O’Reilly on ETS
May 5th, 2010 at 10:00 am by David FarrarI agree with the sentiments expressed by BusinessNZ CEO Phil O’Reilly:
In business there is a wide range of opinion stretching across the spectrum, from zealous green through to emissions denial. The most common reaction has been concern about increased energy costs just as businesses start to recover from the recession.
Why not delay it, they say – especially since Australia is now pulling back from its earlier commitment to emissions trading. The answer is probably that delay wasn’t a feasible option.
New Zealand’s situation is very different from Australia’s. Australia has never had an emissions trading scheme, so delaying the introduction of one would have been relatively straightforward.
To delay it in New Zealand would mean introducing amending legislation under urgency and ramming it through Parliament without even going to select committee. This would be Labour’s wet dream – National breaking its election promise and doing an u-turn, and even worse forcing it through under urgency to over-turn previous legislation that had been the subject of three years or consultation and debate.
If National did this, they would be suffer much the same fate as Kevin Rudd just has (fallen behind in the polls for the first time ever), but arguably even more.
But New Zealand has been committed to it since the trading legislation passed in 2008 by the previous Labour-Greens Government.
The present Government came into power that same year, on an election promise to improve the scheme passed by Labour and the Greens. Their mandate wasn’t to dismantle or delay it but to improve it.
The failure of Copenhagen has happened since then, and we should respond to that failure. But scrapping the entire scheme is daft and would lead to higher Government debt.
Had the Government sought to dismantle or delay it we would have had a fourth parliamentary/select committee process in as many years, with even more divisive, rancorous debate.
With Labour committed to returning New Zealand to the previous draconian emissions scheme and the Greens unwilling to compromise on their climate change stance, the issue would have become a long-running, festering sore.
Labour’s scheme had less protection for trade exposed industries, and would see greater costs on businesses, despite their competitors not having them.
Taking the longer view, it’s hard to deny the certainty that the world is headed towards a price on carbon. Whether it’s by way of carbon taxes or emissions trading schemes and whether within two years or 20, the clear intent of Governments around the world is to restrain emissions using economic tools.
I agree a price on carbon is almost inevitable. Even if you do not believe the claimed indirect warming effects of carbon emissions (which there is debate about), even the direct warming effects (which there is almost no debate about) makes a price on carbon sensible.
Official figures show New Zealand is on track to meet our 2012 Kyoto target. In 2012 our gross emissions will be 23 per cent higher than in 1990, but this will be more than offset by forests planted since 1989, with many New Zealand foresters actively receiving tradeable carbon credits.
This is key. Forestry is already in the scheme. You can not simply scrap a scheme that has already started. Forest owners are owed hundreds of millions of dollars for their forests under the scheme.
The fact that we already had the legislation as far back as 2008 and the kinds of decisions made by other Governments over the last year have led to the situation where New Zealand is now a leader in taking action on emissions, rather than our desired position of fast follower.
And this is a concern. But the answer is not to scrap a scheme that has been in place since 2008. It is to use the 2011 review to decide whether to amend the rate at which businesses get exposed to the full cost of carbon, and when sectors such as agriculture enter the scheme.
We are scheduled to have a review of the scheme before the end of next year. Business NZ believes this review should be brought forward starting no later than the end of this year.
The review should cover issues like the cost impact on consumers and businesses, competitive disadvantage issues and the position of agriculture and other sectors within the scheme.
Positions need to be developed based on current economic and international considerations.
We should all keep in mind the fact that the world’s consumers are increasingly seeking low-carbon goods and services and our trading scheme is the vehicle for nudging our producers on to a profitable low-carbon path.
And we shouldn’t forget that taking action to reduce emissions and look after our environment is, in the long run, the right thing to do.
I think it would be useful to wait for the Mexico conference, and see if that is as unproductive as Copenhagen. If it is, then the review of the ETS should look towards slowing or delaying the impact of the ETS in trade exposed sectors especially.
May 5th, 2010 at 10:27 am
They do that with all sorts of other legislation though – most recently to sack the elected members of a Regional Council, deny Cantabrians the right to vote for their Regional Council in the October elections, and empower the Minister for the Environment to suspend parts of the RMA at will in Canterbury.
Vote:May 5th, 2010 at 10:30 am
“If National did this, they would be suffer much the same fate as Kevin Rudd just has (fallen behind in the polls for the first time ever), but arguably even more.”
I thought Rudd was driven to publicly abandon ETS because this is one of the things that was causing the fall in his polling. I thought his abandonment of the idea was an attempt to recover some popularity.
..and anyway, if National only had the ability to publicly articulate a strong and effective counter argument, (like Tony Abbot) the polls would perhaps say something entirely different.
Vote:May 5th, 2010 at 10:39 am
O’Reilly is a government sycophant. What a load of pompous nonsense. Spare me the bullshit, “world’s consumers are seeking low carbon goods”, fucking lefty lies. The worlds population continues to grow, many just what food, forget low carbon foods. We have just had a local factory fail, they were offering low carbon organic food, no fucking market, no one silly enough to pay the price to produce this food. This fool O’Reilly needs to watch where the money from ETS schemes are going to and where it will end up, it’s a con noddy, I kindly suggest he views today’s Glen beck show, see what he thinks about his precious ETS then. And the lies about the government not being able to change the law over night. God the bastards can change laws over night to save one of their own. Yes we should reduce emissions because it is economically sensible to do so, we don’t need to be taxed out of existence to achieve the same result.
Vote:May 5th, 2010 at 10:40 am
Redbaiter – Australia had an opposition with a spine that could also articulate to the people what a crock of shit the ETS was. Rudd was found to have no clothes on. In NZ we have neither
Vote:May 5th, 2010 at 10:42 am
To delay it in New Zealand would mean introducing amending legislation under urgency and ramming it through Parliament without even going to select committee.
Why would it need to be done under urgency? Couldnt they introduce an amendment and still debate it properly?
This would be Labour’s wet dream – National breaking its election promise and doing an u-turn, and even worse forcing it through under urgency to over-turn previous legislation that had been the subject of three years or consultation and debate.
So you want them to placate traditional Labour – Green voters at the expense of traditional National voters? Sorry DPF, but just like in the past NZ has jumped the shark on this, we have lead the way with the ETS instead of being the fast follower that John Key PROMISED us, our businesses have been lumped with a Tax that none of our trading compeditors have to pay.
If National did this, they would be suffer much the same fate as Kevin Rudd just has (fallen behind in the polls for the first time ever), but arguably even more.
You clearly do not understand why Rudd is becoming disliked overhere – it is not solely for dumping the ETS, it is for his arrogant personality. Its for lumping the mining industry with a rich prick tax without contemplating the repurcussions, its for the complete incompetence surrounding the insulation scheme fiasco, its for having a tanty and throwing his food at an airline hostess, for appearing to get annoyed at a high school student who has asked a simple question. The shine has come off Mr KRudd, and people are starting to take note of what his true colours are.
Remember this is the same man who just promised that our compulsory employer super contributions will rise from 9% to 12% and his polling results have gone DOWN! ETS or not, that promise should have had the opposite effect – my guess is Australia just doesnt like what they see anymore.
Vote:May 5th, 2010 at 10:43 am
So…..what you are saying is that the National Socialists should put their own selfish interests first and fuck the rest of the country, they should not do it lest it give Labour a boost.
FFS!
No wonder we are still borrowing nearly 1 billion dollars a month.
Vote:May 5th, 2010 at 10:47 am
Overall I thought the post was a Joke
Vote:May 5th, 2010 at 10:48 am
publicly articulate a strong and effective counter argument, (like Tony Abbot) the polls would perhaps say something entirely different.
Your shitting me right? The guy is a bloody idiot who trips over his words so much he can barely make a comprehensible point! Every time his is asked for the LNP policy on anything, he comes across as your typical slippery politician.
Vote:May 5th, 2010 at 10:48 am
the previous Labour-Greens Government.
The what?
Vote:May 5th, 2010 at 10:54 am
Sorry DPF, but I don’t agree with that at all. Other countries had set up schemes, such as Germany, who are now stepping back from theirs.
Well, I remember John Key saying that we shouldn’t rush into the scheme – that we should see what Australia is doing and tailor any such scheme along the same lines as them: well, Australia has abandoned theirs altogether. Besides that, why should they care what Labour think? Is policy based on what is good for the country (and on what will hurt it, like this ETS) or is it based on oneupmanship and the scoring of political points? I, for one, don’t give a shite what Labour think; of course they’ll jump on it, but that’s their job as an opposition party – to disagree with practically everything the current Government does.
I mean, as a made up example, lets say National had promised a swine flu vaccine free to every NZ citizen before the election, and after the election the vaccine was found to cause death because of an unforeseen side-effect. Would anyone blame National for breaking an election promise then? Of course not. Well this amounts to the same. It’s a choice between what is doing the best for the country and doing what is best to make your party look good.
Helen was an expert in that: never reversing policy even though it was proved to be wrong. She wanted to be seen as someone who never makes mistakes; never goes back on what she has done. Well, it cost her. The public are more sympathetic to someone who makes a mistake, admits it, and changes what they’re doing.
Vote:May 5th, 2010 at 10:56 am
Really, DPF?
I think many here not only question so called Anthropogenic Global Warming, but ALSO question whether there is any creedence to the argument that there is, in fact, any global warming at all.
And if we’re going to put a price on carbon, then I presume, for the sake of consistency, we will also put a price on water vapour. Water vapour being a MUCH greater contributor to the so called greenhouse effect than other ‘greenhouse’ (carbon based) gases.
And on this basis, “a price on carbon is almost inevitable”, if, and I do mean if, we keep our mouths shut on this issue. Let’s be clear; a ‘carbon tax’ is simply another mechanism by which Socialism/Progressivism will be brought in by stealth. And the average citizen will bear the cost on this – more theft from the people by Socialist liars and manipulators.
Vote:May 5th, 2010 at 10:59 am
If only, Danyl – then we might have had a carbon pricing mechanism that would actually work to reduce emissions.
O’Reilly’s not the only one making that (deliberate?) mistake. Here’s Nick Smith:
Vote:May 5th, 2010 at 11:22 am
DPF – you left the tags Spin and Humour of this post – please rectify.
Vote:May 5th, 2010 at 11:27 am
all that spin is making me dizzy!!!
The ETS is a crock of shit; AGW is a crock of shit; that the govt couldn’t delay the ETS is a crock of shit.
What was the billboard before the election? “Wave goodbye to high taxes not your loved ones” What a crock of shit. This govt has introduced more taxes than it has cut and on July 1 taxes are going up even more. WHAT A CROCK OF SHIT. Time to start looking for another country to live in me thinks.
Vote:May 5th, 2010 at 11:52 am
“Your shitting me right?”
Abbot stood for the Liberal Party leadership on this issue. He articulated his position well and he won the leadership from the wet liberal Turnbull. I’m not saying the Liberals and Abbot are by any means the opposition that should exist, but unlike the Nats, they do have members who consistently argue quite strongly against Progressive positions. I saw Abbot argue on the ETS issue and he made his case well.
Vote:May 5th, 2010 at 11:54 am
DPF, what a pathetic sycophantic post. So much for governing in the national interest. It is clearly, unequivocably not in the national interest to go ahead with the ETS so why don’t you acknowledge that? Let Labour have its wet dream.
Who was it that said “when the facts change, I change my opinion”? So what if it’s a broken election promise – the facts have changed. Our trading partners are not going ahead with the ETS, so why should we?
Vote:May 5th, 2010 at 11:57 am
If only, Danyl – then we might have had a carbon pricing mechanism that would actually work to reduce emissions.
Yeah, reducing NZ’s contribution of 0.01% to global carbon emissions to 0.009% is really going to make an impact isnt it.
Vote:May 5th, 2010 at 11:59 am
Why don’t sectors responsible for unreasonable emissions of greenhouse gases just finance steps to stop those gases instead of fucking around with a trading scheme that is an Enron add-on to the issue?
Vote:May 5th, 2010 at 12:04 pm
Why don’t sectors responsible for unreasonable emissions of greenhouse gases just finance steps to stop those gases instead of fucking around with a trading scheme that is an Enron add-on to the issue?
What makes you think it is about reducing emissions?
Your forgetting to think like a politician: “Ooooooo yummy! More tax num nums”!
Vote:May 5th, 2010 at 12:04 pm
You say DPF that “Forest owners are owed hundreds of millions of dollars for their forests under the scheme”. Nonsense.
No party is more committed to respect for property rights than the ACT Party, which is why we have long objected to the treatment of pre-1990 forests. Under the ETS, owners of such forests are retrospectively penalised if they convert them to other land uses.
In the case of post-1990 forests:
1. If the ETS is suspended, forest owners would remain perfectly free to sell credits to any parties interested in buying them, e.g. parties subject to the European Union ETS.
2. New plantings in recent years have fallen substantially. Most of the increased planting occurred in the 1990-2000 period. Few foresters could credibly claim their plans have been disrupted if the ETS were suspended. The Government would be able to argue that such claims are legitimate only from 2008 when the ETS legislation was passed.
3. Even if the government were to accept that foresters had legitimate expectations of the creation of carbon credits via an ETS from some earlier date (say 31 October 2002, being the date of policy announcements used by the Government to justify differential regulation of forest land owners) the total number of hectares planted since that time is not large. And given the uncertainty of any future government policy, the potential for a future ETS could only have played a small part in any such investment decision.
In principle, the proper course of action if property rights are significantly altered is to consider compensation. Suspending the scheme may well mean affected foresters can justify a claim of losses arising. However, the following additional points are relevant:
(i) Many will not do so. A temporary suspension would have limited consequences for forests planted on a 30 year plus rotation.
(ii) If forest owners claimed and accepted compensation for the loss of sales of carbon from 2002-2009 they would also lose the opportunity value of being able to convert their land to other uses should that become attractive in the future. Moreover, they would have to gamble on the compensation (of $25/tonne) being more attractive to them than the possibility of a much higher price (say, $100/tonne) down the track if the ETS is later implemented and world carbon prices rise.
(iii) I suspect that much of the limited amount of recent new planting was not motivated by the prospective ETS but by government afforestation programmes. Logically, only the marginal amount due to the ETS should be recognised in compensation claims for such forest.
(iv) Foresters will benefit from reduced input costs for electricity and fuel if the ETS is suspended. This element is particularly important for integrated forestry and wood processing firms. This benefit should also be offset against compensation claims.
In short, there would be some criticism from foresters arising from suspension of the ETS and claims for compensation should be considered in good faith. However, for the reasons given above, the Crown would not be in an exposed negotiating position and that any legitimate claims would be modest. They would be unlikely to exceed $10-20 million. This would be a small price to pay relative to the compensation agreed with Maori landowners last year to support the ETS and relative to the large costs to firms and households that would be avoided for the period of the scheme’s suspension.
Vote:May 5th, 2010 at 12:14 pm
Rodney – it’s hard to compete with the smiley John Key isn’t it. On the ETS, it’s the smile of buffoon.
Vote:May 5th, 2010 at 12:16 pm
“What makes you think it is about reducing emissions?”
This is of course the indictment of all our media – that we face these taxes without seeing how any emissions will be changed. We’ll pay money into a system that will be a holding pattern, if not allowing increased emissions, and the general public will be largely ignorant of this, because there is nowhere they can go to have the ETS explained in a way which makes sense. The Government websites which refer to it are hopeless.
Vote:May 5th, 2010 at 12:19 pm
I also think the whole post is ridiculous. OReilly seems to be a global warming zealot and I doubt many members of his organisation agree with him. The basis of the justification for an ETS has been clearly and comprehensively been shown to be fraudulent and by refusing to accept the evidence the government is becoming a party to the fraud, at the expense of the people who elected them. Aussie escaped the effect of the current depression and Rudd’s pragmatic decision shows why they forge ahead and we fall behind.
Vote:May 5th, 2010 at 12:21 pm
Two questions:
Vote:1.) Where is the money going to?
2.) Do you think that if there hadn’t been a massive gaping hole in the accounts leading to borrowing hundreds of millions of dollars a week that the scheme would still be going ahead?
May 5th, 2010 at 12:28 pm
Carbon trading is a scam. Like the TOW claims. Taxpayers have had it up to here being burdened with paying taxes to financially underpin such scams.
If corporations bought into this scam in the first place, then fuck’em. They should have known that it would one day be exposed for the farce it is. I don’t feel any need to bail out directors who jumped onto this bandwagon and therefore demonstrated their inability to make wise business decisions.
Cancel the ETS and to hell with any compensation. Serve them right for taking part in such a fascist and risky scheme. (By risky I mean gambling on the permanency of a government policy that was from the start fraught with unworkable and poorly considered concepts)
Vote:May 5th, 2010 at 12:32 pm
Thankyou Rodney.
We could rate this post alongside the non post about Key returning home for a photo opp rather than supporting NZ business in the middle East. Emotional rubbish to come home for people killed in an accident just doing normal days work. And that’s what it was. No different than the three killed in a car crash last week. Did Key come back for those funerals. Very poor quality advice and thinking.
Vote:Worse he is then seen in fatigues in Afghanistan.
What an insult to the Arab nations the we need to nurture for our survival in a trading world.
I guess its the difference between being a business person who makes and sell stuff versus a gambler in the money market.
May 5th, 2010 at 12:38 pm
Of course, if the ETS, or in fact any ETS in NZ would have any discernible impact on CO2 levels (leaving aside arguments on the necessity aside for now) might help. If NZ disappeared today into a mighty green suckhole along with our entire net CO2/methane/N2O/Other trace GHGs (theoretical GHGs that is) output, the measurable impact on plant earth’s climate would be one of: 1) nil, 2) zip, or 3) nada. So go ahead with an ETS, just acknowledge that it has absolutely no physical affect, and thus that the entire reason is propaganda/spin. It’s expensive symbolism.
Vote:May 5th, 2010 at 12:42 pm
“If National did this, they would be suffer much the same fate as Kevin Rudd just has (fallen behind in the polls for the first time ever), but arguably even more.”
DPF is saying: stuff the country and its inhabitants, put the spineless National Party interests first. Bloody incredible!
Vote:May 5th, 2010 at 12:46 pm
Actually, I’ve just had another thought on this- Get Nick Smith to pay the damn compensation. Out of his own pocket.
Vote:May 5th, 2010 at 12:55 pm
Where does one start?
David Farrar comments that if National was to follow its major trading partners and delay the introduction of the ETS it would be breaking its election promise and suffer at the polls.
Well what about National’s promise not to be a world leader on climate change?
John Key says in his campaign blog, 23 october 2008, just 3 weeks before the election:
“I told the group that while we must play our part in the fight against climate change, we shouldn’t be a world leader, because that will come at the expense of our economy.
That is why we will amend labour’s emissions trading scheme so that we balance our environmental responsibilities with our economic opportunities.
It’s a simple principle, but an important one. I see no sense in New Zealand exporting emissions – and jobs – to another part of the world”.
Well we have been catipulted into world leadership over the last six months. If there was any doubt whatsoever about that, Kevin Rudd removed it last Tuesday when he confirmed that Australia’s ETS would be delayed until at least 2013.
What about John Key’s promise not to be a world leader David? None of our three major trading partners, Australia, China and the US have ETSs or are likely to do so any time soon.
We will be the first and only country in the world to have such a comprehensive ETS.
A country specific ETS.
Not an EU ETS which applies to a whole trading block. There is a huge difference between the EU ETS which is administered by the EU. It disadvantages all countries in the EU. Around 80% of European exports, are sold internally in the EU. New Zealand on the other hand will be imposing a cost on itself and its exporters so we can pay massive subsidies for forresters, for trees planted well before the ETS was even first dreamed up, little lone enacted into law.
David you are concerned National will lose votes over the ETS?
Well I have just finished a seven meeting tour through Waikato and Taranaki over the last two days. I was astounded at the interest and concerned expressed about the ETS. I spoke to over 20O plus many more shopkeepers and pedestrians.
Media attended all but one meeting, and that was in Otorohanga where Karen Bridgman was told that either 90% of the audience where members of the local National Party electorate committee or 90% of the National Party electorate committee were in the audience ( she can’t recall).
National Party supporters are very concerned and their support is being taken for granted.
As for the massive subsidies that we supposedly have to pay to foresters, Rodney Hide has done an excellant post, and I may say more later.
Vote:May 5th, 2010 at 12:57 pm
Its been a long honeymoon for the Nats, but my feedback is the ETS will mark a turning point for a large number of people. Its just another tax by subterfuge, with a singularly dishonest justification.
It makes Key look like yet another untrustworthy politician at last, when a lot of his respect so far has been earned by him for putting common sense and rational argument above political ideology and government power. It might garner support from a small group of left and green activists, but I doubt they vote National. If my farming and business contacts are anything to go by, it will lose a lot of support from the primary support base for National, irrespective of the “yes minister” arguments for proceeding that are put forward above by DPF.
This could still be turned into yet another poll boosting display of rational and common sense leadership by Key. In spite of DPF’s arguments, its not too late … yet.
Vote:May 5th, 2010 at 12:59 pm
I thought I’d fix that up for Mr O’Reilly since he is speaking for business interests – isn’t he? Capitalism? Wealth production? Is any of this ringing a bell with him or are only crony capitalists acceptable nowadays?
Vote:May 5th, 2010 at 1:01 pm
A nice admission that all this is about is government revenue, rather than protecting the environment.
Vote:May 5th, 2010 at 1:11 pm
What is the point of voting National? I mean, I voted National, but I don’t know what the point of that exercise was.
May as well have voted for Lucy Lawless.
Vote:May 5th, 2010 at 1:15 pm
Could someone, anyone, please answer four simple questions re the ETS ?
(1) How much will it cost ?
(2) Who do we pay it to ?
(3) What will they do with the money ?
(4) Will this money reduce the total amount of carbon produced ?
Vote:May 5th, 2010 at 1:42 pm
(4) Will this money reduce the total amount of carbon produced ?
It would seem not because money spent on trading carbon units is a penalty for producing the gases, nothing to do with the costs [research and development or whatever] to reduce those particular emissions.
Vote:Right?
May 5th, 2010 at 1:45 pm
” John Key says in his campaign blog, 23 october 2008, just 3 weeks before the election:
“I told the group that while we must play our part in the fight against climate change, we shouldn’t be a world leader, because that will come at the expense of our economy.
That is why we will amend labour’s emissions trading scheme so that we balance our environmental responsibilities with our economic opportunities.”
Now that “We will be the first and only country in the world to have such a comprehensive ETS.” there is really nothing to stop Key from reviewing the situation, and expect public support.
It would be like USA and everyone else abandoning Afghanistan, except New Zealand saying “No, we will lead the world and keep our token troops there even although we will be wiped out.”
Vote:May 5th, 2010 at 1:55 pm
“But scrapping the entire scheme is daft and would lead to higher Government debt.”
Actually, Nick Smith has told Parliament that over the next few years the ETS will cost the Government money. The current Crown Kyoto surplus is about $250 million, which (if you believe any other country will pay it to us) we will receive after 2012. But Nick Smith says the effect of the scheme will be to turn this Crown surplus into a liability as a result of the payout to pre-1990 foresters. So the ETS will lead to higher Government debt. Scrapping it would deliver lower Government debt.
Vote:May 5th, 2010 at 2:43 pm
DPF with all due respect you have this the wrong way round, Rudds popularity has been going down ever since Abbott used the ETS as a tool for smacking him around. Rudds backing down on the ETS is a sign that he needs to start stemming the loses, the ETS is desperately unpopular on both sides of the Tasman.
Vote:If Goff had any sense he would be calling on Key to cancel it to save “the many not the few”, “ordinary hard working kiwis etc” he of course is far too dumb for that.
May 5th, 2010 at 3:25 pm
As a proud reader and frequent contributor to DPF’s blog I must confess this is the most insulting posting to my intelligence I’ve ever read.
Either DPF take us for fools or his allegiance to the National Party has blinded him completely. What is it?
[DPF: I've supported an ETS type mechanism since around 1994 - long before National did]
Vote:May 5th, 2010 at 3:42 pm
OMG we are really screwed now aren’t we?
John Key should be convicted of fraud. How on earth will we catch up with Australian incomes now? It was near impossible before ETS, and now, the gap will accelerate.
Vote:May 5th, 2010 at 3:46 pm
Any attempt to increase costs at this time is economic treason. Our economy like the rest of the world is in a fragile state
Only a fool would rush in and set about to destroy any recovery.
What going on in these peoples heads.
The world wont end tomorrow if we delay the introduction
It has been a rushed unresearched and analysised piece of law.
There is no consensus around the science.
There was more consensus around the world being flat a that time and look how right that was
Time Jk and the Nats stopped panicking and took big breath and started to think about the consquences.
Vote:May 5th, 2010 at 3:55 pm
“The world won’t end tomorrow if we delay the introduction”
Right, because our emissions are around 0.02% of the world total.
Vote:And we are reducing by only a fraction of that.
And leaving out agriculture at this point so it is again a fraction of whatever the previous bloody fraction was – something well below 0.0025% – probably less than a couple of days of an Icelandic volcano.
May 5th, 2010 at 4:11 pm
What an ill-considered ramble that was…
The comments; “Even if you do not believe the claimed indirect warming effects of carbon emissions (which there is debate about), even the direct warming effects (which there is almost no debate about) makes a price on carbon sensible.” this comment borders on willful ignorance.
“If National did this, they would be suffer much the same fate as Kevin Rudd just has (fallen behind in the polls for the first time ever), but arguably even more” Shameful…that poll ratings are more important than doing what is prudent for the country.
“But scrapping the entire scheme is daft and would lead to higher Government debt.” Only if the ETS receipts were used for revenue collection.
Vote:May 5th, 2010 at 5:29 pm
A nice cartoon from Jo Nova in Oz (but needs party labels adjusting)
Vote:http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/cartoons/cliff-public-opinion-ppt.gif
May 5th, 2010 at 7:18 pm
Key has already budgeted for the new tax revenue to be generated by the ETS. This will come from two primary sources:
1. The first is a massive uplift in dividends from state-owned electricity companies as they pass their ETS-based costs onto the electricity user.
2. The second is a rather more insidious. As increased energy costs are passed on to every good and service provided in NZ, and then GST is levied on top of that, our Government can expect a healthy increase in their GST take. This will be buried and indistinguishable once GST is increase to 15%. Some rough calculation suggests to me that the government will secure an extra $50m GST per year, simply from the additional GST derived from that 5 cents/litre ETS costs. That is petrol and diesel only. I can’t begin to imagine how much extra GST will be generated from increase consumer good and services costs. 100′s of millions more.. every year.
Tax tax tax. That’s our National Party.
Vote:May 5th, 2010 at 7:33 pm
“Tax tax tax. That’s our National Party.”
100% correct. Tell me, who leads this bunch of spineless and rapacious cowards? None other than Neville Key.
Vote:May 5th, 2010 at 7:43 pm
I wonder about the forestry too. No little back-room deal for the Kaiangaroa Forest settlement was there?
Like compensation if the ETS doesn’t go ahead?
I agree with KK, the fix is in, it’s a done deal and it’s obvious that nothing we citizens say, or even the actual science, is going to make any difference. At least in the short term.
We shall not forget however. I’m going to donate at least a month of my time come the next election to trying to make sure National suffers for this betrayal of the people of NZ.
Vote:May 5th, 2010 at 7:58 pm
“Tax,tax,tax. That’s our National party” so true KK. They have no choice simply because the bastards lack the real balls to do the things that really need to be done. So many examples on how they can slow our demise into third world status.
Keep up with Aussie, what a fucking joke, if we are lucky the Aussies might take pity on us and stop the plans coming in from NZ because there will shit loads of them when this crap starts to kick in.
Vote:May 5th, 2010 at 8:09 pm
Yvette, its 0.2% of the world’s emissions. Not 0.02%.
Nevertheless one five hundreth of the world’s emissions is a drop in the bucket.
Particularly when you realise that we could cut our emissions by shooting all of our 3 million dairy cows. The only problem with that though is that would still leave 300, yes 300 million cows alive and well in India all giving off methane, and not a single Indian farmer paying a cent!
David I am surprised that you have supportted an ETS since 1994. More so since foresters freely admit they were not even aware of carbon credits and ETSs, little lone planted trees because of promised massive taxpayer subsidies in the 1990s. And those 1990s foresters are now to be given significant credits courtesy of everyone in NZ who uses electricity.
It is no wonder that the Hamilton Grey Power president read my speech to his meeting on Monday when their guest speaker failed to show up.
Vote:May 5th, 2010 at 10:08 pm
I would have some measure of respect for National if they were transparent about their need to screw more tax out of us. That measure would become morph back to support if they put the bloated state on a diet or, better, organised a stomach staple.
But no. We are instead being fleeced by this ETS/GST plunder, and junk science is used to guilt us into accepting this fate. I will not be made to feel guilty.
I wonder what the annual value of all retail goods and services is in NZ? Does anyone know? The RB estimates a 0.4% increase in inflation driven by ETS costs, so it would be possible to calculate the whole-economy GST windfall resulting from the implementation of the ETS stealth tax.
Vote:May 5th, 2010 at 11:20 pm
Ok, so here’s my ETS-creates-GST-windfall calculations. I’m not an accountant or economist, so happy to have anyone chime in with where I’ve screwed things up (which could be the entire theory..!)
It looks like Retail Sales are running at about $5.5b per month, and automotive spending at about $1.4b per month. So a total of $6.9b per month. This figure comprises $6.13b in spend and $766m in GST. The GST figure is simply worked back from retail spend. Not sure how to cross-check with crown accounts for actual GST take.
The RB has calculated that the ETS will add 0.4% to inflation. This creates an extra $24.5m per month in sales, from which the crown could expect a GST take of an additional $3.68m per month.
Now, time to factor in some hard truths. People aren’t earning more so increased costs have to be either absorbed (spend substitution from one GST-earning sale to another) or funded from selling assets or drawing down more debt. If we were to assume a 50:50 split that would reduce the governments GST windfall to only $1.84m per month, while seeing private debt increase faster.
What isn’t factored into this is decreased economic activity resulting from increased taxation (this would lower govt windfall), nor the inflationary impact of fuel oil which is likely to be around 2.7% ie much higher than that general inflationary impact of 0.4% estimated by the RB (this would increase govt windfall)
Waddya recon?
Vote:May 6th, 2010 at 8:56 am
The other thing they’re not factoring in KK is people like me who own small businesses and are about at the point of going fuck this bullshit, selling my house, closing down the business and starting again in Aussie.
I’m 44 – should have done it years ago when Helen and friends were making a stuff up of it all, but no I thought, the Nats will get back in and set things to rights, except what I forgot during the long winter of Helengrad was that they’re all politicians and they’re all sleazy takers, liars and troughers.
There’s something more to this ETS though, mark my words. Overseas we’ve seen back-downs from politicians as the heat goes on and the science is proved to be shonkey. These guys though are just excuse after excuse, ignore ignore, spin spin, they’re taking a big risk for a reason. I wonder what it is?.
This site, which I’ve been loyally following since 2004, has been turned into Nationals testing pit for what bullshit they can get away with. Really I’m just over it all and I can’t see it get any better any time soon.
/rant
Vote:May 6th, 2010 at 9:17 am
Same age, same thoughts, and I’m also self employed. Aussie is looking pretty good to me except I have a wide and active friendship network (which I really value) and the thought of semi-abandoning that in pursuit of a better income leaves me betwixt and between. That said, quite of our friends have already shifted to Oz so the balance is tipping.
Vote:May 6th, 2010 at 9:54 am
Yeah – mine’s pulling the kids out of schools and friendships but the way things are going do I really want my kids growing up here?
Business has already dropped 60% this year ( mostly from lack of orders from the US ) and now I’m looking at about $100 per week rise in personal costs, the rise in business costs is too depressing to think about so I’m ignoring that at the moment.
Sigh….how long do you wait before pulling the plug?
Vote:May 6th, 2010 at 10:16 am
Sadly Krazykwi and Chicken Little you are not alone.
There is widespread opposition to the ets in rural communities.
There is widespread misinformation.
Just last week the New Zealand Herald editorial said the United States was a signatory to and has financial obligations under Kyoto. After I contacted them they ran a correction in Saturday’s Herald advising the US had not ratified Kyoto and had no financial obligation.
For every press release or speech National put proudly trumpeting that agriculture will not come in until 2015, I try to match it by reminding farmers that they should be in no doubt whatsoever they will face costs from July this year. Meat and Wool NZ estimate it at $3800 pa and another $3800 in 2013.
Many rural people are very disappointted with the National Party. If Kiwiblog is indeed a front for the National Party lets hope National Party MPs read these comments and have the good sense to ensure we follow our major trading partners and the ETS is delayed. Not to do so runs the very real risk that a number of them will lose their jobs at the next election.
Vote:May 6th, 2010 at 12:17 pm
The Australians are taking a sensible approach to this scam.
No need to lead from the front on ETS action
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/no-need-to-lead-from-the-front-on-ets-action/story-e6frg6zo-1225862745738
This is a sound position. It doesn’t mean you are a climate change denier. If most economies broadly similar to Australia – that is, the US, Canada, Japan, South Korea and western Europe – were embracing tough emissions reduction targets under ETS-style policies, Australia should do the same to pull our weight and to participate in a carbon market.
I believe that evidence is strongly against AGW nonetheless if most other countries including Australia, US, China and India NZ would be foolish to ignore this and not cooperate with other countries. NZ should be taking a sensible approach like Australia rather that trying to lead the world. The only reason I can see for the ETS is a tax grab when it is clear there will be no agreement.
Vote:May 6th, 2010 at 12:23 pm
Correction
The Australians are taking a sensible approach to this scam.
No need to lead from the front on ETS action
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/no-need-to-lead-from-the-front-on-ets-action/story-e6frg6zo-1225862745738
This is a sound position. It doesn’t mean you are a climate change denier. If most economies broadly similar to Australia – that is, the US, Canada, Japan, South Korea and western Europe – were embracing tough emissions reduction targets under ETS-style policies, Australia should do the same to pull our weight and to participate in a carbon market.
I believe that evidence is strongly against AGW nonetheless if most other countries including Australia, US, China and India went along with something like the ETS NZ would be foolish to ignore this and not cooperate with other countries. NZ should be taking a sensible approach like Australia rather that trying to lead the world. The only reason I can see for the ETS is a tax grab when it is clear there will be no agreement.
Vote:May 6th, 2010 at 12:24 pm
Correction
The Australians are taking a sensible approach to this scam.
No need to lead from the front on ETS action
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/no-need-to-lead-from-the-front-on-ets-action/story-e6frg6zo-1225862745738
This is a sound position. It doesn’t mean you are a climate change denier. If most economies broadly similar to Australia – that is, the US, Canada, Japan, South Korea and western Europe – were embracing tough emissions reduction targets under ETS-style policies, Australia should do the same to pull our weight and to participate in a carbon market.
I believe that evidence is strongly against AGW nonetheless if most other countries including Australia, US, China and India went along with something like the ETS NZ would be foolish to ignore this and not cooperate with other countries. NZ should be taking a sensible approach like Australia rather that trying to lead the world. The only reason I can see for the ETS is a tax grab when it is clear there will be no agreement.
I believe that evidence is strongly against AGW nonetheless if most other countries including Australia, US, China and India went along with something like the ETS NZ would be foolish to ignore this and not cooperate with other countries. NZ should be taking a sensible approach like Australia rather that trying to lead the world. The only reason I can see for the ETS is a tax grab when it is clear there will be no agreement.
Vote:May 6th, 2010 at 12:27 pm
Sorry for the multiple posts . There was a problem with editing and deleting a post
Vote:May 6th, 2010 at 3:05 pm
I received this letter from a National MP earlier this week:
Point 1; There is nothing we can do to impact the climate. There are no private property rights revoked if the ETS were to be abandoned. Point #1 is pure lies.
Point 2; The Reserve Bank estimate 0.4% inflation. Add to this 2.7% inflation in the price of fuel oil. I challenge the government to release their methodology for calculating this cost. Failure to do so makes them no better than the fraudulent climate scientists who hid and/or doctored their data and method
Point 3; Glad this was mentioned. Europe’s carbon trading scheme is estimated to comprise more that 90% fraudulent transactions. It’s deeply corrupt.
Point 4; Cue Tui. This is a tax grab, and our socialist government is committed to fleecing most of us so they can pay their collation partners
The ETS will add 5c to the price of every litre of fuel, and 0.4% to inflation. The ETS is the most massive, subversive tax grab in modern times.
Vote:~~~~~~
@Chicken Little – Not sure about if/when we’ll leave. The less their is hold us the sooner that day will come. Just had my sister and her family emmigrate- better job prospects.
May 6th, 2010 at 3:13 pm
“If Kiwiblog is indeed a front for the National Party..”
Isn’t the Pope a devout/rabid Catholic?
Vote:May 6th, 2010 at 3:28 pm
John – I’m interested in getting some thoughts on this post: ETS creates GST windfall.
Do you have any tame economists who could look at the whole-economy impact? I certainly don’t buy the bottom-up $165 per ‘typical’ household line.
Vote:May 6th, 2010 at 11:05 pm
A typical house-hold will have a cost of $165. Yeah Right.
What about business owners, self employed, farmers, share milkers who have their income reduced? Yeah right, says the government.
In talking to some other business’s that produces goods, particularly any one self employed, farmers, and in particular share milkers, will notice that as they pay for cartage and spreadage of fertilizer etc., that all the extra costs comes of their bottom line, so reduces their profit (income). Dairy farmers will notice their power accounts, and just a supposed nebulous percentage is quite an amount on dairy shed farm expenses. many times the the typical house-hold ,
Sure the big milk companies and power companies are trying to find ways to be help efficiencies for their customers and all this usually means more costs and time in implimenting, triallling unproved these gadgets and ideas through proto types. as if one size fits all.Yeah right , Just ask telcom XT ! ! !
Any produce going off will have extra costs imposed, so farmers and business ‘s will have more reductions in income. This is sort of hidden as the so called “small” “uneconomic” will succomb and be merged to enlarging business’s that can better absorb costs and gain efficincy from larger scale of size.
It really means that small business’s that produce will just be come more unsustainable in the name of sustainability
Sure efficiencies must be found and will be continously driven, but surely truth should be involved. Carbon poison?? Global warming??? A belief system that seems more religious as it seems man must be believe in something, and impose it on every one.
Vote:May 6th, 2010 at 11:08 pm
seems uneditble
Vote: