Modified ETS recommended
June 18th, 2009 at 9:00 am by David FarrarNick Smith said:
A joint report by economic consultants NZIER and Infometrics concludes that a modified emissions trading scheme is the best way forward for New Zealand on climate change policy.
“This report is a useful contribution to the important debate on how New Zealand meets its environmental goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at least cost to the economy,” Dr Smith said today in releasing the report.
The report was commissioned by the Ministry for the Environment and provided to the Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee as part of its terms of reference.
“This report concludes that a modified emissions trading scheme is the best way forward. I am releasing this report to assist with informed public debate on climate change.
“The report highlights that the costs to New Zealand’s climate change policy are significantly greater if other countries do not put a price on carbon. This reinforces the Government’s policy of aligning our response more closely with other countries.
Yep any post-Kyoto arrangement must include all major emitters.
Anyway let us look at the actual report. They note:
There are a number of policy options available to New Zealand to pay for any international liability. The options are all on a continuum between the following two ‘extreme’ bounds:
(i) The government purchases all of the liability offshore using general taxation to raise the revenue required to do so. In this scenario, no carbon price is introduced in the New Zealand economy.
(ii) The government introduces a price for all greenhouse gases in all sectors, with no exclusions. In this scenario, emitters face the entire burden of the international liability.
They conclude:
Our modelling shows that if the rest of the world takes steps to price carbon, and technological change is induced by this pricing, then a broad-based domestic carbon pricing scheme is the least cost way to meet New Zealand’s international obligations. Without action by the rest of the world or technological change, the least cost option can include the free allocation of permits and exemptions for some industries and/or gases.
My version of this is they say we should have an ETS. If the rest of the world signs up to a price on carbon, then our ETS should cover all sectors. If however major emitters (such as China and the US) do not sign up, then some industries should be exempted from an ETS – agriculture being my guess as the most likely.
Indeed I am right. They say:
On balance, our recommendation in the short run is to introduce an ETS with free allocation to competitiveness-at-risk sectors, with agriculture excluded if measurement of its emissions is prohibitively expensive. Free allocation should be output-linked and phased out as our competitors adopt carbon pricing. If agriculture is initially excluded it should be transitioned into the ETS, with free allocation if required, as measurement becomes economic.
It will be interesting to see what the Select Committee recommend.
Tags: ETS, Nick Smith, NZIER
June 18th, 2009 at 9:10 am
As an expert on Climate Change, I would recommend a policy of no ETS, no carbon-related taxes, and no restrictions on carbon emissions. There is no science to support any of the suggested interventions, only political and financial shenanigans.
Vote:June 18th, 2009 at 9:15 am
Explain to me again how taking money from me to give to someone else, is going to stop climate change? How about “do nothing” as an option.
Vote:June 18th, 2009 at 9:21 am
Get rid of this nonsense and get rid of Nick Smith.
Vote:June 18th, 2009 at 9:28 am
Explain to me again how taking money from me to give to someone else, is going to stop climate change?
Allegedly the less GHGs you produce, the less you pay.
Vote:June 18th, 2009 at 9:32 am
Read the report. It does not recommend an ETS. It says that the best option is for the Government just to pay any Kyoto liability (or pocket any surplus). Nick Smith is just spinning when he says it recommends an ETS.
Vote:June 18th, 2009 at 9:33 am
Personally on this subject I’ll take the damning commentary of the incredibly well informed and well researched No Right Turn over the witterings of a climate action denying National party hack, but hey – that’s just me, being evidence based and all.
[DPF: You are a moron aren't you? I am actually blogging in favour of an ETS - as is NRT. You wouldn't know and evidence based approach if it hit you in the face as you obviously can't even read English]
Vote:June 18th, 2009 at 9:37 am
“being evidence based and all.”
Yeah, an “evidence based” communist. What a fucken laff. Posturing narcissist.
Vote:June 18th, 2009 at 9:37 am
Just remember, we all laughed when someone said the government would tax the air we breathed.
Vote:June 18th, 2009 at 9:39 am
Climate change policy can be found in the Bible.
Vote:June 18th, 2009 at 9:44 am
Look, this whole ETS thing is just politicians and socialists self glorifying.
The people need to rise up and reject it.
Nick Smith, if he was worth a pinch of goat shit as a politician, would be standing for the people and sweeping away the mass of smoke and mirrors that surrounds this bullshit.
He isn’t tho. He’s not for you and me. He’s for Nick Smith and big government, high taxes and increased regulation.
One of the losers that we need to get out of our lives or he will doom us all to slavery.
The Nats are pretty disappointing as a force for the common man, and Nick Smith is a big part of that disappointment.
Vote:June 18th, 2009 at 9:49 am
that’s just me, being evidence based and all.
As long as th eevidence supports your religious beliefs of course. Contrary eveidence is rejected as heresy.
Vote:June 18th, 2009 at 9:55 am
This is just a scam. We do not need more taxes hoisted upon us. There is now talk of water being regulated now as this is the new oil. Tax after tax after tax is the mantra now days.
Vote:June 18th, 2009 at 9:58 am
“Contrary evidence is rejected as heresy.”
That’s right, in fact the posturing little narcissistic zealot at No Right Turn disallows any kind of commentary on his patronising sermonising commie bullshit, but in a display of typical arrogance and hypocrisy, often turns up here to comment.
How long are NZers going to continue to so mildly accept the bullshit that this country is awash with???
Vote:June 18th, 2009 at 10:04 am
Climate change, swine flu, what the hell is next? Bullshit is the kiwi norm.
Vote:June 18th, 2009 at 10:26 am
rise up redbaiter.do something other than write screeds of whiney nonsense.pehaps you could highlight a govt , country or political system you think we should be emulating,because its not clear from your extraneous ramblings what you are advocating.
Vote:June 18th, 2009 at 11:31 am
DPF – why are you swallowing this climate change BS? There is no evidence, the “science” is far from settled. Look deeper, look at who is wanting to clip the ticket on these carbon trading schemes? Why do you think Aunty H Klark is now head of UNDP? Ever heard of G Soros?
Just check out what is happening in Australia at the moment, Senator Fielding has posed a couple of simple questions to ‘Henny’ Penny Wong and she doesn’t have an answer. So much for settled “science” etc etc.
NZ should take the lead AGAINST this crock “science” and call it for what it is.
Vote:June 18th, 2009 at 11:38 am
The goverment’s lack of spine and intestinal fortitude (read balls) is for all to see.
Instead of going along with this climate change farce, which will ruin agriculture-dependent New Zealand, the National Party should’ve ditched the grandiose carbon credit plans for good.
But, what can you expect from Nick Smith and his Cabinet peers? Little or nothing.
Vote:June 18th, 2009 at 11:51 am
“its not clear from your extraneous ramblings what you are advocating.”
Well hell, I’m sorry hannity, but y’know the truth is, I can’t raise enough interest in your off the point ramblings to explain it to you. If you don’t get it, too bad. Just do me a favour and stop wasting time and bandwidth telling me you’re a dumbfuck when its already so evident.
Vote:June 18th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
The president of Czechoslovakia Klaus HAVEL sums it up better than I can……..”Klaus is a vocal critic of the notion that any global warming is man-made (anthropogenic): “Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. He has also criticized the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as a group of politicized scientists with one-sided opinions and one-sided assignments. He has said that other top-level politicians do not expose their doubts about global warming because “a whip of political correctness strangles their voices.
Vote:June 18th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
“There are a number of policy options available to New Zealand to pay for any international liability. The options are all on a continuum between the following two ‘extreme’ bounds:”
They seem to have completely ignored two options which is a big shame and destroys the credibility of the report:
1) Do nothing and stop sending millions of dollars oversees.
2) Stop sending millions of dollars overseas, and use the money saved to reduce carbon emmissions through things like the Green’s insulation projects etc.
Vote:June 18th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
I’ll modify it for you.
Anyone got a lighter?
Vote:June 18th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
I like the bit that goes “with agriculture excluded”, if all this bullshit proves to be a costly rip off, just about bet the farm on that one. Shit, I bet that little paragraph will get the Melons spitting blood, love it. Might just go out and buy a few more cows.
Vote:June 18th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
Any mention of a carbon tax? Did they compare and contrast ETS and Carbon tax, or are we all assuming “price on carbon” = ETS. A carbon tax is a far less distorting policy, and many other countries are coming to that conclusion. It is also the stated policy of both the Greens and ACT. Surely the report at least considered one?
Vote:June 18th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
thought so,just an attention seeking shit spouter .
Vote:June 18th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
Evidence based?
Vote:You mean the evidence that the world is no warmer now than about 15 years ago
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/05/uah-global-temperature-anomaly-for-may-down-again-near-zero/
June 18th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Excellent ,the melting should stop soon then.
Vote:June 18th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
If biofuels are carbon neutral why isn’t everything else grown on the farm?
It’s all the same cycle. Just as the methane from wetlands on the farm is not counted.
Vote:June 18th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
“Excellent ,the melting should stop soon then.”
We’ve been melting for 20,000 years and we’re still in an ice age.
Give it another 1000 years, the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets might melt and we’ll be in an optimum temperature period. More food for everyone!
Vote:June 18th, 2009 at 8:44 pm
I think the climate is definitely changing. As I look at the snow on the hills and decide to break out my thermals I think it is most certainly getting colder?!
Vote:June 18th, 2009 at 10:39 pm
The ETS should be scrapped.
Vote:June 19th, 2009 at 9:08 am
Actually burning coal is carbon neutral, so long as you take a sufficiently long term view of the sequestration process.
Vote: