Carbon leakage
September 15th, 2009 at 6:37 am by David FarrarThe Herald reports:
The transport and stationary energy sectors will now come into the scheme on July 1 next year, six months earlier and later respectively than under the existing law.
That will provide a local market in which owners of post-1990 forests can sell carbon credits should they wish.
But for the first 2 years, oil and power companies will now have to surrender only a one-tonne carbon unit for two tonnes of emissions. The taxpayer would pay the cost of the other one. Alternatively they could pay the Government a cash price of $25 a tonne.
Agriculture, which is responsible for half the country’s emissions, will still come into the scheme, but two years later, in 2015.
It will also get a more generous allocation of free units.
So will the smokestack industries – large industrial emitters like the Glenbrook steel mill, the Tiwai Point aluminium smelter and the Marsden Point oil refinery – whose international competitiveness would be jeopardised if they had to pay the full cost of their emissions.
I find what the Government has done is interesting. They have moved some sectors into the ETS faster than under Labour’s EST, while they have delayed other sectors. Why the difference?
Basically carbon leakage for trade exposed industries.
Moving the transport sector into the scheme earlier is relatively safe, as we’re not about to start filling our cars up in Australia with petrol.
But certain sectors, such as agriculture, are trade exposed and if one forced them to start paying the full cost of carbon too soon, they may lose market share to overseas producers who are not paying a price for carbon. And this can turn into a lose/lose for the environment and the economy. The environment suffers if we lose agricultural production to China (as per unit we are lower emitting), and our economy suffers also.
So when you read stories about how “polluters” are being subsidised, the reason is because we do not want our trade exposed industries to be losing market share to countries not charging for carbon. Now if you get a global agreement that brings in China, India etc then you get a different scenario.
I would have thought that having seen the massive increase in unemployment when our economic growth drops away, some groups would be less keen to advocate a scheme that would damage economic growth, and not actually benefit the environment.
Of course even this amended ETS will see some reduction in economic growth. But I’ve never regarded it as realistic to think we could be the only country in the OECD that doesn’t set a price for carbon and participate in an international agreement to reduce emissions. We are far far too small to be able to get away with that, without facing some nasty consequences for trade access.
Tags: carbon emissions, Climate Change, ETS
September 15th, 2009 at 6:51 am
Carbon leakage? The more I hear about this whole sham the more I think of tulip booms.
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 7:02 am
I couldn’t do better than insist that y’all click this link
http://norightturn.blogspot.com/
really, New Zealanders…too small to make a difference huh? well then too small for others to care about as it all crashes around us. ffs.
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 7:04 am
And what if other countries renege? Where is the provision for NZ to scrap this ridiculous “hold back the tide” tax?
How much will petrol and diesel increase in cost to pay the “tax on thin air”?
It’s all based on bunkum.
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 7:14 am
Carbon Leakage, sounds like a load of PC euphemistic crap to me.
Although it can’t be as bad as diet pill induced Steatorrhea
Vote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steatorrhea
September 15th, 2009 at 7:14 am
Brian
Vote:The exact same thing occurred to me too.
G
September 15th, 2009 at 7:36 am
SeaJay said “I couldn’t do better than insist that y’all click this link”
Naff off SeaJay – if you want to “insist” that people right your brand of propoganda, start your own freakin’ blog instead of abusing DPF’s hospitality. Linkwhoring is one thing, but “insist”ing is a step too far
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 7:37 am
David, when will you, John Key and your Labour friends admit that this whole carbon fixation is an unfounded crock full of shit?
Ditto Brian and Grant.
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 7:47 am
“Of course even this amended ETS will see some reduction in economic growth. ”
In return for what reduction in carbon emission? Mmmmmm?
You cant manage what you can’t measure.
Vote:G
September 15th, 2009 at 7:49 am
Okay DPF. Lets hear finally from you how this will make a difference? Please show us how these taxes will slow down carbon emissions.
The same way the increase in fuel prices slowed down production and growth?
You are a rational and honest man. Give us an honest reply.
Until people actually stand up and say that this is bullshit, you only give the lie momentum. Forget about AGW and wether it is true or not. Just concentrate on the whole carbon tax and trading aspect.
So DPF here is your chance to really sell Key (whom I normally admire) folly.
Or is it simply a major arselicking excercise?
[DPF: If the cost of something increases, that will tend to decrease the amount it is used. This is basic supply and demand economics. Now the effect is different in different sectors. In the energy sector it makes it more likely future generation will not be coal, due to the carbon cost now placed on coal. In the transport sector vehicle use is not greatly price sensitive, but an increased cost of petrol does tend to lead to some reduction in vehicle emissions as people either use public transport more or go for more fuel efficient cars. In the agricultural sector a price on carbon is unlikely to lead to any reduction in emissions unless it means a reduction in livestock. Hence agriculture is not entering the scheme for some time, and is greatly protected.]
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 7:50 am
“if we lose agricultural production to China ”
Unlikely. China is expanding production rapidly but will struggle to keep pace with demand. Note their dairying in particular is highly energy intensive (cows in barns fed on grains and grasses trucked in).
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 7:51 am
“Of course even this amended ETS will see some reduction in economic growth. ”
What utter bullshit!
Explain how it is not simply a cost that will be passed on without affecting any carbon output whatsoever.
Please. I would really love to hear the answer on this one.
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 7:54 am
What utter nonsense. How have we become this gullible, this stupid?
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 8:03 am
@ bok costs go up, prices go up, demand goes down, less stuff demand, less stuff made = less plant food
@ getstaffed apparently
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 8:03 am
I get a feeling that DPF will not give me the answers to the questions I have asked. The sheer stupidity of the ETS has brought back 2000 back again. Even IT people earning mega salaries were swept up in the hysteria about the millennium bug. Here we again see normally rational people absolutely abdicate any ability for rational thought, not to seem to be offside with those great scientists like Chris Martin or Al Gore, even Castle-Huges. (Who in a great statement to the rest of the world, showed the way by flying to europe for an awards ceremony.) Come on DPF stand up and represent the National policy. Explain it to us
[DPF: I have replied to your question but please don't be an arrogant wanker and at 8 am in the morning demand I answer the questions you posed a few minutes earlier]
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 8:04 am
From Stuff:
Is this a real person, or a simulated Goff / Key persona? (y’know.. they added an ‘e’ for environment to each!)
Edit: Bok – hear, hear. Come on DPF, quit the cheerleading and speak your mind on this.
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 8:11 am
@ Bok agree 100% I have been comparing climate hysteria to Y2K hysteria for some time now (also H1N1 hysteria as well). The advantage with Y2K is it actually had an end date and we could all see we had been duped, whereas the climate hyseria can get milked forever.
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 8:11 am
Sorry for the long post – but here are a list of reasons why even democrats in the States are getting the shits about a cap and trade scheme. Any sound familiar???
We learned, for example, from President Obama that under his cap-and-trade plan, “electricity prices would necessarily skyrocket.”
We learned from Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) that cap-and-trade is “a tax, and a great big one.”
We learned from Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) that “a cap-and-trade system is prone to market manipulation and speculation without any guarantee of meaningful GHG emission reductions. A cap-and-trade has been operating in Europe for three years and is largely a failure.”
We learned from Sen. Dorgan (D-N.D.) that with cap-and-trade “the Wall Street crowd can’t wait to sink their teeth into a new trillion-dollar trading market in which hedge funds and investment banks would trade and speculate on carbon credits and securities. In no time they’ll create derivatives, swaps and more in that new market. In fact, most of the investment banks have already created carbon trading departments. They are ready to go. I’m not.”
We learned from Sen. Cantwell (D-Wash.) that “a cap-and-trade program might allow Wall Street to distort a carbon market for its own profits.”
We learned from EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson that unilateral U.S. action to address climate change through cap-and-trade would be futile. She said in response to a question from me that “U.S. action alone will not impact world CO2 levels.”
We learned from Sen. Kerry (D-Mass.) that “there is no way the United States of America acting alone can solve this problem. So we have to have China; we have to have India.”
We learned from Sen. McCaskill (D-Mo.) that if “we go too far with this,” that is, cap-and-trade, then “all we’re going to do is chase more jobs to China and India, where they’ve been putting up coal-fired plants every 10 minutes.”
In sum, after a slew of hearings and three unsuccessful votes on the Senate floor, the Democrats taught us that cap-and-trade is a great big tax that will raise electricity prices on consumers, enrich Wall Street traders, and send jobs to China and India-all without any impact on global temperature.
So off we go into the August recess, secure in the knowledge that cap-and-trade is riddled with flaws, and that Democrats are seriously divided over one of President Obama’s top domestic policy priorities.
And we also know that, according to recent polling, the American public is increasingly unwilling to pay anything to fight global warming.
But all of this does not mean cap-and-trade is dead and gone. It is very much alive, as Democratic leaders, as they did in the House, are eager to distribute pork on unprecedented scales to secure the necessary votes to pass cap-and-trade into law.
So be assured of this: We will markup legislation in this committee, pass it, and then it will be combined with other bills from other committees. And we will have a debate on the Senate floor.
Throughout the debate on cap-and-trade, we will be there to say that:
According to the American Farm Bureau, the vast majority of agriculture groups oppose it;
According to GAO, it will send our jobs to China and India;
According to the National Black Chamber of Commerce, it will destroy over 2 million jobs;
According to EPA and EIA, it will not reduce our dependence on foreign oil;
According to EPA, it will do nothing to reduce global temperature;
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 8:13 am
Sounds like a lot of Democrats dont like financial innovations which improve liquidity in markets by helping meet market needs (e.g. to hedge). Fairly typical of their regular anti-business rhetoric.
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 8:19 am
Public to pay tab for polluters
screams stuff.
Since when was Carbon dioxide a pollutant – since the socialists said it was in yet another attempt to undermine free enterprise and get Governments sticky fingers into productive wealth producing economic activities.
And as with every other attempt the net result will be to make them unproductive and non wealth producing.
And National has utterly failed the people of New Zealand by going along with this.
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 8:21 am
Peter Gluckman used an interesting analogy on Q&A – if on a plane 99 people said there was a bomb on board and one said it was a hoax should anything be done about it?
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 8:22 am
As much as I am “for” free market. The risks of a Carbon trade, effectively based on thin air, being manipulated is huge.
And if Greenpeace think that “emitters” are not going to pass on costs to “the taxpayer”, they are bigger muppets than I thought they were. At least if I was taxed, I know exactly what it is. The flow through from Carbon Emissions will have someones margin added to it all the way through the production chain and then to top it off – GST added.
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 8:26 am
@ Cerium could that analogy be any more irrelevant?
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 8:31 am
“could that analogy be any more irrelevant?”
Ok, try this one – if 99% of climate scientists say that if we don’t do something about emissions the world could be heading for disaster, and 1% say it is a hoax, who should we take the most notice of?
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 8:34 am
Cerium if I told you the earths magnetic field was in decline and that when is ceases to be all sorts of nasty cosmic rays will reach the earths surface, to the detriment of all living things presumably, would you believe me? This is in fact happening
And if I said it was happening because of modern technology – would you believe me? And would you believe that if you give me money I could “fix” the earths magnetic field?
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 8:37 am
Peter Gluckman used an interesting analogy on Q&A – if on a plane 99 people said there was a bomb on board and one said it was a hoax should anything be done about it?
And Ceruim once again proves just what I am talking about. This is about ETS not AGW. totally irrelevant analogy.
Try this one.
if on a plane 99 people said there was a bomb on board and one said if we all pay a extra $50 the explosion will not kill us – is a better one.
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 8:39 am
Andrei, if 99% of magnetic field scientists told me that I would be concerned, how much concern would depend on the rate of decline.
“if on a plane 99 people said there was a bomb on board and one said if we all pay a extra $50 the explosion will not kill us – is a better one.”
But that is not the proportions for/against here, far from it, so it is a hopelessly distorted analogy.
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 8:40 am
Your big problem with your analogies is that word “if”.
If 99% of Christians say you will be damned for all eternity if you dont show up to church every Sunday, have your kids christened and tithe to the church regularly, would you do it? We are talking damnation here. For all eternity. And all they are asking is an hour a week and 10% of your income.
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 8:44 am
Christians are not scientific, they are faith based, like the 99% of Kiwibloggers, who have faith in man’s ability to transform the environment with impunity.
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 8:45 am
Then I’d say you stacked the collection of ‘scientists’ to generate the desired(*) level of panic amongst the rest of us. Sums it up rather nicely.
(*) In this context ‘desired’ means sufficient to cause feelings of guilt, and acceptance of additional taxation to assuage that guilt.
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 8:48 am
“Christians are not scientific, they are faith based”
Unlike, oh I dont know, climate change computer models.
“the 99% of Kiwibloggers, who have faith in man’s ability to transform the environment with impunity.”
I understand nearly 56% of statistics are made up on the spot. My personal guess is just the opposite.
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 8:54 am
The entire ETS scheme is a con pushed by an idiot (Smith)
Even if we overlook the fact that the need for an ETS is based on a global leftist con the most annoying thing from my point of view is the way the gutless National party has once again caved into the apartheid party.
It seems that the Mowree party are “happy” to sign off on the ETS scheme just as long as Mowree are exempt, stupid Nick Smith even said as much when interviewed on breakfast TV this morning.
National party cheerleaders will not mind this of course, anything is acceptable just as long as their man stays in power.
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 8:54 am
Well hello there. It’s now 0900 David, so how about some answers?
[DPF: Don't be a smartarse. I answered them before 8 am.]
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 8:55 am
Global Disasters
1970 – Ice Age
1980 – Nuclear War
1999 – Y2K
200? – Bird Flu
200?- Asteriod Impact
200? – Global Warming
2008 – H1N1
Any other disasters i have missed, that did not happen.
Y2K – I remember some guy on television telling me my microwave was going to stop after midnight
Isn’t remarkable how humanity loves to scare itself silly
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 8:58 am
Lipo
You did miss one…
2008- B Hussein Messiah Obama.
The only difference is this “disaster” actually happened.
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 9:00 am
[DPF: If the cost of something increases, that will tend to decrease the amount it is used. This is basic supply and demand economics. Now the effect is different in different sectors. In the energy sector it makes it more likely future generation will not be coal, due to the carbon cost now placed on coal. In the transport sector vehicle use is not greatly price sensitive, but an increased cost of petrol does tend to lead to some reduction in vehicle emissions as people either use public transport more or go for more fuel efficient cars. In the agricultural sector a price on carbon is unlikely to lead to any reduction in emissions unless it means a reduction in livestock. Hence agriculture is not entering the scheme for some time, and is greatly protected.]
And you truly believe this? You own a business. Are you really suggesting that you will cut your productivity and profits? This cost is universal. In other words it will be passed on over the whole gamut of services and products. It will have no effect on production at all. You have simply put your fingers in your ears and gone “lalalalalal” The massive increase in fuel prices earlier this decade had no effect on consumption, only on prices. Coal will simply be exported to places like India where they will use it as a cheaper fuel to be even cheaper in their manufacture. And they will burn even more coal to get it there.
Now I appreciate that you need to be seen to be supportive, but at least read the example I used and then answer the question I asked rather than giving me a carpet spin statement. I respect you and your opinion too much to let this one slide
[DPF: Sigh I gave you a factual response, detailing how it may work in different sectors. You just throw insults back and in fact do exactly what you accuse me of - spin. You did not even try to rebut the details I made such as higher fuel prices encourages more fuel efficient vehicles (which there is huge data for). You also failed to grasp the difference between reducing coal production at existing mines, and not opening up more coal mines.
And you are wrong on fuel prices and consumption. A study done earlier this decade based on price and consumption data, in NZ, found "A statistically significant negative relationship exists between petrol consumption and petrol price, with price elasticities of -0.195 in the short-run and -0.065 in the long run."
You may wish to consider doing even a modicum of basic research in the future, before making assertions of opinion as fact]
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 9:03 am
Trial by ordeal was once based on good science. You cannot qualify as a climate scientist unless you subscribe to this mumbo-jumbo mass media bunk, so they all fall into line over time. Cutting the tax by 50% is a politicians attempt to serve two masters, which means none are served. Why oh why do Govts try to solve drummed up crises with more taxes? Reminds me of Labours new initiatives of CGT tax & free condoms.
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 9:03 am
Well Cerium the Earths magnetic field was first measured about 150 years ago and has been measured continually since then.
It has declined by 10% in this period and 100% of Geophysicists agree this is so.
In the same period the earths average temperature may have risen by somewhere between 0.6 and 1 degree Kelvin.
Why no panic over the former and outright hysteria over the later do you suppose?
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 9:03 am
“The massive increase in fuel prices earlier this decade had no effect on consumption, only on prices.”
Really?
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 9:10 am
You missed one global disaster
2000 – Al Gore missing presidential election and subsequently becoming the biggest Environmental fraudster in history.
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 9:11 am
Given Neville Key’s desire to see the ETS con passed I wonder what other promises he has made to the Mowree party?
Is anybody brave enough to say he has not already agreed to cave in on the seabed and foreshore?
[DPF: You seem to forget the the ETS was passed into law in 2008. This is not about passing an ETS - it is a done deal. It was about amending it.
I would have thought that even those sceptical of the needs for an ETS, would welcome changes that impose less of a burden on the productive sector. Just as those who are against income tax tend to still generally welcome a reduction in tax rates]
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 9:12 am
The massive increase in fuel prices earlier this decade had no effect on consumption, only on prices.”
Really?
Absolutely. Dont know if you noticed but just before the LENDING AND CREDIT induced crisis we had unprecedented growth and production world wide for nearly 7 years. Right in the middle of the fuel price rises. (remember peak oil and all that?)
But dont let facts get in the way of your “beliefs”
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 9:18 am
And over that period of “unprecedented growth and production” what happened to the gas guzzler industry in the US? But that, like your statement, still doesn’t prove “no effect”. Fuel consumption can rise and still be affected by price increases.
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 9:19 am
Cerium – yes, really. Proof is the fact that there are more cars, more electricity being generated from fossil fuels and massive economic growth in most of the world.
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 9:24 am
“Proof is the fact that there are more cars,”
Would there have been even more cars being used more if the fuel prices had stayed down? I reduced my fuel consumption.
“massive economic growth in most of the world”
Wasn’t last year’s crash a reminder that the world couldn’t afford it? And I think a couple of car manufacturers in the US discovered the market had shrunk substantially for their gas guzzlers.
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 9:26 am
We are far far too small to be able to get away with that, without facing some nasty consequences for trade access.
Maybe. Maybe not.
How about waiting to see if the threat materialises and then, and only then, legislating an ETS.
That would come with the very large benefit of learning from the mistakes of other countries. These things are hard to do and almost certainly come with a significant second mover advantage.
[DPF: Again an ETS got passed last year. It is already in the law. Repealing the ETS and doing nothing would create huge problems for forest owners, and would also result in a Labour/Green Government at the next election - almost beyond doubt. Do not think the opinion of people who comment here is in anyway reflective of the overall population.
Finally trade boycotts once they start, are very hard to stop. They are not always Government instituted but can be consumed led.]
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 9:26 am
>We are far far too small to be able to get away with that, without facing some nasty consequences for trade access.
So the EU actually subsidises cows. And the US subsidises cows. And NZ doesn’t subsidise cows. But if NZ doesn’t start (essentially) taxing cows, then we’re the ones that would be subject to trade sanctions?
[DPF:I don't believe other nations are very interested in the details of our ETS. To some degree our ETS is our business - it is about getting incentives in place to reduce carbon usage over time. What other countries are more interested in, is what target we agree to, for our emissions reduction. Whether we meet that target through an ETS, a carbon tax or even just purchasing carbon credits internationally is largely a detail for us]
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 9:36 am
Gluckman should be ashamed of his analogy – as chief scientist he is implying he believes scientific veracity is achieved by majority opinion. Pardon?
And in invoking the precautionary principle notion he gives no sense of weighting, which as a scientist he is well trained to do. Is John Key is being well served?
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 9:37 am
This ETS has been presented as a free lunch – its only going to raise the price of petrol by 3 cents. Yay.
But price increases for things that produce CO2 is the very point of the ETS. It only works by adding pain to things that pollute. To the extent that is fails to cause any pain, and 3 cents/litre isn’t much more pain than we already have, then it isn’t going to do anything.
The massive gasoline price increases in America reduced driving by 1-2% there from memory. Similar story here, I’d think.
The point is that petrol demand is inelastic. To get real environmental benefits from an ETS you have to massively raise petrol prices. $5/litre or $10/litre might start to do it.
The obvious conclusion from an ETS that raises petrol prices by 3 cents is that it will do approximately nothing to the demand for petrol or to the environment.
What, then, is the point of the ETS? An enormous exercise that diverts the talents of hundreds of people and $2 billion dollars from taxpayers for no discernable benefit to the environment.
That, right there, sums up this partnership between government and environmentalists. Costly, another tax, and absolutely perfectly useless. Actually that’s government and environmentalism each in a nutshell.
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 9:39 am
Cerium,
The problems in the US car industry were due to unions. Toyota and Honda were doing just fine through those 7 years.
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 9:44 am
DPF, you have lost it on this one. The comments here strongly suggest to me that your readers see through the crock of shit that is “AGW” or “Climate Change” or whatever stupid label you want to put on it.
When are you and the National party going to wake up?
If you and your National Socialist cronies don’t start to get real very soon you are going to be flushed down the electoral toilet and your place will be taken by a party which doesn’t believe in sacrificing our civilisation at the altar of mad religion. I personally don’t know which party…. but there are 2 more years for public opinion to build and that is a long time in politics.
John Key; you are being well informed of the comments threads on this blog. You wake up too, or you will be a one term wonder.
[DPF: Many readers here are sceptical of AGW. They are in no way representative of the vast bulk of the population. I myself think the threat from AGW is overstated, and there is still uncertainty over how the environment reacts to the increased level of greenhouse gases. However I don't believe NZ being the only OECD country in the world to adopt a stance of doing nothing at all is sensible or to be blunt even sane.
I'm all for debate on merits of a carbon tax or an ETS. A carbon tax has a lot going for it. But I do not regard do nothing as a realistic response. It s the response Labour and the Greens would love to happen, as it would guarantee them the election]
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 9:45 am
“KiwiGreg
@ Bok agree 100% I have been comparing climate hysteria to Y2K hysteria for some time now (also H1N1 hysteria as well). The advantage with Y2K is it actually had an end date and we could all see we had been duped, whereas the climate hyseria can get milked forever.”
I am just glad that smoking being “bad for your health” turned out to be a scam afterall, who would have thought!
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 9:52 am
siobhan gets it right, by the way.
One can accept that carbon is a Bad, and that a response may have value – and reject out of hand an ETS.
The reason is that an ETS enriches government, it tends to centralise decisionmaking, and most egregiously, it gives politicians discretion to offer exemptions to the politically connected.
This combination of discretion and taxation massively increases the power of politicians, and it raises the returns to lobbying. This is close to pure pork barrel, folks. The US government is openly granting exemptions to politically generous industries and those who helped get Obama elected.
We are seeing similar things here already. Farmers comprise 2% of the population, 50% of emissions, and have been left out of the ETS! Not coincidentally, they are politically highly organised. Your average middle class motorist, on the other hand, is not – and guess who is wearing the tax increase.
Most/nearly all economists argued for a carbon tax instead, mainly because it is administratively simple and substantially reduces the discretion of politicians. It would achieve a better result (by not excluding major polluters) for less cost (less admin, less lobbying incentives).
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 9:56 am
Doesnt this remind you you of the story of the emporers new clothes? None of the ‘powers that be’ would admit that the ‘clothes’ were a non exictent hoax for fear of looking foolish.
We need a ‘little boy’ like the one who is in the story to come along and say this is bullshite.
By the way would someone tell me were these extra taxes are going. To the UN to ‘redistribute’ the wests wealth by any chance?
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 9:57 am
[DPF: Again an ETS got passed last year. It is already in the law. Repealing the ETS and doing nothing would create huge problems for forest owners
Fair call. Yes I have in mind the illusion that the egg can be unscrambled at this point. Of course it can’t. Doesn’t mean I can’t have a whinge about it!
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 10:04 am
“Wasn’t last year’s crash a reminder that the world couldn’t afford it? And I think a couple of car manufacturers in the US discovered the market had shrunk substantially for their gas guzzlers.”
Actually car production has carried on – China is now the largest global market for automobiles. The world cant afford not to grow economically – one might hope that those on the left would at least acknowledge the justice of those who currently dont enjoy western standards of living legitimately aspiring to them.
Also last year’s crash is just that – last year. US GDP growth is likely to be an annualised 6% in Q4 of 2009. The machine keeps on going, it just needs oil and maintenance every now and again.
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 10:07 am
True, but we could do this instead.
Cut the top income tax/company tax rate to 15%.
Then slap a 100% sales tax on petrol (or whatever it takes to make the income tax cut revenue neutral) and charge carbon footprint equivalent taxation on all other consumer goods. End result no harm to the economy, no subsidies distorting a free market and we get to show the world that we are more committed to fighting climate change than anyone else by pricing carbon much higher than they do*.
Instead though we get an ETS that will harm the economy and will increase pollution and will entail the government intervening in the market to support existing business. We can no longer accuse National of being committed to a free market, supporting economic growth or favouring tax cuts. Why did we vote for you guys?
* disclaimer: I (because I drive a small car and don’t 15 dozen plasma TVs or a spa pool or take holidays in Fiji) won’t have to pay as much tax to the stinking government as I do now. But obviously this is minor consideration, compared to the benefit such an approch would have to the planet.
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 10:07 am
Strange thread this anyway. While I would guess that most economists or in the know lay people would be slightly less inclined to believe the anthropogenic climate change thesis, I hope you can see in this thread, the denial of simple basic ideas of supply and demand. This is the outcome of people like Ian Wishart and his anti-intellectual science denial.
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 10:10 am
According to John Key, repealing the anti-smacking legislation would “derail parliament”. Um, yeah, like anyone really believes that. And now we are being told this ETS thing can’t be repealed. Will the sky fall down if it’s reversed? Apparently so. Pardon me if I don’t believe that either.
DPF, you should listen to talkback. The ETS is starting to hit public consciousness. Haven’t heard anyone phone in saying it’s a great idea yet. Most are incredulous that the Government is even taking it seriously. Tales of the Emperor’s clothes abound. I bet that’s only the beginning as people realise that the cost of everything is going to go up for no good discernible reason apart from pandering to Green Religion.
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 10:17 am
Huge subsidies to businesses. $430 million will be paid by taxpayers to businesses every year for most of the decade under this scheme. That’s the cost of the entire judicial system.
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 10:21 am
This debate puts me in mind of a question I posed on a thread here last year. I think it was directed less at DPF than at another National Party stalwart who comments here occasionally:
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 10:28 am
Yes, but you can still throw the scrambled egg out and have bacon instead. Ditch the whole idea.
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 10:30 am
So damaging the economy, whilst in a recession, is the approach that will “almost beyond doubt” secure re-election for National?
Oh I think our attitude here might reflect in a small, trifling way that of the overall population. You like politics right so try and complete the quotation:
“It’s the economy, …”
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 10:37 am
DPF: Finally trade boycotts once they start, are very hard to stop. They are not always Government instituted but can be consumed led.
Yes of course, but the point is you see them coming and you react then. Surely a country that is lagging but then responds to a credible threat doesn’t get slapped.
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 10:41 am
DPF- do we know much about the trade off given to Central NI iwi re forestry credits? The post-settlement extra compensation sounds pretty creative to me. Hope this is not going to be the norm from now on.
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 10:42 am
[DPF: Again an ETS got passed last year. It is already in the law. Repealing the ETS and doing nothing would create huge problems for forest owners
I gotta call you on that. Almost all of the scheme was intended to be bought in by regulation, none of which was promulgated. What are these "huge problems for forest owners"?. Many will get windfall gains. Others have been left with reforestation obligations. The delays have created uncertainty and destroyed value, but that has already happened.
[DPF: If there is no ETS, they will not get those gains]
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 11:02 am
The Y2K comparison is an interesting one… The Y2K problem was real: important systems all around the world (banks, insurance companies, others) manifested this bug in various ways. It’s plausible that if we had done nothing the consequences would have been serious. However, 1/1/2000 was a clear and unmovable deadline, and so a lot of people worked hard, and were able to fix most of the bugs by this date.
If global warming had a similar deadline — something like “If atmospheric CO2 is above x ppm on 2050 then sea levels will instantly rise 1m” — then we’d probably have much more forthright global action…
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 11:19 am
Yep and politically if carbon taxation is a public Good, officially classed as the way to “Save The Planet”, then income taxes and capital gains taxes become by comparison a public Bad. Income taxes just take opportunity to make enviromentally sustainable choices away from consumers and therefore implicitly harm the planet. You’d think that right wing political parties would be salivating at this opportunity to drive forward a low income tax agenda, but instead our Rodney spends his days deciding how wide Rodney needs to be and advocates doing nothing.
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 11:35 am
I’ve responded to around a dozen comments so far. I’ve now actually got to head off and earn some money, but will check comments again this evening.
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 11:42 am
Yes, we know economists want a carbon tax etc etc, but please tell me how that will change anything?
If the plan is to reduce economic output then why not just order factories shut and cars off the road and food not grown until the desired level of population reduction is made. Get it over with in a few years rather than drag everyone down slowly.
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 11:46 am
correct me if i am wrong but isn’t this a way to protect what remains of our industry?
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 11:55 am
Just heard Shonkey trying to sale this three legged dog, the man better not give up his day job because he would be fucking useless as a salesman. What an almighty crock of shit and for what, this FTS ponzi scheme will go belly up, just a matter of time. I strongly suspect the government are playing bluff, I fucking hope they are if they are not they are dickheads of the highest order. About the only thing I’m grateful for is that agriculture will not be part of this con till 2015. I bloody hope this madness as been kicked in the arse by then. But my greatest fear is that once a government brings in a new tax it is never removed.
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
Oh and old Shonkey said that when the scheme comes in for agriculture it will only cost an average farm just $15000 a year. Thanks for nothing Shonkey, whats $15000 when you have 50 million, lose change on the bedroom floor for him I would say. $15000 for me could be a new ATV or a dozen extra cows or an extra dressing of fertilizer, what does this idiot think that farmers have a spare $15000 plus lying around so he can give it to some fucking clowns overseas.
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
What happens to the money FFS.
And when the scheme succeeds in driving the economy down and stiffles innovation and progress do those of us who become casualtys of this madness get our money back?
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
As outraged as many are about whether this is carbon trading (or variants) is necessary or not is fine at the personal level but decision makers have a more difficult task.
Vote:As unfortunate as it is perception is reality on the wider stage.
I deal with this wholesale bullshit in my profession of working with renewable energy control systems. Tin pot little officials (both here and abroad) decide how something should be configured and you have to accommodate them, it doesn’t matter how much evidence you show them, how logical you are, you will have to provide what they want. They have to justify their salaries somehow.
The NZ govt is part of a wider international scene and they have to play a calculated game of staying on side enough to be acceptable. The consequences can be huge and many of those moaning would moan a hell of a lot more if our trade was screwed or other such penalty was applied for not playing the game.
Politics… the art of the possible.
September 15th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
With all due respect Lance, so the people have to front up with hundreds of millions of dollars so they can play, Politics … the art of the possible. Pleaseeeeeeeee… excuse me if I don’t fall out of my chair in excitement. Call it for what it is Lance, screw the fucking politics, the emperor is naked.
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
Brian,
Because a carbon tax is passed on (ala GST) to the end user and not charged on exports it is not going to shut down factories and people will still therefore have jobs. Because the carbon tax will be set high (preferably much higher than this $23/tonne) consumers will see prices rise dramatically on consumer goods that are polluting and change from these to equivalents with lower footprints (less jetskis: more kite surfers; less HSVs: more Hayabusas; less cheese: more fruit). If the right ever gets serious we’ll do something like this.
Actually a variant on that is the only viable left wing (big government) response to climate change – regulate all polluting choices out of the market place. If the left ever get serious they’ll do something like this.
The ETS is just not a serious solution to climate change.
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
[in my profession of working with renewable energy control systems]….
Sounds to me Lance that you and people like you are part of the problem. I don’t say that you necessarily support this (after all you point out that it is bullshit) but what seems to have happened worldwide is that everybody has jumped onto the ‘renewable’ and ‘sustainable’ and ‘eco’ bandwagon to the point that if you don’t have one of these stupid names in your job title or your corporate ‘mission statement’ you are viewed as a climate criminal and shunned by the politically correct.
New Zealand led the world and stood up to the planet’s major superpower when it rejected nuclear power and nuclear arms. I don’t necessarily support that stance 100% – however, it does go to show that small countries don’t have to buy into everybody else’s bullshit if they have a clear vision and they are determined players on the international scene.
John Key. Grow some fucking balls.
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Actually, the $430 million I mentioned above is just the subsidy to industry, transport and energy. Over $800 million per year will be given to the agriculture industry*. That’s over $200 per person (man, woman and child) we’ll be giving farmers, every year in perpetuity.
I will laugh for an entire week if Roger Douglas and ACT vote for this bill, which gives the largest subsidies in New Zealand’s history to farmers.
*based on a very conservative $20 per tonne CO2e. If prices rise, as they are sure to, then that bill increases.
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
It’s time Sir Robert Jones entered the political arena again.
I am sure he would see this ETS and AGW as total nonsense.
I am also sure that DPF is wrong when he states”Do not think the opinion of people who comment here is in anyway reflective of the overall population.” I believe that most NZ’ers except the looney Greens believe AGW and the ETS associated with it is absolute hogwash.
Any party that stood on the platform of disassociating NZ from this fraud would recieve a handsome vote.
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
Oh, and the seven people who gave my earlier comment positive ‘karma’. Go read it again, it doesn’t say what you think it does.
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
Can we now get rid of Huntly, then we won’t have to pay the Rio Tinto shareholders to cover their emissions
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
I will laugh for an entire week if Roger Douglas and ACT vote for this bill, which gives the largest subsidies in New Zealand’s history to farmers.
That would be very funny (in a way) but surely the Maori party giving National the votes to pass this version of the ETS lets ACT ‘make a principled stand’ by voting against it. Don’t think they would’ve voted for it anyway.
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
Well David excuse this arrogant wanker (great show me where I insulted you personally – but hey your house. Your rules)
for not buying the spin. Are you now saying that there was not unprecedented growth for the first part of this decade? I am happy to find at least a dozen posts where you said different while the thieves were in office.
You know that the figures you quoted were statistics that can be massaged. The question surely would be: “was there overall growth and prosperity?”
yes.
Was there, while this growth was happening, a tripling in fuel costs?
Yes.
Did it affect prices at the counter?
yes.
Did it slow growth?
No. (One can only say it definitely did if you can show me what the growth would have been otherwise, using say computer models? Hockey sticks?)
I listened to Key this morning and even he admits that he believes that Brussels and then Copenhagen will fail because China and India has no benefits for complying.
Also in his chat to Leighton (you can find it in the ZB archives) he is actually quite candid on why they are bringing in a ETS. To prevent soft sanctions. So not really to save the earth.
That is a nice refreshing bit of honesty.
The problem is the fundamental flaw in the premise that taxing something is an effective measure… (once again I can give you a number of places where you in the past 4 years have argued exactly the opposite.)
However if you are going to charge people a fee for carbon – be smart. redirect those funds, ALL those funds, into research to create cleaner greener technology. Surely that is making a serious difference. How is creating a market that will encourage people to trade nothing, to achieve nothing, hoping it might slow down emissions, making the Al Gores of this world rich going to do that?.
And before some-one starts saying that some of the money will be spent on research, why not all? This is a new tax. It does not remove public money from another sector.
It is the basic dishonesty that blows me away.
And if that is rude and insulting in your eyes, then maybe it is not me who is the arrogant wanker.
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
Another “corageous” decision by the spineless National government. When comes to taxation the gutless Tories are no better than the Labour comrades.
John Key and his green spy Nick Smith are damaging New Zealand economy with the ETS (the S stands for scam).
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
DPF
[DPF: Sigh I gave you a factual response, detailing how it may work in different sectors. You just throw insults back and in fact do exactly what you accuse me of – spin. You did not even try to rebut the details I made such as higher fuel prices encourages more fuel efficient vehicles (which there is huge data for). You also failed to grasp the difference between reducing coal production at existing mines, and not opening up more coal mines.
And you are wrong on fuel prices and consumption. A study done earlier this decade based on price and consumption data, in NZ, found “A statistically significant negative relationship exists between petrol consumption and petrol price, with price elasticities of -0.195 in the short-run and -0.065 in the long run.”
DPF, coal will always be used in places like China and India. And as long as there is a market for it new mines will open.
Yellow Cake any-one? Peter Garrett – Mr Blue Sky Mining himself. remember how there was no need for the mining of the stuff?
(And I am all for mining the stuff as it is a lot better as fuel than coal.)http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/FB941A83-4FE1-49F6-86D7-7EAFF6DD58FD/
While there is a market for something, there will be providers. And here is the economic rub. Let’s say your theory plays out the way you want it to. Coal is totally slammed in the west for fuel. That means that companies who are heavily invested in coal, will keep dropping the price to be able to survive, or sell off their assets at reduced rates to get clear of that market. that in turn means the cost of coal will drop. That in turn makes it an even better fuel for countries that produce stuff at fractions of the cost they can be produced for in the West.
The only advances that will be made, will be in the efficiency or “cost to produce” of coal mining.
And lastly, Sasol has been perfecting and is ever perfecting the efficiency to produce oil from coal. Something they have done and worked on for the past 35 years. I know because both my late brother and my sister used to be part of their research team.
Coal wont go away. Just like Uranium has not gone away. And I promise you that for every person shouting about AGW there was four shouting against nuclear power and the need for Uranium.
I will take you any bet that there will be plenty of new coal mines being opened.
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
[It’s time Sir Robert Jones entered the political arena again]
Yes pentwig. In his time I could imagine Bob Jones standing up in a town hall meeting and saying something like “This idea of Global Warming is just nonsense and we should not be pandering to this silly and potentially corrupt new religion”.
But who nowadays would have the balls to say this? Which politician occupies this particular stage today? Does EVERY fucking politician in this poor stupid parliament BELIEVE that there is merit in the imbecilic idea of shuffling huge sums of money around in circles to ‘pay’ for imaginary carbon credits? Owen McShane pointed out quite rightly (somewhere else, and I paraphrase) that governments are huge repositories of potential thievery and corruption and how can we possibly have any confidence that, say, Zimbabwe’s ETS or ‘Carbon credits’ or whatever have any basis in reality so why would NZ buy into a mad scheme like this?
I repeat my question. Does EVERY fucking politician in our poor stupid parliament BELIEVE that there is merit in this imbecilic idea?????
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
Anyway (Sir) Bob Jones wrote a letter to the newspaper suggesting the Government scrap carless days and if they are serious about conserving energy, they merely shoot one in ten motorists.
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2009/08/i_was_right_-_greens_want_to_shoot_the_cows.html
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
What funds? I thought this was going to cost us $400m a year to buy carbon credits on the international market. Is the government actually standing to make a profit?
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Hey, can I play too?
“Was there an increase in the top tax rate?”
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Actuall, a further thought has ocurred to me. One argument for playing along with this stupid Carbon lunacy is ‘international opinion’ and the fact that we might ‘suffer’.
Who here actually believes this? Who thinks that the international community would cut us off and send us to coventry if we came out and pointed out that the emperor has no clothes?
The bloody Europeans are putting blocks in the way of trading with us anyway because of stupid crap like ‘food miles’; the yanks won’t sign a free trade agreement with us; who actually would we be in danger of offending? Would the Chinese stop buying our coal to burn in their factories? Would the Indians decide not to keep running our banks and our call centres by remote control? Would the Malaysians suddenly cut off our roads (they seem to own our major infrastructure sector)? Would the Japs stop coming here to stroke our sheep? Would the Cambodians stop letting us go there to stroke their prostitutes? (OK bad taste, but hell, you get the drift….)
WHEN will our politicians start to see some bloody SENSE?
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
Dave, I don’t for a minute believe that our trade would be impacted.
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
yes, getstaffed. And conversely… the only way we can survive as a first world society is by forging ahead and developing our industries, our agriculture and our tourism etc on the back of readily available cheap power and a willingness to grow and expand. If bloody Nokia can lead the world in mobile phones from that shivering little reindeer farm or wherever it is they come from, surely New Zealand can take advantage of its huge energy reserves and focus on DEVELOPMENT (of agriculture, industry etc) instead of cowering in the scarcity-rationing-mentality of copped out greenism.
Wake the fuck up people. You have nothing to fear except fear itself.
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
I don’t know much at all about the ETS or the changes being made to it, so I won’t pretend to be an expert, as I don’t really have the time to look into the subject.
But my gut feeling (and correct me if it is wrong) is that this is another trendy, knee-jerk move to appease the greenies and try and please everyone. It also seems to me it is going to be yet another tax and impose a massive burden on NZ’s taxpayers and business, while being dressed up as a save-the-planet program.
And you know something is up when you have the Labour Party screaming about the burden on the taxpayer.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10597458
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Totally agree Dave & getstaffed. When ever the government is challenged on this crap they always fall back on the old boogeyman, trade sanctions. For fucks sake what a load of unadulterated horse shit. Take Fonterra for example. Fonterra has said they wish to sale more product through Internet auction which they now do with milk powder . If the US and the socialist gits in Europe throw a hissy fit and say no more trade, all they are doing is making easier for countries, their trading opponents, which couldn’t give a fat rats dick about ETS free rein to by product as cheap as possible. Dairy trade may not be that great in Europe but the US would be undermined by cheap product brought at auction. Sure it might cost us a few dollars but better to die standing then living on our knees kowtowing to the socialist bastards pushing this shit.
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 5:00 pm
There is no subsidy for business. That’s like saying, well I could tax 100% of your income, but I’ll only tax 38% so the 62%is a “subsidy” from other taxpayers.
DPF you might feel giving windfall gains to (largely) foreign forestry owners as being THE compelling reason to increase the cost base of our few remaing competitive industries; I dont.
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
Dave Mann – a breath of fresh air (no pun intended) “Wake the fuck up people. You have nothing to fear except fear itself”
You are soooooo right. If ever there was a time for us not to be ‘conned’ by the ‘man made climate change religion’ it is now.
At some time someone of strength and vision will call the emporer on his clothes and I know where I want to be (on which side of the argument)when that happens.
I
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
But hey. Our ‘contributions’ to man made global warming/climate change ( I forget what is the PC term now) will keep Uncle Helen and her mates in jobs in the UN so what the hell the objective of this farce has been achieved.
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 5:17 pm
“It also seems to me it is going to be yet another tax and impose a massive burden on NZ’s taxpayers and business..”
I agree. The National Party is not only not reducing taxes (and not delivering on its election promise), but increasing the tax burden on the NZ population this time under the guise of ETS.
John Key and his government should be ashamed of themselves for carrying on this political travesti, and for their proven lack of courage not to stand up to special interests (Greens, Maori, etc).
The damage to our economy will be noticeable. And the gain? Zero!
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
I’m grateful that all the coal we export to China so they can burn it up willy-nilly without paying carbon taxes isn’t paid by us when we extract it. Hell we can pretend we are green simply by keeping the tourists away from our coal mines and we can claim we are pure by paying our propaganda taxes to appease the UN. We are indeed the lucky country- full of sheep.
Al Gore, the only person in the world who on a video could show the sun heating the water in polar regions creating hot spots without being asked how would that happen when it is dark for months at the poles. We are fucking stupid to have let this nonsense get this far.
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
LUCY”
man made global warming/climate change ( I forget what is the PC term now)”
Liar.
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 5:41 pm
Slightly OT.. but Nokia were originally a forestry company. Their tiny radio signalling team did some cool garage innovation stuff to help get comms working between remote forestry stations. One day someone said – “to hell with trees, these cool radio gizmos are our future”. The rest, as they say, is history.
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
I clearly woke up in a parallel universe this morning;
The standard is complaining about the govt introducing new taxes and Kiwiblog is justifying it.
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 7:11 pm
Hahahaha my thoughts exactly burt
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 11:01 pm
The Government’s approach is baffling me at the moment:
1) Agree to reduce missions by 10 – 20% by 2020
2) Make decisions that will actually make emissions worse, such as the biggest road building binge the country has ever seen, at the expense of public transport spending.
3) To achieve the 2020 target, rely soley on an ETS, but in the meantime continue to make infrastructure funding decisions with no regard to the target.
4) Delay or weaken key aspects of the ETS that will be necessary to achieve the target (Somehow the Maori Party have negotiated “cheaper petrol”?!)
5) Hope that the price signal created by the ETS will eventually lead to emissions reductions in time by 2020.
6) Pay $xbn when we don’t meet our target in 2020.
Whatever did happen to our Kyoto obligation anyway – seems to have just disappeared in a flurry of carbon accounting.
I think there is a major problem in communicating the goals of the ETS here, and the public need to be convinced that it will actually lead to reduced emissions. Would it not be better for the Government to invest in projects that actually reduce emissions at the outset, rather than rely on an artificial market to hopefully bring about the same result?
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 11:11 pm
John Key was reduced to offering nothing but the usual pious waffle [like Clark did] this morning when quizzed about this ETS with Leighton Smith on ZB.
…Utterly cringe inducing….
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 11:32 pm
Burt,
I *think* the curmudgeons and fruitloop socialists at the substandard are moaning that the taxes arent high enough while farrar is trying to justify the halfway house ETS that the Maori Party and National have put in hopefully as step one of repealing completely once its realised what a bunch of crap it is.
Vote:September 15th, 2009 at 11:49 pm
What a complete half baked policy that is.
Vote:September 16th, 2009 at 8:49 am
2) Make decisions that will actually make emissions worse, such as the biggest road building binge the country has ever seen, at the expense of public transport spending.
You could say that *everything* is at the expense of PT spending then couldn’t you? May want to check how much they’re increasing PT spending…
Vote: