Emissions Trading Scheme Poll
July 11th, 2008 at 7:10 am by David FarrarExceltium have released a poll on the Emissions Trading Scheme they commissioned from Digipoll.
It is very detailed, running to 14 pages of results and the full data is over on Curiablog. There is a mass of data there for politicians and policy makers. I thought I would comment on some of the results:
Support for ETS Legislation – 34% in favour, 24% against
A plurality in favour of the legislation, but with 41% neutral it is not a heart and minds issue for most NZers.
View on climate change – 20% say world’s most important issue, 45% say an important issue, 15% say not a major issue and 16% say it is natural not manmade.
That’s a fairly big chunk in what I call the moderate middle position – it is important but not the most important issue. A significant number at 31% saying it is not a major issue at all.
Preferred policy response – 10% say NZ should be the world leader, 49% say NZ should be one of the world’s leaders and 29% say a fast follower, plus 8% say do nothing.
Again the moderate middle position is well supported.
Willingness to pay – 43% would be willing to pay an extra $10 a week in energy costs, 16% willing to pay $20 a week, 5% willing to pay $40 a week and 1% willing to pay $100 a week.
$10 a week seems to be the limit for the vast majority in terms of paying extra.
Integration with Australia – 62% say wait a month to see Australian scheme, 34% say proceed now with legislation.
Seems a no brainer to me.
Wait for other countries – 40% agree the legislation should only be passed as other countries pass such legislation to prevent job losses offshore, while 31% disagree.
This gets a bit murky as the key issue is what countries do you wait for? US? China? India? Or just Australia?
Will the ETS be effective – 34% agree that the ETS as written will not cut carbon emissions enough to make a difference while 27% disagree.
This shoud give the Greens food for thought – only 27% are saying they think the current scheme will cut emissions enough.
Non Labour Voters – If the Government passes the scheme ahead of the Australian one it will make 7% of non Labour voters more likely to vote Labour and 13% less likely.
A net 6% less likely. And if they do wait to see details of the Australian scheme the numbers reverse with 13% more likely to vote Labour and 6% less likely.
NZ First potential voters – 19% say best option is to pass the ETS before the Australians, 62% say encourage Helen Clark to begin multi-party talks after she talks to the Australian PM and 13% say don’t support ETS at all.
I predict Winston will back it regardless in exchange for a big lump of cash for the election campaign.
Potential Green supporters – are asked even if scheme is not made tougher, and Greens vote for it, how will that affect support – and 23% say more likely to support Greens and only 8% less likely.
Based on that the Greens can vote for it,even if they get no improvements.
If they do hold out though, they also do not get punished with 16% saying they are more likely to vote Green and only 14% less likely if the ETS doesn’t pass because the Greens refuse to support it unless made tougher.
Related posts:
- Key on Emissions Trading Scheme
- Australian Emissions Trading Scheme
- Greenpeace attacks Govt emissions trading scheme
- NZIER on Emission Trading Scheme
July 11th, 2008 at 7:18 am
“Willingness to pay – 43% would be willing to pay an extra $10 a week in energy costs”
A fool and their money is easily parted.
Why would you want to part with one hard earned cent when what you get in return is absolutely nothing.
AGW is a scam. Scrap the ETS!
Vote:July 11th, 2008 at 7:21 am
Effectively most people dont give a toss and are leaning towards a lets see what pans out with our trading partners but if Helen rams it through we’ll ream her at the polls (even more).
Vote:July 11th, 2008 at 7:35 am
Since when has 43% been a “vast majority”?
[DPF: I was referring to the fact that beyond $10 a week the levels are very small. One can say the vast majority will not pay $20 a week but not that the vast majority will not pay $10 a week]
Vote:July 11th, 2008 at 7:46 am
The ‘moderate middle position’ willingness to pay =65% to pay something. Is that 65% of the 34% in favour, or of all polled?
I cant see how you would be neutral on such a matter but be prepared to pay extra to fund it?
(Your link isn’t available yet)
Vote:July 11th, 2008 at 7:48 am
So most people wouldn’t pay more than $500 year to subsidise polluting Chinese factory owners.
*Hello, my name is Mr Factory, please contact me for convenient payment details*
Vote:July 11th, 2008 at 8:20 am
>Willingness to pay – 43% would be willing to pay an extra $10 a week in energy costs
I really don’t believe this. That’s $500 extra a year for a single person or $2000 for a family of four. Any government who announced policy that inflicted this on people will see their support drop to Greens levels. Especially when there are no benefits to be gained from the increase.
Voter: You want us to pay an extra $2000! Why?
Politician: To stop global warming.
Voter: But the world hasn’t warmed since 1998. And of COURSE it was warming before then, the planet was emerging from the mini ice age. But assuming that there is actually warming. And assuming that this mythical warming is man made. Then how many coal power plants are the Chinese building each week?
Politician: Two.
Voter: So we could shut down every power plant and vehicle and bit of industry in NZ and all live in caves eating bugs and that’d slow this mythical global warming by about, errr, four weeks? And you want me to pay an extra $2000 a year to help this process along? You’re completely insane! Which party are you from?
Politician: National unfortunately. The mad-as-batshit crowd have escaped from the Greens and are everywhere now.
Vote:July 11th, 2008 at 8:33 am
Kyoto is going to get ditched, biofuel targets dropped, suckers who signed up to the sustainability scams of the early 2000′s are now looking a bit wet.
Vote:July 11th, 2008 at 8:39 am
of course..dpf..
another reading of your grab-bag of results there..
..is an overwhelming majority recognising ‘something needs to be done;..
with the denialists down to that lunatic 16% rump..
and when the greens are in their (apparant) poll-rut..
you’d think this majority/consensus/talk of 16%/whatever more likely to vote for them..
must surely be cheering news for them..?
and all these stats confirm for me is the likelihood of the green vote ‘on the day’ being higher than current polls indicate..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:July 11th, 2008 at 8:41 am
Phil
I will ask you again, how come you have time to blog during the school holidays?
Vote:July 11th, 2008 at 8:44 am
and david p..
..hasn’t the news reached you that exxon-mobil have done a mea culpa..
and stopped funding the denialist front-groups that peddled the bullshit you are trying to parrot..?
feckin’ idjit..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:July 11th, 2008 at 8:45 am
Let the 65% who want to pay something pay.
Let the 34% who think none of this will make the slightest difference not pay.
Sorted.
You’ll be giving heavily of course phule?
Vote:July 11th, 2008 at 8:49 am
denialists – LOL!
what a crock of shit.
I think greens will get 8%.
The majority of people simply dont believe the eco carbon story.
Ma and Pa NZ are going to leave labour in droves cause they’re lying, bullying, conniving weasels.
The greens havent done their cause any good by hanging with the weasels.
Vote:July 11th, 2008 at 8:51 am
big bruv..
i will ask you again..
out of you and big bro.
who is the ‘originator’ of the sibling sobriquet..?
and who is the ‘biggy come lately/’pretender’/wannabe..?
my money is on you being the wannabe..
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:July 11th, 2008 at 8:54 am
yeah..sorry about that..!..expat..
i meant to say denialists/luddites..
(is that better..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:July 11th, 2008 at 9:23 am
I was a bit late on an earlier thread posting the following link, but EVERYBODY, THIS ARTICLE is on the Aussie ETS and GHG emissions issues and it is a “MUST-READ”:
http://quadrant.org.au/php/article_view.php?article_id=3936
“The Chilling Costs of Climate Catastrophism”, by Ray Evans
Vote:July 11th, 2008 at 9:25 am
DPF, YOU should read the Quadrant Magazine Article “The Chilling Costs of Climate Catastrophism” By Ray Evans in the latest Aussie “Quadrant” Magazine, and post a summary here. It is a SUPERB in-depth article.
http://quadrant.org.au/php/article_view.php?article_id=3936
Vote:July 11th, 2008 at 9:25 am
Smear smear smear …. http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/survey+should+be+taken+grain+salt
Vote:July 11th, 2008 at 9:54 am
philu,
The ETS in Europe has increased the carbon footprint of Europe and is increasing the rate of AGW. The Greens want to adopt the same problematic Greenwash (sweep all emissions under a Chinese rug) “solution” here. It doesn’t work and will never work. It is dangerously increasing CO2 emissions.
Yay for them, the planet killing, opportunistic head in the sand politicians will profit, because most people cannot be bothered to find out that ETS is really E-BS and trust them.
Vote:July 11th, 2008 at 9:58 am
Oooppps looks like phule’s not talking to me. Damn.
So phule – you realise the rest of us having to earn the money to pay our taxes to pay your benefit is actually increasing our ‘carbon footprint’, you are in effect a big part of the problem.
If we just cut benefits and taxes by 50% we’d be well on the way to actually doing something, people would have to work less to support people like you.
Nobody would have to pay more but you may have to give up your ‘lifestyle choice’ and get a job.
What do ya think?
Vote:July 11th, 2008 at 10:02 am
somehow chicky..
..i think my vegan/mainly raw diet/mainly walking/no big-screen tv/no dishwashing machine/no clothes dryer/no alcohol carbon footprint..
..is somewhat smaller than yours..
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:July 11th, 2008 at 10:22 am
I’m not sure how you managed to get a degree with comprehension skills like that phule.
The point is everyone ELSES carbon footprint is bigger as we all have to work more to pay YOU.
Also, as you know nothing about me or my lifestyle, you’re talking shite..eh..?
Vote:July 11th, 2008 at 10:22 am
george:
Interesting article on the beehive website!
40.7% claimed to be prepared to install solar water heating. If this was really the case across the population, we would expect to have seen a much higher uptake of this technology. I expect many people voted for this because it sounded a good idea, but didn’t necessarily intend to do it.
With regards to paying extra, the first question was phrased “$10 per week”. This sounds a small amount, and most respondents probably would not have multiplied it to an annual figure before answering. Most who thought it was reasonable would refuse to pay the next amount ($20). I expect if the first value was $5 many would have said this was ok, then said they would refuse to pay $10 – just human nature, the cheapest option sounds ok, the next is less appealing.
Even in this possibly biased sample, over 49% disagreed with the statement “If New Zealand imposes tough climate change measures here at home, the effects of climate change will be much less in New Zealand”, (only 20% agreed), so most are seeing through the propaganda somewhat.
I could go on, but will stop. I think most people after being bombarded with “global warming is real” propaganda for so long have decided it must be true. If you repeat anything enough, people will believe it. This survey shows that. That there is still a reasonable chunk (not necessarily a majority) holding out against this propaganda certainly shows there is some doubt in the population.
Vote:July 11th, 2008 at 10:32 am
It’s not the only thing around here that’s somewhat small . Your brain, for example, is so small that if a hungry cannibal cracked your head open there wouldn’t be enough inside to cover a small cracker.
(um, quick hat tip to Blackadder, S04E01)
Vote:July 11th, 2008 at 10:42 am
why..?..chicky..?
are you also a “..vegan/mainly raw diet/mainly walking/no big-screen tv/no dishwashing machine/no clothes dryer/no alcohol carbon footprint..”
..sorta person..?
are you chicky..?
do tell..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:July 11th, 2008 at 11:01 am
phil I woulda thought that since you’re so passionate about AGW, your posts would be full of astute, pithy and relevant rebuttals of the other side’s arguments. Several links on this thread for example raise very serious issues.
Instead over time, I have seen mostly vapid nonsense. You constantly boast you’re ahead of the curve on issues that matter to you, how about giving us some evidence.
(Note: links to general articles posted on whoar are largely irrelevant to me. I want to see point-by-point logical takedowns of the best arguments advanced by those whom you quaintly term “deniers.”)
Vote:July 11th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
“The ETS in Europe has increased the carbon footprint of Europe ”
That isn’t true. I challenge you to produce one piece of solid evidence to prove what you claim. If you can’t you should retract right away.
Vote:July 11th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
“20% say world’s most important issue, 45% say an important issue”
So 65% of people think that climate change is an important issue. It’s figures like this which have lead to a lot of hollow rhetoric by the National Party in support of fighting climate change. The telling thing is hiwever, they never support any of the Government’s proposals aimed at fighting climate change. In fact, it was National who first proposed an ETS in place of the Government’s proposed carbon tax – now they’re against the ETS as well. The National Party have cynically suckered the public on climate change. They simply aren’t fit to govern this country.
Vote:July 11th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
“..I want to see point-by-point logical takedowns of the best arguments advanced by those whom you quaintly term “deniers.”
sorry..people far more knowledgable than me on this do it far better..
and,,anyway..why bother refuting already aplogised for bullshit..?
just because numbnuts are refusing to believe/accept they were lied to/conned..
..is no way my problem..
for a long time into the industrial revolution..there were idjits running around saying’it’s just a passing fad!’..
the truly dumb are always with us..eh..?
i find it best to laugh at them..and then just leave them to do what they do..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:July 11th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
philu (2187) –1 Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 10:02 am
“..i think my vegan/mainly raw diet/mainly walking/no big-screen tv/no dishwashing machine/no clothes dryer/no alcohol carbon footprint..
..is somewhat smaller than yours..”
WELL! Philu’s oh-so-simple solution to Global Warming………..EVERYBODY STOP WORKING, NOW…………..Unexpected plus: welfare reform becomes obligatory due to nobody paying taxes any more………all health and education “privatised” for the same reason……….we’re on to a bipartisan winner idea here, boys………
Vote:July 11th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
PhilBest – don’t be dickhead.
Vote:July 11th, 2008 at 9:40 pm
phil-the-inferior..
could you have got what i said more ‘wrong’..?l
you display a remarkable consistancy in that regard..
remember what i said about ‘the truly dumb’..?
(and all in your own words..eh.. ?)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:July 11th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
Roger Bigot and phil-the-bludger working in unison. What a happy couple
Vote:(of losers)
July 11th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
Here’s a relevant link for you phil: Doomed to a fatal delusion over climate change
Oh dear, this AGW delusion is powerful stuff. What was that about the “truly dumb” phil?
Vote:July 11th, 2008 at 11:24 pm
The article however does have a serious point, which is this:
Of course NZ’s hard-won costly and economically-crippling savings would be swallowed up even quicker, seeing as we make an even smaller contribution to the total. I thought that illustrating the futility of our stance by calculating the number of days within which our contribution would be swallowed up was a very powerful way to make the point and wonder what the exact NZ figures would be.
So phil, since you’re an authority, what’s your estimate for how many days in 2020 would NZ’s total contribution to AGW take to be swallowed up, if China and India continue emitting at the present rate of growth? Aus is 28 days. Would we be 5 days? I reckon it’s closer to 2 – prove me wrong. How many billions would we have to spend to buy the world 2 days, phil? How many jobs would it be worth? How many lives would have to be ruined? How many producers forced out of business? What’s it worth, phil?
Vote:July 12th, 2008 at 8:56 am
interesting how those who were at the forefront of the denialists..
..are now leading the charge on ‘we should/must do nothing!’..
(with..of course..just one of the many ironies inherent in that stance..
..being that australia is in the top tier of countries that are/will be most effected by climate-change wrought by pollution..)
..and..you’d have heard similar arguments against giving women the vote/ending salvery..etc..etc..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:July 12th, 2008 at 11:19 am
“Australia is in the top tier of countries that will be most effected by climate change…….”
And the least able to affect the outcome by anything THEY do themselves, compared to what China and India do…….
Vote:July 12th, 2008 at 11:22 am
Philu, seeing you’ve got all day, surely you could actually read the whole article I linked to above, “The Chilling Costs of Climate Catastrophism” by Ray Evans in “Quadrant” Magazine. And seeing you’ve got all day, you could write us a scholarly analysis and point-by-point rebuttal.
There’s a good chap……
Vote: