ETS Editorials
September 16th, 2009 at 6:55 am by David FarrarThe NZ Herald laments the missed bipartisan opportunity:
A bipartisan policy on a subject so important for long-term investment decisions would be a rare and splendid thing, giving all sectors confidence that carbon emission costs would survive the next change of government. …
The economic good sense of ensuring emission costs are passed into prices will be obvious to those in industries that may be relieved by National’s transfer of their costs to the taxpayers.
Relief in those industries will be tempered by the knowledge that the next government is quite likely to reinstate economic sense. That likelihood already makes investment decisions difficult. Such is the folly of National’s failure to embrace a bipartisan approach.
My preference also was for a bipartisan deal, but I would not assume there would be changes made to the ETS by a future Government. National only had an opportunity to amend Labour’s ETS because it got passed just weeks before the election. I think, despite the rhetoric, Labour will be very wary of campaigning in 2011 on the platform of increasing prices.
In some respects the scheme National can now enact with Maori Party support is superior to the previous government’s. Permissible emissions will be based on an industry standard rather than an arbitrary base year so that firms that are efficient by their industry’s measure will be allocated free emission rights. The free allocations will be withdrawn much more slowly than Labour’s scheme allowed, sensibly aligning New Zealand’s scheme with Australia’s.
Labour might have agreed with all of these changes for the sake of a bipartisan consensus. It has found that leadership on climate change is not an election winner. The subject is too big for campaign slogans and some of the nominated solutions – dimmer light bulbs, dribbling shower heads – are annoyances that Labour now regrets.
The issue over allocation of permissible emissions being on an intensity basis, to reward efficiency, was one of the crucial aspects, and I suspect was the issue hardest for National and Labour to agree on. However it does seem that negotiations had not concluded with Labour, and it would have been desirable for them to be allowed to consider in private if they could back the changes the Maori Party agreed to.
The Dom-Post says:
Once the emissions trading scheme was about saving the world from global warming. Now it is about who pays and who gets to pass the cost of their emissions on to someone else.
Actually it was never ever about “saving the world”. Our reduction commitments at Kyoto and Copenhagen are about that, so to speak. The ETS was always about who pays.
The deal cobbled together by National and the Maori Party is a triumph of political pragmatism. It is also an agreement that has ended, at least for the foreseeable future, the prospect of an enduring bipartisan approach by Labour and National. That turns New Zealand’s emissions policy into a political football.
The deal is a political solution that fails to solve an environmental and economic problem. It will not provide long-term certainty to business or to consumers.
The ETS was always a political solution. And as I said previously I would be surprised if in two years times Labour really wants to campaign on changes, as it will meet massive resistance from the losers from any changes.
Other changes will result in some businesses and agriculture being given more time to adjust, with a delay in bringing them into the scheme, while others are given less time.
That is good news for those who benefit, but it rather misses the point. The aim of the exercise is not to raise money to pay for New Zealand’s Kyoto obligations. It is a stick to encourage those responsible for emissions to cut them.
The Dom Post needs to read up on trade exposed industries and how imposing costs on NZ businesses and farmers that their overseas competitors do not have, may actually lead to an increase in global emissions.
Finally the ODT:
Having stitched up a deal with the Maori Party on its revised Emissions Trading Scheme – which has exercised environmentalists and received only lukewarm plaudits from two of the revised scheme’s more notable beneficiaries, industry and agriculture – the Government might venture to suggest that since no-one is entirely happy it must have the numbers about right.
Indeed.
The big question for the Government has been how to be seen – ahead of the Copenhagen climate meetings in December – to be making a meaningful contribution to mitigating the effects of emission-induced climate change as a good global citizen should, but to be so doing in a manner that does not place an undue burden on industry and agriculture, and thus circumscribe economic growth; nor, in the midst of a recession, place too much immediate cost on the individual consumer.
The proposed new scheme, which it will be able to pass into law with the support of Peter Dunne’s United Future vote, and that of the Maori Party, seeks to achieve this by, in the first instance, delaying entry of agriculture into the ETS from 2013 until 2015.
For the purists who decry the delay, it is worth noting this will be the first ETS in the world that includes agriculture, I believe.
In the face of climate change with its dire predicted consequences, all countries are having to grapple with striking a similar balance, nuanced according to the demands of their individual economies and political sensitivities.
This is new territory. There is an element of guesswork and gamble in reaching all such accords. National has, for better or for worse, both spurned Labour’s hand and taken a conservative approach. In the short term this is likely to pay handsome political dividends; in the longer term, it may prove to be less advantageous – electorally and environmentally.
Again, it would have been desirable to continue negotiations with Labour.
September 16th, 2009 at 7:35 am
Which just goes to show how utterly fucked up it is.
Isn’t it great to see National advancing the world socialist agenda – you must make you proud to be associated with this David
[DPF: The reason we have agriculture in the ETS is because it is 50% of our emissions. The phase in is very very slow]
Vote:September 16th, 2009 at 7:42 am
May not have been that simple to carry on with Labour. Maybe the Maori Party wanted to do an exclusive deal with concessions in other areas and John Key would always give a political partner first crack rather than his political enemy. it would be useless to talk to the Greens as they see climate change as a golden opportunity to bring in wide ranging state controls on the economy which is their real agenda and so do Labour.
Vote:September 16th, 2009 at 7:57 am
Buying that plot of land and moving to the country and being largely self-sufficient is looking better all the time.
Vote:September 16th, 2009 at 8:11 am
While a bi partisan deal is the ideal solution it is unrealistic, the only chance that Labour have of forming a gov’t in the near future will be with the help of the Greens and there is no way on earth that the commies are going to agree to an ETS scheme that does not bankrupt the country.
Vote:September 16th, 2009 at 8:20 am
I’ve often defended the Māori Party, which I guess is not surprising, since historically they have been the party that has voted the same way as the Greens on the greatest number of issues.
But this is an absolute betrayal – sheer hypocrisy and duplicity. Just compare what the Māori Party said in their Minority Report in the Emissions Trading Scheme Review Select Committee report with what they have actually signed up to.
Vote:September 16th, 2009 at 8:32 am
Well, there you have it people, the Greens do not believe that the Maori party are capable of doing their own deals, they (the Greens) seem to be of the opinion that the Maori party need help from pakeha to understand policies.
It is now clear that the Greens are happy to fight on behalf of Maori just as long as the natives “know their place” and remain beholden to the Greens, and to think, these are the same Greens who accuse the right of being racist, it is abundantly clear who the real racists are in our political system and it is not National or ACT but our very own watermelons.
Vote:September 16th, 2009 at 8:47 am
Well my preference was for a government will balls that would terminate this utter nonsense.
It’s nonsense in an absolute sense, but made worse when Shaples tells us that he did the deal with Key because of “benefits for our people”.
Vote:September 16th, 2009 at 8:48 am
Come on bruv, you know full well that I am not criticising the Māori Party for being autonomous and making their own decisions – I am criticising it for doing the exact opposite to what it stated in the ETS Selelct Committee report that it supported.
The Māori Party knew full well that ifNational couldn’t get the numbers to amend the stronger (albeit, imo still weak) ETS that was already on the statute books, it would remain and come into force. And they also knew full well that National wouldn’t go along with ACT and rfully repeal it becuse that would make New Zealand an international laughing stock and have catastrophic implications for our trade and tourism.
But the Māori Party had to be seen to be a “player”, so did its duplicitous deal with National.
Vote:September 16th, 2009 at 8:53 am
I do not see why National should be in too much of a mood to take bipartisan approaches with Labour especially as Labour treated the opposition like dirt during its nine years in power. Labour did not want to talk turkey with National on the bill which transferred ‘P’ drug trials to the District Court when Labour’s coalition ‘partners’ would not want to support it. National quite rightly wanted concessions on other aspects of that bill but Labour would not budge. Labour effectively with assistance from the judiciary then managed to dress the whole thing up as National’s fault.
Vote:September 16th, 2009 at 9:13 am
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.
I realise that transport is 20% of emissions, but the concept applies to agriculture and power production as well.
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 16th, 2009 at 9:28 am
“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.”
Well there’s your problem right there.
Most people with reasoning ability can see that:
A) Curbing CO2 emissions will not have any significant effect on natural global temperature cycles.
Vote:B) These types of schemes will not be taken up by the “big players” in developing economies.
September 16th, 2009 at 9:35 am
There’s no advantage in having bipartisan agreement on this. We know that a Labour/Green government will increase the burden on the productive sector at their first opportunity after winning an election. If they joined a consensus now, they would still do so and use ‘circumstances have changed’ as a justification.
This idea of ‘protecting trade exposed industries’ defies logic though. It doesn’t save the country anything in the end since the money we have to send to Russia under the Kyoto agreement will be taken from taxpayers instead. And if we implement Kyoto in a way that doesn’t make emitters pay then we are missing the whole point and just making ourselves poorer while doing nothing to reduce emissions.
Vote:September 16th, 2009 at 9:43 am
onelawforall said: Curbing CO2 emissions will not have any significant effect on natural global temperature cycles.
No, it won’t. The effect it will have will be to reduce the anthropogenic greenhouse effect that is currently superimposed on the natural climate cycles.
Vote:September 16th, 2009 at 10:00 am
There is a bloody good chance all this will be academic. Watched Todd Stern ( US envoy on climate change ) on Hardtalk last night. Plenty of ifs, buts and maybes. The yanks are running out of time to put together a bill similar as our piece of crap. It seems MacDaddy’s comrades are stuck on larger issues at the moment. They have three months to get something together to table at Copenhagen . They will also expect China and India to make “robust” concessions or there will be no deal. In short, it looks like the socialist pricks that are so in love with “saving the world” will be whistling Dixie. This turkey ain’t going to fly.
Vote:September 16th, 2009 at 10:03 am
An ETS is about consumers getting producers to pay for their pollution. It places the burden of cost dispropportionately upon producer economies, by giving consumer nations a pass on all the consumption they import. If you look at the places that have adopted an ETS they are unsurprisingly almost all consumer economies.
Any global ETS is dead in the water, because it is so exploitative* of the developing worlds producer economies. And totally unsurprisingly they do not want to be exploited. China, India, Brazil, Malaysia are collectively telling Europe, North America and us to come up with a non-exploitative solution. Our government has failed to take the objection on board.
* BTW because of ETS exploitativeness of the developing world we can judge our political parties on their willingness to exploit the world’s people from their explicit policy positions – spectrum runs: Greens, Labour, Progressives, Maori, National, United, Act – with Greens being the most exploitative. If you ever find yourself being cornered by a Greenie on the so called “evils of capitalism” ask them why their climate change policy is to get 1st world bankers to set a speculation driven global market of carbon that charges the same to a Congolese villager and the owner of a 20 room mansion?
Vote:September 16th, 2009 at 10:10 am
This stupid plan to fuck the country’s future viability has gone far enough now.
If the people of New Zealand allow their politicians to effectively penalise them for operating a business, generating electricity, manufacturing things, producing food, building homes and even travelling anywhere, then we are seriously fucked both as a country and, ultimately as it expands worldwide, as a species.
This madness HAS to stop.
There is no website (yet) and anyway there are probably heaps of web sites and blogs already with comments ad nauseum, but so far nobody seems to be listening.
I think it is now well past the time when people who are concerned about the direction this country is taking should get together and decide on some ACTION. Even just a bloody petition might help! Christ… I have just heard on the radio that this idiotic ETS goes hand-in-hand with increased welfare benefits courtesy of the bloody Racist party! Did New Zealanders vote for this?????
Vote:September 16th, 2009 at 10:16 am
toad said: “No, it won’t. The effect it will have will be to reduce the anthropogenic greenhouse effect that is currently superimposed on the natural climate cycles.”
Do you really want to get into AGW debate re CO2?
You’ll only be able to paste shonky IPCC reports and realclimate.org for so long.
Perhaps you could tell us your take on the IPCC radiosond results from the upper troposhere.
Vote:September 16th, 2009 at 10:28 am
I’m with you on this one David, though I do think you are underplaying the significance of this issue, especially among young voters.
National are shooting themselves in the foot dealing with Maori Party who have a limited constituency and show little awareness of the wider international situation. We have seen this already as they are bargaining for special dispensation for certain groups and have already started to up the ante apparently without consulting (witness Key and English’s surprises that welfare increases are now on the table). There is along way to go before this becomes law, who knows what else the govt will have to bargain away.
Labour, on the other hand, will be accountable for everything they do and say to the entire electorate at the next election.
Business will not be happy with Nick Smith for ditching bi-partisanship so early in the process. It puts the gov’t in postion of weakness vis-a-vis the Maori Party. It also means business will to have to deal with a new scheme when Labour is next elected.
Vote:September 16th, 2009 at 10:33 am
This is a slight troll comment (nothing close to a philu, though), but here goes anyway…
When this ACC/AGW thing is exposed as the greatest swindle of all time,
Vote:(1) will governments around the world admit so and pay the money back?
(2) who do we sue for perpetrating the fraud? The UN? The IPCC? The Reverend Gore?
September 16th, 2009 at 10:38 am
And what if some of the possible predicted problems suggested by ACC/AGW turn out to be correct and nothing or not enough has been done about it?
Who should be sued for the storms, the droughts, the floodings?
Vote:September 16th, 2009 at 10:44 am
Campit (9.13) “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”
I don’t think the vast majority of the public give a flying fuck about emissions (lunatic left notwithstanding). I think the vast majority of the public care about getting out of bed in the morning, going to work (or going to the couch to watch TV if they have found the welfare mattress), putting food on the table for the family, coming home and going to bed. The vast majority of the public care about emissions to the extend the government uses them as an excuse to stick its hand in their pockets.
Vote:September 16th, 2009 at 10:45 am
For confused beltway types
Vote:September 16th, 2009 at 10:55 am
They are called acts of God Cerium.
God was sued through his agent on Earth, the Episcopalian Church, in an Illinois court in the late ninteenth century over a meteor strike which destroyed a woman’s porch. The case was settled out of court after the local Episcopalian Parish rebuilt the woman’s porch for her.
Vote:September 16th, 2009 at 11:05 am
New Zealanders just love to be poor. National is just giving them what they want.
Vote:September 16th, 2009 at 11:15 am
So Cerium, you’d rather this scenario:
OH NO, THE WORLD IS GOING TO END. WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE. DIIIIIEEEEEE. let’s stop that from happening by taxing something else.
What are China and India going to do? Oh I know … NOTHING. What are the South Americans going to do? Oh I know … CONTINUE PULLING DOWN THE AMAZON RAINFOREST. What are the liberal elite in the west going to do? Tax everything … including cows’ farts.
What a crock of shit. Everyone knows it’s a swindle, but nobody is prepared to stop it. Let’s hope the GOP help some of the more moderate Dems in the US to grow a set and reject their ETS. If the US don’t do it, then Australia won’t do it. If Aussie don’t do it then pray to God New Zealand stays true to form, follows their larger neighbour and puts a stop to it too.
Vote:September 16th, 2009 at 11:23 am
This is very astute politics. There was nothing in it for Key in doing a deal with Goff:
– it gives Goff publicity and mana, which he needs and Key would probably like to deny to him
– Labour would amend it at first opportunity anyway, so all it means is giving Labour something that NZers didn’t vote for, and that they’ll do when they’re next in power. I’d rather they had to explicitly promise it in an election (and lose the votes associated with that) than give them a free pass
– It would lose votes to Key to be seen to do a deal with Labour, and to make the ETS more expensive than it otherwise would be
And Toad, there is no real likelihood we’ll be paying the Russians for our over use – I’ve seen no evidence that ever happened from any country under Kyoto.
Campit, the reason you’re baffled is that you’re assuming the govt is actually trying to do something about emissions. If you start with the assumption that they need some window dressing but minimal voter backlash, then the right thing to do is:
– promise lots, but not quite so much as Labour (keeps the right voters by still being seen to be right of Labour, placates the middle)
– promise most of it for the future, rather than for now (not my problem, ideally it will be a Labour govt’s problem by the time it actually happens -> 3 terms = 9 years = 2017?)
– don’t do anything to actually reduce emissions, as that would annoy voters
– just renege on the promises when the time comes.
This is the exact approach that the Labour government used, and it worked well for them. It is also the exact approach of every other government in the OECD, with the possible exception of a couple of Scandanavian countries that have almost no manufacturing or agriculture – and have been very careful not to apply taxes to imported goods that have a high amount of embedded emissions.
Vote:September 16th, 2009 at 11:44 am
I have just rung Radio Live and made the suggestion that there is a huge vacuum ready to be filled by a (probably new) party which has the balls to stand up and say that this Climate Change/AGW/ETS is a crock of crap and we are not going to buy into it any more.
Michael Laws was wondering if ACT could fill this gap, but (even though I was ACT voter) I honestly haven’t heard any really substantial argument from them on this, and anyway, Rodney has been effectively stymied by Key burying him with this huge workload on Local Government.
Michael then asked “So the maoris have a party…. who represents you then?” The answer is “Nobody”.
I haven’t got the time or the ambition to launch a political party; but at the very least the rational people in this country need to get a voice to counter the green religionists. If you have any ideas or any skills to offer please email me on
save.the.humans@hotmail.com
Vote:September 16th, 2009 at 11:46 am
http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2249397/stern-rich-nations-forget
Stern: Rich nations will have to forget about growth to stop climate change
Economic expansion cannot be achieved forever if greenhouse gases are to be curbed, warns the leading economist and author of the UK’s government’s report on climate change
Jonathan Watts, The Guardian – Published under license by, BusinessGreen, 14 Sep 2009
…
Stern added that the global situation is now worse than he set out in the Stern review in 2006. The pace of climate change has outstripped predictions, prompting the economist to revise his estimate of the amount of money governments should spend on countermeasures from one to two per cent of GDP.
“Emissions were higher than forecast. Also the ability of the planet, particularly the ocean, to absorb carbon was less than we assumed. The effects of climate change were also coming faster … so I argued more should be done,” he said. “But even at two per cent of GDP, it would still be way way below the cost of inaction.”
Vote:September 16th, 2009 at 11:48 am
“Come on bruv, you know full well that I am not criticising the Māori Party for being autonomous and making their own decisions”
Rubbish, your entire post reeks of arrogance and a sense of betrayal that the “natives” have had the temerity to do something without the input of the Greens.
Many have wondered why the Greens were so strong on supporting all things Maori, the answer is now crystal clear, the Greens are of the opinion that Maori are not able to look after themselves, the Greens see Maori as second class people who need your help to fight against the perceived injustices they face because they are not able to do it for themselves.
That, Toad, is the very worst form of racialism.
Vote:September 16th, 2009 at 11:56 am
Dave Mann, no one votes for one issue parties so out of the parties that exist…Libz?
Vote:September 16th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
Dave
I suggest you join the NZ Climate Science Coalition which along with the Australian Climate Science Coalition is a branch of the International Climate Science Coalition, which we set up.
Go to:
http://www.climatescience.org.nz/
And David,
Vote:we have no idea whether agriculture is 50% of our emissions because no one has tested the theory.
The US and global evidence is that pastoral farming is a net carbon sink. We choose to measure the methane and ignore all the other exchanges which are going on. And surely it is percentage per acre that counts not per capita. We have a tiny herd of ruminants compared to the US, etc. India has over 200 million cattle and each one puts our far more methane than ours do.
As the air blows over the US from West to East the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere falls. The most reasonable explanation is that the huge agricultural areas have absorbed it. CO2 is plant food – they love it. And the roots absorb more than the shoots.
The cows belches are methane which turns into carbon dioxide which gets absorbed by the grass which the cow eats and turns some back into methane which turns into carbon dioxide which the cow eats and so on and so on.
September 16th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
Cerium – I have to admit to being one who thinks pollution of all sorts aren’t a great idea and it would be magic if we can stop it, however I am also a realist and have to agree with what many on here say.
If China, India and other substantial polluters don’t come to the party there is absolutely no point in us turning up on our own and standing around with a 6 pack and our thumb up our arse. If you play a game and most don’t play by the rules there isn’t much point in playing. All we will do is further hamper our best producers in markets that are tough enough without adding more impediment and punish the average household.
Leading by example sounds lovely but it won’t pay the power bill. Adding yet another level of administration and bureaucracy for garbage like the ETS is the last thing we need.
If we want to lead by example then instead of taxing people even more, why not invest in R&D in “green” technologies? (Solar, wind, hydro) These are slowly catching on and the more they do the more the costs will come down and the more viable they will become economically.
Instead of buying the technology from others why not try and be leaders and innovators? As has been demonstrated, we can’t compete on labour costs and nor should we try so we have to be smarter.
We should be encouraging the creation of a viable “green” industry as is being done in Germany:
“According to the Environmental Technology Atlas from Roland Berger, environmental technology will make up 16% of German industrial production by 2030 – a fourfold increase since 2005. Germany is the world’s leading exporter of environmental technology.”
http://engineers.ihs.com/news/roland-environmental-tech.htm
By approaching the so called problems this way through tackling power, building, manufacturing issues we could reap multiple benefits.
It helps reduce demand on our power generation system reducing the need to build more capacity.
The same applies to designing and manufacturing energy efficient building materials.
We create jobs in new industry.
We create new products for export markets.
We help keep NZ “clean and green” which is our greatest marketing advantage in the tourism field.
Instead of taxing the shit out of people wouldn’t we better to be proactive rather than reactive? Use the carrot not the stick?
If we haven’t got the ability to do it ourselves then maybe we should create a tax regime with incentives for companies and entrepreneurs who have those skills. Same as what Ireland did in the late 80′s which saw huge investment by software companies in that country.
It’s a no brainer but then that seems to be what we have running the country for the last 10 years. MP’s with no brains.
All of the above works whether the global warming/climate change argument is true or false or somewhere in between.
Vote:September 16th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
stephen, you are right about single issue parties.
Having said that, I think the Libz have some good policies and the thrust of what they say is spot-on in many respects. However, there is a big BUT with the Libz, and that is that they go far too far out on a philosophical limb to have any impact with any but a tiny minority of the electorate. Who could seriously could buy into the notion that all taxation is theft and that government has no business in anybody’s lives? This might be true in Utopia, but we don’t live in Utopia and all our fellow citizens are by no means utopian.
We need some sort of government in order to have a successful societal structure and the answer to governmental waste, inefficiency and stupidity is not to destroy and disband the government, but to FORCE government to govern FOR the people, not to SUPPRESS the people and treat them as serfs.
I sometimes despair. How have we come to this? What is going wrong with this country? Who reading this blog (or any blog for that matter) wants MORE benefits for the lazy and the criminal classes and further racial segregation and polarisation – while businesses, industries, workers and contributors are fleeced in ever increasing amounts by a government intent on buying into an internationally corrupt Ponzi scam?
Did ANYBODY vote for this?
Vote:September 16th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
Emissions of methane are very poorly known, partly because, as with carbon dioxide, the concentrations are only measured over the ocean, under restricted conditions. Almost all emissions are the result of recycling of atmospheric carbon dioxide. The most abundant, and the least well characterised, are the emissions from wetlands; which convert plant material back to carbon dioxide via methane. .It is possible that the decline in increase of methane may be due to the draining of wetlands, but as this is considered to be environmentally unacceptable the presumed benefits of reducing greenhouse gases are ignored.
It remains incomprehensible that farm animals, which convert carbon in grass to the relatively permanent products meat, wool and milk, are,instead, penalised for the small amount of methane they recycle to the atmosphere, whereas wetlands, with emissions entirely consisting of the greenhouse gas, methane, must be prevented from doing so. but logic seems to be absent from environmental thinking.
Vote:Suggest you read the whole paper by Dr Vincent Gray at:
http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=369&Itemid=1
September 16th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Thanks Owen. I read your excellent article on The Energy Sector and its Environment and you have described the two opposing mindsets of the Industrial and the Risk Societies excellently!
I’ll have a look at your climatescience link too. Thanks.
* For readers, I would heartily recommend Owen’s article at http://www.energyfed.org.nz/OMcShane-EnergyEnviron.PDF
—————————————————-
I think that, to address stephen’s valid argument about single issue politics, that the time is right for a political party which addresses the whole range of issues which I am sure a huge proportion of people would agree on. Things such as:
- reversing the green-instigated suspicion of modern technological and scientific progress
- rewarding hard work and self responsibility
- massively reducing benefit entitlements and dependence while at the same time acknowledging that there are genuine cases deserving of help (and in some of these it might even be lifetime support)
- executing the worst murderers and making the prison system work for society not the criminals
- calling a halt to racial separatism and pandering to white guilt
- encouraging business, agriculture and industry to expand and grow instead of making them feel guilty for existing
- calling a halt to the degradation of our skills base by outsourcing jobs to third world countries
This sort of thing… the common sense which you could hear around just about any smoko table or dinner party in the country. Or am I hopelessly out of touch? Maybe I am……
Vote:September 16th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
You start the party Dave and I’ll join it!
Vote:September 16th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
In true right-wing fashion I’ve found myself having a mean-spirited chuckle at all the teeth grinding going on in left-wing circles about taxes and subsidies.
The chuckle comes from the fact that all of this political backstabbing and playing off of “special interests” was always on the cards ever since we signed up to the useless and moronic Kyoto Treaty. It was inevitable because the whole AGW “solution” had, at it’s heart, two mutually contradictory ideas. The first was that this was a problem created by all of modern society. The second was that it therefore required a society-side solution, meaning that everyone would have to share a likely equal burden, either directly or indirectly.
Several years ago on this site I got into a squabble with righteously outraged warminister and compared the AGW debate with the “Population Bomb” and “Club of Rome” doomsayers – which prompted this comment:
and my response:
It’s happening again and while I sympathise with those who are angry with Key I would also point out that one of the things that traders are noted for is not fighting against idiocy but figuring out how to make a buck from it. The variation here in NZ is that votes, not dollars, are at stake. But the principle is the same.
In short, John Key probably realised a long time ago that there was no point in allowing either the Greens or Labour to create a wedge issue when the fact was that they would be the ones who would have to wear the punishments inflicted by the public when the real costs of ‘fighting climate change’ turned up.
That will be the case in spades should the wet dream of many lefties come to fruition in future election – a stronger Green party and a weakened Labour party in a Coalition government that continues on down the ‘sustainability’ track – with all that implies for additional taxes and regulations on private transport, massive ‘investments’ in public transport, harsh restrictions on conventional power generation and subsidies/tax incentives on sustainable power. All of this with massively increased costs for every single person in NZ.
Of course a lot of lefties know this and are shit scared of the public reaction, which is why it has always been so important to have bipartisan consensus.
Vote:September 16th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
Cerium:::Who should be sued for the storms, the droughts, the floodings?..
Those have occurred on a regular basis since the time of Noah….What this was supposed to be about was heating all over the globe. Instead we have COOLING!.
KAYA::::::::Germany sounds a good role model. How are their un-employment figures going with all those jobs created.?
Vote:September 16th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
Dave Mann, as far as I can see ACT stands for all that on your list (or loudly claim to, whatever) and IMHO as long as they’re there with their relatively well known brand (and taxpayer funding) you probably don’t stand much of a chance.
edit: …though convincing Alan Gibbs and Doug Myers to help you instead of ACT might help a bit
Vote:September 16th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
Owen McShane said: It remains incomprehensible that farm animals, which convert carbon in grass to the relatively permanent products meat, wool and milk, are,instead, penalised for the small amount of methane they recycle to the atmosphere…
Owen, the atmospheric methane (CH4) concentrations have increased by about 150% (1,060 ppb) since 1750. The present CH4 concentration has not been exceeded during the past 420,000 years. The increase over that period isn’t due to wetlands, given the amount of wetland has anthropogenically decreased since 1750. The increase is clearly due to human activity, and in particular, agriculture.
And when you talk about agricultural animals “recycling” carbon as methane, you are seeking to misdirect. One kg of methane has the same greenhouse potential as 25 kg of carbon dioxide over a 100-year period. So it’s not “recycling” at all. Every kg of atmospheric carbon dioxide fixed by grass from the atmosphere and converted by agricultural animals to methane has, over a 100 year period, 25 times the impact of the carbon dioxide it replaced.
Therein lies the problem.
Vote:September 16th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
Thanks Johnboy for your support. You can be the first member. Your membership number is 0000001! Oh no… hang on, I am 0000001, so you can be 0000002
stephen, ACT has a problem too. Why is it that they are languishing at the bottom of the polls despite having been in existence for so many years? Why have they failed to connect with the electorate?
I honestly don’t know the answer to this one even though I voted for them in the last 3 elections. It beats me, frankly.
I am serious when I say that I do not want to start a political party. I don’t have the huge policy knowledge that would be required for a start…. BUT I do think that the time is right for a new party to be established along the lines I outlined previously…. and maybe it HAS to be *new* in order to connect with the electorate in a fresh way, untainted by all the dancing, yellow jacket roger-the-dodgerism that ACT carries around.
Remember how huge the New Zealand Party was?
Vote:September 16th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
backster – like every other OECD country their unemployment rates are climbing significantly. What’s your point?
If you are being facetious and pointing out that green jobs won’t save the world or the economy I didn’t say they would, but what they do will be beneficial all around. One of those rare win/win/win situations. What is your solution to creating jobs that are actually productive to replace the thousands we are losing all around the world on a daily basis, more bureaucrats? Maybe more consultants? Politicians? I’d be interested in your thoughts.
Vote:September 16th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Give it up you demented frog. Are animal populations so different then a couple of hundred years ago, I doubt it. We just have more tame ones while a lot of the wild ones are stuffed and hang out in museums.
Vote:September 16th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
I tried to edit my comment but the flippin’ thing wouldn’t accept it, so here’s the last part …
Maybe ACT combined with some less off-the-wall supporters of the Libs could combine under a new banner and connect with the electorate? Separately I don’t think either will achieve much because voters tend to immediately write one off as fringe dwelling unrealists and the other off as Butlins holiday campers. This is unfair, of course, but life is never fair.
Vote:September 16th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Dave Mann –
make me 0000003!! As for not having policy knowledge, who cares? Isn’t that why we have a bureaucracy in the first place? They look after the details.
What we need is people who speak “common sense” which is what you did in your earlier post. Most people are sick of politicking and politicians in general. It is why Labour got annihilated at the last election, almost the whole substance of their mp list is professional politicians. Certainly their caucus.
On that note, who created “political science” as a topic for education???
To pinch a phrase from Billy Connelly ( though he was talking about accountants) “The desire to be a politician should bar you from every actually becoming one.”
Vote:September 16th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
Supposing you can get a new party going it will be an uphill battle to get close to useful traction. It’s hard enough for established parties to stay in there. After the one man bands retire there will only be the Maori Party secure with National and Labour, with the Greens maybe able to hang in there and Act dependent on getting a seat each time unless significant National bleeds their way.
Then, even if you do somehow make it work you will find that the “common purpose” will probably become many purposes that start to pull in all directions.
I think it’s better to try and get better results with the existing parties. Find ways to get more communication and influence between voters and politicians. And accept that you will never get everything the way you want.
Vote:September 16th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
stephen, ACT has a problem too. Why is it that they are languishing at the bottom of the polls despite having been in existence for so many years? Why have they failed to connect with the electorate?
I honestly don’t know the answer to this one even though I voted for them in the last 3 elections. It beats me, frankly.
They were obviously quite popular once but no idea what’s happened to them. The big parties represent a certain orthodoxy in NZ which while one might be opposed to what one or the other represents, one at least knows what one is going to get based on past experience. The same certainly can’t be applied to ACT, or even the Greens really. A lot of ACT-oids seem pretty confident that the vote is going ‘up up up!’ since National is ‘getting so socialist’, so maybe things are looking up in that respect
BUT I do think that the time is right for a new party to be established along the lines I outlined previously…. and maybe it HAS to be *new* in order to connect with the electorate in a fresh way, untainted by all the dancing, yellow jacket roger-the-dodgerism that ACT carries around.
Splits (effectively what you propose) from a party with a very similar platform (but stronger brand) have not gone well in the past, witness the Progressive Greens.
Remember how huge the New Zealand Party was?
Before my time. But I know of it – it seems the large votes the NZP and SC got were to an extent the electorate being pissed off with the two big FPP parties though.
Vote:September 16th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
kaya: if you start with the assumption that it is the govt’s responsibility to create jobs – in the sense of actively subsidising particular jobs – then you probably come to that conclusion. If your view is that the govt should minimise destruction of jobs, largely by getting out of the way of people trying to create jobs, then the view would almost the opposite.
Vote:September 16th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
On that note, who created “political science” as a topic for education???
It’s the study of ideas – effectively philosophy, but as applied to government and politics. Quite worthy of study if you ask me. It’s *not* a simple training course on how to be politician (i hated people saying ‘oh you want to be Prime Minister eh?’ when I was doing it), however it will naturally attract those interested in politics. Also known as “who gets what, when, how”
Vote:September 16th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
OK Kaya, you can be 0000003! Welcome.
Join the email list save.the.humans@hotmail.com and we’ll keep you in the loop
The party is called The Rationalist Party Of NZ
We now need 497 more members. You can register your interest by emailing me. In space of just a few hours we have started membership, we have a name and we have the beginnings of our first internal schism (one wussy member doesn’t like the idea of the death penalty! hahaha OK, we’ll have to discuss this one at our party conference later on).
When the web site is up and running our members will be the first to know, so join now and be a founder member with all the huge privileges that this entails.
Vote:September 16th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
Hmmm…. stephen. So the newly formed Rationalist Party will have to start from scratch then?
Vote:September 16th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
Owen… are you already in a political party? Wanna join ours and be Prime Minister in a couple of years? I’m just sketching out a draft coalition agreement now and it looks as if we might have to offer some of National’s brighter people some sort of position in cabinet just to keep them quiet but as yet nothing has been agreed at executive level, so its all pretty open at present…..
Vote:September 16th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Dave I suggest you disown the afore mentioned parties at a midnight ceremony around a fire in Aotea Square and never mention them again on penalty of flogging.
Vote:September 16th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
I am not and have never been a member of a political party because I am a public commentator.
Vote:I was a founding member of the Association of Consumers and Taxpayers but resigned the day it became a party.
However, being a King is another matter!
September 16th, 2009 at 7:41 pm
Dave Mann – “so join now and be a founder member with all the huge privileges that this entails.” Woohoo! Free travel and a house in Wellington!!
Vote:September 17th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
Cerium, I like what Larry Baldock , Kiwi Party, is starting up. Another referendum that would allow referendums to be binding if they are passed to change current existing laws. This is actually the solution because you don’t have to start a party and if the referendum has won the majority, like the antismacking law, then the current law would have to be changed. The ETS is truly a worthless law and the labour lite party should have dumped it. If your worried about the lakes and rivers, then let New Zealand take care of it, Not the UN which incidently is a haven for Green policies. I think Larry Baldock is on the right track. California uses propositions to vote laws in elected by the people. Politicians hated them. I think this is an excellent way to keep the politicians honest
Vote: