ETS Debate continued
November 1st, 2010 at 9:00 am by David FarrarOn Tuesday I blogged a “fact sheet” by the NZ Greenhouse Policy Coalition which compared the NZ ETS and the European ETS,
On Thursday I blogged a response to it, from the British High Commission, pointing out NZ’s high emissions per capita, and what Europe is doing on top of having an ETS.
Today, I’m happy to present a response to that response, from the Greenhouse Policy Coalition. Personally, I’m finding it a very useful debate as the NZ ETS will have its first formal review next year – and a key issue will be comparing what NZ is doing, to what other countries are doing.
The GPC responds:
NZETS and EUETS
Response to Kiwiblog item “British High Commission on European ETS”
29 October 2010
The British High Commission’s comments on the differences between New Zealand’s and Europe’s emissions trading schemes and wider climate change commitments require a response. Specifically:
- The focus on per capita emissions is deeply misleading in understanding New Zealand’s situation, especially the role of agriculture;
- New Zealand’s experience with an ETS is much less than Europe’s; and
- New Zealand performs well in its own commitments outside the ETS.
Per capita emissions and agriculture
Focusing on per capita emissions is a standard approach used to make New Zealand and some other developed countries (e.g. Australia) look bad on climate change while making more populous countries (particularly China and India and some EU countries) look relatively good. It helps avoid the real issue, which is the total amount of carbon going into the atmosphere. New Zealand accepts its responsibility to do its share, but New Zealand isn’t the problem – action (or inaction) by the major emitters (China, the US, India, Russia and Japan) will determine whether global emissions keep rising or start to fall. Per capita figures are a red herring.
What if we measured emissions in terms of each country’s consumption of goods, i.e. the amount of carbon embedded in the products used in an economy? By this measure, New Zealand’s per capita figure would fall significantly, while that of the EU and the UK would rise dramatically.
The central issue to consider is why, with 73% renewable electricity generation (as against the UK’s 2020 target of just 30%), New Zealand rates so high on an emissions per capita basis. The answer is simple – our super-efficient agricultural sector. Our relatively small population produces a huge amount of highly-nutritious, high quality food largely for export to feed a booming world population. We do this so efficiently that the productivity (and hence emissions of agricultural greenhouse gases methane and nitrous oxide) per person is very high by world standards. The carbon footprint of our agricultural produce is not bettered by any of our competitors.
So, why don’t we just do something to reduce emissions from stock (methane) and fertilizer (nitrous oxide)? Many options for this have been suggested but none has yet proved cost-effective (methane) or they have limited regional application and are not yet recognised by the UN (nitrification inhibitors). New Zealand is doing more than its share in this respect. We have put $45 million into the Global Research Alliance on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases, which we are leading with the UN’s blessing. The challenge facing this group is to produce more food while reducing the intensity of emissions. The bottom line is the world needs New Zealand to keep producing food, but at the moment the only way to cut agricultural emissions is to cut stock numbers, which is no solution at all. If we stop producing, other, less efficient, producers will simply take over.
Efficiency is an important point. It’s not just about being efficient in terms of emissions per unit of production, which this country’s agriculture sector certainly is. New Zealand also produces food without subsidies that, in other parts of the world, such as Europe, soak up huge amounts of money.
It’s also worth noting that New Zealand has the only ETS with agriculture in it. While the agricultural gases methane and nitrous oxide are not due to come into the ETS until 2015, farmers are already paying a price for their emissions through increased fuel and electricity bills. Our food processing sector is fully in the ETS and gets almost no allocation of free emission credits, which will cost these companies tens of millions of dollars over the next year and more in future years.
New Zealand’s short ETS experience
The High Commission makes much of the EUETS having a cap on emissions, which the NZETS does not have. This is misleading on two counts. First, New Zealand does operate within a wider cap – its binding commitment to keep net emissions (total emissions less the carbon taken up by trees) at 1990 levels for the period 2008-2012. Furthermore, New Zealand’s ETS, like the EU’s, phases out the support of companies via free carbon credits – and at almost the same rate. Second, emissions trading is a brand new experience for New Zealand companies. The EU has been doing it for five years and has made some huge mistakes along the way. Its initial effort crashed the price of carbon because of over-allocation of emission credits.
Yes, it’s true the EU is on track to meet its 2020 target of a 20% reduction on 1990 emissions. However, this is due to the recession cutting production in emission intensive areas and not the ETS. Recent publications point to minimal gains from the EUETS. Michael Jacobs, a Visiting Fellow at the London School of Economics, says analysis shows the EU scheme is projected to cut just 32 million tonnes of carbon emissions in the period 2008-2012, which is tiny alongside annual European emissions of over 3500 million tonnes. The Climate Spectator (5 October 2010) reported recently that the EUETS had also failed to deliver a move towards renewable energy. The story reported on a survey of investment managers conducted on behalf of the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change, called Shifting private capital, suggesting this failure stemmed from the piecemeal nature of EU climate policy.
On balance, the NZETS isn’t looking too bad.
New Zealand’s climate change commitments outside the ETS
The High Commission focuses a lot on what the EU is doing outside its ETS to cut emissions. As noted above, most of the success here is due to the recession. The EU’s commitment to renewable energy is much less than New Zealand’s – an overall 2020 target of having 20% of all energy coming from renewables (i.e. including transport). The figure for the UK is lower – 15%. This compares with New Zealand’s renewable electricity generation last year reaching 73%, with a national target of 90% by 2025.
New Zealand’s international leadership of agricultural emissions research is also evidence of this country not sticking solely to the ETS in responding to the risk of climate change.
Finally, one contextual point leaps out as we consider New Zealand and the EU on climate change. The EU is a collection of 27 countries, which largely trade with each other and are all in an emissions trading scheme together. New Zealand is on its own; its major trading partners do not have a price on carbon. This is a dangerous spot to be in when your entire economy rests on trading with the outside world.
The things I am also interested in, in this debate, are:
- What will China do? If China does not sign up to anything meaningful, then by 2020 I estimate their emissions will exceed total global emissions in 2005
- What will the US do, if it does not do an ETS?
- Will there be a formal post-Kyoto agreement?
- Will the next few years of climate data strengthen or weaken the projections with regard to future warming
- what are the relative costs and benefits of mitigation vs adaptation.
Related posts:
- British High Commission on European ETS
- Are the Chinese on the right track?
- Modified ETS recommended
- Frog on Aid and Climate Change
November 1st, 2010 at 9:07 am
The answers to your questions are:
Vote:1. Nothing except for The Green Wall of China and shifting the balance more to nuclear and hydro energy and away from coal (but with total coal consumption still going up).
2. Nothing.
3. No.
4. Weaken.
5. Adaption is cheaper.
November 1st, 2010 at 9:21 am
My answers:
1. What will China do? Nothing.
2. What will the US do, if it does not do an ETS? Nothing.
3. Will there be a formal post-Kyoto agreement? No.
4. Will the next few years of data strengthen or weaken the projections with regard to future warming Weaken.
5. what are the relative costs and benefits of mitigation vs adaptation. Non-sensical waste of money.
Not that any of these will ever deter the incompetent Nick Smith and his boss John Key of continuing taxing us more and more.
Vote:November 1st, 2010 at 9:22 am
To summarise:
1. The EU are meeting their targets because they are in recession.
2. The only realistic way for NZ to decrease its use of CO2 is to slash agricultural production.
CO2 is a harmless trace gas. In order to reduce the amount of this harmless trace gas, the British High Commission would subject us to the misery of a major depression AND would be happy to see increased starvation. Sort of a Pol Pot solution to a ‘problem’ that doesn’t exist. This crosses the line between eccentricity and belief in pseudoscience (Nick Smith, the Greens etc) and evil.
Vote:November 1st, 2010 at 9:36 am
And the wider issue is that NZ is an easy target for international bashing whether it be on greenhouse gases, human rights or anything else. And the bashing is often done to try and hide deficiencies in the nations who do the bashing.
Vote:November 1st, 2010 at 9:38 am
The only reason why the global elite are persisting with this nonsense is that it gives them the opportunity to line their pockets and increase their power at the expense of the “ordinary people”.
can deliver it
Their is no nirvana of a perfect world with a perfect climate and anyone who thinks government policy and an increased bureaucracy needs their head read.
Vote:November 1st, 2010 at 9:39 am
The altruism of Nick Smith and the Government, of unilaterally taxing the methane emissions of animals may be viewed as noble and stupid by the International Community, however termites worldwide produce more methane and carbon emissions than all vehicular traffic and NZ animals combined. It would seem to follow that nations with great concentrations of termites should also unilaterally tax themselves, unfortunately they lack the stupidity of our leaders and have greater concern for their taxpayers.
Vote:November 1st, 2010 at 9:49 am
China’s actually doing quite a lot to reduce pollution (e.g. shuttering and consolidating small pulp and paper mills and aluminum smelters) but because of its strong overall growth net emissions will keep going up. In particular coal is always the lowest cost power source and China has invested heavily in coal-fired power production and will almost certainly continue to do so. They have huge aspirations for hydro post-Three Gorges but this is only ever likely to produce a small fraction of their overall power requirements.
Attributing emissions from export products to NZ is just part of the use of this climate change nonsense to advance an anti-free trade agenda. Of course we are pretty ready to ping China for their emissions and not count what’s imbedded in all the goods we import from China…
Vote:November 1st, 2010 at 9:52 am
According to his office staff, Nick Smith seeks advice by phone from Gary Taylor of the so-called “Environmental Defence Society” almost everyday. No wonder New Zealand’s policy is so extreme and insane.
Vote:November 1st, 2010 at 10:13 am
The ETS is just a front for global governance. Always has been. Transferring money from rich countries to poor countries, with the UN in charge of it all. It has nothing to do with the climate.
Vote:November 1st, 2010 at 10:16 am
If you ask me our ETS is the real instance of ceding our national sovereignty, not the deal over The Hobbit.
Vote:November 1st, 2010 at 10:21 am
Very good point RightNow
Vote:November 1st, 2010 at 10:24 am
The snippets from the speech from Lord Monckton in 2009
Don’t believe him? What he says is backed up by the UN Framework Convention Climate Change document.
Vote:November 1st, 2010 at 10:24 am
Isn’t it about time the AGW crowd admitted the fruad so we can get on with our lives without this nonsense and scam tax?
Vote:November 1st, 2010 at 10:40 am
What I think will happen:
1. China/India/Brazil will ask the developed countries to pay to fix climate change, citing 150 years of causing the problem. Estimate them asking for $trillion plus range in direct aid/technology transfer.
2. America will either get an ETS or undertake regulation through the EPA that is not directly mandated by congress.
3. In addition to the developing world asking for a $trillion plus, the undeveloped world will request the same $trillion plus they asked for last time. There will be agreement if the western world ponies up $2 to $3 trillion. NZ will be liable for about 10% of our GDP, think we’ll pay?
4. Weaken alarmist projections, but strengthen moderate effect.
5. Adaption is more expensive, but in the way that means we’ll have to pay more later (something always infinitely appealing to politicians). So we’ll adapt at greater cost to the next generation.
What I think should happen:
1. China/India/Brazil should not be asked to shoulder production controls at the insistance of the developed world, partly because it is unfair but mostly because they won’t comply. We should look to our own solutions.
Vote:2. America can do what it wants.
3. A worldwide agreement under the auspices of the always corrupt UN or similar is perhaps the worst possible outcome. Hopefully we can escape without such an albatross around our necks.
4. See above.
5. We should mitigate. We should encourage a market solution by promoting the market economy. The government should shift tax burdens from income to a consumption tax on carbon footprints. This would like GST not harm our international competitiveness. The government should make this tax neutral or better still in a manner that reduces the carbon footprint (& size) of the state. Basically apply right wing economics to fight climate change*.
November 1st, 2010 at 10:44 am
* Assuming there are some on the right who are interested in right wing economics. Which on climate change is doubtful.
Vote:November 1st, 2010 at 10:45 am
China’s actually doing quite a lot to reduce pollution (e.g. shuttering and consolidating small pulp and paper mills and aluminum smelters) but because of its strong overall growth net emissions will keep going up. In particular coal is always the lowest cost power source and China has invested heavily in coal-fired power production and will almost certainly continue to do so.
They are closing a lot of old coal power plants…but replacing them with new (a bit more efficient) ones.
Vote:November 1st, 2010 at 10:56 am
BTW, did anyone else know about NZ establishing our own EPA?
Vote:from the Govt Electronic Tender site last week:
“The Ministry for the Environment (MfE) seeks proposals to provide services and advice relating to the establishment of the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA). “
November 1st, 2010 at 11:00 am
First trial of personal carbon trading ‘scheme’ to begin on Norfolk Island.
http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/story/2010/10/28/carbon-trading-scheme-obesity-scu/
Added bonus of reducing obesity as well aparently.
It isn’t about environment, absolute control of their herd is what its about.
Sparky
Vote:November 1st, 2010 at 11:04 am
Hagues – “Isn’t it about time the AGW crowd admitted the fruad so we can get on with our lives without this nonsense and scam tax?”
The NZ Greenhouse Policy Coalition doesn’t believe it is a fraud:
“The Science: The Coalition accepts there is growing evidence of a causal connection between observed changes in the global climate and human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases. The Coalition considers there is sufficient scientific evidence to warrant the adoption of appropriate precautionary public policy measures.”
Members of the Coalition are:
New Zealand Aluminium Smelters Ltd
Vote:New Zealand Steel Limited
Fonterra
Coal Association
Carter Holt Harvey
Business New Zealand
Solid Energy New Zealand Ltd
Methanex New Zealand Limited
November 1st, 2010 at 11:13 am
The problem with adaptation so far- and to some extent we’re committed to a lot adaptation- is the carbon-cycle is still being front-loaded with GHG. So shifting to say, more robust or warm adapted crops, is a temporary fix. We’re not at the moment planning to actually stabilize or reach a plateau with GHG emissions. We’re just slowing the rate at which GHG gets added to the atmosphere. Wait a few more years, and a lot of the proposed adaptations will be redundant.
The other problem for the future, is that a lot of forests that have been planted as sinks are going to reach maturity and stop absorbing & storing carbon.
Vote:November 1st, 2010 at 11:33 am
High fa luting words designed to deceive
Nobody can actually determine the long effect of the human contribution to CO2 to the atmosphere or even how much of the current levels of CO2 in the air is of human origin.
It is just as likely to be beneficial as detrimental and any “scientist” who claims to know better is in fact no better than a stone age shaman uttering his incantations on mid winters day to stop the getting shorter.
“Climate Science” is just new age superstition
Vote:November 1st, 2010 at 11:33 am
If you ask me our ETS is the real instance of ceding our national sovereignty, not the deal over The Hobbit.
Absolutely, also I heard that hypocritical scumbag Russell Norman going on about ‘Corporate Welfare’ in parliament the other day regarding the hobbit.
Vote:So if he objects to a few million being tossed a corporation for a major benefit for this country, why is he in favour of literally trillions transferred in ‘corporate welfare’ to fund the AGW scam?
Also on another note, there should be a moratorium on all major public transport projects justified on the basis of lowering carbon emissions or reducing congestion because driver-less cars a just a few years away (2018). Once they come on the market almost over night there will be large fleets of very low fare taxis available (which will be probably be electrically powered by then/ or at least hybrid as taxis currently are)
November 1st, 2010 at 11:50 am
@andrei
Hmm? I don’t think anybody has disagreed that there has been a upward trend in CO2 emissions. Do you have evidence to the contrary?
Well, we do know that CO2 and other GHG do amplify the sun’s radiation to produce a greenhouse effect. That’s not in doubt. It’s not in doubt that deforestation has simultaneously released lots of carbon into the atmosphere whilst reducing the natural absorption rate. And it’s not in doubt that burning up a whole lot of carbon stored over hundreds of millions of year as fossil fuels adds GHG to the atmosphere. It seems a very reasonable conclusion that things are going to get warmer.
True, it’s not straightforward attributing what percentage increase in GHG comes from human vs natural sources, but the increase in human contributions is rather obvious. And that uncertainty is reflected by the ‘range’ of effects forecasted. Which don’t so far, include in their boundaries a nil effect.
Hmm. And why would continuous increases in the GHG emissions be just as likely to be beneficial?
Vote:November 1st, 2010 at 12:00 pm
Meanwhile, a debate rages over how many pixies there are at the bottom of the garden…
Vote:November 1st, 2010 at 12:00 pm
The global warming deniers have difficulty have accepting the conclusions of science in the area of global warming while happily accepting science in most other areas of their lives. They are rather like the creationists who demand equal time for their crackpot beliefs. THey label themselves as skeptics in an attempt to give themselves credibility.
Vote:November 1st, 2010 at 12:14 pm
No nobody is claiming otherwise Chthoniid we are just not using emotive terms like “front-loaded with GHG” and are agnostic when it comes to the source of this increase, which is minor in the scheme of things actually trivial.
You know what a limnic eruption is? One killed a couple of thousand people a few years back, by suffocating them with CO2
Aint nothing that ETS
schemesscams can do to prevent them.And Chthoniid there is plenty to suggest that a warmer world would be beneficial to humanity and life in general eg the Holocene Optimum
Vote:November 1st, 2010 at 12:27 pm
@John Gibson – if the science is so conclusive, then why all the manipulation and falsifying of data, along with the manipulation of the peer-review process to stifle contrary evidence???
I challenge you to provide a valid answer to this point.
Vote:November 1st, 2010 at 12:32 pm
@TCrwdb – you are a conspiracy theorist – nothing I say will make any difference to you.
Vote:November 1st, 2010 at 12:32 pm
@andrei
The term front-loaded is emotive? Why? I thought it was a straight forward way to account for a Carbon cycle where the inputs at one end were no longer balanced by the withdrawals at the other.
Yes, I know what a limnic eruption is. What’s your point? The earth’s crust has a lot of stored GHG’s- Methane clathrate releases are a plausible reason for the end-of-Permian extinction.
Hmm, what about the global climate warmings associated with the mass extinction in the Ptr and KT boundaries?
The PTr boundary is associated with a 6 million year coal gap. That’s because there were practically no higher plants left.
Could you be more specific therefore, as to why you think a continuous increase in GHG emissions will be beneficial, without the analogy argument.
Vote:November 1st, 2010 at 12:33 pm
“Hmm. And why would continuous increases in the GHG emissions be just as likely to be beneficial?”
Disclaimer: I’m an anthropogenic-climate change agnostic.
A large consumer of free CO2 is algae. Algal blooms (a possible result of higher CO2 levels) free up more oxygen and in turn boost the low end of the marine food chain, which would lead to an increase in global fish stocks.
Vote:November 1st, 2010 at 12:34 pm
John Gibson – did you fall into a vat of the kool aid as a baby?
Vote:November 1st, 2010 at 12:34 pm
“…nothing I say will make any difference to you.”
Pot calling the kettle black. The ultimate irony!
Vote:November 1st, 2010 at 12:39 pm
@John Gibson – give it a go, you never know your luck!
Vote:November 1st, 2010 at 12:43 pm
@adze
The problem with the photosynthesis argument, is that it only provides a temporary fillip (and for increases in CO2 at low levels)
Most plants- including all algae- use the rather inefficient Calvin cycle to convert CO2 and light to carbohydrates.
This makes them relatively efficient in low CO2 environments, but reach saturation levels quickly in high CO2. Which puts a strong biochemical brake on their ability to convert CO2 into primary production in food webs.
If you keep adding more CO2 in a high CO2 environment, you don’t sustain a production response.
Vote:November 1st, 2010 at 1:02 pm
@TCrwdb “along with the manipulation of the peer-review process to stifle contrary evidence???”
Ok , so who are you claiming has manipulated the peer review process and which peer review process of which research has been manipulated ?
Also which data are you claiming has been manipulated ?
Vote:November 1st, 2010 at 1:03 pm
@Chthoniid, thanks
Just curious, what would you consider a “high CO2 environment”, in terms of CO2 gas as a % of atmosphere?
Vote:November 1st, 2010 at 1:10 pm
“350 parts per million is what many scientists, climate experts, and progressive national governments are now saying is the safe upper limit for CO2 in our atmosphere.” – http://www.350.org/en/about/science
Vote:November 1st, 2010 at 1:15 pm
Remember also that the Kyoto treaty, signed in 1997, used 1990 as the base year after a lot of lobbying by the EU. The EU had started converting a lot of coal-fired power stations to gas in the early 90s, so by setting 1990 as the base year, they were able to claim a lot of “reductions” in emissions that were nothing to do whatsoever with Kyoto; just changes they had made as a lot of cheap gas had come on-stream.
Vote:November 1st, 2010 at 1:17 pm
@adze
lab experiments show that many plants plateau out their conversion rates at around 300 ppm. There are other factors, such as water supply and light intensity that come to play.
Vote:November 1st, 2010 at 1:18 pm
eh?????????
The Permian/Triassic extinction is associated with the volcanic events which presumably caused cooling not warming and formed the Siberian traps
Likewise the Cretaceous/Tertiary is believed to have been caused by an impact event and cooling due to the nuclear winter effect.
Of course both these events would have been almost unpredictable to any creature with our levels of technology and certain unpreventable!
No UN committee would be able to do anything to prevent us being overwhelmed if such things are in our near future and they may well be for all anybody knows!
Vote:November 1st, 2010 at 1:28 pm
@andrei
Sigh, the geochemical evidence of the PTr extinction also includes a period of significant warming, the mechanism for which is often attributed to the release of methane chlarates.
Likewise, while Alvarez proposed a nuclear winter explanation for the KT extinction, he wasn’t coming at the problem from a geologists perspective. The period of the Deccan trap formation in the KT boundary is associated with significant increases in temperature, attributed to the GHG emissions from these volcanoes.
–
The substantive point is you have made a claim that increasing GHG emissions will lead to beneficial effects for humanity. I would like to see something more than arguing from analogy- to support your assertion. This is an entirely reasonable request.
Vote:November 1st, 2010 at 1:41 pm
Moving beyond conjecture Chthoniid it is an observable fact that life is both more abundant and more diverse in tropical climes than in the higher latitudes and therefore it is not unreasonable to assume that if higher latitudes become warmer then life will prosper there where it now struggles or is perhaps to all intents and purposes non existent.
And indeed in times when the earth was indeed “warmer” geological evidence suggests this is so.
And as far as humanity is concerned California is a more desirable, more populous and more productive in terms of food production than the Yukon.
Vote:November 1st, 2010 at 1:55 pm
Given that the ETS is as far as this govt is concerned a trade tool:
that AGW is a nonsense
that we are living in an interglacial
that our civilisation has grown out of the end of the last ice age
that we do not control the climate,and cannot
that the UN is currently an anti western and corrupt institution;
I have the following comments to dpf’s questions
Vote:1 China will not sign up to anything that impedes it’s drive to industrialise,and keep it’s proletarian masses from rioting and endangering the Party.
2 Depends on who is in the White House . Obie,being a leftie will sign up. Hopefully a Tea Party Pres would not.
3 Yes ,but like so much of other UN agreements no one will seriously try to implement it. Like the ridiculous targets for overseas “aid”.
4 Doesnt matter, if hell freezes over the climate alarm brigade still wont want you to stay warm in winter.
5 Doesnt matter,there’s no such thing as AGW so what’s the point? We dont control the climate.
November 1st, 2010 at 1:57 pm
The diversity in the tropics is not a consequence of rapid climate change Andrei. It’s a consequence of much slower processes- and that diversity is in part a function of the biophysical stability of those regions, not climate.
Central Australia, Nevada are also warm places that are not inimical to human life either. Blanket assertions that warm weather is going to be beneficial, and ones based on these analogies, are not persuasive.
Vote:November 1st, 2010 at 2:55 pm
Couple of points here. The research into methane reduction from sheep, cattle and goats has been going on since the early 1980′s, if not longer. They can not solve this problem. So I wouldn’t hold my breath for that solution arising any time soon. So basically the only way to reduce agricultural emissions is to kill all the sheep and cows. So to bring agriculture into the ETS for NZ is economic suicide for the agricultural sector. Do you think farmers will like to go bankrupt to please thick people in parliment and in the streets of the towns and cities of the World. No. There is so many lies and half truths flying around the World on this subject it must come to a head soon. Also the planet cooling, and will continue to cool until the Sun comes out of it’s present quiet phase. Which is totally against ALL climate change models.
Vote:November 1st, 2010 at 4:14 pm
@John Gibson:
Ok , so who are you claiming has manipulated the peer review process and which peer review process of which research has been manipulated ?
One quick example, Jones to Mann, “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
Do a little searching, there is evidence of much more.
Also which data are you claiming has been manipulated ?
Vote:Ummm, you got me there…. oh wait, the hockey stick!! Say no more really, but if you want more then consider NIWA and CRU-UEA data ‘adjustments’.
November 1st, 2010 at 6:04 pm
The main question I want answered is: Why is DPF continuing to flog this dead horse (the ETS) and why does he continue to blow sunshine up National’s rearward facing orifice on this issue?
How many times are you going to make positive postings on this non-scientific scam, DPF? – we seem to be getting one every other day. If the ETS comes online it will completely stuff this country – is that Key and co’s intention? Is this going to be yet another National agenda driven policy which has no mandate from the people? – or worse, where most people are dead set against it?
Maybe we need another referendum so that National can officially ignore the majority of New Zealanders once again.
Your cheerleading of this, DPF, is beyond nauseating!
Vote:November 2nd, 2010 at 12:09 am
@Kris K – it just confirms that DPF has become a pinko, it happens if you spend too long inside the Wellington beltway…
Vote:November 2nd, 2010 at 7:43 am
“Why is DPF continuing to flog this dead horse (the ETS) and why does he continue to blow sunshine up National’s rearward facing orifice on this issue?”
Because is his duty. As a loyal servant of the National Party, DPF will uphold the ETS tax banner until told by the party to change his tune, which seems unlikely at this time.
Smith convinced Key, whom in turned has ordered the blid troops and spin doctors to spread the ETS tax gospel as our only saviour from the “catastrophic” AGW plague.
Vote: