The NZ ETS
October 26th, 2010 at 9:00 am by David FarrarThe Greenhouse Policy Coalition have published a fact sheet on the ETS. Specifically they compare it with the European ETS and the ETS proposed for Australia.
This is very useful as in 2011, our ETS will be up for review. Labour and the Greens both say that our ETS is far too weak, and far greater costs should be imposed on businesses and consumers. So it is very useful to be able to compare it with the European scheme especially. First they not the different profiles:
New Zealand’s emissions (2008 figures) primarily come from agricultural gases (46.6%) and energy (45.3%) while the EU’s emissions are largely from energy (79.1%), with agriculture just 9.6%. There are few internationally recognised mitigation options currently available for agricultural emissions, while renewable energy generation is a proven industry.
That is a key aspect – 47% agriculture compared with 10% for Europe.
New Zealand generates much more electricity from renewable sources – 73% in 2009, with a 90 percent target for 2025, as against a European target of 20% of total energy coming from renewables by 2020 (15% in the UK). Europe therefore has much more scope than New Zealand for increasing renewable generation.
This is also key background. Europe can fairly easily reduce emissions by replacing non-renewable power plants with renewable ones. We already have four times the proportion of renewable energy.
The combination of these two factors means it is much harder (ie expensive) for NZ to reduce emissions.
Emissions coverage
The EU: Covers 43% of emissions, rising to 50% from 2013. There are no plans to cover methane from farm animals or agricultural nitrous oxide from fertilisers or global warming synthetic gases like sulphur hexafluoride.
New Zealand: From 1 January 2015 the NZETS will cover nearly all emissions, including all six gases identified by the United Nations.
So 100% coverage vs 50%. This means that even if one left agricultural gases out such as methane, we would still be covering more than the Europe scheme.
Sector coverage
The EU: Combustion and most industrial sectors are currently covered, with aviation due to enter in 2012. From 2013, petrochemicals, aluminium and ammonia will be included. Agriculture will not be covered.
New Zealand: Virtually the entire economy will be covered by 2015. Currently, the scheme covers forestry, industrial processes (includes iron and steel, aluminium, cement, glass and gold), stationary energy (includes coal, natural gas and refining petroleum) and liquid fossil fuels.
If no other country in the word is including agriculture by 2011, then the logical thing to do in the review is to suspend its inclusion into the scheme.
Allocation of free emission units
The EU: Historically, free units have been allocated to many companies at levels well above 100% of their emissions. Average allocation across EU countries in 2009 varied between 92% and 152%. Allocation also covers more sectors than in New Zealand. The scheme will feature more auctioning of units (ie companies having to pay for them) from 2013, with a sinking cap, but 100% allocation is still on the cards for significantly trade-exposed sectors, including those the NZETS covers.
New Zealand: Trade-exposed companies are to be allocated units at a 60% or 90% level on an intensity basis, ie emissions relative to output.
So again NZ is “more pure” than Europe.
Phasing out of allocation
The EU: The number of units allocated to companies will be cut by 1.74% each year from 2013.
New Zealand: Unit allocation will be cut by 1.3% each year from 2013.
The phase out rate is one of the few areas where Europe is moving faster. But considering the lack of movement from the US and China and India, this is fairly prudent.
Carbon pricing
The EU: Has no price caps, but from 2013 member states will be allowed to influence carbon prices by bringing forward auctioning of units within the overall cap.
New Zealand: Has an optional price cap for carbon until the end of 2012, set at $25 per unit (one unit = one tonne of CO2-e), with companies until then required to surrender one unit for every two tonnes of emissions, an effective halving of the $25 price.
This is the major difference. It halves the cost for businesses (and consumers) by way of effectively a subsidy from the taxpayer. Unless a change is made this will end in 2013.
Now of course some say there should be no ETS at all, but that is as likely as NZ implementing a flat tax. The real debate next year will be over what changes are made to the ETS – the National Government will review the ETS and decide on some changes. Labour and the Greens will also draw up policy on what changes they want. It will be very interesting to compare the policies after the review is done.
My position is pretty simple. China, India and the US are essential to any meaningful reduction in emissions. Unless those three countries have announced concrete plans to reduce emissions, then there is little point in NZ self-flagellating itself by having the purest ETS in the world. Having no ETS and no emissions reduction target at all is not politically viable as doing nothing would invite trade and reputation repercussions. We need to be doing enough so that we are not seen as the problem, but not so much that we end up exporting jobs to other countries.
Tags: carbon emissions trading, ETS
October 26th, 2010 at 9:08 am
I’ll believe it is urgent when our masters stop flying everywhere first class.
Vote:October 26th, 2010 at 9:11 am
“Having no ETS and no emissions reduction target at all is not politically viable as doing nothing would invite trade and reputation repercussions.”
“Invite” is one thing. The reality of trade sanctions is another. Why should people not write this claim off as pro-ETS propaganda?
The ETS, a worldwide scam of epic proportions and promoted by charlatans and fraudsters is one thing I can never forgive Nick Smith and National for. Nick Smith is a disgrace and has no business being in any party that truly professes to promote free enterprise. National deserves to be voted out for this idiocy. Smith should have been kicked out of the party years ago.
Vote:October 26th, 2010 at 9:18 am
>Having no ETS and no emissions reduction target at all is not politically viable as doing nothing would invite trade and reputation repercussions.
What trade repercussions will the lack of an ETS have for Australia, India, China, and the US? Are we planning to ban imports from these countries? And if not, then why would we think there will be trade repercussions for us?
Buying in to an ETS means we’re also promoting notions like food miles and the evils of air travel. They will negatively impact us regardless of any ETS. The best thing we can do is to help ensure there will be no post-Kyoto agreement.
Vote:October 26th, 2010 at 9:22 am
The Copenhagen Summit identified $3 Trillion of ETS savings/taxes/contributions. (Whatever label applies).
The ‘Overhang in the World Financial system is $3 Trillion as well. What a fluke!!
Vote:October 26th, 2010 at 9:24 am
“Europe can fairly easily reduce emissions by replacing non-renewable power plants with renewable ones”
Really? How?
This is a common assertion, but I’ve yet to see any evidence.
Vote:October 26th, 2010 at 9:33 am
Whoops.
500 Wind Station Turbines rising to 7200. One of the biggest white elephant herd in history.
Vote:October 26th, 2010 at 9:46 am
@ Guy – Nope, that won’t do it. The UK is dreaming if it thinks the tidal/wave stuff is going to make a dent as well. The solar farms in the sahara might cut it, but there’s a huge amount of geopolitics there to be resolved first…
Short story… nobody’s got it easy, and I’d suspect that pundits in Europe might point to NZ and say exactly the reverse of what DPF’s said here. They use their CO2 intensive energy infrastructure to produce GDP… we use agriculture to produce GDP. Both produce emissions that fall under Kyoto accounting, both signed up to Kyoto.
Tough luck. Pay up, or change your ways.
Vote:October 26th, 2010 at 9:54 am
Sorry, but I’m getting dizzy with the above “candid” reasoning about the need for an ETS.
The truth of the matter is this scam is a new tax concocted by socialist Labour and carried out (inflicted on New Zealand) by Nick Smith and John Key, brave Labour-lite leaders.
New Zealanders are paying more for petrol, electricity, and overall living expenses for no gain whatsoever. No spin can change that UNDENIABLE fact.
Vote:October 26th, 2010 at 10:01 am
I don’t think anyone would suggest the quest for renewable energy is not a noble one, if the ETS schemes around the world encourage this are they so bad?
In New Zealand we can manage our agriculture emissions by setting limits to how intensive our agriculture can actually become, and with careful land use. Proper sustainable forestry is the way to do it and it is completely viable, we have plenty of space to do it.
If the ETS encourages this sort of sustainable infrastructure in NZ than I am all for it.
Can anyone tell me why any of this would happen without some sort of regulatory motivation?
For the record I am agnostic on anthropogenic climate change and very suspicious of the motives of the UN, but I also can’t see a future for our species if we don’t get in sync with our environment.
Vote:October 26th, 2010 at 10:03 am
An important aspect is agriculture vis a vis energy. European agricultural interests are making a big thing about ‘food miles’ and unfortunately for NZ it is an easy concept to ‘sell’ to purchasers and politicians. I am sure European farm animals fart as much as NZ ones. The issue which has not really been explored is how much energy (electricity, natural gas and liquid fuels) go into producing and delivering a kg of meat, butter or milk). I suspect the overall energy requirement is far less for NZ produce delivered to Europe than locally produced European produce. The margin could narrow with the intensification of NZ dairy farming. The problem is – how does one sell this concept to European customers and politicians.
Guy – Infratil considers that wind farms are the way to go for the intermediate future – and they are very financially savvy. The ‘saturation’ point for wind farms is when their erratic behaviour adversely affects the national grid and the minute by minute scheduling of generation. These aspects are well understood and are being given proper consideration for wind farm projects. Essentially, wind generation complements hydro stations. The average hydro station has double the installed capacity as the expected average output, and their output can be varied rapidly. Thermal power stations ‘hate’ having their output varied – they run best when delivering full design output continuously – steam turbines in particular take a long time to start up, and each start reduces life expectancy through fatigue as parts warm up and cool down. Hence the practical saturation point for wind power is dependent on the amount of hydro generation on the grid. Transpower recognises the need to beef up the grid as need be to deal with erratic behaviour of wind turbines, and modern electronics, computing and communications will also contribute to a ‘smart’ power system.
The other ‘beauty’ of wind power is projects can be undertaken incrementally, with extra increments after the first (for each site) being possible at relatively short notice. This is in contrast with the ‘all or nothing’ capital expenditure associated with more traditional power projects. Manapouri for example was recognised as an ideal hydro station location in the early 1900′s but would have required for the time a horrendous initial investment.
Therefore wind turbines are not a ‘white elephant’ but are an important part of NZ’s ‘green’ energy production.
Vote:October 26th, 2010 at 10:04 am
Woops: We signed up to Kyoto because Pete Hodgson believed that there would be an annual $500 million cheque coming to New Zealand every year…
Vote:October 26th, 2010 at 10:05 am
“Therefore wind turbines are not a ‘white elephant’ but are an important part of NZ’s ‘green’ energy production.”
Typical one dimensional National Party outlook.
Great article here on windpower and derelict turbines all over the world. Even in places where the trees grow sidewards. Windpower is a sham and a fraud.
Read how con artists and scammers have made a fortune from gullible fools in government issuing subsidies for an idea that just will not work. Most of the blame for this waste and damage and environmental degradation can be sheeted home to environmental groups- brainwashed school children victimised by quasi-religious academics, power seeking socialist liars posturing as Green Party politicians and other leftist loons, and all paid for of course by the ever suffering taxpayer, and most of us knew it was a scam right from the start-
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/wind_energys_ghosts_1.html
Vote:October 26th, 2010 at 10:28 am
Excuse me, what trade repercussions ?
Given many of our major trading partners do nothing, and countries like France have dropped carbon tax plans?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/24/business/global/24iht-carbon.html
Do we impose trading sactions on France and other trading partners due to this?
I say, put your money where your mouth is, and have the government introduce trade restrictions with countries who do not belong to kyoto or have some form of carbon tax.
Vote:Absolute hypocrisy.
October 26th, 2010 at 10:38 am
Well we have just seen off the Aussie Whipp and his attempt to subvet our film industry and really its time we did the same with these charlatans including Nick the Dick.
Vote:October 26th, 2010 at 10:43 am
“power seeking socialist liars posturing as Green Party politicians and other leftist loons” – predictable.
Vote:October 26th, 2010 at 10:43 am
The problem is Viking, his boss John Key also is signed up for this and as far as I see the National caucus is behind him on it.
Vote:October 26th, 2010 at 10:50 am
“doing nothing would invite trade and reputation repercussions”
You can keep repeating this but it wont make it true.
Vote:October 26th, 2010 at 10:56 am
John Gibson ““power seeking socialist liars posturing as Green Party politicians and other leftist loons” – predictable.”. Predictable AND ACCURATE. There’s a reason why the green party is more often than not referred to as the watermelons. They are reds using the myth of AGW and the feel-good PR of environmentalism to gain ever-more control over the lives of ordinary people. They use the myth of AGW as an excuse for compulsion and they use weasel words like “encourage” (yes, I’m referring to your comments above, Shunda) when they really mean “force”.
DPF, your continued assertion that doing nothing would invite trade sanctions has no basis in fact. Our biggest trading partners (China, USA, Australia) have no ETS or carbon tax, so from where would these sanctions come?
I think the real test will come when the legislation is reviewed in a year or so. It’s just a pity it won’t happen before the next general election. If the scam was reviewed and further cost imposed on the public, it could well spell electoral defeat for the leftists who currently occupy the treasury benches.
[DPF: The sanctions would come from the EU, and they may not be Govt led, but consumer led. China and US are too big to have action taken against them]
Vote:October 26th, 2010 at 11:21 am
The only reason Nations will refuse to trade with us will be if due to having an ETS our costs associated with its implementation make our exports too expensive, or our impoverishment leads to us being unable to import their goods in return. That of course is the natural state of Socialism.
Vote:October 26th, 2010 at 11:27 am
Offshore_Kiwi : “They are reds using the myth of AGW ” – the conspiracy theory approach to science ?
Vote:October 26th, 2010 at 11:28 am
I’m sure that DPF is intelligent enough to know that there is no anthropogenic climate change problem.
Vote:But the thing is, that most friends of the UN and Mont Pelerin accolytes have bought into the idea that global governance is both inevitable and desirable. The ETS and other Agenda 21 plans are means to that end.
October 26th, 2010 at 11:31 am
No, John, the observable facts approach to science, you useful idiot.
Vote:October 26th, 2010 at 11:36 am
Ross Nixon – “have bought into the idea that global governance is both inevitable and desirable. The ETS and other Agenda 21 plans are means to that end.” : Kiwiblog should have branded tin-foil hits made – it sounds like there is a market for them.
Vote:October 26th, 2010 at 11:46 am
Is John Gibson another 10/10/10 eco-fascist who believes that making videos of school children being blown to pieces for doubting AGW is funny?
Vote:October 26th, 2010 at 11:47 am
With a world wide recession makiing everyone keep a tighter hold on their dollars I highly doubt there are many people who will give a rats arse where a product comes from when standing at the supermarket shelf. I don’t give a fig where a products made…all I care about is “Is it what I want and is the price right?”…I’d say most people are the same. Sure you get the Wendyl Nissian types but who cares a fuck about them…?
Vote:October 26th, 2010 at 11:56 am
“The sanctions would come from the EU”. Fine let the socialist fucks bring it on. We produce food, we do it well, the EU produces bureaucrat’s, they do it well. I think you will find that when stomachs start growling bureaucrats are not good eating. The EU faces a potential food crises in the coming years, I’m sure any sanctions will mean nothing. We are continually been screwed around by these arseholes, may hunger be their reward.
Vote:October 26th, 2010 at 11:59 am
Redbaiter – I could easily write a commentary on the Americanthinker article to show it has limited applicability to the current NZ situation. it is probably not too surprising that early wind turbines had systemic failures, so did 19th century submarine telegraph cables and many other pieces of then new technology. In its early days, Bell Company did not think much of automatic telephones, so much so that when they bought out a phone company with automatic service, they ripped out the automatic equipment and hired a team of ‘number please’ ladies.
You also forget that NZ engineers have a tradition for making things work. OK, there has been the odd failure, but not to the extent of rendering particular technologies unusable. If any nation is going to get wind turbines to work, it will be NZ. Even if Chinese made turbines are procured, NZ engineers will help the Chinese to ensure they will work. This becomes a win-win all round. The ‘great leap forward’ days when quality was at the bottom of the list are long since gone. Remember too, NZ engineers were pioneers in designing earthquake resistant electricity substations etc, including persuading manufacturers to produce suitable equipment. This was not a bid achievement considering the small size of NZ market.
OK, while ACT Party seems to be a necessary bit of furniture to attract the ultra right wing vote, National needs to appeal to a much wider political spectrum to survive, and this includes taking on board a few far right wing ideas but diplomatically telling ACT where to stick it most of the time.
Vote:October 26th, 2010 at 11:59 am
I’ll believe it is urgent when our masters stop flying everywhere first class.
Will flying Business or Economy somehow produce less emissions?
New Zealand generates much more electricity from renewable sources – 73% in 2009, with a 90 percent target for 2025, as against a European target of 20% of total energy coming from renewables by 2020 (15% in the UK). Europe therefore has much more scope than New Zealand for increasing renewable generation.
Gee wonder what the percentage of Nuclear power plants are in Europe? The reason we have a higher renewable source or power is because the majority is produced by hydro. In a lot of European countries their power generated by Nuclear, which while not renewable, is very low emission.
Belgium = 51%
France = 75%
Finland = 33%
Germany = 26%
Hungary = 43%
Slovakia = 53%
Sweden = 35%
Switzerland = 40%
UK = 20%
Of course there are also EU countries with a small percentage of power from Nuclear:
Vote:Netherlands = 4%
Austria = 0%
October 26th, 2010 at 12:00 pm
No Ross I am just a grandfather who wants a safe world for his grandchildren to grow up into. The mis-information spread by the anthropogenic global warming deniers is slowing down the process of doing something about the problem.
Vote:October 26th, 2010 at 12:03 pm
Eventually the ETS will have to be re-branded. No government will voluntarily give it up now, even when when the proof against CAGW reaches incontrovertible status.
But if we really want to tip the balance of trade in our favour we should take a tip from the Chinese and fix our dollar low.
Vote:October 26th, 2010 at 12:13 pm
RightNow – “the proof against CAGW reaches incontrovertible status.” – really ? If there really was “incontrovertible proof” against AGW would the worlds governments still persist with dealing with a nonexistent problem ? That doesn’t make sense.
Vote:October 26th, 2010 at 12:54 pm
John – agreed it doesn’t make sense, if they were genuinely attempting to reduce CO2 emissions would Cap and Trade be the right mechanism for example (apart from funnelling hundreds of billions of dollars of fees into the pockets of those in the know)? Would they really all still fly around the world and drive around in limos if they thought CO2 was so bad?
Vote:Anyway – that’s not going to be decided in the comments on this blog. I remain convinced that CO2 is not the big culprit, and that climate change we see is roughly 60 year cyclical variations overlaid on a longer term cyclical variation that currently resembles a linear incline with a start-point matching the end of the LIA.
October 26th, 2010 at 12:56 pm
“If there really was “incontrovertible proof” against AGW would the worlds governments still persist with dealing with a nonexistent problem ? That doesn’t make sense.”
Of course it does not make sense. That is why the left (idiots and liars like you who cannot even be honest about their posting name) are promoting it.
Vote:October 26th, 2010 at 1:22 pm
Redbaiter – “who cannot even be honest about their posting name” – ummmm is that supposed to be ironic ?
Vote:October 26th, 2010 at 1:49 pm
Flying first class creates more emissions than business or economy. The reason it costs more to fly is:
– fewer people per unit area = more planes = more emissions
– bigger seats, more space = more weight = more emissions
– lots of food and wine = more weight = more emissions
– more service = more wait staff = more weight = more emissions
So yes, if they really cared, they’d fly economy. Better yet, they’d hold teleconferences or some other meeting mechanism that didn’t create emissions. If the most militant believers don’t believe enough to actually change their behaviour, what hope for the rest of the world? Behaviour change will only happen when it’s economically advantageous – i.e. I’ll change to renewable power when it’s cheaper. Hydro is cheaper, so I use lots of that. Wind isn’t don’t think you’ll find me using much of that (assuming I get a choice, which at the moment I don’t).
Vote:October 26th, 2010 at 1:53 pm
[DPF: The sanctions would come from the EU, and they may not be Govt led, but consumer led. China and US are too big to have action taken against them]
Pure speculation, David.. this has no merit. I think you have to look at where the money goes once it is collected.. Carbon trading will be in the trillions soon, as long as the scare is perpetuated. This is where John Key is looking..in the future. Not this bullshit about trading with EUrope. Didn’t Helen Clark align herself up with the UN while PM? John Key is following suit.
Vote:October 26th, 2010 at 2:03 pm
Per Capita percentages are a disingenous method for measuring gas output because it is not reflective on the substantive issue relating to output and that is volume.
Vote:The percentages quoted in this report although accurate and representative don’t express the tonnages involved and or any mitigating factors E.U. countries are adopting to reduce volume.
New Zealand is in a unique situation geographically in that we are surrounded by a huge carbon sink, the Pacific Ocean, that acts as storage for some gases emitted from New Zealand sources. Second to that is the fact that N.Z. emissions are so low as to be almost negligible in effect to contributing to climate change.
October 26th, 2010 at 3:50 pm
DPF….
The ETS, young nicky smith, and little timmy gosser are a load of crap.
So timmy is going to Mexico (via Brazil @ $1000 per diem?) to talk about AGW and trade. Big deal, and more taxpayers dollars wasted (a la Copenhagen).
Face facts, DPF. The ETS is a con and so is the whole AGW porridge.
For those of us actually working to get National re-elected (and to send Little, Gofffather and Ms Kelly back to the pits or coventry) in 2011 and 2014 your position is, at best, untenable.
Get with the programme, fella. The ETS (etc) is Helengrad stuff.
Vote:October 26th, 2010 at 3:53 pm
The fact we are stiil proceeding with the ETS, even though it has been exposed as one of the greatest frauds foisted on, primarily, the Western world, just goes to show that there are stiil too many Marxists on our treasury benches – or at least useful idiots to the cause of the Marxist agenda; which are little better.
Lets be clear, the ETS is just a global tax to bring the Judeo-Christian West to its knees, and thereby usher in a global Marxist one world government. This, in conjunction with the push for the West to become “Multicultural”, is just another string to the bow to aid the Marxist one worlders in their achieving a global Marxist hegemony.
Of course the Muslims are happy to use the Marxists in the mean time until they are positioned to implement their global Islamic hegemony. But whoever gets there first; the Marxists or the Islamists – we LOSE!!!
We must overthrow those sought on our ultimate subjugation and destruction – time is short!
Vote:October 26th, 2010 at 4:16 pm
Kris K – bloody hell. Spend less time in your Bible and more time in your garden.
Vote:October 26th, 2010 at 4:21 pm
“Kris K – bloody hell. Spend less time in your Bible and more time in your garden.”
Typical communist- no counter argument, just arrogant disapproval at Kris’s expression of “unapproved” ideas. Anyone who doesn’t lie down and accept the socialist status quo like some pathetic brainwashed lamer must be attacked and discredited.
“Members and front organizations must continually embarrass, discredit and degrade our critics. When obstructionists become too irritating, label them as fascist, or Nazi or insane …. The association will, after enough repetition, become “fact” in the public mind.”
–Communist Party, Moscow Central Committee 1943
Vote:October 26th, 2010 at 4:37 pm
Kris
What the hell do you mean “We lose”
How would “We lose” if the world placed a lot less importance on religion?
Take away middle eastern superstition and the world would be a lot safer place.
Vote:October 26th, 2010 at 4:41 pm
Would anyone who honestly believed this Global Warming nonsense go and build his beachside mansion containing seven fireplaces and nine bathrooms near sea level. Thats what Al GORE did in the past year.
Vote:October 26th, 2010 at 4:46 pm
The ETS is a tax/trade scam based on scare mongering and rubbish science.
Vote:October 26th, 2010 at 5:01 pm
“How would “We lose” if the world placed a lot less importance on religion?”
Anything to say on the ETS lamer?? (it is the subject of the thread)
Vote:October 26th, 2010 at 5:16 pm
“You also forget that NZ engineers have a tradition for making things work.”
You know about Denmark do you? One of the most oil rich countries in Europe. Massive supplies of wind. All that money. All that wind. All that sophisticated engineering and expertise. They cannot get it to work. Yet NZ, driven to the door of poverty by looney leftists in National and Labour, unable to attract skilled labour of any reliable calibre, managed by buffoons and the dregs of the world in administrative terms, is going to make it work. Yeah right.
BTW- I am not an ACT supporter. That you think I as a Conservative would support such a clueless bunch of confused liberals as today control ACT shows your political perspective is even more limited than your engineering knowledge. My ambition is to get you sad politically destructive commies out of National and restore it to the party its principles specify it should be. You are all traitors to what the party professes to stand for.
Vote:October 26th, 2010 at 5:17 pm
Is there any way that Nick Smith can be kicked out of the National Party? Is he actually sane? Is his medication working? I can not work him out. Unless! Yes he must be a socialist.
Vote:October 26th, 2010 at 5:20 pm
The National Party is packed with socialists Jimbob.
We need a conservative party in New Zealand. Stick a Tea Party up em….
Vote:October 26th, 2010 at 5:59 pm
I see the grinning Nick Smith has made it into the latest Dairy News. The mad doctor says if their is no replacement for Kyoto in Cancun the ETS is here to stay. Good work you loon, penalise NZ while most of the world gives this global warming come carbon tax the fingers. Tax cuts, yeah fucking right, the loon goes on to say “Debate would be how fast other sectors were brought into the scheme and how fast protection for emitters was phased out” and we all know what that means. These bastards are nothing but thieves .
Vote:October 26th, 2010 at 6:16 pm
Jimbob – any way of kicking Nick out of the National Party? No way! Just look at his thumping majority in what should be a safe Labour seat. He was Streets ahead (pun intended) in 2008.
If John, Cabinet or Caucus did not acceot his environment stance, they need only to let him know, and he will quietly lay off. This is obviously not the situation. John key obviously sees him as a core member of the team.
Vote:October 26th, 2010 at 10:29 pm
>> Having no ETS and no emissions reduction target at all is not politically viable as doing nothing would invite trade and reputation repercussions. <<
DPF: Do you have any evidence at all to back up this statement?
Oh sure, the Green movements of the world might cry foul (when have they ever not?), and self-serving EU farmers might make up some bollox about "food miles" (or else find another reason to protest), but how on earth could any state really install sanctions against NZ for not having an ETS when most other western countries do not either?
Vote:October 27th, 2010 at 6:27 am
The problem with solar, wind and tidal power is that they provide interrupted and uncertain power supply (its not windy and sunny all the time and the tide comes in for only a few hours each day). For this reason power companies the world over can only pay the suppliers of these green energy sources a substantially discounted price for their power compared to providers whose energy sources guarantee supply (coal, HEP, oil, gas, thermal and nuclear). This discount makes it difficult for providers of green energy to make a profit and so these energy sources rely heavily on government subsidies in order for the builders to have any hope of any even modest return on their investment. When you add the massive visual pollution issues with wind and solar, as things stand right now, it is next to impossible to replace traditional energy sources in any meaningful way – with current technology.
Wise heads in the US outside the environmental leftists lobby groups, the Indians and the Chinese fully understand this dynamic and they don’t wish to commit economic suicide by taxing traditional power sources so much that plants are mothballed – Obama stated that is was his intention to effectively shut down the coal industry. What does that do to America’s industrial capacity when 40% of all power generated in the US comes from coal?
NZ’s reliance on HEP does give it a leg up in the green energy stakes but we are screwed in dry years as evidenced by our skyrocketing spot market prices and the need for government intervention to enforce power savings usually through public information campaigns. During the last bad dry spell NZ came perilously close to brown outs. NZ’s problem is the RMA and the ability of professional green protestors to roam the countryside disrupting resource consent processes dragging them out and forcing the power providers into costly and time consuming Environment Court hearings with less than certain outcomes. Some changes have been made but still many needed MW of new power generation from proposals with negligible environmental impacts have been shelved due to aggressive environmental group opposition.
New technologies will emerge over time to solve many of these issues but only if markets are left alone to provide providers and entrepreneurs with undistorted pricing signals.
Vote:October 27th, 2010 at 7:45 am
DPF said: “Having no ETS and no emissions reduction target at all is not politically viable as doing nothing would invite trade and reputation repercussions.”
Beyond the mere speculation or (political) spinning on your part, what are the facts to back your statement up?
Vote: