Nolan on ETS

May 27th, 2010 at 2:00 pm by David Farrar

Economist Matt Nolan blogs:

People see this and then they say “global warming isn’t real” or “we are too small to impact on global warming” and then they say “NO !”.  However, this isn’t the point of the .

The ETS is a scheme to raise the funds to pay for our Kyoto Liability.  Even if you don’t believe in global warming, we have a liability that is based on carbon emissions.  As a nation, either people who produce the carbon pay for it – or everyone pays for it through higher taxes.

So here in lies the question – do we want higher prices for carbon goods or lower incomes because of higher taxes?  Given that the liability is a function of the amount of carbon we produce, it follows that pricing carbon on the basis of this will lead to the “best” solution – no matter what political party you support.  I know that National, Labour, and the Greens all understand this – so if you guys could like, explain it to the ACT party, and then like, explain it to the public, I’ll be very happy

Let the howls of outrage begin.

Tags: ,

106 Responses to “Nolan on ETS”

  1. backster (2,172 comments) says:

    “The ETS is a scheme to raise the funds to pay for our Kyoto Liability.”

    Who are the funds paid to?..Who measures the carbon used? Who audits the results? What are the rights of appeal. What happens to Local and international cheats.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. goonix (140 comments) says:

    Make sure you read the comments too, that is where the flaws in Matt’s post become apparent (no offence Matt).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    backster beat me to it. top questions.

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

    Liability to who? If you breach an obligation someone can sue you. Who is going to sue NZ for not having an ETS? The same countries who will sue Fiji, Antigua and Barbuda, Tuvalu, Maldives, Turkmenistan, Trinidad and Tobago and the 180 other countries who have signed, but whom aren’t getting, or won’t get, an ETS?

    Who is going to sue Russia? Australia? Japan?

    Poor rationale. Very poor.

    [DPF: Kyoto is a binding obligation, regardless of the ETS. It only i binding on the countries that signed it - that includes NZ. We could of course refuse to pay up, but don't expect too many countries to want trade deals with a country that reneges on obligations]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. JeffW (326 comments) says:

    When does Kyoto expire? Very soon I think.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. mickysavage (786 comments) says:

    Ha this post is like throwing raw meat in front of a braying pack!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    Braying implies donkeys, what do donkeys want with raw meat?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Nefarious (533 comments) says:

    He’s talking about carnivorous donkeys obviously.

    They’re a genetic mutation from the foothills of the Himalayas, evolved (sorry Kris K, created) to hunt the flesh due to global warming and carbon dioxide poisoning fucking with their DNA and shit.

    Watch out, the chinese will be bringing them in in droves soon due to the high milk solid yield that they produce when fed on ignorant socialists.

    It was on Campbell live last night, I watched it after a sweet bong with your man. ure.

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

    I understand that David, but the same rationale applies to the other 186 countries who have signed it, including Australia, USA (yet to ratify), Russia et al. Is world trade going to stop because of this?

    Anyhow, I thought Kyoto was about ‘saving the environment’ not ‘saving world trade’.

    [DPF: Less than 40 countries had binding commitments. I find it strange a party that is prop property rights wants a country to renege on a binding agreement - what an awful example to set.

    Incidentially I think Kyoto should not have been ratified. But it was]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Manolo (13,780 comments) says:

    A feeble attempt at defending the ETS. I sense the National Party “leaders” Key and Smith are feeling the heat on this one.

    Who are we liable to? Who are we paying the money to? A transfer of wealth from NZ to Russia. Effing unbelievable!

    By the way, wasn’t Kyoto signed to save the planet? Does it come down to trade now?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. m@tt (629 comments) says:

    Key and his trader mates love the ETS. It’s just another money go round with plenty of ticket clipping opportunity for all those non-productive corporate bludgers.

    [DPF: Yes that must be why Labour passed it into law]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. RKBee (1,344 comments) says:

    As a nation, either people who produce the carbon pay for it – or everyone pays for it through higher taxes.

    In NZ people produce very little carbon… animals do.. If they charged for man made produced carbon and not natural carbon emissions.. like cows emit.. you might have a point. But when they charge farmers for their cows natural emissions then whats to stop them charging countries for carbon emissions of natural accruing volcanic eruptions… I mean where do you draw the line.
    I say at natrual accruing carbon emissions… charging only for man made carbon emissions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. chivers (6 comments) says:

    This is already going off track – the whole point is that the arguments being made about costs are the costs of Kyoto, not the costs of the ETS. All the ETS is doing is determining who pays.
    If the government has made a prior decision to meet Kyoto commitments (which it seems to have done), those that emit place costs on New Zealand: we will purchase more emission units to cover those emissions. And this is not because someone will sue us, but because the government has decided to meet its obligations.
    If we don’t have an ETS, the more we emit, the more tax goes up (or the less it goes down). If we have an ETS, the more we emit, the more we pay in energy costs and costs of energy/emissions-intensive products. The latter seems to make much more sense: it is fair and provides some kind of incentive to reduce emissions (someone somewhere will do something).
    So have an argument, but make it about whether we should meet our Kyoto obligations, not about the ETS. This is the point that Matt Nolan is making.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. berend (1,709 comments) says:

    GST hike + ETS coming into effect soon.

    Tax drop? That’ taking quite a bit longer.

    Spending? Up.

    What has changed?

    Pretty weak defence to say Labour has passed it into law. National voted in favor and didn’t repeal it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Rich Prick (1,705 comments) says:

    Like others, I have just one question. Who gets our cold hard cash?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Lipo (229 comments) says:

    DPF – You might have a valid argument on our commitment to Koyto if you were comparing like with like. New Zealand as far as I am aware is the only country counting agriculture emissions in our ETS.
    Renege on our agreement. Sure. Is it a problem? No. DPF – You need to get into the real world. Changing your mind happens every day

    [DPF: You go into business and start refusing to pay bills you have agreed to, and see how many suppliers will deal with you.

    Having an ETS is one debate. Whether Agriculture enters it is another and they are not due to enter until 2015 off memory. I actually agree that their entry should not occur if no other country has agriculture in an ETS by then]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. unaha-closp (1,165 comments) says:

    People see this and then they say “global warming isn’t real” or “we are too small to impact on global warming” and then they say “NO ETS!”. However, this isn’t the point of the ETS.

    The ETS is a scheme to raise the funds to pay for our Kyoto Liability. Even if you don’t believe in global warming, we have a liability that is based on carbon emissions. As a nation, either people who produce the carbon pay for it – or everyone pays for it through higher taxes.

    This is the beauty of the dismal science, the ability to divorce response from reality. But if we add reality back into the equation…

    If there is no climate change then obviously an ETS is an unneccessary burden.

    AND

    If we do believe in global warming (which presumably the government does because we have signed up to pay this several $100 million liability) then we should be even less willing to accept an ETS. An ETS is a tax on only local emissions which incentivises people to purchase foreign made goods and then ship them 5000 miles to the door-step. These foreign made goods result in more emissions than we had before and subsequently we are going to be faced with a bigger climate change liability in the next set of climate negotiations. An ETS is in effect a plan to stop digging by digging faster.

    As policy to solve climate change an ETS is bad policy.

    Good thing an economist can prove that an ETS has nothing to do with climate change then?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. CJD (333 comments) says:

    Gooner says “Anyhow, I thought Kyoto was about ’saving the environment’ not ’saving world trade’”

    Read the UN’s views on this-their view is that funds generated by carbon trading should be channelled to women and children in third world countries??
    As a young scientist I taught the then Greenhouse Hypothesis. In retrospect I find a lot of the science in favour to be highly suspect. In contrast I find a lot of the scientific arguements against anthropogenic climate change to be very convincing. My point being is that I trained in this area and am still uncertain of my take on the matter, but any number of lay “experts” are prepared to defend the veracity of global warming, not on facts but in the rabid fashion of a cult follower. This really is a new religion-just because the high priests are called “scientists” doesn’t make them correct.
    The trading scheme logic is a strange one-it is proposed mostly by socialists, but is expected to follow market principles. I would imagine the way to stop a polluter would be to tax them directly on the amount of pollution they produce. That is an incentive to lower emissions. Under the proposed scheme “pollution” would continue by people that can afford to do so. Now I know all about credits based upon trees that sequester carbon. etc. However coastal kelp beds, phytoplankton etc. produce significant quantities of the earth’s oxygen and thus fix the proportional quantity of carbon. Even grass fields do (grazing paddocks)-none of this is factored in.
    While a caring public is blinded by the hype the environemt suffers huge degradation in other ways and mono culture of exotic trees is encourage at a cost to native flora. We need to get a grip on this and halt the curent ETS until we understand what we are actually doing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Nefarious (533 comments) says:

    DPF – Would you expect the emperor to pay for his new clothes when the invoice comes in too?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. m@tt (629 comments) says:

    [DPF: Yes that must be why Labour passed it into law]
    Does that make my point any less valid? Key won’t stop it, it’s to valuable to his ilk.
    Glad to see you agree anyway. Keep up the good work.

    [DPF: Your Key hatred is amusing. Most of the business community is demanding the ETS be stopped. And in your deluded world, this represents Key doing favours for business mates. In your world, how long does it take for the earth to circle the sun?]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. CJD (333 comments) says:

    Chivers said “the government has decided to meet its obligations”

    Why should the government meet its obligations to something predicated on untruths in the first place??

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Murray (8,847 comments) says:

    backster and others, we send it to Russia.

    I shit you not.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. davidp (3,581 comments) says:

    Neither the US or Australia are implementing any sort of carbon reduction scheme or paying for their Kyoto “commitments”. Have we boycotted trade with them? If not, then why would we imagine that anyone would boycott trade with us?

    Frankly the whole thing is just silly. We’re supposed to imagine that Germany, who actually subsidises coal mining, is going to enact trade sanctions against NZ even tho most of our carbon is generated by cows standing in fields. Or that Singapore is going to boycott NZ imports, even tho they’ve managed to wriggle out of having to make any carbon reductions because they are a “developing country” while also having GDP per capita far higher than NZ. Or that the UAE, also a “developing country” even tho it has one of the highest incomes in the world, is going to refuse to buy our butter while they continue to pump millions of barrels of oil a day.

    The trade argument is a fantasy until you can name one country actually sanctioning another.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Chicken Little (741 comments) says:

    So – the Kyoto agreement expires in 2012, obviously we will only have an ETS till then ( hardly seems worth it) because as DPF and Mr Nolan say – this is all about Kyoto.

    Hopefully National won’t be stupid enough to sign us up to anything else without first consulting with the people that are going to pay.

    Is that right DPF? The ETS will only last from Jul 1st till 2012?

    If the answer is no then this is a load of bull excuse and we need to forcefully ( as in protest ) let the present Government know they need to delay the implementation.

    Also DPF – which other countries have passed a ETS to pay for their Kyoto agreements outside the EU? Please list.

    TIA

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. berend (1,709 comments) says:

    Chicken Little. None. That’s why we are now a world leader. Previously John Key thought it would be ok to be a follower. So I suppose at that time DPF would have little time for a silly argument we have Kyoto liabilities.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. chivers (6 comments) says:

    “The ETS will only last from Jul 1st till 2012?”

    The ETS has a review clause which means it has to be reviewed before the end of 2011. The review includes looking at whether there will be international commitments beyond 2012.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Manolo (13,780 comments) says:

    “which other countries have passed a ETS to pay for their Kyoto agreements outside the EU?”

    A round zero is the answer.

    Disguise and defend it any way you want DPF, but the ETS is a blatant tax grab created by socialist Labour and implemented by your own party. As simple as that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. nickb (3,687 comments) says:

    John Key came and gave a lecture at my university probably less than 6 weeks before the 2008 election.

    In it he categorically stated there would be no carbon taxes, we shouldn’t be a world leader in climate change, etc etc.

    And this to a room full of mostly smelly hippies and student politicians!

    Why did he change his mind?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. unaha-closp (1,165 comments) says:

    backster and others, we send it to Russia.

    I shit you not.

    It’ll probably go into the consolidated fund. Then the government will reclassify some of its existing aid to the Solomons as mitigation of deforestation or some such way of meeting a Kyoto liability and keep the cash. Or they might spend several million on a nationwide cycle lane, call it fostering alternative transportation and apply for Kyoto funding. Russia might be waitng a while yet.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. gazzmaniac (2,307 comments) says:

    IIRC, at the time of ratification we were told that NZ would be recieving carbon credits under the Kyoto scheme. Either Labour was wrong and foolish and shouldn’t have ratified it, or it was lying. Being Labour either is possible.
    Could someone please publish exactly how much NZ will be liable for, and how they reached that figure. Then we’d know how much we’re having to deal with.
    I also don’t think that the ETS is the best way to raise this money. Why not a low level temporary carbon tax that will be removed at the end of the Kyoto payments? That would eliminate the need for a whole new market that will inevitably end in a bubble and a crash.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Jeremy Harris (319 comments) says:

    It would be good if the West realised that carbon tariffs rather than carbon taxes play to our advantages, for example the US can produce a ton of steel using 2/3 the carbon of a Chinese mill, the same is true of Europe… So if western countries introduce a local carbon tax/ETS it must be combined with carbon tariffs to ensure we encourage jobs home rather than overseas and the west must do it as one…

    In NZ, with our renewable electrical profile, we especially could create a massive competitive advantage in manufacturing if we could get the rest of the west to agree…

    TEQs may also work…

    The ETS is a poor plan, we can and should do better…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Chicken Little (741 comments) says:

    Well chivers as DPF says this is all about Kyoto, so JK should just come out and say that this will only last until the end of the Kyoto agreement ( 2012 ).

    He should have no problem doing that, right?

    Somehow I think he will never do that, and really the excuses for keeping this legislation are starting to get insulting to the voters intelligence. I hope they know what they’re doing.

    On the good side I think this may be an opportunity for politics in this country. I mean we have a Labour party thats on the ropes in more ways than one, a National party that seems to think they can do what they want because people don’t have any other choices and some small bumfu*k parties that have too much history to ever get out of the corner they’ve staked out for themselves.

    The chance for a 3rd way party is opening – who’ll be there to take the opportunity?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. GPT1 (2,122 comments) says:

    Some points that have comforted me slightly about National’s decision to push through with an ETS:
    1. National expressly promised an ETS but one that was less oppressive than Labour’s
    2. Forestry have been building carbon credits since around 2008 and there is a $1.2b liability there that the taxpayer has to fund somehow (either ETS or general taxation)
    3. Certainty – it might not be popular but at least it provides certainty to businesses and investors unlike the situation in Australia
    4. The whole carbon thing is “cool” amongst many of our export destinations

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Nefarious (533 comments) says:

    I’m in.

    Anyone want to join the Nefarious Party?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Manolo (13,780 comments) says:

    “Well chivers as DPF says this is all about Kyoto, so JK should just come out and say that this will only last until the end of the Kyoto agreement ( 2012 ). He should have no problem doing that, right?”

    Hell will freeze over first. Wait for the disclaimers, evasions, denials, excuses and so on. Or even worst, complete silence.
    The party line must be toed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. dime (9,972 comments) says:

    feel like you need a shower DPF?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Matt Long (90 comments) says:

    Just heard John Key on Radio, according to him money generated by the ETS will go to subsidies for forestry plantings and to GHG reduction research.
    The pointy end of his statement however was that New Zealand needed a “gradual introduction to an ETS.” from which I infer this is just the start and things will get a whole lot worse for the rest of us.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. chivers (6 comments) says:

    I think Kyoto is just shorthand for “international commitments” so they’re not going to come out and say it will only last until the end of Kyoto if they think there will be something in place after that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. davidp (3,581 comments) says:

    Jeremy H>It would be good if the West realised that carbon tariffs rather than carbon taxes play to our advantages, for example the US can produce a ton of steel using 2/3 the carbon of a Chinese mill, the same is true of Europe… So if western countries introduce a local carbon tax/ETS it must be combined with carbon tariffs to ensure we encourage jobs home rather than overseas and the west must do it as one…

    Kyoto acts in exactly the opposite way. China is a developing country and therefore has no carbon reduction targets. So an efficient (both economically and environmentally) food processing plant might be forced to close in NZ, only to be replaced by an environmentally dirty plant in China. Which means that Kyoto has increased carbon emissions.

    Not quite the same thing, but Singapore has a much higher GDP per capita than NZ, but is classed as a developing country for Kyoto purposes. One of the largest carbon producers in NZ is the Marsden Point oil refinery. Kyoto might cause that to close, with the loss of jobs in Whangarei. But we’d still need to buy refined petrol, and the most likely place to obtain this is Singapore which operates a large number of refineries. Total reduction in carbon emissions is zero. It just transfers jobs from a low income country (NZ) to a high income country (Singapore).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Swiftman the infidel (329 comments) says:

    ‘The ETS is a scheme to raise the funds to pay for our Kyoto Liability. Even if you don’t believe in global warming, we have a liability that is based on carbon emissions.’

    Are we the only country in the world that can’t ignore international treaties.

    FFS

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. barry (1,317 comments) says:

    What this proves is that its about time the various politicians learnt that its just plain stupid to be a world first…………..

    I recall that the Kyoto signing was partly about being a ‘world leader’. Complete crap. Let someone else get their fingers burnt.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. peteremcc (344 comments) says:

    1) We’re in credit for Kyoto.
    2) We’re never going to see any of that money because come 2012 no-one is going to actually pay.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    nailed it peter – it’s one way traffic, we’ll apparently pay if we’re in debit, but who’s going to pay us if we’re in credit?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Lucia Maria (2,428 comments) says:

    DPF said to Lipo : [DPF: You go into business and start refusing to pay bills you have agreed to, and see how many suppliers will deal with you….

    David, in business if someone has sold you a shoddy product or misrepresented what they were giving you, you have the ability to refuse to pay until the shoddy product is fixed or replaced, or you cancel the whole deal. Generally suppliers do not want it to be publicly known that their product is crap, and will typically voluntarily cancel any agreements should you as the customer be too problematic for them. Dodgy suppliers will take note.

    Money back guarantee anyone?

    Kyoto was signed on the basis that people were creating so much pollution in the form of carbon that our very activities were causing the world’s climate to heat up. This whole line of thinking has been just about shown to be most likely false, ie a misrepresentation of the facts. On that basis, the whole deal should be cancelled as a scam.

    In a sense, this whole Kyoto thing is like making a deal to pay Nigerian scammers. Once you find out that you’ve agreed to pay a shitload of money to Nigerian scammers, you cancel. No one would think less of you for that.

    Likewise with Kyoto.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. chivers (6 comments) says:

    RightNow says “who’s going to pay us if we’re in credit?”

    There have been sales already: http://tinyurl.com/34jrkhe

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. John Boscawen (146 comments) says:

    David Farrar. I feel sorry for you. You’re like the 59th member of the National caucus- trying to defend the indefensible.

    Mr Nolan says we need the ETS to pay our Kyoto liability.

    First up we haven’t got a Kyoto liability so there is nothing to pay. A few weeks ago Nick Smith put out a press release saying that on current projections we are likely to be several million tons of CO2 in credit during the first commitment period January 1 2008 – December 31st 2012.

    The key issue is to ensure large tracks of 1980s forest are not harvested without being replanted. The existing ETS provides incentives to insure that this will not happen by imposing a liability of approximately $15,000 per hectare, There is no reason this negative incentive could not remain in place until 31 December 2012 if the ETS was to be delayed..

    We do not need to be allocating $1.6 billion of Emissions Credits to forest planted post 1989 to ensure the mature forests planted in the early 1980s are not harvested without being replaced (given a normal 28 year cycle)

    Mr Nolan goes on to say that delaying the ETS doesn’t delay our Kyoto liability it just means we will pay higher taxes for the pollution caused in industries which produce pollution.

    Mr Nolan, like Members of the Green Party, doesn’t seem to understand that the overwhelming volume of credits are not going to issued to so called polluters, but rather foresters.

    These fall into two categories:

    Firstly, pre 1990 foresters which potentially will suffer a real loss if the Land Use and Land Use Change regulations are not changed from 2013. In the event there is a binding Kyoto commitment this change seems likely. However, it is more likely there will be no 2013 binding commitments.

    Secondly, post 1989 foresters are to be allocated $1.6 billion of credits to 2012, mainly for trees already planted. These will be harvested well after 2012 and unless the ETS is delayed every single New Zealander will be paying higher power prices this winter for these subsidies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. CharlieBrown (1,012 comments) says:

    “The ETS is a scheme to raise the funds to pay for our Kyoto Liability.”

    Interesting point… what about stopping global warming? Make no mistake, whether you believe in man-made global warming or not… the net outcome of the ETS is the world will be producing more greenhouse gasses and making the entire world poorer.

    Also… if we are following a piss poor scheme that will increase greenhouse gasses and make us poorer because of our Kyoto Liability then why the hell don’t we pull out of it and say “Nah, our fingers were crossed”.

    The world needs to learn that free and open trade as the first step is the only way we will decrease man made emissions. Any other scheme is merely pushing shit uphill.

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

    I think David is suffering from Stockholm Syndrome, he’s being hanging out with the snake oil salesmen for to long and has joined the cause.

    DPF also said if we go into business and start refusing to pay our bills we will be in the poop.

    Fair enough but if you go into business there are usually rules. Presumably Liarbore set these rules when the clowns signed up. Surely if the Nats change the terms of the rules they are now null and void.

    If the Nats can greatly reduce the costs of our Kyoto liabilities then obviously there were no expectations from those in Kyoto except they expect some form of support from NZ.
    Why do we not pay the pricks a $100 a year and claim we are meeting our Kyoto liabilities as there are no hard and fast terms?

    The whole fucking thing stinks, will there be an independent auditor to check to see the government is not skimming the system? How long do we have to pay? When will it be deemed AGW is no longer a problem? ( hint; fucking never ) Will the scumbags in that receive our hard earned cash spend the money on third world causes ? (i.e not arms, bombs, scumbag dictators )

    Sorry David there are just to many lose ends on this deal, on a proper deal both sides know the rules, plainly this is simply not the case.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Jeremy Harris (319 comments) says:

    John Boscawen. I feel sorry for you. You are in a supposedly Liberal party that contains David Garrett.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    Lucia Maria 5:18 pm

    … Kyoto was signed on the basis that people were creating so much pollution in the form of carbon that our very activities were causing the world’s climate to heat up. This whole line of thinking has been just about shown to be most likely false, ie a misrepresentation of the facts. On that basis, the whole deal should be cancelled as a scam.

    In a sense, this whole Kyoto thing is like making a deal to pay Nigerian scammers. Once you find out that you’ve agreed to pay a shitload of money to Nigerian scammers, you cancel. No one would think less of you for that.

    Likewise with Kyoto.

    Spot on, LM – I was just going to make a comment along similar lines.

    Why should you honour a committment/contract when the product was not only misrepresented to you, but was founded upon a bald faced lie?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. garethw (205 comments) says:

    Bang on Mr Nolan, and well done Mr Farrar for spreading the word, even if to a blindly howling audience =)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. John Boscawen (146 comments) says:

    Side Show Bob there is no issue of NZ not paying its bills or meeting our liability. These issues are just smoke screens.

    Jeremy, David Garrett said during the third reading of the three strikes bill on Tuesday there were four peolpe who had been murdered since the election who would be alive today had there been a three strikes bill ie murderers who had already committed and been convicted for serious violent offences, and who otherwise wouldhav ebeen in prision. I am very happy to support that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. nickb (3,687 comments) says:

    Great contribution gareth!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. garethw (205 comments) says:

    I’m sorry, I didn’t realise there were rules about what I could contribute – this is just an awfully pertinent point that everyone ignores and I’m happy someone is trying to make it heard. Is that OK by you? Or would you rather I ran things past you first for your approval? Perhaps the people that approved your valuable “smelly hippies” comment? No?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Jeremy Harris (319 comments) says:

    John Boscawen.

    I’ll check your support levels after the 4th cop is shot trying to arrest someone on their 3rd strike…

    I’ll check your support levels after the policy pushed by the “small government” party explodes vote corrections…

    I’ll check your support levels after you realise winning a few votes wasn’t worth abandoning judicial oversight and imposing cruel and unusual punishment…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. big bruv (13,902 comments) says:

    Gareth

    Let’s just pretend that the climate change con is real, tell me how it is going to make things better if we transfer money to another country?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Lucia Maria (2,428 comments) says:

    Thanks, Kris!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Manolo (13,780 comments) says:

    As I predicted: absolute silence from DPF, whom, as John Boscawen pointed out, hellbent on defending the indefensible actions of National Party bosses, realised he’s run out of arguments.

    Insulting the intelligence of decent Kiwiblog readers is never a good policy.

    The outrage created by the new tax the ETS cannot, will not go unnoticed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. big bruv (13,902 comments) says:

    Does anybody know if Greece is going to have to pay under the Kyoto treaty?

    If so, can you really see them stumping up with the cash?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. big bruv (13,902 comments) says:

    Jeremy Harris

    “I’ll check your support levels after you realise winning a few votes wasn’t worth abandoning judicial oversight and imposing cruel and unusual punishment…”

    How I wish that Burton and Bell did receive cruel and unusual punishment, but it is nice to know that you care deeply about three time rapists and murderers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. garethw (205 comments) says:

    big bruv – I don’t necessarily disagree with you, but I’m a big supporter of the sentiment that GIVEN we have a Kyoto liability (and probably beyond) we have to work out the best way to pay for it. Even if you think Kyoto is some massive hoax doesn’t change that.
    And I’d rather minimise what all taxpayers have to fork out and put some of it at the source where it might drop that liability we have to pay.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Manolo (13,780 comments) says:

    “Even if you think Kyoto is some massive hoax doesn’t change that.
    And I’d rather minimise what all taxpayers have to fork out and put some of it at the source where it might drop that liability we have to pay.”

    Gareth, sorry but what are you saying?

    If a Nigerian scammer sends you a lottery-winner e-mail, do you go along with the scheme? Or do you negotiate with the criminal to pay the smallest possible sum?

    Are you serious?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. nickb (3,687 comments) says:

    “I’ll check your support levels after the 4th cop is shot trying to arrest someone on their 3rd strike…”

    /facepalm. Strong logic there.
    So we should not introduce harsher punishment for violent crime, lest it increase violent crime?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. big bruv (13,902 comments) says:

    Gareth

    Thanks for the answer, of course I reject completely that we have to ‘work out the best way to pay for it’, we should just put the bloody thing on hold.

    I also asked in a later post if anybody knew what Greece’s liabilities were/are under Kyoto, to that list I would like to add Portugal, Spain, and Ireland.

    Can you tell me if these countries are scheduled to make Kyoto payments at all and if so do you REALLY think they will come up with the cash?

    Or will we be the only ones stupid enough to fork over money to other nations?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. CharlieBrown (1,012 comments) says:

    “I’ll check your support levels after you realise winning a few votes wasn’t worth abandoning judicial oversight and imposing cruel and unusual punishment…”

    Oh hell… is locking up recevidist criminals for life after 3 (in NZ’s case, incredibly violent) convictions determined as cruel and unusual punnishment these days then I’m all for cruel and unusual punishment. Cruel and unusual punishment in my books is cruely punnishing society by letting these pricks live freely whilst their victims are dead, injured or robbed of their lives possessions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. JiveKitty (778 comments) says:

    @nickb: How about bugger three strikes and lets just have harsher punishments for crime if the punishments are not harsh enough already? And I thought that previous criminal history came into sentencing anyway?

    But I digress.

    Nolan says the ETS is so we can cover our liabilities. Instead of complaining about the ETS, get rid of the liability. And I do doubt that either of these schemes will do much for decreasing man’s contribution to global warming.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Jeremy Harris (319 comments) says:

    I don’t care about murderers and rapists, having spent my entire adult life in law enforcement quite the opposite, what I do care about is the integrity of our legal system, but it is much easier to turn off your brain and reach for easy, ineffective, anti-freedom authoritarian answers as you demostrate only too well…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. BlairM (2,339 comments) says:

    New Zealand’s propensity for being the only country on earth to take international treaties, or the UN, seriously would be a source of great comedy were it not my homeland.

    NO OTHER COUNTRY IS TAKING KYOTO SERIOUSLY SO WHY SHOULD WE?! It’s a pretty basic question. And the idea that nobody will trade with us if we don’t have an ETS? OMG! how can anybody be so stupid and naive to believe that bullcrap? If nobody else is committing to it, why would they pull us up on it?

    It is lies, bullshit, and more lies heaped upon more bullshit. Even if it did have “consequences”, I don’t care. It is wrong to tax people in the name of a bullshit religion called climate change. Let us stop this madness right now, and let us pillory the fools who perpetrate it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Matt Nolan (73 comments) says:

    Hi all,

    Just a couple of comments from what I have seen:

    1)

    “Make sure you read the comments too, that is where the flaws in Matt’s post become apparent (no offence Matt).”

    No offence taken of course Goonix :)

    However, I have read the comments on the post, and I still don’t see any glaring flaws. Clarification on the facts for sure – but I wouldn’t back down from anything in my post, apart from the poor grammar and spelling.

    In fact, I would suggest that people read the comments – hopefully it will help to clarify the issues.

    2)

    And to those talking about “if we don’t have a liability we don’t need to worry”, I replied in the comments explaining why:

    http://www.tvhe.co.nz/2010/05/26/national-labour-greens-you-all-get-this-please-help-clear-it-up/#comment-25841

    In essence, since the protocal charges us per carbon unit the “opportunity cost” of producing a carbon unit is higher than the market prices in. An ETS helps to sort out that distortion. The funds can then be used to lower income taxes – which have a greater efficiency cost on the country.

    If I was designing the scheme, you would have seen prices for carbon intensive goods go up by more – but you would have also seen lower income taxes/higher thresholds on welfare policies. The government didn’t do this as they traded off between complete efficiency and a “transition” impact for industry – which is their, and societies, call not mine.

    3)

    If you do not believe that the Kyoto protocal will actually do anything, and if you do not think that there will be a follow up agreement to Kyoto then that is a fine justifcation for not having an ETS.

    HOWEVER, to do this you actually have to make a case about why the policy situation will change. The relevant argument is about whether there will be an international agreement that binds NOT about the purpose of an ETS under the assumption that it does bind.

    If you want the government to ignore what is the most likely situation just because you don’t like the sound of the ETS then it is fine for you to feel that way. But I think it is justifiable to base policy on likely situations even if I don’t agree with them. As a result, this is a good point to keep in mind when saying things about international agreements :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    It is lies, bullshit, and more lies heaped upon more bullshit. Even if it did have “consequences”, I don’t care. It is wrong to tax people in the name of a bullshit religion called climate change. Let us stop this madness right now, and let us pillory the fools who perpetrate it.

    Amen to that BlairM. We have to shake off this global inferiority complex that has us committing seppuku so we can [supposedly] be lauded for leading the world in something. Problem is the Kiwi politicians with large egos – the UN being their desired career path. And so we pay for this stupidity to help them fulfill their ambitions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Fishfurta (15 comments) says:

    Im happy to pay my $3 per week to save the planet .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. emmess (1,428 comments) says:

    I also asked in a later post if anybody knew what Greece’s liabilities were/are under Kyoto, to that list I would like to add Portugal, Spain, and Ireland.

    No, probably the Germans and other northern Europeans will have to pay for it. Which will be kind of ironic because they are the ones that have been pushing this Green bullshit the hardest on the rest of the world.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Pita (373 comments) says:

    New Zealand committed itself to Kyoto because the Labour Government was advised that we would realise half a billion dollars a year !!! What they didn’t tell was that it would be realised by taxing New Zealanders.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Pita (373 comments) says:

    “I’m happy to pay my $3.00 per week to save the planet”… if you believe this and the B.S. that is driving it, you shouldn’t be allowed to vote

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Banana Llama (1,043 comments) says:

    Sorry we are broke and unable to meet our liability, tough break but thats the way things go.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. fatman43us (166 comments) says:

    Abrogate Kyoto, and tell the UN to shove it at the same time. The world will not even notice. If you think all they have to worry about is a rinky dink little country at the end of the world you’re mad. It is time we got on with our own stuff, and left the rest to the Obama mob and the dozy Europeans.

    An as for National, the clock is ticking wildly until this costs you the next election. ETS plus Anti-smacking plus Aboriginal Treaties with the UN = massive loss of support.

    Burn more carbon, I need the warmth

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Pita (373 comments) says:

    An extract from James Delingpole’s article that has relevance to New Zealand’s position, it makes for interesting reading:

    “Here’s the problem: the global economy has gone tits up. We are doomed. And nowhere is more doomed than Europe whose Monopoly-money currency is going the way of the Zimbabwe dollar and the Reichsmark, and whose constituent economies are so overburdened by sclerotic regulation and so mired in corruption, waste and the kind of institutionalised socialism which might work just about when the going’s good but definitely not now sir now sirree.

    And what, pray, is the European Union’s solution to this REAL problem which has already led to riots and death in one country and which could well lead to many more in the horror years to come? Why, to impose on its already hamstrung, over-regulated, over-taxed businesses yet further arbitrary CO2 emissions reductions targets, which will make not the blindest difference to the health of the planet, but which will most certainly slow down economic recovery and make life harder and more miserable for everybody.

    In Britain, David Cameron is wedded to the same suicidal policy – on the one hand brandishing £6.5 billion cuts in government spending as though this were a sign of his maturity and his commitment to reducing Britain’s deficit, while on the other remaining committed to a “low carbon” economy set to destroy what’s left of our industry and cost the taxpayer at least £18 billion (yep – almost THREE times as much as the pathetic cuts announced so far by his pathetic chancellor) a year.

    Around the world, in the greatest financial crisis we have faced since the 1930s, our leaders are behaving like imbeciles. And nowhere is this imbecility more painfully manifest than in their approach to the non-existent problem they now call Climate Change.

    That’s why I keep banging on about Climate Change. It is, unfortunately, the Key to all Mythologies. “

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. John Boscawen (146 comments) says:

    Matt, Under Kyoto we agreed to limit our emisisons to no more than 1990 levels. We only have to pay if we exceed that level.

    We are currently forecast to come under that level.

    Ignoring the ETS for the moment, which will result in a couple of billion dollars worth of credits going to forresters which we will all have to pay for unless the ETS is stopped, why do you think we have to pay anything to anybody?

    As to the future of Kyoto agreement. That expires on 31.12.2012. We have no committments beyond that.

    Copenhagen showed the prospect of a fully binding international agreement from 2013 is virtually non- existant. Even the PM acknowldeged on breakfast TV on Monday that he doesn’t expect that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Chicken Little (741 comments) says:

    John Boscawen – Is there a list, that you’re aware of, of the Forestry companies that will benefit from the credits?

    There must be a register of some description.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Matt Nolan (73 comments) says:

    “Matt, Under Kyoto we agreed to limit our emisisons to no more than 1990 levels. We only have to pay if we exceed that level. ”

    Indeed, and that is the justification for giving a free allocation of credits – as this is effectively an asset.

    It doesn’t stop us having a liability on the production of each marginal carbon unit … so the opportunity cost of carbon is higher, and the market price is too low.

    “We only have to pay if we exceed that level. ”

    We have to pay per unit, and we get paid for some fixed level of units. The first bit is a price issue, which the ETS takes care of. The second bit is an income issue – which can be sent back out as free credit allocations and lower income taxes. It doesn’t matter whether we have a NET liability or not.

    “As to the future of Kyoto agreement. That expires on 31.12.2012. We have no committments beyond that. Copenhagen showed the prospect of a fully binding international agreement from 2013 is virtually non- existant. Even the PM acknowldeged on breakfast TV on Monday that he doesn’t expect that.”

    Because fair working policy currently suggests that there will be an agreement at some point in the near future that makes us liable for the cost. So Kyoto puts a cost on carbon units, and another agreement will be in place not long after for carbon units.

    As I’ve said – if you don’t agree with this bit, then this is the issue to criticise government policy on. ONLY THIS ISSUE. If the government agrees – then you can say the ETS is aimless and a tax grab blah blah.

    However, attacking the ETS when currently policy is explicitly based on the existence of an agreement over time is exactly the same sort of economic argument as trying to justify trade tariffs – as it is saying we should effectively “subsidise” carbon production relative to other types of production by paying for it through income tax.

    If you guys realise that the government isn’t going to budge in its view on the likelihood of a future agreement (which I assume you do) then arguing against an ETS comes off in the same way as suggesting trade protectionism – which is why I posted in the first place.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Manolo (13,780 comments) says:

    “Im happy to pay my $3 per week to save the planet .”

    I have a nice large bridge for sale at the bargain price of also $3 per week. Will send you details soon, so you can make the payments.

    Human gullibility (or is it stupidity?) knows no bounds.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Manolo (13,780 comments) says:

    In his explanation Mr. Nolan says those of us who oppose the ETS could be construed as supporters of trade protectionism. I reject that notion.

    Technicalities aside, I cannot see how this dreadful piece of legislation advances the New Zealand economy. Why do we have to impoverish ourselves in pursue of a future mythical gain, gain that will be unlikely to eventuate given the scant support for agreement on the issue?

    Why does NZ have to lead the world?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Matt Nolan (73 comments) says:

    “In his explanation Mr. Nolan says those of us who oppose the ETS could be construed as supporters of trade protectionism. I reject that notion.”

    Reject it without explaining why, interesting ;)

    Kidding aside, it is the same as trade protectionism as we are paying for this “additional cost of carbon” through income taxes rather than when we make carbon – so carbon is being subsidised. It is completely equivalent. And given the governments assumption that there will continue to be a price on carbon, any policy saying we shouldn’t have an ETS is equivalent to a policy that says we should subsidise domestic industries/introduce more tariffs.

    “Why do we have to impoverish ourselves in pursue of a future mythical gain, gain that will be unlikely to eventuate given the scant support for agreement on the issue?”

    I would say this is the key issue. The government does not agree that an agreement is unlikely – as the agreement forms the basis of the ETS. If the ACT party wants to say they think it is unlikely, then go for it – if they want to say we won’t have to pay the Kyoto funds, then go for it – but criticising the ETS in of itself doesn’t make sense.

    If they were being honest then, given what I have been told they should say:

    1) We should admit we aren’t going to pay our Kyoto liabilities,
    2) We think there will be no follow up agreement.

    The fact that we shouldn’t have an ETS would then follow. Simply saying “scrap the ETS, it is making costs, and we will make the costs disappear” (which is how it is being marketed) is blatent deception.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. John Boscawen (146 comments) says:

    Matt,

    In a rush , but two quick points.

    You seem to agree with me that NZ is currently on track to meet its liability and you then say that is the justification of giving a free allocation of units.

    But why give a free allocation of units if it is to people who have suffered no loss yet eg post 1989 foresters whoose trees will not be harvested until at least 2018 when there is quite likely to be no binding agreement. And thru the giving of those credits NZers suffer real loss which the taxpayers then have to reimburse.

    Secondly you say ” if you guys realise that the government isnt going to budge in its view on the likihood of a future agreement, which I assume you do”. I wouldnt assume that at all. It is precisely because we think that there may not be binding future agreements and as such our trading partners may never have an ETS that we think the government should postpone.

    More importantly we do believe the government will budge on its view that the ETS shouldnt be postponed and we hope to achieve that before June 30 using awareness and people power. Just like they did in Australia last November.

    If they can budge on Tuhoe, they can budge on the ETS.

    I am off to Grey Power Northshore later today. The PM was there in March to explain they will be reimbursed for the increase in GST.

    I intend telling them he ETS will cost them 0.4 % of CPI, a fifth of the CPI and they are not being reimbursed for this. Worse the government owned generators will make windfall profits which the government is also trying to hide.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. WebWrat (516 comments) says:

    My mate on the Coast said last night that his coal supplier told him the price of coal will go up $40 to $50 per ton when the ETS comes in.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    WebWrat, coal should just be banned worldwide, with appropriate compensation/technology transfer/equipment donations (the latter two free) and we could all breathe a little easier.

    Anyway, thanks Matt for your post. I’ll do some studying up on your points as I have tended to favour Jim Hansen’s plan of a refundable carbon tax – simple, effective, understandable.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. James (1,338 comments) says:

    Jeremy Harris

    “John Boscawen. I feel sorry for you. You are in a supposedly Liberal party that contains David Garrett.”

    Garrett is far more liberal than you it appears Jeremy……Three strikes doesn’t conflict with Liberal ( in the true,classic sense) values….indeed it complements them by doing that which the State is actually supposed to do….that is the protection of peoples individual rights from those who would violate them.People like you who want to cuddle killers and hug rapists are sick making.

    So well done David Garrett and ACT….you are being true to your principles.

    “I’ll check your support levels after the 4th cop is shot trying to arrest someone on their 3rd strike…”

    And how would that be Garretts/ACTs responsibility and not souly that of the scumbag concerned….? No ability for people to choose courses of action in life on your planet Mr Harris?

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

    A large percentage of our forests our overseas owned so the credits will be exported.

    Also, a recent US study finds that most US pastures are net carbon sinks.

    And further, where is the International Standard of Carbon Weights and Measures?
    How will anyone know who is cheating who?

    And how will we calculate carbon debits and credits given that no one person or wise committee knows how to make a pencil, let alone calculate its total CO2 equivalent?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. MikeNZ (3,234 comments) says:

    Pita
    link to article?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. James (1,338 comments) says:

    Well said Owen. Against what standard do we measure this carbon thing ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    Does anyone find it ironic that we, as a carbon based life form, are looking to tax ourselves based on our reliance on carbon based energy and food production?

    And therefore presumably, will those same tax payments go to some NON carbon based life form – some imaginary ‘god’ who decides when we have committed a carbon ‘sin’, and who formulates the appropriate degree of penance/payment?

    Whoever said AGW (now known as ‘Climate Change’); and its related Kyoto and ETS type agreements, and the whole carbon trading debacle, is not some sort of quasi man-made religion was lying.
    All hail the mighty AGW ‘god’ – bring your tithes and offerings to his ‘high priests’ to prove your love and worship for him (or is that ‘her’, as in Gaia? – the godess of the green/environment movement).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. Manolo (13,780 comments) says:

    “All hail the mighty AGW ‘god’ – bring your tithes and offerings to his ‘high priests’ ..”

    I understand Smith is an Archbishop, while Key a Cardinal, of this new spurious cult.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Jeremy Harris (319 comments) says:

    @James, bullshit…

    Ben Franklin: “Those that give up freedom for security will lose both and deserve neither”…

    Just give up one more principal, one more right and we’ll be safe they say – and you believe them…

    So call me a killer cuddler and rapist hugger, when out of the two of us I know which has executed and enforced the law and is sad to see it eroded for higher taxes and a less safe society…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    Manolo 11:41 am,

    I understand Smith is an Archbishop, while Key a Cardinal, of this new spurious cult.

    Indeed.
    The whole ETS, AGW, etc does have that ‘vested interest’ feel about it.
    Al Gore, anyone?
    If Key is a Cardinal, then Gore is the Pope.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Yvette (2,820 comments) says:

    NZ has an ETS, but in all the to-ing and fro-ing I have lost count of who else has one.
    Who will NZ trade carbon credits or whatever with? Or are we just playing with ourselves?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. James (1,338 comments) says:

    @James, bullshit…

    Ben Franklin: “Those that give up freedom for security will lose both and deserve neither”…

    Just give up one more principal, one more right and we’ll be safe they say – and you believe them…

    So call me a killer cuddler and rapist hugger, when out of the two of us I know which has executed and enforced the law and is sad to see it eroded for higher taxes and a less safe society…”

    Makes two of us.I also work in an area of law enforcement….have done so for the best part of 14 years.Just what freedom” is imperiled by 3 strikes prey tell? The “freedom” to commit crime as one chooses? The “freedom” to not have to face consequencse for ones actions?

    No law abiding,rights respecting person has any need to fear 3 strikes.Those that make it to and get convicted on a third strike deserve all they get….they will have earned it by their own efforts.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. CJD (333 comments) says:

    Jeremy Harris….little Jeremy, what to say. Jeremy has fared well in school this year and excelled in basket work. However he has deal less well witht the hard subjects-those that require logic and even basic mathematics.
    Lets look at an example:
    Q Jeremy, when faced with a filthy rotten criminal who has three cahnce to correct his (self imposed) behaviour, vesus say…your mummy Jerry, who has only one chance at life as the flithy rotten criminal rapes her and the slits her throat. Jerry who gets more chance in life, the filthy crim, or the ashes of dearly-departed mummy?
    A Jerry: “Ah, Timmy….T..T..T…Tiimmmy”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Jeremy Harris (319 comments) says:

    What to say indeed CJD..? You didn’t say much, I’m guessing that is about par for the course for you…

    @James, absolutely correct, no law abiding citizen will be sentenced due to the 3 strikes law but fear it we should…

    If we want to “get tough” on criminals then sure lets raise the sentences for the crimes of rape (and more serious), I’d support that and life meaning life for murder, etc… But we haven’t done that, we have created two sentences for the same crime, essentially two different laws, and if that didn’t undermine the integrity of the law enough, we have then taken away Judge’s discretion undermining the seperation of powers and all for a law that will ultimately lead to a less safe society, in particular for front law enforcement officers like myself and the correction officers and will cost a bomb… If you really are involved in law enforcement you will know juvenile rehab is the best way to spend precious tax resources at this point…

    If you can’t see that or are willing to turn off your mind to hope the loss of freedom from the disproportionate adminstration of justice will work then good luck to you…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. John Boscawen (146 comments) says:

    Matt,

    I only have a minute but i struggle with your comment at 7.52am…..if they ( presumably being Act) were being honest….we should admitt we are not going to pay our Kyoto liabilities”…

    I not sure how many times i have to say this, but we dont have any Kyoto liabilities.

    There is no one to pay under Kyoto.

    Stopping an ETS is not going to make the trees go away.

    If on the other hand we had an ETS, we very well may have someone to pay.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. CJD (333 comments) says:

    Jeremy Harris “What to say indeed CJD..? You didn’t say much”

    You obvioulsy need things spelled out for you. It is not about “getting tough” on criminals, it is about an objective (albeit an imperfect one) means of removing a threat. No matter how erudite you my think your aguements are they fall down when one is faced by the senseless damage that gets done to innocent people. Your moral code may perclude absolutes, relying only on a vaugue sense of relative degrees of harm. But I (and most sane people) prefer the view that violent crime is bad and that we should look after the victim first, rather than go and find environmental/developmental influences that caused the intrinsically lovely crim to go bad and lash out at an uncaring society. Really-you may want to hug a crim but dont impose it on me and my loved ones!!
    The fact remains that three chances to correct your behaviour is far more humane and fair than what often befalls a victim of violent crime.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. CJD (333 comments) says:

    And further Jeremy-you are confusing two issues: “If you really are involved in law enforcement you will know juvenile rehab is the best way to spend precious tax resources at this point”

    No-one, including most of my mates in ACT dispute the value of early intervention. However, if a dog bites a kid, no one debates about how bad its life was as a puppy. It is immediately destroyed as a real and present danger to society. And in termsof freedoms-sometimes we do sacrifice our freedoms for the greater good of society. You have a social contract which accords you rights and priveleges and freedoms within society. But you have a responsiblity to ensure that by expressing your own freedoms you do no harm to others. You play by a set of rules. You have freedom to express yourself by breaking the rules if necessary but there are consequences.

    By all means let us get in there an grow puppies with a good moral and ethical grounding…but for God’s sake lets not let the killer dogs roam the street as was the norm under Labour.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Viking2 (11,471 comments) says:

    The Magical Twenty Nine………
    ………countries with an ETS turn out to be just one. So much for Dr Nick Smith’s learned spruiking during Question Time.

    Yes, it seems the only outfit with an ETS is the European Union.

    Would that be the same European Union in which sits the city of Copenhagen? Where not too long ago it was discovered that over ninety percent of the transactions on the Copenhagen Carbon Credits Exchange were fraudulent?

    So the truth of the matter is, there’s only one other ETS in operation in the world and the one ‘country’ which has it can’t control it and already has significant trade barriers impeding out imports anyway? Did you know, Dr Smith, that without the aid of an ETS, the European Union managed in 2010 to reduce their imports from lil ole NZ by 13.5% compared with 2009?

    Who cares what monkey business they get up to when we boot the damned ETS into the duck pond? They are buying bugger all from us and they have no intention of changing that stance. Ever.

    Come on, John Key and Nick Smith. You’ll have to do better than this sort of pathetic bluster.

    http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_DOY1U6HT7AM/S_75c2FEwOI/AAAAAAAAAEU/YYCU-Rft4ag/s1600/mnzexportdata.jpg

    Last year the EU (which is going broke) bought just a lousy $5 billion from NZ. The rest of the world – the bit with no bloody ETS or Cap N Trade – took a whopping $34.5 billion

    Get rid of the albatross, Mr Key.

    Defer the ETS before it gobbles you up and spits you out.

    http://www.nominister.blogspot.com/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. willtruth (243 comments) says:

    It’s pretty funny to see some people here predicting that the ETS scheme will mean the end of National. Do they think we will have an Act government next time? Give me a break. National are safe and thank goodness that the realities of power forced the Nats to get real about climate change and international obligations.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. James (1,338 comments) says:

    Willtruth…if ACT don’t improve their vote on the back of this it just proves Kiwis are willing rape victims only too pleased to offer their arses up for a good seeing to to the first comer….and they disgust me.They get what they deserve…but I’m getting it too…and that sucks.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. Jeremy Harris (319 comments) says:

    “Really-you may want to hug a crim but dont impose it on me and my loved ones!!”

    In my last post I said I would gladly support a sentence of life (in prison till 65 without parole) sentence for murder… We haven’t done that, we have corrupted the law by handing out different sentences for the same crime…

    It is a poorly drafted law and should have been passed, that is not an erudite argument, it is a comon sense one…

    “And in termsof freedoms-sometimes we do sacrifice our freedoms for the greater good of society.”

    No we don’t – ever. Labour who you seem to hate so much, believe that government ownership of assets and welfare is the greater good yet you howl and moan about this… Who determines the greater good..? You..?

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