The ETS Review
September 15th, 2011 at 3:56 pm by David FarrarThe ETS Review Panel reported back today. It’s a fair read at 98 pages.
The panel was chaired by David Caygill, who was Labour Party Deputy Leader to Helen Clark. Another members was David Russell, the former head of the Consumer’s Institute. Their mandate was to look at the ETS, to look at what has been happening globally, and to recommend changes to it. And no before you ask, their mandate wasn’t to look at the science.
The ETS was passed into law by Labour in 2008 and it was amended by National in 2009. The major event since then was the collapse of the Copenhagen talks and the growing probability that there will be no binding post-2012 Kyoto type agreement.
The dates sectors have or will enter the ETS is currently:
- Jan 2008 – forestry
- Jul 2010 – liquid fossil fuels, stationary energy, industrial processes
- Jan 2013 – waste, synthetic greenhouse gas sectors
- Jan 2015 – agriculture
At present there is a 2:1 subsidy so that a business can buy two carbon credits for the price of one. This was a temporary measure to reduce the immediate impact on petrol prices and power prices. The panel recommends that this phase out by 2015. This would mean petrol would rise over four years by around 3c/litre and power would go up around 3% over the next four years (beyond any other price increases), Note that AFAIK Labour’s policy is to stop the subsidy immediately which would have those price increases occur all at once next year.
There is also a price cap carbon credits of $25. The price cap gives price certainty to businesses and consumers but if set too low doesn’t provide enough of an incentive to reduce emissions. They recommend the cap increase by $5/year. That does not mean the market price will be that high. I think the current price is around NZ$19.
I thought the panel might advise that agriculture not enter in as scheduled in 2015, however they say it should still enter. Their reports says:
For agriculture, the Panel has noted submitters’ concerns that the sector lacks abatement options. However, based on evidence it has heard from stakeholders, the Panel believes the options available to the sector are sufficient to enable surrender obligations to begin in 2015, as currently legislated. Under the current allocation regime, the obligation on agriculture’s biological emissions will essentially be intensity based (emissions per unit of product), and the sector has shown an ability to decrease emissions intensity year‐on‐year. The ETS will increase incentives for emissions‐intensity improvements.
However they do recommend two changes for the agricultural sector:
The Panel strongly believes the point of obligation for agriculture should be at the farmer level, rather than the processor level as currently legislated, as this will ensure those who are best able to reduce their emissions are motivated to do so. The Panel supports the work of the Agricultural ETS Advisory Committee as it explores the practicality of doing this.
Makes sense to have the costs and incentives apply to individual farms, but very hard to manage in a practical sense.
Given that agriculture’s entry into the ETS will mean it will not be able to benefit from the one-for‐two obligation as it phases out, the Panel recommends the sector benefits from a one‐for-two obligation for the first two years after it enters the ETS (i.e. 2015 and 2016). This surrender obligation should then be phased out over the subsequent three years, consistent with those sectors already in the ETS.
This will give the agriculture sector more time to adjust to a carbon price and to take up abatement options. The Panel notes that, combined with free allocation of NZUs, the agriculture sector would face an obligation equivalent to only 5 per cent of biological emissions for the first two years after entering the ETS.
So basically soften the impact for the first five years.
I predict Labour and the Greens will decry the report as watering down the ETS and how we will be seen as evil polluters if we adopt the review’s recommendations.
And likewise I am sure ACT will campaign against agriculture even entering the ETS. There is some potential for ACT to gain votes with Don Nicolson campaigning on this issue.
Tags: Climate Change, ETS
September 15th, 2011 at 4:00 pm
National could have scrapped the fucking thing, should have scrapped the fucking thing but they didn’t thus proving they are just another left wing drongo party. A little better than Labour I’ll grant you but not much.
This is thievery, dishonest and economic stupidity.
Vote:September 15th, 2011 at 4:01 pm
So I take it that getting rid of the ETS altogether wasn’t considered as an option? What a joke.
Vote:September 15th, 2011 at 4:11 pm
The IMF can make scrapping the ETS one of its conditions for a bailout of New Zealand.
Vote:September 15th, 2011 at 4:19 pm
The ETS is a tax on local production, it cobbles together the worst aspects of government interventionism and victimises our international competitiveness and creates negative enviromental impacts.
Vote:September 15th, 2011 at 4:25 pm
What a fucking load of fetid bullshit. This government are as Andrei says dishonest, stupid thieves, the bastards are traitors. Didn’t that idiot Smith say they wanted a parallel scheme that mirrors Australia. Wakey wakey fuckheads, Australia as yet has no scheme. And how generous of the arseholes to give agriculture an easier ride. Fuck agriculture isn’t even on the list of the Australian top 500 polluters but of course it has to be here as the wankers want to steal every last cent they can get their hands on. Isn’t it strange that mining in Australia is the big boggy man, also earns the most foreign currency and agriculture is the villain here and earns the most hard currency. No donation to the National Socialists this year and no tick on the ballot paper.
Vote:September 15th, 2011 at 4:33 pm
Consider 2 goods that are created to be exactly identical, causing the same amount of pollution in production – one is made here and one is made 1000s of miles away.
Thanks to our brilliant, sparkling, shiny idiots it is NZ policy that to “save the planet” we should purchase the goods made 1000s of miles away. So stoopid.
Vote:September 15th, 2011 at 4:49 pm
Down with Nick Smith and John Key, masterminds of this con inflicted on productive New Zealand.
Vote:Shame on these two lying politicians, who said A and implemented Z.
September 15th, 2011 at 4:51 pm
I agree with all the remarks before me. Nationals original policy was to follow Aussie. Even the proposal to load compliance costs on the individual farmer or small landholder is cogswallop.
Vote:September 15th, 2011 at 4:55 pm
The ETS is government policy that encourages NZers to decrease local production, import across vast distances and then after consumption export the waste products for disposal somewhereelse.
The ETS is NIMBYism and its pontless and its planet killing. But the Green voters love it. So hey what can you do?
Vote:September 15th, 2011 at 4:58 pm
bob
I’m sensing that you aren’t into this ETS business.
Vote:September 15th, 2011 at 5:02 pm
Nothing makes my blood boil quicker than hearing about this shit.the ETS is a load of lefty fucken bullshit.
Vote:As far as Nick the Dick goes he can go fuck himself and his dog,Sorry about the lanquage but as I said the ETS just pisses me off.In the not to distant future (IMO) all these retards who believe in AGW will be looking fucken stupid,inc you sorry David.
September 15th, 2011 at 5:02 pm
Judging by the comprehensive manner of the Federated Farmers changing of the guard, I have my doubts about this.
Nicholson’s (and Act’s) stance on climate change is nothing short of a joke. I think farmers are well aware of the disrepute Nicholson was bringing them into.
SSB
Sadly, in new Zealand, our methane emissions form our ruminants (including people like you leaning on the gate and chewing your cud at one end while, oh never mind) and that natural phenomonen comprises some 40% of our greenhouse gas emissions. It’s important. As is the fertilisers we use to coax ever more return out of the land.
unaha-closp
Which is more important to you, saving the planet (not the term I would use, but it will suffice) or not buying from distant lands? Bear in mind that currently our economy is based on “others” buying commodity products from this land of “1000s miles away.”
Vote:September 15th, 2011 at 5:05 pm
Andretti
Still avoiding evidence even when it hits you in the face, I see.
Try looking outside your self-selecting circle of retards you mire yourself in.
I can give you the good oil, if you wish.
Just ask, politely, of course.
Vote:September 15th, 2011 at 5:08 pm
We should follow Aussie and the Yanks.
The whole set up stinks why should we cripple the first world to the benefit of the third world.
This smells like Marxism to me. Watermelons
India and china burn coal Lots of dirty coal.
Any impact of new Zealand having an enema trading scream will be negated by a few more coal fired power stations in china.
Vote:September 15th, 2011 at 5:13 pm
Sorry Luc.The dabate is over (as far as im concered).
Vote:September 15th, 2011 at 5:19 pm
DPF: So basically soften the impact for the first five years.
That’s National for you. They also softened the impact of their borrowing.
Only your kids have to pay for it!!!!
What a great party.
Vote:September 15th, 2011 at 5:20 pm
Rather than type my infinite oppostion to the whole AGW bullsh*t, I am backing “andretti’ and “side show bob” times ten.
Vote:September 15th, 2011 at 5:20 pm
Luc, saving the planing by turning off the lights.
Yeah right.
Vote:September 15th, 2011 at 5:21 pm
Ditch the stupid loony policy and have Nick Smith sectioned. much as I like that nice Mister Key the Nats won’t get my party vote because of their lies over the ets, I will vote act with a little bit of sick in my mouth.
Vote:September 15th, 2011 at 5:21 pm
Welcome aboard Jimbob.
Vote:September 15th, 2011 at 5:32 pm
And another fact that seems to have escaped the morons who have written the report, you can not stop a ruminant from producing methane. Scientists have been trying for thirty years. Zip, nothing found. It is cloud cuckoo land
Vote:thinking and to keep promising something that can not be delivered, well we can all guess what that is called.
September 15th, 2011 at 5:36 pm
Giff — we certainly do not want go the same way as Australia. The legislation Gillard has started pushing through this week and should be in place by the end of the year is effectively a massive wealth distribution exercise. ( their planned emissions reduction is only 5% ).
Vote:The way the Australian political system works Abbott will not be able to do much about it until 2 yrs into his term ( the current ALP/Greens Govt. will surely be thrashed at the next election ) because the Greens control the Senate. It will be a total mess over there.
September 15th, 2011 at 5:40 pm
The ETS is one reason National just won’t be getting my vote this election. It is a solution desperately looking for a problem and I just fail to grasp how we can tax our way to prosperity.
I am not buying the fact we even need to have this piece of legislation and fail to grasp why, other than the fact NO government can bring themselves to remove an income stream, the Nats couldn’t have just scrapped it. It is not like they would lose any votes. Imagine how high they would be in the polls then.
Vote:September 15th, 2011 at 5:41 pm
DPF – Welcome to the Club of Rome, the Ice Age of the late 70s/early 80s and Erlich’s “population bomb”.
For an otherwise sensible man, DPF, you are,on this issue, just stupid.
Many years ago, as a freshman political reporter, Ralph Hanan told me that he would never agree to the establishment of any inquiry unless he knew the likely outcome. Caygill did what he was asked.
So now in 2011, DPF, would you care to wager on the likelihood of a successor to Gore’s Kyoto?
Vote:September 15th, 2011 at 5:46 pm
Jimbob
“you can not stop a ruminant from producing methane”
No. But you can reduce its production through diet. Think baked bean and onion pie vs lettuce & tomatoe salad. Arrggghh, its all in the soil ya know.
That said, the melons aren’t interested in that. they just want to get rid of the ruminants so we can sit around eating dirt and wearing flax pyjamas.
Vote:September 15th, 2011 at 5:47 pm
ross 12.
Gillard will not last until next year,they talk about giving it back to Rudd,stupid fuckers.Labor are as popular as a cold cup of sick,much like the NZ labour party.
If people like DFP realy realy believe why do they fuck of flying all around the world every few weeks wasting shit.
Vote:September 15th, 2011 at 5:59 pm
oh look another AGW fanatic telling us what to do but not doing it himself. :uc how can you be on the internet? the internet uses power which causes Carbon emissions. the planet is in crisis and we have to do whatever is needed to save it. So if you truly believed in AGW you would not be wasting carbon by using electricity.
or of course you are yet another AGW hypocrite.
Vote:September 15th, 2011 at 6:19 pm
I have a close friend who runs a major hotel.the hotel was holding a conference for a Govt dept,they sent him several documents to fill in entitled Greening the Conference.The documents asked if the hotel had energy saving bulbs had recycling,used free range eggs (even though no food was involved)did they use composting ect ect ect.then the last question was HOW MANY CAR PARKS did the hotel have,you guessed it all the fuckers turned up in rental cars from the airport.
Vote:September 15th, 2011 at 6:38 pm
andretti>the last question was HOW MANY CAR PARKS did the hotel have,you guessed it all the fuckers turned up in rental cars from the airport
A couple of years ago I had the misfortune to attend a meeting with the Healthy Eating Healthy Action group at Ministry of Health. They had chocolate cake for afternoon tea, and you know who was paying for it.
I’d pretty much given up on ACT and was considering voting for National just to see if they made it over 50%. This carbon dioxide idiocy has reminded me why I’d decided not to vote for National. My opposition might not change anything, but at least I’ll be able to tell my grandchildren that I voted against the modern equivalent of witch burning.
Vote:September 15th, 2011 at 6:44 pm
AGW is bullshit ,the ETS is bullshit and Nick and National persuing this is bullshit.
Vote:September 15th, 2011 at 6:44 pm
Well DPF – at least you have Luc on your side, I’m sure he’s a National voter. You and John and Nick will be thankful for that at least. Unfortunately no one else on this thread seems to think the ETS is a good idea. Hmmmm, food for thought?
Gillard is going to get her beans over her ETS. I’d say we’ll see Europe contract their green schemes sharply in the next couple of years as the dominos begin to tumble. Then where will we be? Uncompetitive and looking foolish.
As more and more REAL science shows the multitude of flaws in the IPCC narrative we will get to watch idiots like Nick back away from the end of the world scenario. Then will come the excuses why we can’t scrap our ETS. After that I’m guessing will be the compensation for forestry owners paid for by us, closely followed by a collective climate amnesia afflicting politicians of every stripe.
In the meantime the National government continues to steal off taxpayers. Simple as that.
Vote:September 15th, 2011 at 7:07 pm
Well Whinging Wussel has got his bit of air time.
Predictable outcome from no change nuts(oops Nats.)
Why would any thinking person vote for them?
Vote:September 15th, 2011 at 7:08 pm
The non-sequitur behind all of this is so patently obvious I’m surprised it doesn’t more of a mention.
a) Energy use is price inelastic. You have to put the price up a lot to induce change in behaviour.
b) ETS pricing is putting up prices by only a little. 3% according to the article above.
So even if carbon were a dangerous or harmful gas, there can be no benefit from the ETS. Only cost. What is the theory that allows this review panel to escape this conclusion?
The only tangible effect of the ETS will be to employ armies of bureaucrats to inconvenience and fine us, and to introduce more sand into the cogs of production.
The theory that doing something is politically necessary is bullshit. Other countries are now backing out. We should enter when and only when we come under actual threat of retaliation, and not one moment before. Introducing such large costs on such a flimsy political theory from a bunch of folks who have been wrong about everything else up until now is not sound policy. There is no reward for going early and alone.
Vote:September 15th, 2011 at 7:18 pm
Luc Hansen: New Zealand cannot save the planet. The planet will get precisely as warm or cold whether NZ has an ETS or not. Asking people if they want to save the planet is selling snake oil. Whether they sign up or not doesn’t matter. Whether you convince 51% of voters in NZ that you are right doesn’t matter. You have to convince China and India and the Unites States. Oh, and you have to tell your scientists to get their story straight, stop refusing FOI requests, get their models not to produce hockey sticks with red noise going in, find large positive net feedbacks hitherto undiscovered, and stop introducing fudge factors to hide the increasingly apparent fact that carbon isn’t the main driver of changes in Earth’s temperature.
Other than that, you’re golden.
Vote:September 15th, 2011 at 7:23 pm
The press and the public should be asking where all the money goes.
Answer : As massive subsidies to people who plant trees. In fact the credits are so great they are more than sufficient to fully fund the planting of trees on your own land, and in some cases pay 100% of the cost of both trees and land.
All New Zealanders are paying more for electricity, petrol and food, in fact hundreds of millions of dollars more pa, so that a very small group who actually understand how the scheme works can profit.
Vote:September 15th, 2011 at 7:33 pm
Oh and before the denial tag comes out, does anybody deny the world has got warmer, or that mankind’s pollution is likely responsible to at least some degree? Nobody that I know denies this. Where the disagreement is is in a) the efficacy of climate policy (universally harmful in all its forms to human welfare and, more often than not, the climate as well, at least at the margin); b) whether any plausible case for catastrophe or even harm has been established from the expected mild warming in the next century; and c) the quality of the scientific process, which looks hopelessly compromised by a group of seriously misbehaving scientists. Not brought about by conspiracy, but the corrupting influence of public funding from the one type of body that benefits from climate change, whether real or imagined: government, and the various lobby groups it pays.
Vote:September 15th, 2011 at 7:49 pm
Hey John B – a question – Have there been any official figures released on how much this tax has raised for the government?, and how much has been paid out to forestry owners?
Vote:September 15th, 2011 at 7:57 pm
And this expat and business owning husband shall enter … NZ as tourists only.
ETS and carbon trading is absolutely ridiculous, most especially when large economic powerhouse economies did not sign and have no intention of doing so. NZ simply doesn’t have the economic pull to “lead the world” in such reforms. The sentiment is admirable, but in the medium term its just handicapping our business competitiveness & profitability and therefore the economy.
Perhaps in National’s 2nd term we’ll see a little more sensibility and they’ll repeal this crap.
Vote:September 15th, 2011 at 8:28 pm
ben (2,084) Says:
September 15th, 2011 at 7:33 pm
Oh and before the denial tag comes out, does anybody deny the world has got warmer, or that mankind’s pollution is likely responsible to at least some degree? Nobody that I know denies this.
Have you not been reading Ben,I deny the world has got warmer,just fucken stupider.IMO you are hanging around with the wrong crowd.The science is settled!.no debate will be entered into.Move along.
Vote:September 15th, 2011 at 8:31 pm
Pharmachick (84) Says:
September 15th, 2011 at 7:57 pm
Perhaps in National’s 2nd term we’ll see a little more sensibility and they’ll repeal this crap.
Not with Nick the Idiot still there,oh and the court jester whats his name, Gluckman.
Vote:fuck the world would be a better place if these two became rubbish collecters.
September 15th, 2011 at 8:32 pm
I recommend http://climaterealityproject.org/
Live now, folks.
ben,
you posted about the most sensible stuff here, tonight, and some points are worth addressing.
Completely agree, Ben, but that doesn’t give us the right to freeload. In fact, eventually such an attitude would eventually see our economy in big trouble as we became increasingly isolated in international trade and forums.
China and the United States ARE convinced at government level. In China, that’s all that matters. The US is in a a sorry state, politically, as is obvious to all. Stymied in congress, the US administration turned to the EPA to reduce emissions by regulatory initiatives. Even these are under threat from, mainly, Republicans. I have no idea how that will pan out, except to say that the US will eventually be dragged into the consensus, just as it was in the case of apartheid South Africa, and as it will be in the colonialist oppression of Palestine.
Further complicating this objection of yours is that fact that historically, Britain and the US are the most responsible for emissions to this date. China barely registers, and even now, on a per capita basis, remains low on such a table. Basically, the West owes the East bigtime, and we will have to face that music, sometime.
We are near or at the peak of Holocene temperature, and we will only get higher on our current path. At this temperature, in the Eemian period some 125,000 years ago, sea levels were at 4 – 6 metres higher. That alone will cause catastrophe in today’s world.
Here’s a serious paper for you to look at: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110708_PaleoPaper.pdf
No climate models, simply forecasts based on paleontology and modern, empirical (ie observed) data.
You let yourself down, here. There is simply no way your reasons can justify your ludicrous conclusions.
Vote:September 15th, 2011 at 8:34 pm
“The science is settled!.no debate will be entered into.Move along.”
Yes the science is settled its happening the world is warming we are causing it.
And idiots are still bleating its not
Vote:September 15th, 2011 at 8:36 pm
Im even giving time to help the local ACT canidate here,only because i like him.But I told him I can not vote for him while they wont come out and deny AGW.I have never not voted but this year could be the first as I have a line in the sand over AGW.
Vote:The science is settled.
September 15th, 2011 at 8:39 pm
Anyway,just taken my heart pills so should calm down soon.To all the deniers have a good night,to everybody else please fuck off.
Vote:September 15th, 2011 at 8:49 pm
@ Luc
“China and the United States ARE convinced at government level. In China, that’s all that matters. The US is in a a sorry state, politically, as is obvious to all. Stymied in congress, the US administration turned to the EPA to reduce emissions by regulatory initiatives.”
The undertone there seems to be that the government shouldn’t listen to the people that vote for them. Concerns me that you might believe this.
Vote:September 15th, 2011 at 8:51 pm
You call it a subsidy. It’s not.
Vote:September 15th, 2011 at 8:54 pm
Ben.
Vote:One last thing,please dont try to debate with believers,remember the science is settled there is no AGW.
September 15th, 2011 at 9:03 pm
andretti
Just because even ACT will not come out against global warming Doesn’t mean Its true
the science is settled Goebbels said so
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.
Vote:September 15th, 2011 at 9:12 pm
Andretti: the world is warmer (glaciers have shrunk, satellite and ground measures show warming) but the reasons are unclear, whether it matters is not established to any degree, and Gore et al don’t have any workable solutions anyway. This should keep you happy.
Luc: appreciate the reasoned response. I’m sorry but it is smoke and mirrors. We can’t freeload if we do not make any difference. By definition nobody is penalised by our delayed or non-participation. Only US, India, and China can make a difference: you must convince them. Only if they go ahead and threaten sanction so severe as to be worse than not participating, then and only then does it become in our interests to participate. It may feel good to you to participate in ETS, but there is a real trade off: ETS is costly in proportion to the emissions reduction it effects. We are poorer because of it, potentially much poorer, and nobody is better off, other than special interests and government.
Your case is essentially a moral one a la Gore. Appeal to reason and evidence isn’t going to work because it is so mixed and corrupted. A moral argument is fine as far as it goes, but that is no basis to coerce anyone. If you can’t show harm that is worth the very substantial trouble of preventing, then you can’t write policy. You can vote with your own feet, and attempt to persuade others. But many find the AGW case unpersuasive, for reasons that include those I mentioned above.
No wonder people are so upset about AGW policy. It simply doesn’t make sense to demand real sacrifices from people who cannot make any difference. It’s just another tax, another bill to pay, and yet more regulation in exchange for nothing of consequence. That is the unavoidable, uncontestable reality in NZ, Luc, a tautological product of being small. For many of us, it does not feel good to make sacrifices in return for nothing, and it is quite outrageous that that is demanded of us anyway by a captured state.
Vote:September 15th, 2011 at 9:25 pm
Ben, aside from the fact that I object to your accusation of smoke and mirrors, and obviously you won’t stoop to reading serious science, sacrifice is not the point.
The point is that, living in a globalised, captitalist world, price signals are the main game in changing behaviour.
But I wouldn’t die in a ditch for ETS. I harbour severe doubts that that approach will make any difference in the end, but it’s what the world is running with, so that’s that.
In pure economics terms, the ETS will contribute to economic growth and jobs, and we will end up living in a cleaner, healthier and quieter environment. And that will happen very quickly, when it happens. I can’t see a downside at the societal level, but there will be individual winners and losers. That’s what we do.
Also, the people in China don’t vote: it’s an authoritarian regime. That’s all I meant. The voters of the US voted for Obama who campaigned on a plank of action on climate change. They got what they voted for as an administration, but mischievous political games are causing long term damage both to that country and the world.
Vote:September 15th, 2011 at 9:43 pm
Luc — Like Ben I appreciate your attempt at reasoned response , but you lost me. If you think the rubbish being put out by Gore today ( US time) with his latest project is factual , you have to be kidding. Also how can you say the ETS is going to produce jobs ?? ( Maybe planting a few teees that we are all paying , but nothing else).
Vote:But as they say “each to his own “
September 15th, 2011 at 9:52 pm
Luc, apologies for the smoke and mirrors reference. What I mean is your argument is incoherent. From the reasons you offer it does not follow that it makes sense for NZ to have an ETS. Whether I read science doesn’t change that. Whether AGW is real doesn’t change that.
Yes price signals affect behaviour. But it doesn’t matter for two reasons: a) NZ can make no difference b) energy demand is price inelastic. It is common ground the world’s climate is unaffected by NZ’s emissions. Therefore, all justifications for an ETS in NZ, however correct, are moot. We would just be making ourselves poorer. Your case for ETS in NZ amounts to: following world trends which make us poorer. I am not persuaded.
ETS will not raise growth and it will not make us richer. If it made us richer there is no need for policy: we would do it anyway. Policy is required precisely because what you say is untrue. ETS will increase jobs in green energy, but it will do so at the expense of many more jobs elsewhere. Creating artificial scarcity of any resource, which is all ETS does, does many things, but it cannot and will not create prosperity. You are mistaking increased demand in one sector for overall prosperity. That is the broken window fallacy.
It is not clear renewable energy will create a cleaner environment. Renewable energy has low energy density, and so far more land must be consumed to produce the energy we currently enjoy. Many renewables are not environmentally friendly, or pleasant to live near.
China’s political system doesn’t change the fact that China matters for climate, at least marginally, and NZ doesn’t. NZ cannot help or hurt the planet whether China participates or not. China is irrelevant to the question of our participation.
You are free now to enjoy a clean environment. Nearly all measures of environmental health are improving sans ETS.
Vote:September 15th, 2011 at 10:28 pm
Luc, why do you insist on killing the planet by having your pc on? Turn it off go to bed and walk to work tomorrow and don’t be a hypocrite.
Vote:September 15th, 2011 at 10:37 pm
One volcano produces more CO2 in a day than NZ produces in a year.
Warming produces CO2 – CO2 does not produce warming first – the bullshit IPCC spout is anti-science.
The ETS schemes in Europe are a disaster.
The planet has cooled in the past 10 years.
An increasing number of scientists are going against AGW – its just that the Lamestream left wing media don’t publish it.
The world expert on sea levels denies that sea levels have risen – Kiribati is a sinking atol.
Glaciers , although receding slightly some years ago, are growing again – as is Arctic and Antarctic sea ice.
Volcanic vents – above and below the sea – produce most of the CO2 – manmade CO2 accounts for less than 4% in the atmosphere.
And on and on and on –
The planet NEEDS more CO2 – plants grow more rapidly and produce more food and oxygen.
I have always been a staunch National supporter – but because of this retard ridiculous ETS, I’m giving my party vote to ACT
Vote:September 16th, 2011 at 4:51 am
Nick Smith, the Green fifth-columnist, must be happy: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/09/14/nobel-prize-winning-physicist-resigns-from-top-physics-group-over-global/
Vote:September 16th, 2011 at 4:54 am
DPF doesn’t believe in it, just defends the new tax, the ETS, because he’s a loyal National Party member.
Vote:September 16th, 2011 at 6:15 am
It is a scam. but it is brilliant. Enron invented the concept of taxing carbon I believe. My theory was it was done for a bet perhaps over a couple of drinks at lunch when some Gecko-type character -
‘I bet yo hundred bucks I can money out of fresh air. The left are a vast untapped consumer group and they hold the purse-strings of most governments – I think they’ll fall for it, the bleeding heart liberals will think they are doing their bit to ‘save the planet’, but the major polluters will keep us in business for the next hundred years, by producing more raw material (pollution) than anyone can wipe out by in developed nations. It’s a licence to print money! and we’ll make billions!”
Evidently the guy he won the bet.
The nameless genius has to activated the most brilliant con in history. They are actually putting a market value on fresh air.
Yes, folks they have worked out a way literally to tax the air we breath.
Vote:September 16th, 2011 at 6:34 am
But the good news is – they’re reviewing it. And courtesy of the spin machine, we all get to be grateful for those defending our right to breath.
Whoopy f**n-doo
Vote:September 16th, 2011 at 8:03 am
So is there any point to this unfettered rant session?
Just all take a few blood pressure meds, have a cup of tea and a lie down.
Vote:September 16th, 2011 at 8:39 am
For Luc:
The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie, deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive and unrealistic.
John F. Kennedy
Vote:September 16th, 2011 at 11:14 am
Don Don Don this isn’t about the facts or any moral argument about saving the world, it never has been. It’s about lying thieving maggot arse politicians who have painted themselves into a corner and have no get out of jail cards. Goofy said the other day, perhaps the only honest words that have every passed his lips, that the National Socialists so rely on the millions stolen on behalf of their poxy tax that there is no way they can now drop it. Saving the world, oh fucking pigs arse. It’s simply going into government coffers so the entitlement state can be maintained. So much for Shonkey and the fork tongue politicians that hang out with him and their “generous” tax cuts. What utter crap, it’s about taking more and more and more and full steam ahead with the Socialist state of The Long White cloud.
Vote: