Rudd’s super tax backfires

June 8th, 2010 at 8:04 am by David Farrar

is fighting for his political life with his u-turn on an ETS, and his proposed super mining both backfiring. A Nielsen poll just out has Labor at 47% on the two party preferred poll and the Coalition at 53%.

The super mining tax appealed to Labor. They thought everyone would support it, as only a dozen companies or so would be paying it. The tax would be a massive 40% of any profits above the risk free rate of return. Yes, how dare a company make a profit greater than what you can get by sticking your money in the bank.

But it has backfired massively. Western Australia especially has seen it as an attack on the entire state, plus (unlike NZ) many Australians know how important the mining sector is to Australia’s prosperity and have rejected the tax.

Tags: ,

56 Responses to “Rudd’s super tax backfires”

  1. tvb (4,553 comments) says:

    And they broke their promise on political advertising so they could run attack ads against the mining companies. Mining brings a lot of wealth to Australia and this tax is seen as punative and will cost jobs and future investment. I just wish we were able to win the same argument here.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. John Ansell (832 comments) says:

    Meanwhile 20-50,000 Kiwis march for the right to remain poorer than Tasmania.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Adolf Fiinkensein (2,703 comments) says:

    Now you know why Australians regard NZers with a mixture of contempt and disdain. A nation of dumbarses who want prosperity without work.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. gazzmaniac (2,306 comments) says:

    Rio have shelved plans based on the uncertainty, as too have Xstrata who have cancelled an expansion of the copper mine at Cloncurry (QLD) and a new coal mine. Queensland also sees this as an attack on the entire state; the states not the Commonwealth own the minerals and it is a blatant grab by the federal government which seems to be getting bigger every time you look at it. On top of that the Queensland government is poorly managed and hasn’t balanced the books for years, and if they lose the mining royalties their credit rating will be damaged further.

    It’s not just the West who are annoyed – Queenslanders are too. On the up side, Kevin ’07 will be out before he becomes Kevin-10.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. gazzmaniac (2,306 comments) says:

    Oh yeah, forgot to mention, Kevin ’07 is also under fire for his handling of boat people and for his failures with the home insulation scheme. Everyone has finally realised that he’s an idiot.
    And Adolf, Aussies don’t think of NZers with disdain and contempt – at least I haven’t experienced that since I’ve been living over here.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. davidp (3,585 comments) says:

    The u-turn on the ETS is only a problem because Rudd used language like “greatest moral challenge of our time” to describe global warming. On the other hand Abbot’s Liberals have reversed their policy of stupidly supporting Labour’s ETS and have gone up in the polls. People have rewarded Abbot because the ETS is unpopular.

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

    “Meanwhile 20-50,000 Kiwis march for the right to remain poorer than Tasmania.”

    “Now you know why Australians regard NZers with a mixture of contempt and disdain. A nation of dumbarses who want prosperity without work.”

    That’s not what the slimy ‘greens’ sneeringly told their members in Christchurch over the weekend – they can have it all for nothing.

    I guess their slimy MP leaders base prosperity upon stealing from ‘greedy’ ‘rich’ taxpayers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. berend (1,690 comments) says:

    DPF: fighting for his political life with his u-turn on an ETS

    I know you’re trying to support your leader, but you really think Key will go down in the polls if he scraps ETS? NZ gets the biggest tax hike in years the coming months: ETS + GST increase. I can’t see how Key will go down in the polls if, simultaneously, you claim that tax decreases are popular.

    [DPF: I think National going back to Parliament before 1 July 2010, and trying to scrap the ETS would be the biggest political blunder they could make, and probably the one act that could make Phil Goff Prime Minister. The ETS is not a tax that the Government gets net revenue from – if you scrapped it, you’d need to pay the forestry sector out of general taxation]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. TimG_Oz (866 comments) says:

    Yep I never thought this guy could shoot himself in the foot worse than what he had done. Nor did I think that anybody would flock to Tony Abbott (which they have done).

    All the guy has at the moment is to chant “Working Families” a few times and that’s about it. There’s Nothing else left…..

    I’m off to meet two Lib candidates today…. It will be interesting to hear what they have to say

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. gazzmaniac (2,306 comments) says:

    TimG – you forgot about him harping on about Workchoices.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. m@tt (636 comments) says:

    “Western Australia especially has seen it as an attack on the entire state”
    It sounds like they have perception issues. 40% of profits above the risk free rate of return is hardly going to stop any of these companies functioning and would arguably be good for the states population in the long term.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. gazzmaniac (2,306 comments) says:

    M@tt – you’re right in one respect, it probably won’t shut down existing mines.
    What you fail to see is that mines are temporary things, and if a company can invest in Australia with the super profits tax, or in Canada without it, all other things being equal they will choose Canada. Over time, it will export all that capital to the other side of the pacific.
    The other side of the coin is that is subsidises loss-making operations to the tune of 40% of the losses. What this means is that for a country like China, who are more interested in security of supply than making a profit, the Australian government will subsidise their mineral program by 40% of the losses. The net result is a shitload of Australian money heading offshore.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Manolo (14,166 comments) says:

    “Kevin Rudd is fighting for his political life with his u-turn on an ETS..”

    That’s spin on DPF’s part. Rudd is going down because of his “super tax” on mining. Australia is a country with a large number of investors compared to NZ, and they are the people turning their backs on Rudd.

    Rudd’s ETS decision is not to blame for his decline in the polls.

    Wait for the compound impact of price hikes and inflation as result of the unfortunate new tax. the ETS. Key simply DOES NOT care about the common New Zealander.

    [DPF: You’re wrong. The fall in the poll first happened with the ETS u-turn. You can pretend otherwise in your fantasy world but it did]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. wreck1080 (3,999 comments) says:

    I wouldn’t compare mining in aussie with mining in NZ.

    Aussie is a large boring pancake. Who cares if you dig a few holes in the desert.

    We do need to be more careful in NZ, but they should certainly mine …. i like this keyhole mining they talk about.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. trout (954 comments) says:

    The proposed Oz Mining tax can be compared with Cullen’s ‘rich pricks’ tax. The socialists have the idea that business profits go straight into the pockets of the rich to be spent on fast women and faster cars. They also believe they can make better use of the money – a fallacy. They do not understand that profits are the lubricant of business, they are the resource for R&D, environmental protection, business expansion, and creation of jobs. Rudd has proved to be a great disappointment – look past the rhetoric and what do you get? – nothing.

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

    @Manolo: I disagree. The ETS backpedal is definitely PART of why Rudd is losing support. It’s not because people supported it, however. It’s that it’s reflective of Rudd not having a backbone or coherent policy platform. If he’d kept the ETS and implemented the supertax, maybe he could’ve claimed they were somehow related (by building up unthinking environmental hysteria as has been done here with regard to mining), but by just implementing the supertax he comes across as petty and spiteful, as somebody who implements policies unfairly, without a lot of thought and with an eye to short-term (political) gain.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Viking2 (11,672 comments) says:

    Yep, you would impose and keep a super tax on international mining co.’s with mobilie capital just when your biggest purchaser is investing enorous amouns of cash to purchase supply and supply lines. Intelligent strategy not.
    Yesterday I posted about China buying the richest cooper ore prospect in the world. Ok it was Afganistan but they will make it work and they are repeating the exercise all over the world. Never again will any country hold the Chinese to ransom when it comes to minerals nor soon oil.
    To atempt to rort your biggest customer maust be the height of stupidity. but then Rudd is just that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Gooner (919 comments) says:

    [DPF: You’re wrong. The fall in the poll first happened with the ETS u-turn. You can pretend otherwise in your fantasy world but it did]

    So why has Abbott gone up in the polls when he was put in place on the back of opposing the ETS?

    [DPF: That is a different issue. Abbott is up in the polls for a number of reasons – Rudd has had a series of cock ups from the insulation fires to the asylum seekers to the ETS flip-flop to the super tax on mining.

    I can quote you numerous Australian commentators who say Rudd’s u-turn on the ETS was a major factor in his decline in the polls.]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Manolo (14,166 comments) says:

    “The ETS is not a tax that the Government gets net revenue from.”
    Audacious, but hard to believe, statement to make and exactly the same words Nick Smith uttered a few weeks ago.

    How can you say the government’s position will not be positive after the windfall gains produced by electricity SOEs and petrol tax increase? Would you share your figures with us?

    [DPF: Have a look at the 2010 budget. Off memory the Govt will “lose” around $900 million on the ETS in the next year because the amount of revenue collected from it is massively below the credits that will be paid to the forestry sector]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Manolo (14,166 comments) says:

    “So why has Abbott gone up in the polls when he was put in place on the back of opposing the ETS?”

    Because in his “fantasy world” DPF does not want neither see nor call the ETS for what it is: a new tax.
    Sadly, partisan considerations have prevailed over the damage the ETS will cause to our economy. But hey, who cares about the country as long as John Key is firmly on top.

    Shame on the National Party and its acolytes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Kimble (3,955 comments) says:

    DPF is right, his popularity saw its biggest decline with the ETS back flip.

    Rudds problem is that he won supporters by calling “climate change” the greatest issue ever to face mankind one year, but then lost them when he didnt follow through.

    The mining tax was an almighty fck up. Labour did think that the country would be behind them on it, and while a lot might, many credit the mining industry with helping australia through the GFC. This opinion certainly grates with Rudd and co because they want everyone to believe that it was Labours mega-Keynesian, very wasteful, spend-up that saved Australia.

    (I wonder how many economists on Labour payroll warned them that by installation insulation in all Australian homes all at once, that they would have to import most of it, and that once the project was completed the local demand for insulation would collapse, destroying the local industry Labour intended to help?)

    So now he has to do another backflip by pushing through “emergency” advertising to counter the mining industries “misinformation”. He actually said before the election that there wouldnt be advertising spending exactly like this, and that he would resign if there was. Idiot.

    The thing is, I dont know what misinformation there has been. It just seems that the government and mining disagree on the outcome of the policy. A difference of opinion is not misinformation, so it appears that Labour is slipping into NewSpeak in their first term.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Murray (8,803 comments) says:

    Australians also know that an ETS is a load of feel good wank.

    Someone let John Key know will you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Camryn (481 comments) says:

    ETS – I just can’t understand why we’re progressing on this issue when the way the world counts carbon seems designed specifically to shaft countries like us. Even if you consider the climate science to be settled (I don’t) there’s still a glaring issue in the way the supposed externality is being internalized.

    Specifically:
    * Carbon from oil, of which NZ is a net consumer, is counted against the point of *consumption*.
    * Carbon from primary production and forestry, where NZ is a net producer, is counted against the point of *production*.

    In short, we get shafted both ways. Saudi Arabia, in a contrasting example, produces and profits from all the oil it extracts without having to consider carbon and doesn’t have to pay the carbon cost of any of the primary produce it imports except to the extent it is built into the price (which it won’t be, for competitive reasons, unless all producers have to).

    I don’t think NZ should do anything until the world agrees that carbon counts uniformly against either the producer or the consumer of the product that adds carbon to the cycle (and ideally, what constitutes adding carbon to the cycle since cutting down a tree doesn’t add carbon to the atmosphere unless it’s not replaced and then only when the end product breaks down or burns). Generally, the price should incorporate all costs including externalities so that demand adjusts appropriately and everyone knows that… it’s just that we need to be consistent about where the externality is first accounted for to avoid distortionary effects.

    NB. When I say carbon I mean any greenhouse gas.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Kimble (3,955 comments) says:

    “So why has Abbott gone up in the polls when he was put in place on the back of opposing the ETS?”

    Isnt this obvious? People who did support Labour because of the climate change issue, now see less difference between Labour and the Liberals and might not support Labours other policies. If Rudd had reneged on his promise to say sorry you would see exactly the same thing. There are also those who dislike the breaking of a pretty fundamental promise, and switch allegiance because of that.

    Then there are others who just voted AGAINST Howard rather than FOR Rudd. Their allegiance is delicate to begin with.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. RRM (10,099 comments) says:

    “But it has backfired massively. Western Australia especially has seen it as an attack on the entire state, plus (unlike NZ) many Australians know how important the mining sector is to Australia’s prosperity and have rejected the tax.”

    This statement isn’t entirely fair on NZ voters. Australian mining is their flagship industry, more like dairying (/tourism?) here. That is why civic-minded Australians are so pro their mining industry.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. gazzmaniac (2,306 comments) says:

    DPF – John Key was elected on the promise that NZ wouldn’t be a leader in emissions trading legislation, and that we’d wait to see what the rest of the world was doing. He wasn’t elected to introduce a bloody great new tax and derivatives industry, and be the only ones in the world with one. What has changed?

    It’s also a load of BS about the forestry industry. They should be in credit for growing trees, so if we walked away from the ETS now then nobody is out of pocket. IIRC when the trading scheme (or the fart tax prior to that) was introduced NZ was going to nationalise the credits from forestry, so in effect they’d just be getting back what was theirs all along.

    Also, if it’s not a tax then where does all the money go? The ETS stinks and everybody knows it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. side show bob (3,410 comments) says:

    Yeah way to go Camyrn and gazzmaniac put the fucking boot in, this shit about the forest industry is just another pitiful attempt like the many other lines of bullshit spoken by our esteemed snake oil salesmen. To claim this is not a tax defies belief, so the government are doing all the this for the love of mother Earth, give me a fucking break. It’s con, Shonkey and idiot boy should get a job refining plutonium given the amount of spin they put into this farce.

    [DPF: The Government will lose money on the ETS – a shit load of money. The 2010 Budget has details. And the reasons it is being done is to pay for any liability under the Kyoto Protocol, and to have a price on carbon in anticiaption of a future international agreement. If no such agreement eventuates I expect the ETS will not continue to ramp up]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Bevan (3,232 comments) says:

    [DPF: You’re wrong. The fall in the poll first happened with the ETS u-turn. You can pretend otherwise in your fantasy world but it did]

    AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! I am sick and tired of hearing this angle.

    Take it from someone living in Australia and reading the local papers – the public IS NOT against Rudd because he dropped the ETS. They are against Rudd for calling it the ‘Greatest Moral Challenge of our time” then deciding it is not when it got a little too hard.

    The locals are pissed off because the can see plainly that Rudd flat out lied to them and was in the process of the biggest Tax con Australia has ever seen – and they are feeling rightly pissed off about it! The commentators and letters to the editor are not pinning that the dumping of the ETS will doom the planet – they are having a good chuckle and asking KRudd what happened to the ‘greatest moral challenge of our time’!

    Also, notice how when his first attempt at a Tax grab (ETS) fails, he’s moved onto another one (Super Profits Tax)… That emporer has no clothes guv.

    [DPF: I agree that the Rudd backlash is because of his having overhyped it. However it also shows that scrapping an ETS doesn’t mean you go up in the polls. I repeat my view that the one thing which could make Phil Goff Prime Minister would be for Key to do what Rudd did]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. flipper (4,328 comments) says:

    Never mind about Rudd’s mining tax.

    Of greater import is that in NZ Mad Nicky Smith is pressing on with his ETS (which anyone with a Standard 4 education can see will use up valuable political capital) when he should be suspending it until US of A, Japan, Australia, India, China, South America, Africa etc have implemented a SIMILART SCHEME (the claim that Europe has one is specious) because ….

    There is absolutely no empirical evidence:

    That AGW is causing an increase in “greenhouse gases”
    That CO2 increases result in temperature increases
    That any increase in CO2 would be dangerous
    That temperatures in NZ or world wide are (or will) increasing dangerously
    That New Zealand will suffer any trade or other international difficulties

    If there was long term global warming, it would give rise to increases in GHGs.
    Why? Because the oceans are less absorbant as water temperature rises. However, such evidence as there is (Argo buoys for instance) are registering lowering not enhanced sea temperatures.
    Secondly, there is no evidence that human emissions of CO2 have the slightest effect one way or the other and, anyway, they account for only 4% of annual increases of a gas which already exists only as a trace component of the atmosphere.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Manolo (14,166 comments) says:

    Dear Mr. Key,

    I write to oppose the introduction of the Emissions Trading Scheme.

    This tax will add unnecessary costs to families and taxpayers at a time they can least afford it. It will produce no environmental gain; will provide windfall profits for state-owned electricity generators; and provide state subsidies to foresters. This is simply a wealth transfer of gigantic proportions that cannot be justified.

    Our trading partners are not implementing an ETS and are unlikely to. Further, New Zealand is in credit under Kyoto so there is no need to tax anybody. And, Kyoto is due to expire on 31 December 2012 so this tax is even less justifiable considering that. There was agreement in Copenhagen to extend Kyoto and there is unlikely to be an agreement going forward. But as you know, that ETS tax will remain regardless after that date.

    Your party campaigned on reducing costs on ordinary New Zealanders, and properly so after middle New Zealand was starved of cash during the Labour years. Yet, you are now imposing the biggest cost that has been seen for many, many years for no reason whatsoever.

    We cannot be a world leader because the rest of the world is simply not following.

    For the sake of middle New Zealand, who voted you in at the last election, scrap the ETS tax. You risk losing my vote and the votes of all family members. The same goes for many, many hard-working voters I know.

    Sincerely,

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. flipper (4,328 comments) says:

    Manolo – Excellent!

    Perhaps, David F , you could whisper this in JK’s ear. FaIling that all he will receive is GORE/NIWA/IPCC/MFAT rubbish.
    Time for a change JK!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. gazzmaniac (2,306 comments) says:

    Change to what? ACT get my vote anyway, but only for their economic policies. I really wish they’d drop the three strikes BS.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Repton (769 comments) says:

    Yes indeedy, time to stop listening to researchers and start listening to anonymous blog commenters!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Manolo (14,166 comments) says:

    The addresses to send this letter to are: n.smith@ministers.govt.nz and j.key@ministers.govt.nz
    Please join the e-mail campaign to convince these two uncaring politicians.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. krazykiwi (8,040 comments) says:

    Manolo – I’ve written to these guys on several occasions, pointing out flaws in the science, changes in global support/opinion and contradictory statements from them about this new tax.

    I’ve asked questions about our alleged Kyoto liability when Treasury appears to show us with an asset.

    I’ve asked why we ‘value’ carbon a EUE10.00 per unit when it’s $US0.10 (a dime!) per unit on the Chicago Carbon Exchange.

    There are two results: Either complete silence, or form-letter replies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. david@tokyo (260 comments) says:

    I can’t imagine that Rudd’s comments that, “Those Chinese f—ers are trying to ratf–k us”, would have given his image much of a boost either.

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

    The ETS would just add costs io all Australians for no return .. where the tax on mining was to help pay for Australian future super.. which if not addressed will became unaffordable.. taxing mining was their preferred option other than taxing all Australians later.. Western Nations that do not put in measures to face this inevitability of their aging population will soon pay the price.. Australia is lucky to have an option of a mining tax.

    The real problem of the world is western developed nations populations are aging.. and under developed poor nations are having to many children.. Developed nations and undeveloped nations both know their problems are insurmountable with hugh cost in the future… but are doing nothing about it today.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. flipper (4,328 comments) says:

    ETS – Writing to Smith or JK is a waste of time. There are departmental filters in their offices that remove all such matters from their gaze. And idiots at NIWA have captured Gluckman so John Key gets only what they want from, his “science advisor”.

    National Party Board members (including President David Goodfellow), a Electorate Chairs and local MPs are feeling the heat. One MP described it to me as a “hammering”. So, apart from David F whispering in a ear or two….let us keep hammering.

    W. English and G. Brownlee have enquiring minds. But again there are filters in the way.

    David F ….you are a sensible and opinion sensitive fellow. Curia should be telling you that the ETS is scientific, economic and political rubbish. Stand up to the filters DF. Tell them (JK et al) the truth!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. side show bob (3,410 comments) says:

    Even worst still I heard that Aussie toss pot Red Russell say on tele he was disappointed the taxpayers were subsidising the big polluters ( farmers for those who don’t know what this gripper is talking about ). What a waste of space this commie prick is, does he not think farmers are taxpayers. Perhaps the wanker should look at just who pays what in this country.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    @ side show bob

    Who should pay for pollution? The people who pollute, or Government revenue derived from taxation?

    SSB, you are just a pathetic excuse for the Feds lobby, whose argument seems to be that they should be, for some unknown reason, exempt from paying for the environmental damage they cause.

    Of course farmers are taxpayers. They pay for things like social services and policing from their tax, just as you and I do, and rightly so. But why should I, as someone who is not a farmer, pay for environmental degradation caused by farmers?

    That said, there are a hell of a lot of good farmers out there who care about the land and the streams and the rivers and the air.

    Unfortunately, there are also some scumbags, and they tend to be the big corporate farmers, who don’t give a shit about anything other than how much money they can make in the next twelve months.

    It is those ecologically (and, ultimately economically) irresponsible farmers who require a degree of State coercion to ensure they pay for the damage they do.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Manolo (14,166 comments) says:

    “Curia should be telling you that the ETS is scientific, economic and political rubbish.”
    Whatever. You can take a horse to the water but …. He will not entertain any contrary opinion. Good disciple of Key & Smith.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Hurf Durf (2,860 comments) says:

    Kevin ‘0Cretin.

    Speaking of clueless left wingers, Barack H. Obama II’s approval rating for his response to the oil spill is seven points lower than George W. Bush’s to Hurricane Katrina within the same time frame. I expect this to get blanket media coverage.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Chicken Little (633 comments) says:

    DPF says –

    If no such agreement eventuates I expect the ETS will not continue to ramp up

    And that is the exact reason it must be stopped. National will keep all the extra taxes this produces after 2012 to pay off their forestry mates ( how much are the Kaingaroa carbon credits worth again? ) and all the other parasites grabbing on with both hands. They’ll never be able to wind it back once it’s working.

    A 3 – 5% rise in power prices, 2% rise in fuel – added onto every product you see in the supermarket or any other store, plus off course to your own personal costs. If we trust business not to add another 1-2% rise on top of that ( power companies anyone? ) while being able to blame the ETS then we’ll have around a 3.5% increase in the price of everything.

    Then add the rise in GST – 2.5%

    So we’ll have a minimum rise of 6% in the cost of everything by 1st Oct 2010.

    Gee aren’t those tax cuts looking good?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. big bruv (14,217 comments) says:

    SSB

    “Even worst still I heard that Aussie toss pot Red Russell say on tele he was disappointed the taxpayers were subsidising the big polluters ( farmers for those who don’t know what this gripper is talking about ).”

    That may well be the only thing that Red Russ has ever got right.

    Under the Nat’s ETS scheme the rest of us ARE subsidising farmers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    big bruv 8:29 pm

    Under the Nat’s ETS scheme the rest of us ARE subsidising farmers.

    Face it, bruv. You and I are both paying for farmers’ greenhouse emissions.

    If you don’t want to pay for them through your tax, support the Green Party. The Greens would make the emitters, rather than the taxpayer, pay.

    FFS, I thought you guys on the right don’t like subsidies, but here is a massive subsidy to farmers that somehow you all seem comfortable about.

    Thoughts welcome?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. big bruv (14,217 comments) says:

    Toad

    “If you don’t want to pay for them through your tax, support the Green Party”

    Hell would fucking well freeze over before that happened.

    Nobody should be paying for emissions Toad because the whole thing is a crock of shit, not even the scientists can agree now.

    “The Greens would make the emitters, rather than the taxpayer, pay.”

    Bollocks..you would see this as another way of transferring wealth, this is why you are so keen on attacking the dairy sector, in the Greens opinion they are far to wealthy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    Oh, bruv – are you a wingnut who “believes” in wankers like Monckton, rather than opening you mind to genuine scientific analysis?

    Sorry bruv – if that is the case, not much point in me continuing in this discussion.

    I can never win against those who argue, with no logic, against the science.

    Bruv, this is like the Jesus crap we get here (and both hate) on the General Debate thread – don’t you get it that you are falling into the same mumbo-jumbo field if you cannot provide a factual and rational basis for your arguments here?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Hurf Durf (2,860 comments) says:

    Oh yeah, the computer models and the foreshadowing of doom by people like George Monbiot and Catherine Delahunty.

    Tell you what, why don’t you go and buy a nice little island in the middle of the Pacific where you and your friends can make your very own Dark Age paradise? That way when the time comes, you’re all in one convenient place to napalm.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Redbaiter (11,880 comments) says:

    “I can never win against those who argue, with no logic, against the science.”

    Toad, if you really did have logic on your side you wouldn’t need to stifle debate, to call those who challenge your position “deniers” and otherwise try and marginalize those who disagree. This is not a strategy that a logical person would engage in.

    Lastly, and the most telling point against you is your obsession with indoctrinating school children. This is a tactic that puts you in the same category as the Nazis (Hitler Jugen) the North Koreans and every totalitarian movement that ever existed. While you do this, to me you are never going to be anything but despicable.

    Its also another indication that you do not have logic on your side. If your arguments held water in any adult scenario, you would not need to stoop to the repugnant act of indoctrinating innocent and gullible school children. This just makes you doctrinal despicable monsters without an argument that can endure against mature and informed debate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. John Ansell (832 comments) says:

    Tony Abbott has got a long way in a very short time by distilling the Aussie emissions trading scheme into three little words and repeating them endlessly:

    BIG NEW TAX.

    Our ETS opponents can learn from this.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. krazykiwi (8,040 comments) says:

    International aviation fuel 100% ETS exempt

    As the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) from 1 July, looks set to strip at least $1.527 billion from taxpayers, those Kiwis emigrating from New Zealand will be spared the ETS’ cost on the fuel their plane consumes.

    “International aviation fuel into and from New Zealand is totally exempt from New Zealand’s ETS and that goes right back to the Kyoto Protocol itself,” says Don Nicolson, Federated Farmers President.

    ::
    “So our ETS makes it more costly to travel within New Zealand but not when it comes to jetting off to Cancun in Mexico, for the next big United Nations climate conference.”
    ::

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Paw Prick (43 comments) says:

    Toad.
    Are you aware that the technology to measure methane in the atmosphere is not even on these shores? Nor is the technology to measure livestock emissions. Given that NZ has farming systems unique to anywhere else in the world, I think you and your green friends should come up with some PROOF!! Before you start spinning this farmers are Evil propaganda. NZ farmers are the only farmers paying this. Farmers/productive sector are and have been for YEARS subsidising you!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Grizz (613 comments) says:

    I thought it was supposed to be an emissions trading scheme, not a carbon recycling tax.

    Given that the bulk of the product is consumed offshore farming should receive credits. 100kg of beef does not come from nothing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Viking2 (11,672 comments) says:

    Air NZ boosts fares

    By ROELAND VAN DEN BERGH – BusinessDay.co.nz
    Last updated 05:00 09/06/2010

    Air New Zealand has increased all its domestic fares by between $1 and $2 to cover the cost of the emissions trading scheme, which will take effect from next month, and higher fuel costs.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/3789149/Air-NZ-boosts-fares

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. flipper (4,328 comments) says:

    Reading some of the rubbish from the likes of “Toad” makes one wonder whether The Flat Earth Society is still alive and well in zitty (thankyou, Monckton) left wing (labour) and extreme left wing (green) circles. But at least it is not at Oxford, where the AGW hypothesis was soundly defeated.

    These extracts from the report of the 2010 Oxford Union debate nicely summarise matters:

    “Lord Monckton, a former science advisor to Margaret Thatcher during her years as Prime Minister, concluded the case for the proposition. He drew immediate laughter and cheers when he described himself as “Christopher Walter, Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, scholar, philanthropist, wit, man about town, and former chairman of the Wines and Spirits Committee of this honourable Society”. At that point his cummerbund came undone. He held it up to the audience and said, “If I asked this House how long this cummerbund is, you might telephone around all the manufacturers and ask them how many cummerbunds they made, and how long each type of cummerbund was, and put the data into a computer model run by a zitty teenager eating too many doughnuts, and the computer would make an expensive guess. Or you could take a tape-measure and” – glaring at the opposition across the despatch-box – “measure it!” [cheers].

    “Lord Monckton said that real-world measurements, as opposed to models, showed that the warming effect of CO2 was a tiny fraction of the estimates peddled by the UN’s climate panel. He said that he would take his lead from Lord Lawson, however, in concentrating on the economics rather than the science. He glared at the opposition again and demanded whether, since they had declared themselves to be so worried about “global warming”, they would care to tell him – to two places of decimals and one standard deviation – the UN’s central estimate of the “global warming” that might result from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration. The opposition were unable to reply. Lord Monckton told them the answer was 3.26 plus or minus 0.69 Kelvin or Celsius degrees. An Hon. Member interrupted: “And your reference is?” Lord Monckton replied: “IPCC, 2007, chapter 10, box 10.2.” [cheers]. He concluded that shutting down the entire global economy for a whole year, with all the death, destruction, disaster, disease and distress that that would cause, would forestall just 4.7 ln(390/388) = 0.024 Kelvin or Celsius degrees of “global warming”, so that total economic shutdown for 41 years would prevent just 1 K of warming. Adaptation as and if necessary would be orders of magnitude cheaper and more cost-effective.”

    and more …

    “Lord Whitty, a Labour peer from the trades union movement and, until recently, Labour’s Environment Minister in the Upper House, said that the world’s oil supplies were rapidly running out [in fact, record new finds have been made in the past five years]; that we needed to change our definition of economic growth to take into account the value lost when we damaged the environment [it is artificial accounting of this kind that has left Britain as bankrupt as Greece after 13 years of Labor government]; that green jobs created by governments would help to end unemployment [but Milton Friedman won his Nobel Prize for economics by demonstrating that every artificial job created at taxpayers’ expense destroys two real jobs in the wealth-producing private sector]; that humans were the cause of most of the past century’s warming [there is no evidence for that: the case is built on speculation by programmers of computer models]; that temperature today was at its highest in at least 40 million years [in fact, it was higher than today by at least 12.5 F° for most of the past 550 million years]; and that 95% of scientists believed our influence on the climate was catastrophic [no one has asked them].

    Lord Monckton repeatedly interrupted Lord Whitty to ask him to give a reference in the scientific literature for his suggestion that 95% of scientists believed our influence on the climate was catastrophic. Lord Whitty was unable to provide the source for his figure, but said that everyone knew it was true. Under further pressure from Lord Monckton, Lord Whitty conceded that the figure should perhaps be 92%. Lord Monckton asked: “And your reference is?” Lord Whitty was unable to reply. Hon. Members began to join in, jeering “Your reference? Your reference?” Lord Whitty sat down looking baffled. ”

    And so, Toad et al, “Your references are?”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. tom hunter (5,134 comments) says:

    FFS, I thought you guys on the right don’t like subsidies, but here is a massive subsidy to farmers that somehow you all seem comfortable about.

    When it suits your ideology (more government control and goal-oriented planning on AGW emissions) you’ll bitch about the opposition being greedy, capitalist freeloaders.

    When it suits your ideology (more government control and goal-oriented planning in transport via trains) you’ll happily subsidise greedy, capitalist freeloaders – and they love you for it.

    I already know you love big government – just don’t ever kid me that you hate big business. It’s not about transport or emissions – it’s about your endless desire for more government control and planning.

    “I can never win against those who argue, with no logic, against the science.”

    Your embarrassingly stupid attempts some months ago to use the solidity of quantum mechanics in the aid of AGW theory told me all I needed to know about your scientific understanding in general. Not a surprise when your formative years were spent ripping out TV cables rather than actually graduating in science.

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