Scoop interviews Russel Norman
May 20th, 2008 at 3:16 pm by David FarrarI am enjoying the series of party leaders being interviewed by Gordon Campbell for Scoop. Last week it was Russel Norman. Campbell used to work for the Greens in Parliament, but he was very fair in my opinion:
Campbell: So what do the Greens think is a realistic price per ton for carbon?
Norman: I think $30 per ton is realistic for the moment. But its highly likely it will go up. Its an international market, and there are no guarantees around it.
$30 a tonne is higher (off memory – Treasury website is down) that what the NZ Govt is using. I suspect it will go much much higher.
Campbell: At the moment the cost of the first part of Kyoto 1 is either half a billion or double that. By paying whichever it is, by how much will we reduce global warming?
Norman: Our emissions are obviously a small part of the emissions, so we’re a small player. The true role for New Zsdaland is in contributing to a global system. And even the entire Kyoto system if everyone meets their targets, it won’t make a massive contribution at all. It’s the first step. What makes Kyoto important is establishing a system. And that’s the danger. If Kyoto goes down, we can’t make it better.
In fact even if every single country makes it Kyoto targets, the impact on world temperatures by 2050 will be just 0.07 of a degree.
Campbell: Given the contribution New Zealand taxpayers will in all likelihood be making, you’re saying it won’t affect the rate of global warming…would it say, make a 1 per cent difference ?
Norman: No, it won’t make anything like 1 per cent. We’re only O.2 percent of all emissions globally. The two things that are difficult about this is one, the time lags involved and two, that it requires global co-operation – and the Kyoto system is the first step towards global co-operation.
That means that us making our Kyoto target will by 2050 lead to the average world temperature being 0.00014 of a degree lower than otherwise would be the case. So if the average temperature was going to be 19C, it would instead by 18.99986C. The good people of Naaru will thank us.
This is not a reason to do nothing, but a useful reminder that a scheme without China and India in it will have limited effect.
Campbell: Politically, do you see the difficulty in asking New Zealand families and households to pay half a billion at best into this, or three or four times that figure at worst? For something that will make precious little difference if any to the fate of the planet and whose main effect will be to foster global co-operation?
Norman: Well, I don’t accept your premises. I don’t think New Zealand households should pay. I think the polluters should pay. And the prime polluter that is getting off is the agriculture sector. Dairy should pay its share.
Is there not just a small possibility that those costs might end up being passed on to households? You know with higher petrol prices etc? It is a nice slogan, but not the reality. In some areas like dairy extra costs may not affect prices as there is a global market at play, but in many it will be passed onto households.
Campbell: So from what you’re saying, if the Greens are in government after the next election, it will be asking farmers to pay the full costs of its emissions much sooner ?
Norman: : Yeah…and its actually in a good position to reduce its emissions. The technology already exists. Its just nuts. They’re half of our emissions, and we’re saying the sector doesn’t have to do anything.
Campbell: Excuse me, but the technology to reduce methane emissions doesn’t exist at the moment.
Norman: The technology to reduce nitrous oxide emissions exists at the moment, with nitrification inhibitors.
Campbell: But they don’t work so well on hill country terrain. You can’t extrapolate from the success of nitrification inhibitors in low country farming and say the technology to reduce agricultural emnissions currently exists. It doesn’t deal at all with the methane.
Norman: Yeah. That’s right. What we’re trying to do here is reduce emissions back to 1990 levels. We’re not trying to reduce them to zero. Different components when put together, produce a reduction in greenhouse emissions. Organic farming for instance, produces a lot less greenhouse emissions. A price signal to agriculture will help people to adopt them.
One advantage of being a former Green staffer is Campbell clearly knows his facts in this area, and was able to challenge Russel’s assertions on technology. All too rare in the media.
Campbell: What do you think the main priority for centre left voters will be – to get Labour back, or to ensure the Greens are there to keep them honest?
Norman: I think there’s 10% per cent of the population who are very sympathetic to the Greens, and want to make sure the Greens are there. There’s a significant proportion who will make sure the Greens get back. I think we’ll do better, actually.
This is what amazed me – they are so unambitious in terms of the vote. They have actually been up to 10% in some opinion polls, so should be setting a far bigger target. If they don’t want to be a perpetual doormat for Labour they should be aiming to gain enough votes so that it is impossible to form a centre-left Government without them.
But they seem not to want this. They just want their 6% – 10%, which will mean they can be marginalised again.
Related posts:
- Cactus Kate fisking Russel Norman
- Russel Norman elected Green co-leader
- Russel Norman declares he is not a communist!
- Russel Norman on the rape trials
May 20th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Well, they can say goodbye to the farmer vote!
In all seriousness though, while I don’t like what the Greens stand for, the technical skill of their electioneering is not worthy of criticism. You say they’re unambitious DPF, but if they said they expected to get 15% some (perhaps you) would accuse them of being megalomaniacs. Sure some polls give them 10% but those are, if not rogue polls, at the edge of their expectations. This is an election where the tide is going out on the Left, I think they’re being realistic. 10% for the Greens would be seen as a very decent result.
[DPF: Oh sure 10% will be a decent result, but look the other left wing party is very unpopular, has the stench of corruption about it, and has dropped into the 20s. They have a once in a score opportunity to boost their vote as principled lefties look for somewhere to go]
Vote:May 20th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
I agree that 10% is a realistic bid, although I don’t think that the Greens will obtain it. It is good to see a realistic examination of their policies.
Vote:May 20th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
DPF:
“This is not a reason to do nothing, but a useful reminder that a scheme without China and India in it will have limited effect.”
New Zealand is not the entire developed world DPF. And why would you spout meaningless statistics like:
That means that us making our Kyoto target will by 2050 lead to the average world temperature being 0.00014 of a degree lower than otherwise would be the case.?
Of course the point is that we contribute toward the momentum leading to the larger emitters signing up. Saying things like that just makes it look like you’re not behind NZ adopting Kyoto at all, but you’re just “officially” going along with it because it’s what the focus groups are telling you to say. All the while you appear to be trying to undermine the rational behind the Kyoto protocol.
“Is there not just a small possibility that those costs might end up being passed on to households?”
The Green’s policy is to shift tax from income into pollution, so people don’t end up paying anything extra for the Green’s environmental policies. Of course DPF knows this already.
“But they seem not to want this. They just want their 6% – 10%”
Saying you want 15% when you’re polling at 7% makes you look like an idiot.
[DPF: No saying you want 50% when at 2% looks idiotic. Saying you want 15% when you have been up to 11% or 10% in the polls is quite sensible.
I have never been a supporter of Kyoto. I do support a true multinational agreement with all emitting countries though. I am incredibly sceptical that us taking part in Kyoto will have any effect at all on India and China taking part. Have you seen the strength of their refusals? Now regardless we need to do our but as good global citizens and to avoid a trade backlash, but let us not hold Kyoto up as anything other than incredibly flawed]
Vote:May 20th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Woger
“Saying you want 15% when you’re polling at 7% makes you look like an idiot.”
So what does saying “Helen will form the next govt” make you when Labour is polling at 29%?
Vote:May 20th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
“Dairy should pay its share.”
… and there you have it. A prime example of the utter economically illiterate idiocy of the Green Party. As Mr. Farrar points out, the farmers won’t pay. No producer will pay. Production costs will always be passed on to the consumer. That’s you and me folks.
The Greens want you to pay heaps of your income out on the basis of some pie in the sky imaginary problem that even if its happening, doesn’t need fixing, and even if it needed fixing, there’s bugger all to be done about it, and even if it could be ‘fixed’, nothing much would change. Meahwhile one of NZ’s most important export industries is crippled by a series of taxes and levies and fees that are based on fantasy driven bullshit.
Absolute raving lunacy. Madness..!!! These gibbering scare mongering idiots need to be expelled from the political system as soon as possible- before they drive the whole country into the poor house with their infantile delusional economically unworkable ideas.
Vote:May 20th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
As Pushme correctly states the tide is going out on the left (and bloody quickly), the target for the Greens should be to stay above or at the 5% threshold, somehow I think achieving this is going to be a struggle and it will not be helped by the election of Russel Norman as the co-leader.
Vote:May 20th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
The Greens will be lucky to be in Parliament at all after the election. I’d rate them about 50/50 at this point and that’s only because they will benefit from Labour’s appalling track record.
Vote:May 20th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
bruv – look at the Roy Morgan Poll. It’s the only one that got anywhere near calling the 05 election accurately.
[DPF: Not correct. TV3/TNS was most accurate. Morgan got the gap between the parties right, but not the overall result. Having said that I think they are a very good pollster - one needs to be careful about judging a company purely on one poll - even their pre-election one]
Vote:May 20th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Sheer madness or words to that effect. The communist disguised as Greenie, Russell Norman, is out to destroy the NZ economy.
To believe that ETS-related costs will be absorbed by the producers with little or no impact on users (read households) is duplicity of the highest order.
The Green leadership is completely deranged and should be exposed for what it is.
Vote:May 20th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
This nutbar should be charged as a communist traitor to New Zealand.
Vote:May 20th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Norman has a valid argument that dairying should not be excluded from penalty if any scheme is introduced.
Vote:Offering sweetheart deals to some sectors of the productive community dilutes the focus of what is likely to be achieved, and whether the cost to the NZ economy is a price we wish to pay.
Losing votes from farmers should be irrelevant if the Greens have a principled position.
The only question should be whether such a scheme should be introduced, or not.
Just as dog chipping should have been for all dogs , or no dogs.
May 20th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
I guess that makes Bill Gates an idiot for saying he wanted to be a millionaire by the time he was 30. It’s called ambition roger.
Vote:May 20th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
So if the average temperature was going to be 19C, it would instead by 18.99986C… This is not a reason to do nothing
Respectfully, I disagree. In the right hands, one billion dollars can buy a lot of health care or education or roads or rail or new housing. Normal is instead proposing to spend it making no difference whatsoever on the environment.
It seems to me, given zero effect on temperature, you need a robust theory which shows how symbolism like New Zealand’s can be expected to make a difference. With so much money at stake, Norman and the Greens should not be allowed to get away with asserting this central point without a theory and some evidence to back it up. An enormous amount rests on it.
Vote:May 20th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
D4J; Issues rather than insults please.
Vote:May 20th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
My humble apologies David, as I have only 5 to play before a two month lag.
Vote:May 20th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
They have actually been up to 10% in some opinion polls, so should be setting a far bigger target. If they don’t want to be a perpetual doormat for Labour they should be aiming to gain enough votes so that it is impossible to form a centre-left Government without them.
A Liabour /Green Coalition would not be centre left. Liabour is old fashioned doctrinaire left and the Greens have much in common with Comunism. If we have to pay places like Russia for our emissions then it should be paid out of the Goverment surplus tax take… Setting up a bureaucratic apparatus to evaluate and collect emission payments which will be automatically passed to the taxpayer with the Goverment clipping the ticket to the extent of billions is Political Control and Communistic…Don’t forget watch Prime TV 1st June 8.30pm for the truth…”The Great Global Warming Swindle”
Vote:May 20th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
The Greens are gibbering idiots. They have no place being in politics – the whole “Green” imagery – and that is all they are – the embodyment of a hazy image – has been hijacked by a motley crew of dropkicks and dropouts. They have a place as a pressure group but not in politics with these idiots as their representatives. End of story – don’t vote for them – especially you Mum !!
Vote:May 20th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
” Not correct. TV3/TNS was most accurate”
True enough. I do however think we ought to be suspicious of some others though. In particular the One News/Colmar Brunton Poll had (National — 44%, Labour — 38%) and the Fairfax New Zealand ACNielsen Poll had (National — 43%, Labour — 37%) just prior to the 2005 election. They were both wrong by incredible margins.
Vote:May 20th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
This is not a reason to do nothing, but a useful reminder that a scheme without China and India in it will have limited effect.
China and India are signatories to the Kyoto protocols. China & India both ratified the treaty in 2002 and have fulfilled all of their treaty commitments (of which there are effectively none). The Kyoto protocol followers produce a massive growth in AGW gas emmissions, 20% in the past decade.
Russel Norman states:
“And even the entire Kyoto system if everyone meets their targets, it won’t make a massive contribution at all.”
Wrong – if all Kyoto signatories meet their required targets AGW gas emissions will almost certainly grow, because of populist policy making like:
“Well, I don’t accept your premises. I don’t think New Zealand households should pay. I think the polluters should pay. And the prime polluter that is getting off is the agriculture sector. Dairy should pay its share.”
The Greens will impose $30/tonne on NZ farmers increasing the price of NZ locally produced cheese in comparison to imported cheese made with more AGW gas production in a developing nation. NZ households will not bear the cost because they will start buying more of the imported cheese. This preference for imported less carbon efficient goods will increase our carbon footprint and the planet’s AGW production.
It populist BS, the basic Green policy is as follows:
NZ agriculture is 10 – 30% less carbon polluting than most anywhere else on the planet – [apply Green policy] – this must be taxed and discouraged.
NZ households are 300 – 400% more carbon polluting than the global average – [apply Green policy] – these habits must not be changed.
The Greens do not give a hoot about AGW and are merely interested in capturing the “We Care A Lot” crowd who think enviromentalism means buying a tee-shirt. Reckon they’ll do best amoung the more affluent city dweller consumers.
Vote:May 20th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Roger nome says: “the point is that we contribute toward the momentum leading to the larger emitters signing up.”
Get fucking real. You really think Washington, Beijing, Brussels and Delhi even know what we do, let only think we are creating “momentum”.
What we do is entirely irrelevant. We either act because it is in our interests or we don’t. There is no “demonstration” effect and any sane person knows is.
Vote:May 20th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Excuse me: “Norman” not “Normal”. Duh.
Vote:May 20th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
>Yeah…and its actually in a good position to reduce its emissions. The technology already exists. Its just nuts.
Cows will fart less if they eat nuts?
Vote:May 20th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
George:
All but around 7 countries are irrelevant as individuals. But collectively, they can make it politically very difficult for the governments of those seven countries to not sign up to the legislation.
Also, remember that Kyoto is just the start; an attempt to get a cooperative framework in place to start making meaningful changes.
Vote:May 20th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Well I’m not convinced the whole global warming issue isn’t just a crock of nonsense. Something for Green parties all over the world to use as a promotional platform.
Can’t we just compost, recycle all 7 plastics, use less plastic and consider we are doing our fair share? If the whole world did that it would be a great start.
Vote:May 20th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Has NZ sunk so low that we are unable to see through the stupidity of what Norman is spouting? How on Earth someone like him can get away passing that pseudo-intellectual contraband?
Do we have so many people unable to see further than their noses and prepared to vote for the Green Party purely on the premises that “they care”? The mind boggles.
We all care for the environment but cannot stop progress and destroy our country’s livelyhood in the process for the sake of being a trailblazer.
Make no mistake: the Greens and the likes of Russell Norman would send us back to the Stone Age.
Vote:May 20th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Present market price for Carbon is Euro 25.2 per tonne
Vote:Round figures that’s NZ$50 per tonne.
Way higher than is being quoted by NZ sources
May 20th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Lets hope the odious greens get rubbed out at the next election.
Vote:May 20th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
“…If Kyoto goes down, we can’t make it better.”
“…I don’t think New Zealand households should pay. I think the polluters should pay…”
Warning to China and India – the NZ Greens are going to make you polluters pay. Sure your Indian and Chinese citizens contribute less than 20% of a Kiwi’s carbon footprint, but nevertheless the NZ Greens promise you lot shall pay and not our households. Our Greens will force you to make carbon cuts, close down factories and powerstations, put people out of work.
You have been warned and failure to comply will result in our Greens…
What are the NZ Greens going to do when the Chinese & Indians say no?
Vote:May 20th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
When are kiwis going to wise up that carbon trading is just another socialist commie TAX………..wealth redistribution actually, from 1st world countries to 3rd world countries, its a scam and a sham, its got to be Clarks big finger to NZ citizens, she will fly the coup to the socialist mothership at the UN, and leave behind a mess for generations of Kiwis to clean up, shes no better than all the ex-directors of the failed companies in the late 80′s who fled NZ after squandering their company balance sheets. The sooner she buggers off the better, along with all her socialist suckhole feminazi mates. Hey the experiment has just failed………….again.
Vote:May 20th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
Jesus Christ – god help us if those fuckers ever got anywhere near any semblance of power…it would make North Korea look like a good option for relocation.
Vote:May 20th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Anyone caught up with this blow to the warmists….?
32,000 scientists have signed a petition claiming Kyoto’s a waste of time and that man made Global warming is bunk…..this is more than all the enviromentalists et el who attended the Rio earth sumit in 92.
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/05/17/32-000-deniers.aspx
Wheres that “consensus” gone now my warmist friends?
Are they ALL on big oils payrole….?
Vote:May 20th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Stop it James. Next thing you’ll have Woger saying that Wikipedia/the OECD/his blowup doll said the Ross Ice Shelf has disappeared!
Vote:May 20th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
While it is of course true that ultimately all production costs are passed to consumers, the whole point of imposing externalities (ie pollution taxes) on the polluter is that it’s not purely a revenue collecting exercise – you want them to stop polluting in the first place. That’s particularly true here, where the whole aim is to reduce emissions. The market then kicks in and, provided it’s reasonably competitive, rewards those who reduce their pollutants the fastest. Hey ho!
They say that necessity is the mother of invention. No one is going to be 100% committed to investing in R&D that may speed up greener technologies/practices until it hurts them hard enough.
My biggest gripe with the Greens is that they seem incapable of putting a business friendly spin on this issue. Eco-business could well be the new dotcom. Look at California – venture capitalists are falling over themselves to invest in green start-up companies. And why aren’t they heralding the good news stories that are on our doorsteps? Instead they seem addicted to being prophets of doom.
Vote:May 20th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
James – would that be anything like that list of 500 Scientists that “The Heartland Institute” recently claimed had produced research disproving global warming?
You know, the list that included 6 prominent, widely published and internationally respected New Zealanders, ALL OF WHOM utterly refuted this conclusion and demanded that their names be removed from this highly dubious list as soon as they heard about it?
There’s a big, big difference between science filtered through a big-business funded “think tank” ( = lobby group) and real science…
Vote:May 20th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
‘This is what amazed me – they are so unambitious in terms of the vote. They have actually been up to 10% in some opinion polls, so should be setting a far bigger target. If they don’t want to be a perpetual doormat for Labour they should be aiming to gain enough votes so that it is impossible to form a centre-left Government without them.
But they seem not to want this. They just want their 6% – 10%, which will mean they can be marginalised again’
Quite right Dave the Greens should be aiming much higher….with the Labour vote collapsing surely they should aim to overtake them!!!
Vote:May 20th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
Bugger the Greens. I’m off to invade Kuwait so I can secure enough petrol to keep the Humvee running for another year or two.
Vote:May 20th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
AM2 said: Quite right Dave the Greens should be aiming much higher….with the Labour vote collapsing surely they should aim to overtake them!!!
Quite right AM2. But a lot of the Nat poll support is weak – people who are pissed of with Labour and see them as a tired government after 9 years in power.
Many of those voters could come to the Greens – they are not ideologically aligned to the economic right, and their poll support for the Nats is soft – most people over 35 still parliamentary representation through a FPP lens (unfortunately).
But a strong Green campaign could persuade many to move the Green way. National’s core support is around the 21% they got in 2002 – their political nadir.
Unfortunately, the Greens’ core support appears to be little over one fifth of that, at 5% – 7%, as evidenced by recent elections and polls.
But that can change if people realise that National is just as flakey as Labour, and that neither of the larger Parties have any coherent plans to deal with the serious environmental issues that face New Zealand and the world in the next 50 years.
Vote:May 20th, 2008 at 11:13 pm
Buggerlugs: Grow up, you dork!
Vote:May 20th, 2008 at 11:23 pm
If the Greens cannibalize the Labour vote and get back in to parliament how are they going to cope with being in real opposition for the first time? No friendly Labour government throwing a dog a bone. No cash for pet projects. They will just be sitting in parliament, time serving, being the least effective party there.
Every vote for the Greens will be a wasted vote, which is good. They won’t have any effect on a soon to be installed National government and their increased size in parliament comes at the expense of Labour.
Vote:May 21st, 2008 at 8:59 am
Why would you interview wussle no-man? Was the guy who can stuff 4 billiard balls in his mouth sick?
Vote:May 21st, 2008 at 10:45 am
Toad,
Quite right AM2. But a lot of the Nat poll support is weak – people who are pissed of with Labour and see them as a tired government after 9 years in power.
Many of those voters could come to the Greens – they are not ideologically aligned to the economic right, and their poll support for the Nats is soft…
The Greens campaigning as ideological economic leftists to attract that ex-Labour vote would be political suicide. To do so would damage the cross spectrum 3 – 5% single issue support from the Green Brand – Kyoto – save-the-planet-buy-the-T-shirt crowd. Lose the Green Brand appeal and they are just the Alliance by a different name, when Labour rebounded last time the Alliance vote collapsed.
Vote: