Will the Greens sacrifice themselves for the ETS?
As previously stated, I think the Greens have informally already decided to back the ETS, despite the failure to get any significant concessions.
The PM has said:
If the emissions trading scheme did not pass into law, the Prime Minister said she would make it a “major election issue”.
Now if I were the Greens, I’d be thinking about why on Earth they would possibly want to remove the biggest most important issue as an election issue? They are hovering just above 5%, and are about to take away their biggest issue and basically portray themselves as no different to Labour. Have they thought about the message it gives to Green supporters? It is, vote for us and achieve the same as voting for Labour on the most important environmental issue of our lifetime?
Clark does not want climate change as a major election issue. Her record on emissions is so hollow, Nicky Hager could turn it into a sequel. Emissions under Helen Clark have grown faster (in relative terms) than under George W Bush or John Howard, The last thing she wants is climate change as an issue. National will quietly probably be quite glad if the Greens back it, and it goes through. So it will be good for Labour and National, and bad for the Greens politically.
Have the Greens considered what they could grow their vote to, if they said the ETS doesn’t achieve enough, and we won’t back it. They could campaign on Labour’s disasterous record with carbon emissions, how National would be little different and only a vote for the Greens will make a difference on climate change. With a good campaign manager they could get 10% of the vote I reckon.
Toad makes similiar points of g.blog. I’d also point out that under Labour’s ETS no major emitting sector comes in until 2011 anyway, so a year’s delay in the legislation is not the same as a year’s delay in a sector coming into an ETS.
My advice enough is not Trojan Horse advice – it is the advice I would give the Greens if I was their campaign manager. I don’t actually have a strong concern about the differences between the desired Greens ETS, Labour’s ETS and a National ETS. The ETS is a very long term game, and I don’t get too excited over a year’s delay or not for a sector. NZ’s actual impact on carbon emissions is close to zero. We need an ETS so we do our part as a good global citizen, and so we do not get affected by environmental trade barriers. But let us not think that transport coming into the ETS in 2009 or 2011 will affect global temperatures at all.
August 25th, 2008 at 10:17 am
Non-tariff type ones like carbon footprint labelling, or EU type ‘carbon tariffs’?
August 25th, 2008 at 10:21 am
If the ETS became a “major election issue”, hopefully it would be a loser with voters. Hopefully they are waking up to the shonky basis of the whole AGW thing, and waking up to the impact on their cost of living that the ETS will have. Perhaps yet another electorally costly gamble by Helen?
Surely “wait and see” could be turning into a stance that voters would respect, notwithstanding the biases of the MSM in favour of AGW, Kyoto and Emissions Trading schemes?
And hopefully there will be a backlash in time, on the credibility of “science-backed” environmental alarmism, that will cost the Greens the most dearly and make ACT look like the smartest in the game (which they are).
August 25th, 2008 at 10:25 am
Making it “a major election issue” means (when translated from Clark speak) I can and will use this issue to push my case for one of the top jobs at the UN, I do not give a toss what damage it does to the NZ economy as it is more important for me to further the cause of world wide socialism.
August 25th, 2008 at 10:27 am
I’m not as convinced as you that the Greens will support the ETS. If they do, it will only be because they are convinced that the National alternative will be even worse.
In terms of whether they should support it – on both principle and politics – no. On principle – it is watered down, and will be ineffective. Labour have treated the negotiation as a zero sum game, as they treat all negotiations and pretty much all economic life. They cannot conceive of a solution in which one party’s win is not some other party’s loss. So they have created something that makes everyone unhappy. The Greens’ proposed solution, a carbon tax, by comparison, is a win-win deal. The way it is structured means very little economic impact, but it still creates powerful incentives to not emit carbon. If we’re going to do something, lets do something that gives the maximum impact for the minimum cost. The Labour ETS is not that.
On politics, I’m struggling to see how anyone benefits from forcing this through other than National.
1. The Greens don’t. They become mini-me to Labour, and lose their differentiator. Their biggest concern will have been whitewashed without a proper solution, all their political capital will be spent so there will be very little chance of getting a better solution any time soon. All attention will shift to watering the thing down every time someone comes up with some impact that we hadn’t noticed before. Starting with something ineffective and then watering it down piece by piece is not a good idea.
2. Labour don’t. They think they do at the moment, but then they thought the EFA would help them too. What is going to happen is they’ll pass it, and spend all the time to the election defending every little anomaly in the detail. National won’t have to present an alternative, just promise to fix the mess that inevitably will be there in a very complex piece of leglisation. If Labour don’t pass it, the media will spend the time to the election comparing and contrasting National and Labour’s policy at a high level. If they do pass it, the media will spend the time to the election picking holes in every little detail of Labour’s law.
3. National win big time. It is a golden opportunity to attack Labour’s lack of caring for the environment, for business, for workers, for families, in fact for everyone this legislation will impact. They won’t have to show any competing policy, just promise to consult better and take longer. They won’t have to piss off their base by stating what they’ll actually do, and they won’t have to have the spectacle of John Key, former trader, advocating for a scheme that has a lot of benefits for traders.
In a political sense, I hope Labour force it through. It will hurt them come election time, and potentially turf the (red) Greens out of parliament. In an economic sense, I hope the Greens don’t support it, and form an agreement with National (perhaps abstention on confidence and supply) in return for a good policy – such as a carbon tax until such a time as there is a genuine international market in carbon credits, and such a time as the majority of our trading partners have implemented something. A trading scheme works poorly when you’re the only people doing it, a carbon tax works well when you are going it alone.
August 25th, 2008 at 10:37 am
Helen owns the greens. The greens to find their inner poodle and go with the current government resolving to go “eco warrior” against a Nat government next year once Helen is a bad memory.
A bit risky and W’ussel might miss out on his MP pension plan but medium term they will be a lot happier in the comfort zone of hard left opposition against an evil Centralist Nat led govt.
August 25th, 2008 at 10:45 am
The poodle barked at the intruder ( common sense and good policy ) then realised that it’s masters wanted the crooked thief in the house so the poodle sat down and went back to sleep.
Time for an election – the fact the PM is pleased with the polls (any lift is good eh) might be a good sign.
August 25th, 2008 at 10:45 am
Excellent analysis DPF.
PaulL, excellent apart from the fact that Labour lose by passing it. This is incorrect.
Labour will campaign on the fact that they have done something about climate change and National did not support it etc.
Labour wants to bring it on to the agenda so that it competes with economic issues (which they are losing badly on).
It is a big ticket campaign item for Labour.
Not being able to pass it makes Labour look hollow both on their environmental record (not doing anything) and their inability to govern (failure to get a crucial piece of legislation through Parliament).
The Greens lose big time by supporting this. Their rationality & strategic thinking once again is deeply flawed. As DPF correctly points out they are throwing away 4-5% of their vote by supporting this and lessening their post-election bargaining position. Poor Toady.
Further, if Labour accept any Green demands on this legislation, Labour may lose further votes to the right when people deem the legisaltion too punitive and also to the left as the Greens will pick up from Labour.
National will not have their vision scrutinised until govt.
Overall, National & Labour gain together as much as the Greens lose.
August 25th, 2008 at 11:37 am
PhilBest said…
ACT look like the smartest in the game (which they are)
That’s 110% correct. Rodney Hide has stated publicly about the issues on AGW, that the uncertainty is too high a cost for ACT to support any ETS legislation.
Watch out for National if they win the Election, they will perhaps come up with an ETS that is more damaging to the economy compared to the current one being proposed by Labour.
August 25th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
The Greens have pushed a social agenda this last parliament and have not pushed environmental issues with nearly as much vigour; this is their chance to assert a “green” identity. I hope that they blow it.
August 25th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Or the could just go with a ffrrrickin carbon tax like the Greens and, er, ACT want.
August 25th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
I wasn’t aware that ACT wanted a carbon tax. If so, good on them. It is a hell of a lot better solution than an immature market in a commodity that is difficult to verify.
August 25th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
“Now if I were the Greens, I’d be thinking…”
And that is why you aren’t with the greens. They don’t think.
Helen saying it will become a major election issue says to me that: “If you Greens don’t get in behind this we will be attacking you next. We will steal your vote and your party will be toast.” Woohoo! The lefties are about to go feral! National can shoot themselves with both barrells, and in each foot, after the screaming socialists start warring and it wont make a jot of difference to the election outcome.
“We need an ETS so we do our part as a good global citizen…”
oh god I just had one of those mini vomits in my throat.
August 25th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Vote for the Greens to protect the environment – Yeah Right !
They dont actually care about the ETS,
so it should actually be
VOTE FOR THE GREENS IF YOU WANT TO SAVE LABOUR.
August 25th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
PaulL, all there: http://www.act.org.nz/files/pledge/20pointplan.pdf Don’t know why it says US and Australia are doing it, cos they aren’t. Perhaps they are referring to states, although with Canada it specifies British Columbia. Hmm.
Although I expect their carbon tax to be something like $1/ton of CO2-equivalient to be phased in by 2030 or something, unless they decide to take into account the possibility of the “environmental trade barriers” that DPF mentioned.
August 25th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
The Greens always had the smartest policy – for those who are convinced by the alarmists and for those who want to decrease our dependence on fossil fuel (meaning Arab States). (The two groups largely overlap but not necessarily.
IF a party wanted to appeal to both groups it would introduce a tax neutral tax on fossil fuel. ie collect taxes from those who burn fossil fuels and reduce income and company tax to make the final tax take neutral.
this would provide an incentive to swing from fossil fuels to others (including nuclear -which the Greens won’t wear of course.0
Then you could broaden the appeal my tying the fossil fuel tax to global temperature. If temps rise they pay a higher tax and if temps go down they get a refund on last year’s tax.
I do not know of any economist who favours an ETS over a simple tax.
The ETS is a guaranteed generator of unexpected outcomes and probably some very expensive one.
So why does the ETS have so much support?
Follow the money. The traders are lining up to participate in the trillions of dollars to be traded. I have received this promotion for a Green conference – green being the colour of money. Every mini Enron in town will be there.
“Seize the business opportunities in the budding US Carbon Market
The question is no longer ‘will the US bring in federal legislation on
GHG emissions’ but rather ‘when’ and ‘how’. As increasing regional and state
activities put pressure on the White House to provide a comprehensive
regulatory framework, experts are excited that the US has the potential to
transform the global carbon arena into a $1 trillion market. This unique
meeting will bring together the leading US and International experts
together for two days of intense, information rich presentations, debates
and networking. Understand how one of the World’s largest future commodity
markets is bounding from strength to strength and will impact upon your
business.
2 days of information rich presentations, debates and networking:
a.. Understand this future $1 trillion market
b.. What is happening globally and in the US?
c.. What are the latest policy updates and what is happening in
Congress?
d.. Where are the investment opportunities?
e.. Question the experts on carbon trading, carbon offsetting,
carbon capture & storage, agriculture & forestry and voluntary carbon
markets
Carbon Markets USA ‘08 will deliver:
» 200+ high calibre attendees
» 50 expert speakers
» 20 exhibition stands
» 1 first class business networking event
Key reasons to attend:
a.. Discover the latest developments in the future $1 trillion North
American Carbon Markets
b.. Find out what bills are currently in Congress and how they will
impact a federal policy
c.. Understand the pros and cons of the different regional schemes
d.. Learn how to develop projects that will be accepted by the
mandatory and voluntary markets
e.. Hear what kinds of projects are being funded through the
voluntary market
f.. Question market experts on carbon trading, carbon offsetting,
carbon capture & storage, agriculture & forestry and voluntary carbon
markets
g.. Benefit from interactive panel discussions and get your key
questions answered
Who will you meet:
The 2007 inaugural Carbon Markets USA welcomed over 170 executives
from across the US, UK, Europe and Latin America and featured high-level
debate, discussion and analysis from a selection of leading players in
government, industry and key associations involved in the region’s growing
carbon market. This year’s event will continue to focus on in depth
discussion and interactivity in order to get to the heart of the issues
affecting the market
Carbon Markets USA 2008 will convene:
· Governmental representatives
· Policy & Advisory bodies
· International Project Developers
· Offset Providers
· Utility representatives
· Financiers & Investors
· Carbon Traders & Brokers
· Renewable Energy Experts
· Equipment & Technology Solution Providers
· Universities/ Research/ Non Profits
· Associations
Internationally Renowned Speakers Include:
· Eric Washburn, Legislative Counsel, Bipartisan Policy Center
· Gary Gero, President, California Climate Action Registry
· Lisa Jacobson, Executive Director, Business Council for
Sustainable Energy
· Ned Helme, President, Center for Clean Air Policy
· Kate Hamilton, Carbon Project Manager, Ecosystem Marketplace
· Nathan Clark, Director- Emission Offsets, Chicago Climate
Exchange
Sponsorship & Exhibition Opportunities:
August 25th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
ACT policy is that a carbon tax is simpler to administer and more effective than carbon trading. This does not mean however that ACT has sold out and believes we need to be a “world leader” in climate change policies. ACT’s standpoint is that we should follow rather than lead the major polluters in the world. Particularly so when there are strong issues regarding whether our contribution would have any impact whatsoever on world temperatures.
It is not fair on the average New Zealander to be asked to accept a cut in their standard of living so New Zealand can simply say we were first to do it.
August 25th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Ah. I was having some vague twinges suggesting that I might have to vote Green just to avoid the economic damage of an ETS. God knows that would hurt because of all their other fruit loop policies, but most of those had little chance of being implemented, whilst the ETS seems to be on us. With Labour, National and everyone else lining up on the ETS, there was nowhere but the Greens to go. But, if ACT also have this as policy, much easier.
Could be interesting tho. If National after the election need ACT plus one other to form a government, and both ACT and the Greens support a carbon tax……hmm.
The thing most people fail to talk about is the impact on imports and exports. Carbon taxes can be levied/refunded at the border in a similar way to that in which GST is today. So it doesn’t drive our industry offshore like an ETS will, and it won’t affect our export farming industries. It is a massively better policy, as Owen points out the reason that all the large corporates have suddenly stopped complaining about global warming policy isn’t because they’ve worked out it is real and want to help the world – it is because they’ve worked out they can make a fortune. Whether it is real or not is irrelevant to most of the punters, ourselves included. The only interesting thing is whether we’re going to have a government policy, and if so, who is going to win from it.
August 25th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Has it occurred to anyone else that DPF might be half-right?
That this is a sham consultation but going the other way?
The Greens must know that the current ETS thing is bad, but don’t want to be seen as “pulling down the government” unnecessarily.
Thus go to the people, who hopefully say NO don’t vote for Labour’s ETS…
Then they can say look are we principled, we are following what our members want…
August 25th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
“it is because they’ve worked out they can make a fortune.”
Someone may point out that, ironically for the Right, this is now a Bad Thing. Possibly because we do not receive any goods or services at the end of it. Bit of ‘trickle down’ maybe?
August 25th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Stephen, it is a bad thing because fortunes made through government protectionism are generally bad things. That is really what this is – government intervention creating anomalies and windfall gains, largely at the expense of the average citizen. The right (at least, those that aren’t big government conservatives) are generally against that. Certainly the Rogernomics era was all about removing government protections from business – despite some on the left now seeing it as being all about hammering the little guy.
August 25th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Hmmmm- ?
Socrates Question above – Has it occurred to anyone else that DPF might be half-right?
Hmmmmm- Don’t think so!
I have considered it but the Greens have been so unprincipled in the past -look at the EFA that I can’t see them thinking or doing anything different this time .
THEY ARE NOT THE GREEN PARTY – THEY ARE THE GREEN SECTION OF THE LABOUR PARTY.
They are a sham.
LOOK AR THEIR TRACK RECORD ON TAX CUTS–
They should be the staunchest supporters of tax cuts and they are the weakest!!
A VOTE FOR THE GREENS IS A VOTE FOR LABOUR !!
August 25th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Would make a fair amount of sense to announce plans for ‘revenue recycling’ with the ETS like Australia is doing with theirs – tax rebates, insulation subsidies, whatever. You’d think publicising SOME benefits would be the FIRST thing to do when talking about an ETS.
If you voted for ACT on their carbon tax policy PaulL, the thing is you probably wouldn’t get one, at least for a few years. Not high on their list of priorities i’d imagine.
I daresay the ‘little guy’ got hammered when their bosses got hammered, but that’s another story.
August 25th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Go look at their (not up to date) tax policy then polemic, it’s not quite that black and white.
August 25th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
history will show that those who are advocating for an ETS or other taxes have the same mentality as those who thought if you sailed far enough from land you would fall of the edge of the earth.
We have the toxic combination of the LEFT who want to raise more taxes and the RIGHT in the form of big business who see marketing and increased profit opportunities.
It is also notable that the NZX are rubbing hands looking at clipping the ticket on any trading scheme.
As always the taxpayers and consumers are going to pay big time for the failed policies and agendas of the few.
August 25th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
There’s a breaking story in the Herald which proves that insanity is rife in this country: http://kiwipolemicist.wordpress.com/2008/08/25/judge-makes-nonsensical-attack-on-freedom-of-speech/
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10528866
August 25th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
stephen – I’m OK with not getting the carbon tax any time soon, so long as I don’t get an ETS. With National and Labour largely playing me-to politics, there isn’t that much economically to choose between them. Fiddling around the margins. The ETS has massive economic impacts, it is big enough to vote on as a single issue.
August 25th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Planet Earth to Judge Harvey Come in Judge harvey We are losing the signal Judge Harvey We are breaking up Judge Harvey
In fact we are rolling on the floor in laughter at you Judge Harvey
August 25th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
The Greens only have one option, swallow the dead rat of a watered down ETS and mumble on about how they can hope to build a stronger system once Labour is reelected. Anything else could jeopardise that reelection and they love being able to ban pies, smacking and incandescent light bulbs. They’re giving themselves some cover as well by seeking feedback, to show that THEY aren’t making the decision – the people are.
August 25th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Kiwipolemicist – Technically we don’t have a right to free speech in this country…you could argue that we should have that right and I might even support you, but that is not the issue here. Its a pragmatic decision on the part of the judge given that supression orders are becoming less and less effective. I don’t think it will actually work as it almost invites people to try and thwart it, but you can’t blame him for trying.
Name supression is entirely reasonable where we are talking about people who are ony _accused_ of a crime. People are found not guilty of the crimes they are charged with reasonably regularly and they need to be able to get on with their lives without the stigma of the accusation hanging over them. Otherwise you are actually punshing the innocent based on suspicion. Trial by mob or trial by media, which is often the result of a person’s name being in the public domain can also be pretty unhelpful in terms of delivering justice (which is what this should be about). In some cases the effect of having your name published is actually worse than the punishment for the crime (I’m thinking celebrities / public figures here) and that is just unfair.
Once someone is actually _convicted_ then they should pretty much be fair game unless there are compelling reasons to continue supression (e.g. identification of victims).
August 25th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
For Gods sake PaulL listen to yourself, so companys have figured out “they can make a fortune”. This whole EFS bullshit sounds to me like the biggest pyramid con ever. With those at the top or those fast enough ready to take in the “big money”. I’m sure many companys are lining up like pigs about to dive into the swill, ready to make those “trillions”. I wonder if it has occur to you that this “big money” has to come from somewhere, the “big money” will come from the punters like you and I Paul. The trillions have to come from somewhere PaulL, you may think this is a brillant idea, I think its just a fucking have.
August 25th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
side show bob. You seem to have not read my comment properly. That was exactly my point. I don’t want an ETS because it will be ineffective, it will create windfall gains for people who really shouldn’t be getting them at your and my expense, and it will severely impact our balance of trade due to the inability to ring fence the domestic and international markets. A carbon tax suffers from none of those problems.
August 26th, 2008 at 9:23 am
Debating the ETS is pointless. In NZ we should look at what is in our interests.
We are too small to make any difference to climate change, and the major offenders (assuming that climate change is caused by humans and not some natural change that has been going on for millions of years) aren’t going to do anything that isn’t in their interests. Their interests are ensuring their countries develop and their populations can continue to meet their material aspirations.
We should be looking at how we can mitigate and take advantage of any climatic changes that affect NZ. It may be that we place a very small tax on everyone that contributes to global warming and start a fund that can be used to look into ways of exploiting climate change for export markets – i.e. horticulture and agriculture, and providing a fund to mitigate effects such as sea levels rising, when and if, they do.
Does anyone think for a second that the average Chinese factory workers gives two shits about what we are up to, and even thinks about climate change? By extension Chinese leaders are worried about ensuring that the citizenry have a steady improvement in living standards otherwise they will have revolt on their hands, and that’s just China, then you have India, South America, Russia etc. None of those countries will put their development behind some un-proven ideology about climate change.
But we are.
We are going to place yet another barrier and cost on every business in NZ. Those businesses maintain the pretty modest life styles we have (level now with Greece and dropping). Our competitors in the global market place have subsidies, import tarrifs, rising freight costs, etc etc in our way, and yet we think it’s going to somehow help our exporters to have another tax on top of everything else?
If we canned Kyoto and forgot about carbon trading and worried about our own interests it is unlikely anyone else in the world would notice or care.
We have nothing to gain by being ideologically driven, but everything to loose.
If climate change is inevitable, and as long as the major players worry about their own interests (assuming it is caused by humans) it will be, then we need to worry about dealing with the changes and less about satisfying Green Party policy.
August 26th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
They have decided to support it. They are weak. They have just committed suicide.