advocated a target of 50% reduction in the average CO2 emissions of NZ’s vehicle fleet by the year 2040. Actually, if we all bought new Hondas NOW, we could reduce it NINETY PERCENT!!!!!! NOW!!!!!!!!!
DOHHHHHHH!!!!!!!! DOHHHHHH!!!!!!! DOHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!
Vote:March 4th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
“So Greenpeace are saying the ETS will cost NZ $3.1 billion and it won’t actually significantly reduce emissions. Ummm, doesn’t that mean if Greenpeace are correct, you’d have to be pretty crazy to implement such a scheme?”
Well yes DPF, that’s all very well but remember now matter how stupid or out of touch Labour is on any policy the Nats will be destroyed as soon as they start to release any policy (excepting, one assumes, policy already released and generally applauded such as the youth policy but I digress)…
Vote:March 4th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
Interesting, at least. “Whenever it looks like there could be trouble ahead, don’t take precautionary action now even if it is in your power to do so, because experience shows that that never works, and in fact it is always counterproductive. Some sort of guardian angel will magically appear to sort it out for you, usually in the form of the free market.”
Imagine if that school of thought was taught in (say) the road code!
Vote:March 4th, 2008 at 7:08 pm
For a while there I was completely amazed – thinking this was comment from the Greens! But alas no. It was Greenpeace. I guess they can state the obvious because they are not so politicized and need to kowtow to Marxist ideology like the Greens?
Vote:March 4th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Errr…why would NZ want to reduce its carbon emissions?
Vote:March 4th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
RRM, its a fraud the whole global warming nonsense. Where is the proof that its carbon dioxide? Where is the proof that the sea is rising? Where is the proof that the tempreture is rising? Go on give us the FACTS the EVIDENCE.
Vote:March 4th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
RRM why don’t you go out and buy some of those carbon credits, I’m sure that will give you the warm fuzzys. If you mean “precautionary action” is taxing the crap out of your productive sectors in society then you truly are nuts. Please explain how the fuck giving bloody money to countrys like russia is going to save your sorry arse, their laughing at our total stupidy. 20 to 30 years ago a car would probably only do 20+ miles a gallon now a modern car will easily do twice that. The point is that if we have a government that truly believes in a free market and property rights then technology will progress that will benefit the enviroment and thus less of that nasty co2. This AGW is nothing but a poxy little con but the fools still line up, even Greenpeace can see that it’s a load of shit but the lie must go on.
Vote:March 4th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
“why would NZ want to reduce its carbon emissions?”
Among other reasons, because the gradual accumulation of carbon emissions in the atmosphere disrupts the processes that generate reliable annual rainfalls in pretty much all of the existing agricultural and horticultural areas.
Which is another way of saying that carbon emissions could lead to the destruction of the economy (and food supply) of the entire world.
(Now, this is just a “theory” put forward by people like climate scientists, in places like universities, and us plumbers know that those people don’t know anything about anything…)
Vote:March 4th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
Side show Bob: Again – the Greenpeace report criticizes the Carbon Trading scheme the government is proposing. Possibly for many of those reasons you are suggesting. Don’t get shitty with me!
Vote:March 4th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
“Which is another way of saying that carbon emissions could lead to the destruction of the economy (and food supply) of the entire world.”
It is so funny that you say this immediately after PhilBest posts a link to a speech in which the speaker points out that the scare stories of yesterday all have people decrying some cataclysmic outcome.
Carbon emissions cause droughts and flood. Too little rain and too much. And both will destroy mankind. Wet areas will become dry, dry areas will become wet. And we will all starve and drown.
Vote:March 4th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
Well Kimble I’m not going to re-state my opinion on the validity of “it’s always sorted itself out so far, so we won’t worry about it” as a rationale for future behaviour…
Vote:March 4th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
Greenpeace has no credibility to comment on anything. They take a zero emission stand on everything which is impossible.
The only way to improve things (whether you believe in Global Warming or not) is to support sustainable development eg continuing to do things better over time.
Remember back about 7 years when a company wanted to incinerate Auckland’s rubbish at Meremere? The benefits
- using trains to transport the rubbish
- reduces landfill which creates greenhouse gases
- incinerate at very high temperatures and scrub out the majority of emissions
- use the heat generated to make electricity
Greenpeace helped to block it because the plant still had some emissions.
Was it better than current ways of dealing with rubbish? hell yes. Is landfill continuing to grow in Auckland? hell yes. Does Greenpeace have any actual ideas to deal with it? hell no.
Bunch of pig headed wankers!
Vote:March 4th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
The fact that the rubbish-burning scheme was blocked could also suggest that perhaps it WASN’T better than current ways of dealing with rubbish…?
Greenpeace are only a lobby group don’t forget, not a territorial authority!
Vote:March 4th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
Well RRM I’m not going to re-state my opinion on the validity of “but this time it’s different, we are all really really doomed, and you have to believe us because if you dont we are all going to die” as a rationale for future behaviour…
“The fact that the rubbish-burning scheme was blocked could also suggest that perhaps it WASN’T better than current ways of dealing with rubbish…?”
And you base that inference on what? Hope?
Vote:March 4th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
No, I base it on the assumption that there would have been a resource consent application process for a non-complying activity like collecting and burning rubbish, and to make a decision about granting consent they would have had to seek evidence from suitably qualified and experienced persons who would be far better informed about the relative merits of landfilling vs burning it, than either you or I are!
OR
It’s all a greenie conspiracy to keep the working man down…
Vote:March 4th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
RRM get a grip. Even some greenie mates of mine where pissed off with Greenpeace over this. Greenpeace isn’t just a lobby group. Though mobilise all these do goody wankers from Ponsonby and create a huge amount of responses against the resource consent application.
Yes it wasn’t perfect, but it was a big improvement on landfill. Guess what the company went and invested the money in a similar plant in Australia.
Pull your head out of the sand.
Vote:March 4th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
Talking about the greenies. The Green party shows more interest in social engineering than in the environment.
http://nzdebate.blogspot.com/2008/03/green-party-exposed.html
Vote:March 4th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
And are these responses assessed on their merits do you think, or just on how many of them there are?
Vote:March 4th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
RRM when has Greenpeace ever promoted anything to sustainable improve the environment. They ride in on their high horse claiming gloom and doom, but never put forward any constructive ideas.
Even if global warming doesn’t exist the general environment still needs to be cleaned up. However its not going to happen while a cult like Greenpeace is around.
As with all green movements they’re 1% environment, 99% communist
Vote:March 4th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
Yup, it’s those COMMIES isn’t it!
Somehow I imagined we’d arrive at the conclusion that it’s all the commies’ doing, sooner or later – pretty par for the course on here…
Vote:March 4th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
Name one Green Party member that isn’t or wasn’t a communist?
Vote:March 4th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
They are green on the outside and Red on the inside
Vote:March 4th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
$3.1 billion to acheive precisely nothing??? (Just in NZ)
Vote:When this scam is exposed, I would like to see some people locked up on fraud charges
March 4th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
Alas, RRM, nothing NZ does including shutting down the entire electricity generation system and eliminating cars from the NZ roads will have any measurable effect on atmospheric carbon, ever, in the slightest detectable degree.
By all means spend $3.1 billion on a scam, hospitals don’t need the money, religious observance does.
$3.1 billion is just the start
Cost benefit is a foreign language to the comrades.
China adds more than NZ’s total emissions every few weeks.
Please go on with the delusion, there will be money to be made from betting against the trend whose premise is false.
Vote:March 4th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
Isn’t this pretty much the same answer that the Greenhouse Policy Coalition, Castalia Strategic Advisors etc came to last year and Greenpeace and the Green Party criticised them for being in the hands of business?
Does mean that Greanpeace is now the lacky of big business according to the greens too?
Heres another way of looking at it, its $3.1 billion wasted, that couldhave been spent on environmental initiatives, which actually work. Thats potentially a worse environmental income than doing nothing, as that 3.1billion has an opportunity cost.
Vote:March 4th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
I would sugget Alces that China emits NZ total annual amount every few days. They turn on more new coal power stations every month than we have hydro dams.
What ever happened to Project Aqua. Oh thats right the greens stopped that as well?
Vote:March 4th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
More bad news, RRM, pardner.
The “consensus” thing isn’t heard in AGW circles these days due embarrassment, you’ll have to get out more.
Some resigned IPCC reviewers among those in the link below, apparently they couldn’t stand the smell.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport
Vote:March 4th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
Imagine what $3.1 billion would do to our waterways? Crystal clear blue rivers anyone?
Sorry the money needs to go to Russia or China because they deserve it more.
Vote:March 4th, 2008 at 9:23 pm
Global warming is a load of shit and only dumb arse retards like New Zealanders take any notice of it . Get a life grippers
Vote:March 4th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
Another wacky view from an uneducated fool
Vote:March 4th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
Southern Raider says: “Sorry the money needs to go to Russia or China because they deserve it more.”
You’re wrong. It has nothing to do with deserts. It’s because Klark and Kyoto reckon they are cleaner and greener than we are!
Vote:March 4th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
It’s amazing how selective people can be. The Greenpeace report is very critical of the ETS, but not because they want to destroy it, but because they want to improve it. The report calls for agriculture to be brought into the ETS and for the Government to introduce a real cap. Not that you’d get any idea of this from DPF’s blog. I also have to say something about the comments by some twits who think the ETS is a Marxist/communist plot. Emissions trading, along with other market mechanisms for regulating the environment have their origins with the sort of pro-market economists that I would have thought many commentators on this blog would support. Emissions trading schemes owe nothing to Marxist/communist ideology. If you want market-based (instead of command and control) solutions to environmental problems you’re looking at one with the ETS. Some of you really need to school up on economics 101. Alternatively, we could all look at traditional regulation instead…
Vote:March 4th, 2008 at 9:41 pm
There’s a sustainable way out for Greenpuce.
You know it makes as much sense as the rest of AGW.
I’m sensing consensus here.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/03/04/2178926.htm
Vote:March 4th, 2008 at 9:49 pm
Are all Greenpeace women still called the bearded ladies? Whale meat and snails thank you .
Vote:March 4th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
D4J – Are you not a “Dumb Ass retard” like the rest of use New Zealanders?
Unlike you i do beleive there is a problem from global warming.
Vote:Is it as major as is being made out, i don’t know but i prefer to be on the side of caution.
If we are wrong, then those that are going to make obscene amounts of money from carbon credits will benefit.
If global warming is a problem then we are at least further down the track to a solution than sticking ones head in the sand and doing nothing.
March 4th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
Geoff what the hell are you trading? Its not like shares in a company. These carbon credits are hot air.
JD please send me a cheque for my share of the $3.1 billion per annum your happy to waste on the off chance some fringe loonies are correct.
Don’t you think its a hell of a lot of money to risk? The government would be better putting the money on the TAB.
Vote:March 4th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
It’s a tax on the air we breath.
Vote:100% pure socialist utopia.
March 4th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
Right. I work at Greenpeace and helped pull together this report so thought it was worth commenting.
- “Ummm, doesn’t that mean if Greenpeace are correct, you’d have to be pretty crazy to implement such a scheme”.
Yes, as it stands. Unlike organisations like the Greenhouse Policy Coalition who funded the Castalia Report (and whose members include NZ’s biggest polluters), we want to see action on climate change. But we want this action to be effective. The scheme as it stands won’t result in emission reductions. Lets not throw out one of the only policies we have on the table and take no action on climate change, as the Greenhouse Policy Coalition would love. Instead, lets IMPROVE THE SCHEME by implementing a cap on emissions, including NZ’s most polluting sector (agriculture) from the outset, and not gifting free permits to polluters to continue polluting.
- That many people are under the belief that there is still significant debate on whether climate change is happening and largely caused by humans is frightening. As RRM points out, how can someone with no training on climate matters claim to refute the vast (and I mean seriously vast) majority of scientists who now agree that climate change is happening and that it is caused largely by human behaviour? By all means ask questions, but to take on only the words of a few and flat out deny the findings of decades of expert peer reviewed research is absurd. Visit exxonsecrets.org for some info on funding to some of the few remaining “expert” sceptics…
- Federated Farmers today pulled out the same few tired lines that have been repeated over and over again in the last few months when it is suggested that the ag industry should actually contribute to the nation’s emission reductions. It is simply not true that the only way to reduce emissions is to reduce production. They conveniently ignore researchers and farmers that are putting their hands up and showing that on farm emission reductions are possible without reducing production. In fact, many of these processes, by making better use of the land, actually increase production (plus of course the value of product). The opportunities to the NZ economy do not lie in passing the buck to taxpayers but in reducing emissions, creating a greater value sustainable product, and teaching the world how to reduce agricultural emissions. Greenpeace has never promoted biofuels, despite what Fed Farmers suggest.
Vote:March 4th, 2008 at 10:29 pm
What’s being traded? Rights to utilise a resources that Man has proved he’s able to modify almost certainly to a degree that will affect the entire world, to the detriment of a huge number of people.
Vote:In principle it’s the same as marketing water rights to a river, or harvesting rights to a fishery. You do support the market as a mechanism to improving the efficiency with which a resource is utilised Sourthern Raider?
March 4th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
Also worth checking out these responses to Fed Farmers on Radio NZ: http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/checkpoint
Vote:(at 18:14)
March 4th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
“It’s a tax on the air we breath.
100% pure socialist utopia.”
Implemented as a free market system carbon trading isn’t a tax.
Strikes me that it’s the socialists who think everything should be free, do you also advocate free food bwakile or that everyone should have the free right to dump rubbish wherever they like?
Vote:March 4th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
Oh, in case it’s unclear, I think the current proposal for the ETS is a dog because it interferes with market mechanisms. The Flexible Land Use Alliance wants a system that is far more market based.
Vote:March 4th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
The socialists dont want everything to be free Andrew. They want everything to be controlled.
Collecting $3 billion off NZ’ers to give to someone on the otherside of the planet is a tax in my book.
Wealth redistibution with perks –climate conferences in exotic locations, enlarged ministries to rule over, new revenue streams.
And all because the sun cranks up a couple of notches.
Am happy to dispose of my rubbish at the tip and recycle untill some some smart person comes up with a better idea, because that’s what humans do, have smart ideas.
Vote:March 4th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
“Collecting $3 billion off NZ’ers to give to someone on the otherside of the planet is a tax in my book.”
So when NZ buys oil from Saudi Arabia that’s a tax?
“Wealth redistibution with perks –climate conferences in exotic locations, enlarged ministries to rule over, new revenue streams.”
The aim isn’t wealth redistribution, I agree that it should be a level playing field with the same value on a kg of carbon emission whoever produced it, wherever it came from.
If you denialists continue to marginalise yourselves rather than pushing for a system of minimal government and maximum market we will see it turn into the sort of scheme you fear, fortunately those in the Flexible Land Use Alliance aren’t marginalising themselves.
Vote:“that’s what humans do, have smart ideas.”
And a market based system will encourage such smart ideas.
March 4th, 2008 at 11:02 pm
Please help: Who owns Greenpeace? Patrick Moore, one of the founders of this organisation left when they started pension funds for the staff. He then set up greenspirit (www.greenspirit.com) in the attempt to bring a degree of rationality to the environmental debate.
Vote:I repeat please help: Who owns Greenpeace? Follow the money, who gains from taxing air?
March 4th, 2008 at 11:08 pm
As Geoff has pointed out, an ETS is NOT a socialist idea as such, but a market based way of reducing emissions.
That still doesn’t mean it will work, even Greenpeace is saying it won’t (or at least the current plan won’t).
The big problems are:
- You are buying and selling “Carbon credits”, funny money that exists only on paper and has no physical value.
- Worse than this, carbon credits are calculated based on how much greenhouse gases scientists PREDICT will be emitted or absorbed by something. The carbon emissions are not actually measured in most circumstances, rather the calculations are based on assumptions, some of which are very shaky (I am a soil scientist looking at GHG emissions from agricultural soils – the calculations in that area are rough, actual measured emissions can be vastly different from what would have been calculated, and I expect other sectors have problems too). So you are trading something that you don’t even know how much you actually have. Further research next year could show that your calculations were wrong and you actually need to buy more credits, or bought too many last year. You might find out you sold carbon credits that you didn’t actually have in the first place. With an ETS you are trying to trade mist.
- It encourages people to buy their way out instead of actually investing in more efficient technology, and uses money they could have invested more wisely.
So, you are dealing in funny money, that is liable to disappear on you, in a brand new trading sector completely invented by politicians, and are at the whim of any new government policy regulating the sector. And you are throwing away money you could use to actually do something useful.
Be skeptical. Be very skeptical.
Vote:March 4th, 2008 at 11:15 pm
You may well be right Andrew but IMHO creating a “market” out of carbon is a con.
Vote:Some people are going to get extremley rich
Most are going to be poorer.
Many countries aren’t going to give a toss about it. There will be no level playing field.
But countries like NZ are going to suffer the most because our current leaders haven’t the desire to stand up for us.
They love the idea of something else to control, to give the illusion of “doing something”
March 4th, 2008 at 11:24 pm
Carbon taxes are merely a conditioning exercise.
The real aim is a world wide gravity tax.
Those who have the potential to disturb the earth’s symmetry of rotation need to be discouraged.
You know it makes sense campers.
Vote:March 5th, 2008 at 12:04 am
Right. I work at Greenpeace and helped pull together this report so thought it was worth commenting.
you work at greenpeace? you suck. not that there is anything wrong with enjoying a suck. but fuck, you are everything i’m against
i detail my grievances against greenpeace at my new blog themiddlewing.blogspot.com – ironically my co-blogger supports greenpeace
[DPF: And that is 20 demerits]
Vote:March 5th, 2008 at 12:08 am
Carbon taxes are vastly preferable, in my mind, to carbon trading. Carbon taxes don’t involve paying money to Russians, they involve paying money to the government. The government, having a surplus of money, should return that money by reducing taxes on other things – such as income tax or GST. The downside of a carbon tax is that it doesn’t produce a easily calculable reduction in carbon emissions. Other than that, everything about it is good. We need to buck the trend on carbon trading – it is an expensive way to allow certain organisations to speculate.
Vote:March 5th, 2008 at 12:32 am
PaulL
That is an excellent point. At least taxes would keep the money in NZ where they could be used (by the government) to reduce emissions from NZ. However I doubt we can trust the government to actually use all the carbon tax money wisely.
I think we should forget about both carbon trading and carbon tax. Leave the money with the businesses. The government can fund sensible research and publicity to show people how they can both help the environment and their wallet at the same time (e.g. anything that reduces oil use is good for the economy and the environment). In the face of clear financial benefits to do so, most (not all) businesses would adopt sustainable technology. Consumers can also choose to deal with businesses that act sensibly. This is a far more efficient way of helping the environment, and at the same time helping the economy.
Vote:March 5th, 2008 at 12:44 am
Suse:
It is nice to see a response from someone at Greenpeace, and hear your views. I must pull you up on the following quote though:
“That many people are under the belief that there is still significant debate on whether climate change is happening and largely caused by humans is frightening.”
Don’t be too hasty to cry “Consensus”! There is NEVER a scientific consensus on anything. Name any major issue in science (say Climate change, Evolution, GE, Relativity) and you will find both scientists that support and oppose it, on scientific grounds. Saying there is a scientific consensus on any issue (and labelling dissenters as crackpots) is risky, as for all you know the dissenters could turn out to be right. In Galileo’s day most scientists believed the sun went round the earth, he was considered a crackpot for considering otherwise – but was right. Don’t jump too quickly to claim any debate is settled. Science thrives on dissent and debate, once people give up thinking and challenging an issue, claiming a consensus, knowledge stagnates.
It is perfectly fine to say that in your opinion, the evidence for climate change is more compelling than the evidence against, and that you can quote many scientists that support your views.
It is not ok to say that there is a scientific consensus when there is a vocal group of scientists with the opposite view, even if you believe they are a small minority and in your opinion they are wrong.
Vote:March 5th, 2008 at 1:33 am
“Carbon taxes are vastly preferable, in my mind, to carbon trading. Carbon taxes don’t involve paying money to Russians, they involve paying money to the government. ”
“That is an excellent point.”
Jezuz H Christ on a bike..!! What is it with you people??? This is the biggest scam the left have ever perpetrated. (and they’ve pulled off some damn big scams) Wittering on about giving money to the gummint like good little socialist lambie pies. .. Look. All the GW scam is, is a measure of how effective the global left are, by means of their control of the bureaucracy, the education system and the mainstream media, in moulding public opinion to suit their political objectives, and simultaneously, how childishly gullible a large sector of the population is.
There’s no real issue of any kind, and there’s absolutely no need to give money to anyone, least of all the damn government..!!! A whole fraudulent and hysterical industry has evolved amongst researchers who get grants, and government agencies that get taxpayer funds, and the momentum has built up and the snowball is rolling down the hill, and the only people who can stop it are people with their own minds and with the ability to think rationally and most of all, with the ability to question and be naturally skeptical about anything pushed by big government and its supporters.
Thinking people need to confront the irrational and hysterical dogma of the thousands of mindless drones like Suse. For the sake of sanity, but also for the sake of so many other basic rights that are threatened by this fake concern. Like property rights. Like individual freedom. ..and yet here we have people like PaulL, who professes to care about such things, being completely hoodwinked by the propagandists pushing this scam and those with a vested interest in its continuance. Wake up you pathetic gullible morons. With your abject surrender to this transparent and obvious fraud, you’re nothing but a pitiful disgrace to humanity and a serious threat to the cause of individual liberty.
Vote:March 5th, 2008 at 2:57 am
Redbaiter, I actually agree more with your perspective than I think you realise (read the rest of my post rather than just the first 5 words “That is an excellent point”, and my next post in reply to Suse). An ETS and carbon tax would both be a scam as they probably wouldn’t work, assuming climate change is real. And if it is not real they would be even more of a waste of money. There are much better things to do with our money than spend it trying to fight something that we aren’t even sure is real and if it is couldn’t fight with the measures we are planning anyway.
The only thing I strongly disagree with in your post is the blasphemous and abusive language used to get across your point, you have good views that I often agree with, but more people would read them and take you seriously if you discussed them in a more civilised manner. PaulL’s views, while different to your own, do not make him a “pitiful disgrace to humanity”.
I think you would like this article:
Vote:http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speech-ourenvironmentalfuture.html
March 5th, 2008 at 7:56 am
Mr Dennis – you’re right that there is never scientific consensus on anything. I’m not frightened by a small group of sceptics – what I’m frightened by is the number of people who are happy to accept the “facts” presented to them by sceptics at face value because they are convenient “facts” to believe. By all means engage in the debate and question the science. But for people to flat out deny the work of tens of thousands of experts based on a few easily refuted “facts” presented by a minority is frankly arrogant.
And even if you do some serious research and come to the conclusion that climate change isn’t happening or isn’t caused largely by human behaviour, still consider the precautionary principle. If we don’t take action on climate change and it IS happening, we’re screwed. Check out this great video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ
Vote:March 5th, 2008 at 8:16 am
Mr Dennis, two things:
1. Government has never demonstrated any capability whatsoever to spend money wisely, and research would have to be one of their least effective areas. Suggesting that the government will fund R&D so as to reduce carbon usage is, I think, a trifle optimistic. I also note that there are billions being spent on such R&D around the world, there is no reason to think that NZ could make any meaningful contribution through government spending. I had no expectation at all that the money we spent on a carbon tax would be used to fund R&D or emission reductions – I expected that the increased cost of carbon would lead the private sector to invest so as to minimise their tax paid.
2. Redbaiter and Mr Dennis, I believe that a carbon tax has no net effect on the economy so long as we get a corresponding reduction in carbon tax. Those with the highest income in NZ also (I believe) have the highest carbon footprint. The same people end up paying carbon tax as today end up paying income tax. The difference is that it is difficult and sometimes illegal to reduce your income tax paid, but that it would be practical, legal and positively encouraged to reduce your carbon tax paid. Nobody could complain about their tax paid any more, as it would be entirely within their control.
To my mind a carbon tax suffers none of the speculation, offshore trading, special treatment for entrenched interests, or international trade implications that a trading scheme has. It would be a far cleaner way to reduce our carbon usage, and I believe have very little economic impact.
Vote:March 5th, 2008 at 9:13 am
“It would be a far cleaner way to reduce our carbon usage,
That’s the whole point. There is no real need to worry about carbon. Worried about this non event, you are the victim of a despicable scam perpetrated upon the globe by self interested pseudo scientists, power seeking politicians, propagandists posing as educators and political advocates posing as journalists. This is just the greatest scam ever.
There is no reality of human induced climate change and there is no threat to mankind and there is nothing mankind can do about climate change and by means of their constant referral to the “precautionary principle”, most of all, the GW dipshits are giving you the most weighty proof of that truth. THERE IS NO REAL THREAT.
Mr. Dennis, I am OK with a lot of what you say, but here’s a message that I’d ask you not to forget. I will use whatever language I choose. I consider the control of language to have been the most effective strategy the left have used to date to entrench themselves in power. By manufacturing such concerns as “offensive” and “sexist” and “bullying” etc etc etc and applying them to speech, the left have succeeded in limiting so much of the criticism their policies are really due. They have effectively ruled against passion.
The reason I use the language I do is because is because one of the most important psychological victories we can ever achieve over the control freak left is to break free of this method of control. If you care about freedom, it starts with free speech, and we must confront the left with that truism. I am disgusted by the anti-human political policies of the left and I intend to damn well express that disgust. The more those tyrants and totalitarians object to my language, the more satisfied I am.
In a free society, I can say what I want when I want and in the manner I choose. Please think about that the next time you’re tempted to offer Redbaiter some of your politically correct, patronising and school teacherish advice.
Vote:March 5th, 2008 at 9:24 am
Redbaiter, as usual you are ranting with no substance, filling the comment section with your offensive (but articulate) crap. And, just as it is your right to do so for so long as DPF lets you, it is my right to express my opinions.
On global warming, we have been here before, you are fighting a losing battle. It makes absolutely no difference whether it is real or not, you’re standing in the corner shouting “it isn’t fair.” You’re like the last guy in the world who has a betamax video recorder, telling everyone that it is the superior technology and people should use it. It doesn’t matter, the market of the voter has spoken. The average public is convinced, and nothing will change until the scientific evidence comes out one way or the other. In the mean-time, we have the VCR, and we need to work out how to use it.
The voters of almost every country around the world want to see meaningful carbon reduction. You can stand in the corner shouting to yourself whilst the Labour party cook up some economically inefficient solution that panders to vested interests, reduces our national output, and fails to achieve any meaningful carbon reduction. Or you can get on board with a strategy that has no to little economic impact, achieves a meaningful carbon reduction and has the side effect of reducing taxes. If you’re going to spend even a little money, you may as well achieve what you set out to do – even you would have to accept that there is at least a small chance that global warming is real, so if we’re going to spend the money to mitigate the risk, we may as well actually mitigate the risk.
It is, of course, your choice and your right to continue to behave in a way that will have you labeled a denialist, a fool, and a charlatan. Evidence to date is that you will do so. In so doing, you are choosing to exclude yourself from discussion on one of the issues that will have a significant impact on our economic performance over the next 10-20 years.
It is also your choice to ignore the weight of scientific evidence because you don’t like the result – a stance that you choose not to take on other sciences such as economics, where your beliefs seem to align with the weight of scientific evidence. The fact that you agree with science in one area and label as fools those who do not just makes your position on this issue look all the more hypocritical.
Vote:March 5th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
And even if you do some serious research and come to the conclusion that climate change isn’t happening or isn’t caused largely by human behaviour, still consider the precautionary principle.
Oh the precautionary principle
Vote:What load of shit
At the moment there is more chance of global cooling
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/science/02cold.html?em&ex=1204606800&en=8bea6663da405857&ei=5087
What should do about that according to the precautionary principle?
Pump up our carbon emmissions?
March 5th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
As regards motor vehicle pollution PhilBest is correct to point out new low emission vehicles like Honda and others produce are the only way to reduce the problem. And the Gumint know this too But most of the population certainly most of the Socialists supporters dont have the readies to buy such vehicles. Hence we have smoky old bangers petrol and diesel coughing around.
So the bastards are going to tax and increase the costs of those who buy and drive low emission vehicles because they hate us with a vengence that knows no ends.
They are going to punish us for all its worth.
The so called trading scheme is a scam Mark Weldon and Mark Franklin must be laughing their heads off at getting presented with such an opportunity to clip the ticket on such a snake oil salesmens scheme.
Its a dead weight cost just like all taxes. It wont fix the problem It will just redistribute wealth as all Socialists/Communist schemes do
Vote:March 5th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
emmess, did you actually read your own link?
Vote:March 5th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Suse: It is not a small group of sceptics. It is a very large silent minority who are now questioning the scaremongering of people like Al Gore who’s only motivation is to take money from suckers like you. Go do some science, do some proper research and stop reading the press releases. There is a great deal of excellent research going on out there to show the true picture of the climate. It’s not sceptical research just because you don’t agree with it. The fact is Suse that there are many many scientists who are undertaking research to establish what the truth is and in order to do that they MUST be sceptical of everything, they must question everything and test everything. You need to read some more history and open your head.
Vote:March 5th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
THANK YOU, “gd”. WELL SAID.
gd Add karma Subtract karma +3 Says:
March 5th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
“As regards motor vehicle pollution PhilBest is correct to point out new low emission vehicles like Honda and others produce are the only way to reduce the problem. And the Gumint know this too. But most of the population, certainly most of the Socialists supporters don’t have the readies to buy such vehicles. Hence we have smoky old bangers petrol and diesel coughing around.”
I LOVE IT !!!!!!!
And giving their supporters the readies to buy a new Honda……? NO WAY. Can’t have our supporters learning freedom and independence. The Politburo-approved way, is blocks of flats and railway stations.
Vote:March 5th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Here’s something relevant from Chris Monckton:
“Therein lies a danger that Gore has not yet seen. For he failed, yet again, to declare his financial interest before whipping up worldwide alarm with his trademark errors and exaggerations in Bali. He is a director of Lehman Brothers, a global finance house that wants to control the worldwide managed market in carbon-emissions trading. He founded his own “green” corporation, Generation Investment Management. He is a paid member of the Board of a renewable-energy company. In the UK, if he made a speech containing so many deliberate and unidirectional errors as he did in Bali, and if he failed to declare his financial interest, he would be committing a criminal offence.
It is surely only a matter of time before a complaint is filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, alleging that, through the numerous, extreme and scientifically-unwarranted exaggerations which Gore has relentlessly continued to peddle notwithstanding the warning in the UK judge’s verdict, he is in effect fraudulently promoting a false prospectors to potential investors. Indeed, his exaggerations are on such a scale, and have commanded such attention, and have done so much damage, that he may even have committed an offence under the Federal racketeering statute. I wanted to ask Gore about his failure to disclose his financial interest, but – as usual – he does not dare to take questions”.
Vote:March 5th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
HERE IS A LINK TO THE WHOLE THING FROM CHRISTOPHER MONCKTON:
“Fortnight of the Undead”
(On the Bali Conference) – Hilarious!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1942155/posts
Vote:March 5th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
” emissions growth is at the higher end of the Treasury forecasts then, at a world price of $25 per tonne, New Zealand would need to import at least $3.1 billion worth of emission permits.So Greenpeace are saying the ETS will cost NZ $3.1 billion.”
How-ever Trustpower agreed today to sell 300,000 credits to a Japanese financier today for the current European price of 17.5 Euros or over $35 per tonne.
Vote:March 5th, 2008 at 10:52 pm
Redbaiter: Regarding language, we’ve both stated our views, I think we can agree to differ. You push the issues your way, I’ll push them my way, and hopefully between us we can influence the debate positively. Sorry if I sounded school-teacher-like, I didn’t intend to come across that way. Did you read that Michael Crighton link? It supports a lot of what you say.
gd:
“As regards motor vehicle pollution PhilBest is correct to point out new low emission vehicles like Honda and others produce are the only way to reduce the problem. And the Gumint know this too But most of the population certainly most of the Socialists supporters dont have the readies to buy such vehicles. Hence we have smoky old bangers petrol and diesel coughing around.”
New vehicles are a good way of reducing emissions from the land area of NZ. But NOT necessarily from the world. It takes a lot of energy to make a brand new car, and therefore produces a lot of carbon emissions. And the fuel economy of new cars isn’t actually much better than old ones if tuned well, my 1989 Nissan Micra will do over 50mpg on a good run, not many brand new cars are better than that (even hybrids). If you worked out lifetime emissions, including construction of the car and mining the materials, old cars are probably better for the environment. They are also a lot cheaper. So we should just stick with our old Jap import cars, keeping them tuned well, just like we always have. This is best for our wallets, and if climate change is a real concern, is also best for the environment. There is a lot of money in new cars, so lots of people promoting them, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they are the best idea.
Or we could move to zero or nearly zero emission vehicles (like electric), because these save a lot of money. And because they actually reduce emissions much more than conventional cars.
So the best solution is the cheapest one, whether or not climate change is a real concern.
Vote:March 5th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
Mr Dennis, zero or nearly zero emission vehicles are to my mind a misnomer. Even if you leave aside the emissions in producing them (and many “zero” emission vehicles have fancy batteries and other things with ugly byproducts and short life spans), none of them have an internal energy source. They need to be plugged in or fed hydrogen.
Plugged in – electric – vehicles have emissions equivalent to the emissions of your local power plants. In many places in the world this means coal. In NZ it could mean hydro, but we choose not to build that. Hydrogen essentially means electricity as well, it can otherwise be created by reforming natural gas or oil, but those are supposedly running out.
Not to say that these zero emission vehicles cannot be actually zero emission – if you have the right sort of power plants. Coal with carbon sequestration, nuclear, hydro, wind, solar (those last two are harder) are all zero emission. We just don’t have enough of any of those in the world today.
Vote: