Kyoto deficit now a surplus

April 15th, 2009 at 11:20 am by David Farrar

Wow, National has been in office over six months, and it has already solved . Nick Smith announced today that previous deficit (which had been getting as high as $1 billion) is now a surplus of $240 million. We can all relax now – the world has been saved.

Okay I am being sarcastic, but the change in forecast shows how much uncertainty there is – even counting the level of greenhouse gases is no simple thing.

We are now forecast to be 9.6 million tonnes under our Kyoto target of 1990 levels of net emissions. So what has happened?

The 2007/08 drought and better information on carbon captured in forests. I always said we should simply shoot one in ten cows, but instead a drought is just as good it seems. Now here is an interesting idea – global warming is predicted to cause more droughts, which will lower our carbon emissions – so maybe it is self correcting?

Now the figures may be a bit dodgy, as they are done by the Ministry for the Environment. They are being checked, rechecked and audited.

But whatever the figures really are, even the possibility of a surplus completely undermines Labour’s claim that its Emissions Trading Scheme was about “who pays New Zealand’s deficit?”

The truth is that Labour’s was always about one of the biggest illicit tax grabs in New Zealand’s history.

According to David Parker himself  (see attached document letter-from-minister-re-revenue-and-cpr-30-may-20081 which a friendly Kiwiblog reader dropped me) Labour always knew that it would receive a $21 billion windfall from households and firms. Colin Espiner wrote about this before the election but it never really took off as a story because everyone was distracted by Winston Peters and the election.

The $21 billion windfall was why Michael Cullen was so keen on the ETS – he could raid our wallets by $21 billion without us even noticing. It was taxation by stealth at its worst. This is also why Cullen was so willing to pay billions in policy concessions to New Zealand First and the Greens – it was nothing compared with the $21 billion he knew was on its way.

National has always promised to make the ETS fiscally neutral but here’s the problem. Cullen designed the scheme to take money from households and firms and deliver it to him – how can you modify it to turn a $21 billion tax grab into a fiscally-neutral scheme? Or even one that hands the $241 million back to the public?

It is looking more and more likely that a carbon tax is the superior way to go, as the Greens originally proposed.

Tags: , ,

101 Responses to “Kyoto deficit now a surplus”

  1. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    Now the figures may be a bit dodgy, as they are done by the Ministry for the Environment.

    Eh?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    Ah:

    “It is difficult for the Government to make sound climate change policy when projections have ranged from a 55 million tonne surplus in 2002 to a 64 million tonne deficit in 2006 and when the figures over the past year have varied by 31 million tonnes equivalent to $787 million.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. davidp (3,540 comments) says:

    An ETS looks like a government-created Enron, trading in a whole lot of nothing up until the inevitable bubble bursts.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Fairfacts Media (371 comments) says:

    Thank You David for mentioning the extra $21 billion surplus Cullen hoped to screw out of the taxpayer.
    I posted on the cost of Green taxes over at The Fairfacts Media Show last night.
    The UK Taxpayers Alliance has produced a programme where people can calculate the extra amount of ‘green’ taxes they are paying for things like flying, running a car, etc, etc.
    Sadly New Zealand lacks its own Taxpayer’s Alliance, whom I am sure would be able to produce some equivalent New Zealand figures.
    It all goes to show how much governments see green taxes as a new source of revenue.
    I do hope National is different to the others.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Trevor Mallard (245 comments) says:

    Isn’t the problem with this line of arguement that the figures released show the position for New Zealand and not the government. Even our (ie previous Labour govt) ETS privatised the profits and socialised the losses. With no ETS ie the current situation that position is just magnified at both ends.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. greenfly (1,059 comments) says:

    It is looking more and more likely that a carbon tax is the superior way to go, as the Greens originally proposed.

    Thank you David.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “Now the figures may be a bit dodgy, as they are done by the Ministry for the Environment. They are being checked, rechecked and audited.”

    Ten to one they’ll be wrong.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. brucehoult (188 comments) says:

    I just can’t see how the earth’s climate *can’t* be self correcting. It’s moved around a fair bit over millions of years, but extremes always seem to return back to the average eventually. It’s just incredibly unlikely that that would happen unless it is self correcting. Any system that was “balanced on a knife edge” would have run off to one extreme or the other a long time ago and stayed there.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Gooner (995 comments) says:

    “It is looking more and more likely that a carbon tax is the superior way to go, as the Greens originally proposed.”

    And ACT.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Ratbiter (1,265 comments) says:

    The very fact that this discussion is SO much about the money, and so little about the environment, reaffirms for me exactly why I support ideological people with environmental and social causes…

    “We stand for a slight reduction in taxation and gummint spending – f*ck yeah!” still isn’t doing much for me, sorry!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “I support ideological people with environmental and social causes…”

    Narcissists and psychotics.. yeah exactly.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. senzafine (454 comments) says:

    Ratbiter: It speaks volumes that you can only see the two extremes.

    Personally, i’m more prone to support pragmatic, fiscally responsible idealists. :D

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    The very fact that this discussion is SO much about the money, and so little about the environment,

    Yyyyess, but since the mechanism for taking action on this issue is most very likely market(ish) based (and it should be), it’s somewhat inevitable that money is an issue isn’t it? Or do you favour a non-market mechanism?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Ratbiter (1,265 comments) says:

    And as usual, baiter’s only contribution is to label people with shitty names. (There’s a surprise! )

    Don’t call me nasty names young man. You use language like that again, and you’ll be going to your room.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Ratbiter (1,265 comments) says:

    senzafine – what extremes are you talking about? Kyoto is about using the money to motivate improvements in nations’ treatment of the environment. So there’s the money, and there’s the environment. I don’t see how these are extremes, or how this “speaks volumes” about anything…?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. baxter (893 comments) says:

    Surplus or deficit, ETS or Carbon tax, it is all bullshit and won’t effect the climate. It will create a bureaucratic monolith, and ensure a lower standard of living.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Owen McShane (1,226 comments) says:

    And it seems we are still counting our belching ruminants – which are neutral, and still NOT counting our perennial pastures – which are sinks.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Viking2 (11,130 comments) says:

    The whole thing is a crock of shit. Catch up guys. Its dead in the water. No right thinking person ever believed the figment of politicians imagination. Only the socialists. Its UN driven; doesn’t that tell you something.
    Time the bloody stupid Smith was sent to join Helen. He’s just as bad and for God’s sake comes in National Socialist clothes.
    The environmental problems are to do with pollution and should be dealt with. The best plant food in the world (CO2) is not a pollutant.
    You can catch up on http://www.NZCPD.com Global Warming debate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Murray (8,838 comments) says:

    Holy crap Trevor we’ve finally found something that Labour doesn’t want to blame on the National government of ten years ago.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. davidp (3,540 comments) says:

    Viking2>Catch up guys. Its dead in the water. No right thinking person ever believed the figment of politicians imagination.

    Too true. Just as NZ was never EVER going to give a billion dollars to Putin, no other country is going to give hundreds of millions of dollars to NZ.

    And we all know that, sooner or later, global warming will join Y2K, nuclear winter, the new ice age, the population bomb, or all the predictions that petrol would run out that have been made since about 1900 on the scrap heap of mass human fear. The trick is to avoid destroying our economy while we wait for the hysteria to pass.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Graeme Edgeler (3,267 comments) says:

    “It is looking more and more likely that a carbon tax is the superior way to go, as the Greens originally proposed.”

    And ACT.

    Gooner … ahem:

    http://www.act.org.nz/news/no-fart-tax-tour

    Come on, they had a ‘bus and everything!

    Choice quote: “It is absurd that clean, green New Zealand is facing taxes on methane”… but you can pretty much quote the whole thing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Ratbiter (1,265 comments) says:

    Graeme – thanks for that reference.

    “ACT is leading the campaign against the FART TAX because only ACT has the credibility on this issue.”

    Interesting, because a cow’s methane production is overwhelmingly through its mouth (belches) not through its bottom (farts).

    So, while ACT were extolling their own supposed “credibility” in this matter, the very fact that they insisted on calling it the “FART TAX” (doing so in ALL CAPS FOR ADDED EMPHASIS, no less) proved that they were, in reality, merely talking out their arse. A glorious coup for the rich prick party indeed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. gd (2,286 comments) says:

    As Ive said before we have the toxic combination of governments out to tax the hell out of the citizens and businesses looking to create super profits by conning consumers into buying ‘environmentally friendly goods”

    Both are thieves.

    In addition we have scientists looking for research funding and prepared to prostitute themselves on what ever alter will give them the money.

    Resist the bastards all of them Like Y2K and the flat earth it will be shown to be a great con.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    Ratbiter cough-12:32 comment-cough

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Ratbiter (1,265 comments) says:

    stephen – kyoto was the blackest of all evils back when (quoth the Kiwiblog mob) “We’ll be paying Russia billions every year” – remember that? Now that it turns out the country might stand to reap a surplus out of it, suddenly it’s merely an interesting if misguided folly.

    Like I said, the ONLY concern around here is about the money, with “the environment” a joke scarcely worth mentioning at all. Not my cup of tea, as I said at 12:20. With less coughing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. LUCY (359 comments) says:

    Climate change is NOT “Man made”. It has been going on for zonks and will continue to long after we are gone. Im with gd so why are we even entertaining carbon credits over ETS both are bullshite.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. george (398 comments) says:

    The $241 million surplus is crap. Which country is going to pay us $241 million in the middle of a depression? The Government should not be able to include this figure as an “asset” in the Crown balance sheet till they can tell us who they think plans to write out a cheque to New Zealand.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Don the Kiwi (1,593 comments) says:

    Kyoto is bullshit.
    Carbon Trading Schemes are bullshit.
    Anthropogenic: Climate Change/Global Warming is bullshit – its simply cyclical climate change – been happening for eons.

    All governments need to do is place measurement and controls on the polluters to safeguard the environment like the Americans and Brits have been doing for decades.

    Leave the taxes (that FILTHY word) out of it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Don the Kiwi (1,593 comments) says:

    And, BTW, the earth is presently cooling. Has been for 10 years.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. greenfly (1,059 comments) says:

    “Climate change has been happening for eons”

    ” It has been going on for zonks and will continue to long after we are gone.”

    “The best plant food in the world (CO2) is not a pollutant.”

    This is all high comedy, but nothing beats Gooners’s claim that Act have a view on climate that should be entertained for more than a nanosecond! You win hands-down Gooner!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “This is all high comedy, but nothing beats Gooners’s claim that Act have a view on climate that should be entertained for more than a nanosecond! You win hands-down Gooner!”

    In your opinion, which you are of course quite free to express, as hopelessly uninformed and partisanly stupid as it is. Most sane people tho would not see the point in posting such utterly worthless crap here. The expression of such nonsense appears to be driven by the need for some kind of psychological release rather than anything relating to reason.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. burt (7,812 comments) says:

    Trevor Mallard

    Isn’t the problem with this line of arguement that the figures released show the position for New Zealand and not the government.

    Well yes, we tend to look at it from the perspective of NZ, as politicians use to do. I know that Labour consider the govt before they consider the country, but that’s why they are not govt anymore. Please keep up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Murray (8,838 comments) says:

    Sneeringly anoucing that something is “high comedy” is not a counter greenfly. If anyone has a views that should not be entertained its the party that can’t win a single electorate seat because they fringe loonies dependant on the stoner vote to cling on to their delusions of relevance.

    You did not respond to one single point as always with you anti-science hysteria ludites.

    No wonder so many scientists demanded their names be removed from the IPCC report. Who the hell would want to be associated with the likes of you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. greenfly (1,059 comments) says:

    Redbaiter – and yet it’s strangely compelling isn’t it? Someone who writes,

    “The best plant food in the world (CO2) is not a pollutant.”

    must have a finely developed sense of humour, don’t you think?
    I suppose saying that coal-smoke ‘ isn’t a pollutant’ would also be be true, (that is, while it’s still inside the chimney.)
    Care to have a go at explaining why,

    “The best plant food in the world (CO2) is not a pollutant.” isn’t funny?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. greenfly (1,059 comments) says:

    Murray – my ‘high comedy’ comment wasn’t a counter. It was a claim. Those were very funny statements. I am responding to three points.
    No. 1 ” It has been going on for zonks and will continue to long after we are gone.”
    Have you the where-with-all to engage in discussion on this claim?

    This statement is a truism. It is so blatantly obvious that only someone who misunderstands their own words would utter it.
    What do you think Murray? Are they wrong? Are they right? If so, why state the obvious?
    Aside from those funny claims, the Act-knows-where-it’s-at-on-climate-change implication is far the most hilarious! Act! Act!
    What comedy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. burt (7,812 comments) says:

    greenfly

    Do you know much about commercial glass house management? Do you know much about creating artifically high CO2 environments to increase yields ?

    Think about a slight modification to the soda stream unit so that it keeps the CO2 level high in that spare wardrobe with the big light in it :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “Redbaiter – and yet it’s strangely compelling isn’t it?”

    Its a measure of your mental dysfunction that you would think that. Its not at all compelling. It is merely ,ll mannered and irritating. I wish you’d take your worthless unreadable prattle elsewhere. There’s too much commie crap and worthless propaganda on this blog from you and you’re equally half educated brain damaged knuckle dragging comrades.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. greenfly (1,059 comments) says:

    burt – yes I do. O.k. I’m thinking about that now … and your point is …

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. greenfly (1,059 comments) says:

    Redbaiter – unreadable Apologies for that. I’ll type more slowly. Let me know if you fall behind again!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. burt (7,812 comments) says:

    greenfly

    I just makes the stuff grow really well and combined with a higher temperature than normally occurs in NZ (via lamps and heaters) it’s all good.

    Bring on elevated CO2 levels and increased temperatures – it will let me get that wardrobe back and the kids will stop asking where their soda stream went :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. lyndon (330 comments) says:

    Normally I’d stay out of this kind of thread because it’s going nowhere. However:

    Redbaiter accuses someone of having bad manners LOL.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    Exactly what I mean. You think you’re being smart, however your weak attempt to make a wordplay on unreadable is to my mind merely infantile, smug and definitely not the least bit amusing. You’re just like some dull unimaginative two year old constantly screaming for attention.

    Get over yourself you dumbfuck.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. greenfly (1,059 comments) says:

    Redbaiter – see lyndon’s comment and apply each time you comment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. burt (7,812 comments) says:

    greenfly

    you ran away from the IQ thread – was it all to difficult for you ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. greenfly (1,059 comments) says:

    burt – that spare wardrobe with the big light in it

    Have you been reading the ‘Narnia’ books again?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “Redbaiter accuses someone of having bad manners LOL.”

    Gee you laffing jackasses are a bore. The assumption that leftists, who steal cheat rob and would enslave us, are somehow due the manners a civilised person might be due would have to be the most amusing misconception of all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Gooner (995 comments) says:

    Ok Graeme, fair enough. I’m pretty sure Rodney Hide said during the campaign his “preference”, if anything was to be done, was a carbon tax. It *was* six months ago!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. burt (7,812 comments) says:

    greenfly

    Not reading, after a visit to the wardrobe I write a few chapters. I then put the title of “Green party policy” on them and people think they are fabulous. They have no relevance to the real world and I think that is the biggest part of their appeal.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. greenfly (1,059 comments) says:

    burt – no, not difficult at all. I was enjoying it but had to attend to another round of guests. Thought about your wife :-)
    Good on her for teaching, no matter where. I’ve taught: Pre-school, Primary, Intermediate, Highschool, Tertiary, Kura, Uncertificated (off-shore island) , U3A, community groups, ESL, lots of environmental education roles and a whole lot more. Can’t be sure that I’ve been in the business longer than your wife (I don’t know how long she ‘lasted’) but I’d wager that my range is broader.
    btw – I’ve only ever fled from one on-line discussion and that was on Israel/hamas debacle and then only because I didn’t know what I was talking about :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. burt (7,812 comments) says:

    greenfly

    I also concur that your experience is broader than hers (on face value). What I was pulling you on was the concept that one anonymous blogger could claim to have more experience than another anonymous bloggers wife. You simply can’t make that sort of double (triple) blind assertion and have any credibility.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. greenfly (1,059 comments) says:

    true burt

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Richard Hurst (756 comments) says:

    The 1990′s:Quick let’s sign Kyoto cause the world will give us money. Hundreds of millions. Ya!

    The 2000′s: Opps, we’re going to owe the world money. Hundreds of millions. Bugger.

    2009: no, no, wait! We’re in surplus again!

    2010: Oh, wait we’re not..

    2011: Hey, we’re wrong its a surplus! Yippy!

    2012: no, sorry opps it’s not..

    2013: Minstry of the Environmnet burned to the ground.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. PaulL (5,873 comments) says:

    Waste of time thread. But I’ll deal with the bits that look interesting to me:

    1. World has been cooling for the last 10 years. I’m pretty sure that the only way we can reach the conclusion that the world has been cooling is if we choose one of the two warmest years in the last century as our base – i.e. 1998. It’s kind of like me getting a really big pay bonus this year (i.e. abnormally high pay), and then concluding that my pay has been shrinking for the next 10 years, even if my pay has stayed higher than the average for my entire working career. I think that it is incontrovertible that the average world temperature as measured by most of the climate type folks has been on an increasing trend, and that trend has stabilised but not reduced in the last 10 years. As to whether we should care, or whether they’re measuring the right thing, those are different questions.

    2. ACT’s policy on carbon tax. I’m pretty sure that their written and stated policy in the election, as could be found on their web site, was a carbon tax with offsetting tax cuts in income tax. Actually almost identical to the Green policy, funnily enough. Which is why I’ve always maintained that if National could come around to a carbon tax instead of an ETS (hard with a former trader as their leader) that there would be a majority in favour of a carbon tax.

    3. Kyoto forecasts. Interesting but irrelevant. The only useful thing you could conclude is that we are shit at forecasting carbon emissions, and that NZ’s emissions will vary enormously if we go including agriculture. Have we agreed yet whether Australia will include bush fires? Seems to me they had better negotiators than we did…..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. side show bob (3,660 comments) says:

    So DPF wants to shoot every tenth cow. Might I suggest we shoot nine out of every ten politicians, should produce same desired result with extra benefits. Leave the cows alone !!!!!!!!!!!!!!.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    Ok Graeme, fair enough. I’m pretty sure Rodney Hide said during the campaign his “preference”, if anything was to be done, was a carbon tax. It *was* six months ago!

    It’s just not the same when you’re doing everything you can to undermine any measures whatsoever :-D

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    2. ACT’s policy on carbon tax. I’m pretty sure that their written and stated policy in the election, as could be found on their web site, was a carbon tax with offsetting tax cuts in income tax.

    Whether they would actually vote FOR a carbon tax is an interesting question, I think.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Viking2 (11,130 comments) says:

    Greenfly; CO2 is not a pollutant. Trying using your lungs(if they aren’t already stuffed up with that green hooch shit) without the CO2 that makes them work.
    Jes God some peole are f___g dumb.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. PaulL (5,873 comments) says:

    A very interesting question. I believe it would depend on how it were structured, what the administrative costs were, and how the offsetting income tax reductions were structured. Right at the moment might not be the best timing.

    But if, for example, we replaced our current petrol tax with a carbon tax of roughly the same value, but extended that tax also to coal and natural gas at similar levels, and then finally offset it with a useful income tax reduction – say, a tax free threshold of $15,000 of income, and a reduction in the top tax rate from 39% to 38%, then I reckon ACT would vote for it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. PaulL (5,873 comments) says:

    Viking2: our lungs require CO2 to make them work? Interested in that, I hadn’t heard it before. I thought we exhaled CO2, but I wasn’t aware that our lungs wouldn’t work without CO2 already in the air? I kind of figured we make our own, and since it is about 0.03% of what we breathe in, that the amount we’re making of our own would be enough.

    I agree that the planet wouldn’t look so good with no CO2, seeing as all the plants would die, but I’m not sure that anyone is suggesting that we try to attain a goal of zero CO2. Slippery slope arguments are always fun – if I say a bit less CO2 would be nice, that is tantemount to saying that I don’t want any CO2 at all. Like if I lived in Queensland and said that a bit less rain would be nice, and someone tries to tell me that life as we know it would end if there was no rain. Well, duh. There is some middle ground between feast and famine.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. PhilBest (5,117 comments) says:

    Anyone who has bothered to follow both sides of the debate (no, there is NOT a “consensus”) will know that this is one massive politically-motivated power grab.

    Al Gore
    Maurice Strong
    Bert Bolin
    James Hansen
    …..

    Oh yeah, those people really, really fill me with confidence that their agenda will be motivated by purely scientific truth.

    I won’t waste my time reiterating all the references I have posted before. I am pleased to see so many Kiwiblog commenters who are onto it.

    I wish the National Party would grow some balls.

    I look forward to Ian Wishart’s new book. I’ve already read several good ones by authors like Patrick Michaels and James Horner and Vincent Gray. But hopefully Wishart’s book will get more penetration with Kiwis.

    Our lefty MSM is very responsible, as usual, for the blatant propagandisation of the public on this.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. burt (7,812 comments) says:

    When water cools it cannot support as much suspended CO2, this is basic physics and explains why during the ice ages the CO2 levels are much higher than they are today.

    I just though I would add that to the debate. Afterall “all” scientists agree on the physics involved in that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. greenfly (1,059 comments) says:

    Viking2 – apologies for being fucking dumb. Fact is, I was totally agreeing with you. Sometimes parody just doesn’t do the trick, does it.
    Totally agree, btw, with you on the The environmental problems are to do with pollution and should be dealt with. How do you feel about dairy cows destroying our rural and coastal environment? National seems to be completely ignoring this.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Banana Llama (1,105 comments) says:

    “Plants can grow up to 50 percent faster in concentrations of 1,000 ppm CO2 when compared with ambient conditions”

    Sounds good to me, someone call Huntly and tell them to fire it up ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. PaulL (5,873 comments) says:

    greenfly: dairy cows are destroying our rural and coastal environment? Really? All of it? Or a small handful of farmers in isolated pockets are failing to follow the guidelines and giving everyone else a bad name?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. burt (7,812 comments) says:

    PaulL

    All of them, so much so that if we stopped all of them them all the damage done by China, the US and the rest of the planet would be reversed.

    It’s up to us to tax our people here in NZ in such a way that we can save the world. All praise the dear leader who believed in Al Gore – she was right and just in her attempt to decimate our economy so that the world can be saved – yeah yeah oh year – Vote Labour. (or Green of red is offensive and you like political parties who know how to do whatever Labour tell them to)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. burt (7,812 comments) says:

    PaulL

    Oh, one more thing. Coal powered anything is really really bad for the planet but selling tons and tons of coal to China is neutral if you get to bank a big fat export earnings cheque.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. greenfly (1,059 comments) says:

    PaulL – huge tracts of it, yes. A small handful of farmers in isolated pockets… no. Huge tracts. All of our coastal environment, no. Just where the waterways that flow through dairying country reach the coast and that’s sizeable amounts.
    Burt – we were’nt discussing China etc. but if we were, you have all Greens agreeing with your cynical view, especially the ‘coal to China’ debacle. You’re a green in the making, I can see.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. burt (7,812 comments) says:

    greenfly

    I’ll never make it as a green in NZ, I don’t think a Labour govt is more important than the environment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. toad (3,669 comments) says:

    burt said: Coal powered anything is really really bad for the planet but selling tons and tons of coal to China is neutral if you get to bank a big fat export earnings cheque.

    Yeah, might be for the Nats and Labs, but sure as hell is a very ba look from where the Greens are coming from. There might be hope for you yet burt!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. greenfly (1,059 comments) says:

    burt said: ..I don’t think a Labour govt is more important than the environment.
    Nor I burt! We’ve common ground!!
    I’d like to see a Green Government in New Zealand and I expect I will in time. Then (and only then) will the environment get the attention it deserves. It didn’t get it under Labour and it’s not getting it under this National/Act/Maori/Dunne government (I’m sure, as a prospective Green, you will agree :-)

    Out of interest, have you ever taken note of the number of posts made on Kiwiblog concerning the environment? It would be a telling statistic.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Banana Llama (1,105 comments) says:

    How about they just flat out exploit human labour and we shouldn’t trade with them at all if we value our dignity more than the dollar Toad?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. greenfly (1,059 comments) says:

    Banana Llama – which do you value more, banana, the dollar or your dignity?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. burt (7,812 comments) says:

    toad

    So where did it all go wrong? I would have voted Green with one of my votes in the election if the Greens didn’t pledge allegiance to the self serving Labour party.

    Oh, and if the Greens didn’t support the shutting down of protesters via the EFA. Um and also if they hadn’t supported every other thing that Labour did by abstaining when they could have stood up and been counted on the issues that mattered. Basically the Greens sat back and let Labour do whatever they wanted including signing up to huge export orders of coal to China.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. PaulL (5,873 comments) says:

    Banana – they don’t exploit human labour – they just have a hell of a lot of very poor people who have very limited other options. If giving someone a job so they don’t starve is exploiting them, then I think you have your priorities crooked.

    If I recall correctly, burning coal to make power emits more radiation than an equivalent nuclear power plant. Coal has traces of radioactive elements, and you have to burn so damn much of it that those traces add up a lot. Not to mention the CO2, which may or may not be a pollutant, but we can probably all agree that too much of it is a bad thing. Will I see the Greens coming out in favour of nuclear any time soon?

    As for the likelihood of a Green government – sorry greenfly, don’t see it. The environment will get the attention it deserves in NZ when the Green party drops their social agenda, and focus on the environment. Once they are a centre party they will:
    a) draw more votes, as those who have environmental concerns but can’t stand the far left policies start voting Green
    b) have far more power, as they hold the balance of power.

    Environmental concerns will be taken more seriously by National when there is some prospect that they could have a stable coalition with the Greens. Environmental concerns will be taken more seriously by Labour when the Greens cannot be taken for granted.

    In short, the watermelon positioning of the Green party is what is holding back environmental progress, not the need for a wholly Green government.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. burt (7,812 comments) says:

    PaulL

    In short, the watermelon positioning of the Green party is what is holding back environmental progress, not the need for a wholly Green government.

    Exactly.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. greenfly (1,059 comments) says:

    burt – Indeed, the Greens should have wielded the enormous power they held with their confidence and supply agreement, to dictate what the Government could do at every level. Why they didn’t is a complete mystery to me. Clearly the Greens don’t care for the environment AT ALL !!! Why, they’re nothing but stinking commies! That whole snail/whale thing is just a front! They just want to destroy the ordinary New Zealand family and our God-given way of life.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Banana Llama (1,105 comments) says:

    If we aren’t willing to apply the laws we live by too others then we have already sold our dignity down the river, frett not though we get 1$ gumboots and a consumer society, consent is not required.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. burt (7,812 comments) says:

    greenfly

    I wouldn’t go that far. But yes I do agree the NZ implementation of a “Green party” is primarily of socialist policy party trying to capture popularity by pretending it’s an environmental party.

    I asked you yesterday, do you think environmental policy is inseparable from left wing ideology and you didn’t answer that question – do you think it is ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. greenfly (1,059 comments) says:

    burt and PaulL – you applaud the recent MOU between the Greens and National then? A step in the right direction (so to speak)?
    Now that the two parties are snuggling up, this means the Greens are no longer commies, family destroyers, watermelons? What are we now – plums (green on the outside, blue in the middle). Confusing times! Is Sue Bradford now a Tory? Keith Locke a toff?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. greenfly (1,059 comments) says:

    burt said (of the Greens) pretending it’s an environmental party
    Well burt, I’ve done a lot of research on this issue. I’ve attended the Green AGM’s. I’ve attended National’s AGM’s. I’ve talked with many of the Green MP’s one to one. I’ve talked to many National Party MP’s one to one (Brash was a not aware of most of the environmental issues I wanted to discuss, English didn’t know at all, Smith wasn’t interested in new ideas etc.)
    I attended several Blue/Green functions. Talked a lot with Guy Salmon, Eric Roy (I’ve even spent more time than you would credit with Heather Roy !
    None, bar the Green MP’s had anything going on at all, by my reckoning and I listened closely.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. burt (7,812 comments) says:

    greenfly

    <bullshit>I’ve spent more time talking to Heather Roy than you :-)</bullshit>

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Simon (685 comments) says:

    Tax rates are generally falling worldwide social democrats like Cullen needed new ways to tax the productive. Global warming fitted the bill.

    When a Labour politician talks about climate change he is lying.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Banana Llama (1,105 comments) says:

    Banana – they don’t exploit human labour – they just have a hell of a lot of very poor people who have very limited other options. If giving someone a job so they don’t starve is exploiting them, then I think you have your priorities crooked.

    Haha, do you want to support a dictatorial regime or not, i think you have your priorities crooked but what ever works yeah, so long as people are fed and a few are making trillions to loan back to us so we can keep them employed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. burt (7,812 comments) says:

    greenfly

    I spent a bit of time talking one to one with Rod Danald while we were both staying at the same camping ground a few years back. You know he never mentioned taxes, unions or collective contracts once.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. OECD rank 22 kiwi (2,811 comments) says:

    It is looking more and more likely that a carbon tax is the superior way to go

    Don’t you mean “carbon refund” given the latest figures?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. burt (7,812 comments) says:

    toad

    I asked before “So where did it all go wrong? “

    I tell where I think it went wrong, where is the environmental impact reduction in supporting state monopoly health provision VS public private partnerships? Are series environmental issues at stake if we extend the use of public funding for private providers to reduce waiting lists?

    The same is true for Education, why would an environmental party have an ideological stance on the state funder/provider split?

    The positioning for the last election was particularly cute. Basically the Greens presented themselves as the environmentally concerned Labour voters choice. What was that about? It certainly wasn’t about the environment was it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. greenfly (1,059 comments) says:

    burt – good use of tags :-)

    You may have spent more time talking with Heather? Could be. When you next see her, try to get her to see reason over climate change will you :-)
    btw – I knew him as Rod Donald and spent a lot of time in his company, like you did, I guess. We talked about the environment alot. Plus beer. Organic beer. He had very good taste in beer.
    Gotta go now.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. PaulL (5,873 comments) says:

    greenfly – yes, I do applaud the recent MOU between National and the Greens, and yes, it is a step in the right direction. Unfortunately it is very limited because the Greens have little in common with National on policies outside the environmental sphere. If both Labour and National were viable governments, and the Greens held the balance of power, their social policies would have them go with Labour every single time. Therefore, Labour will take them for granted, and offer a bad deal on the environmental policies.

    In short, no, the Greens didn’t become plums by a half hearted deal with National. Hopefully spending some time with National will get them to realise that there is actually more than one way to help the poor and disadvantaged in our society – the left wing way (give them stuff and let them fester), and the right wing way, of helping them to not be poor and disadvantaged anymore.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. jarbury (464 comments) says:

    Isn’t it obvious what we should be doing…. planting a crap load more trees!

    Very interesting comments made by Nick Smith about the energy and transport sectors though – perhaps he should actually talk to Gerry ‘gas power’ Brownlee and Steven ‘roads make me horny’ Joyce about the rising emissions from their areas, and what they’re doing about it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. OECD rank 22 kiwi (2,811 comments) says:

    What National should be doing is scrapping the ETS.

    A pointless waste of time and as DPF highlights, a tax grab for the government.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    But if, for example, we replaced our current petrol tax with a carbon tax of roughly the same value, but extended that tax also to coal and natural gas at similar levels, and then finally offset it with a useful income tax reduction – say, a tax free threshold of $15,000 of income, and a reduction in the top tax rate from 39% to 38%, then I reckon ACT would vote for it.

    Sounds like it could be a stealthy way to ‘starve the beast’! I have no idea what a decent rate would be though – I think the Greens reckoned making the first $5,000 tax free was their solution to a carbon tax, which implies the cost would be low?

    Top tax rate is 37% now though.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. LUCY (359 comments) says:

    It sounds like greenfly has never heard of the Minoan, Roman and Medieval warm periods nor the Ice age nor the more recent little Ice age. As I said the climate has been changing for zonks. Check your history Greenfly. Read scientific reports based on evidence and not computer modelling and stop relying on your ‘masters” to tell you what to believe in

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    Of course he hasn’t. Knows nothing of history, classical literature or the origins of liberty. Just a typical half educated knuckle dragging socialist robot.

    If it wasn’t for socialism, and the legions of shoal fish it has produced by means of a completley dysfunctional education system, the global warming scam would never have gotten off the ground.

    Unlike the drooling idiots of socialism, thinking people reject it in a heart beat for the deceit laden political device it really is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. towaka (19 comments) says:

    Now one of the reasons given for the reduction was the drought..hence less belching animals but the other consequence of drought conditions is a massive loss of carbon from the soil.But under Kyoto no regard is paid to the biggest sink of all which is soil carbon,which just shows what a crock the whole thing is!

    By the way land under irrigation locks up much more carbon as you do not have the losses from the summer dry..funny that eh,all those people irrigating the Canterbury plains are helping to save the planet.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Ratbiter (1,265 comments) says:

    “a completley dysfunctional education system…”

    :-P

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    So is it your contention that I do not know how to spell the word ‘completely’??

    If not, then your typically feeble and witless attempt to be clever doesn’t rise far above what an eight year old might endeavour.

    If so, then once again you demonstrate the fact that you have the cognitive powers of tinned ham.

    Either way infant, you lose.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. Angus (536 comments) says:

    RB said – “If so, then once again you demonstrate the fact that you have the cognitive powers of tinned ham”

    Not only that, he calls himself “Ratbiter” and spends his time trawling though Kiwiblog threads just so he can hump your leg. [ And don't those ingratiating smiles make you want to puke? ]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    [ And don't those ingratiating smiles make you want to puke? ]

    Damn right.

    Real sick making.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. MyNameIsJack (2,415 comments) says:

    Redbaiter (5667) Vote: 7 1 Says:

    April 16th, 2009 at 10:00 am
    Of course he hasn’t. Knows nothing of history, classical literature or the origins of liberty. Just a typical half educated knuckle dragging socialist robot.

    If it wasn’t for socialism, and the legions of shoal fish it has produced by means of a completley dysfunctional education system, the global warming scam would never have gotten off the ground.

    What an odd thing to say, considering it was given birth by Margaret thatcher, surely she’s not a knuckle dragging socialist too?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    Thatcher cared about the environment, like any Conservative. She soon woke up to the global warming scam and how it was being used by “green socialists” to attack capitalism. She said-

    “Whatever international action we agree upon to deal with environmental problems, we must enable our economies to grow and develop, because without growth you cannot generate the wealth required to pay for the protection of the environment”

    Not at all what you commie knuckle draggers believe or want, and you have, by means of propaganda and lies and money oiling the palms of cronyists and con men, perverted Thatcher’s genuine concern into a control freak’s wet dream.

    I repeat, without the influence of socialists and the indoctrination of school children, and the denial to them of a real education, GW would never have gotten legs. It is only through closing down discussion and denying those with alternative views a voice (political correctness) that anything to do with socialism ever gets any traction.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. LUCY (359 comments) says:

    She did. And so do I. You do not have a monoply on wanting to preserve and encorauge the environment that is our planet. The difference is you want to control it and see the means of doing this as destroying civilization, we say let it florish

    In 1990, Strong told a reporter a fantasy scenario for the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos, Switzerland – where 1,000 diplomats, CEOs and politicians gather “to address global issues.”

    Strong, naturally, is on the board of the World Economic Forum. “What if a small group of these world leaders were to conclude the principal risk to the earth comes from the actions of the rich countries?…

    In order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring this about?”

    That’s Strong talking, but those are Blofeld’s words coming out. But this is no fictitious Bond movie villain speaking – it is the man who chaired the Rio Earth Summit and who is Kofi Annan’s senior adviser.

    “This group of world leaders forms a secret society to bring about an economic collapse,” continued Strong, warming to his fantasy. “It’s February. They’re all at Davos. These aren’t terrorists.

    Maurice Strong said that it was the UN duty to destroy civilisations what better way to do it that say the planet was failing. He wen on to say and I quote

    “They’re world leaders. They have positioned themselves in the world’s commodities and stock markets. They’ve engineered, using their access to stock markets and computers and gold supplies, a panic. Then, they prevent the world’s stock markets from closing. They jam the gears. They hire mercenaries who hold the leaders at Davos as hostage. The markets can’t close…”

    Strong catches himself. “I probably shouldn’t be saying things like this.”

    Combine both and tell me what the hell is going on?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.