Carbon Emission Changes
November 12th, 2011 at 3:26 pm by David Farrar
The graph is from Whale. No source, so can’t vouch for 100% accuracy but the major emitters look right to me.
The key thing is the change in the last three years. What it shows is that any international agreement must include China, or it is a farce. There is absolutely no environmental or economic gain from the rest of the world flagellating itself, while China won’t commit to any cap.
This is not to say, we should do nothing at all. We need to be credible to our trading partners. But what we mustn’t do is sign up to another Kyoto where China (and India) have no caps at all.
Related posts:
- FAQ on Climate Change
- Kyoto second commitment period
- The accuracy of carbon predictions
- World’s worst emitters?
November 12th, 2011 at 3:34 pm
I’ll support a carbon emmisions scheme for NZ the very moment that china stops opening a new coal fired power plant a week and we stop selling them the goal for operating them.
Till then this carbon tax is a load of feel good wank.
Vote:November 12th, 2011 at 3:36 pm
Should we be on that? Isn’t that just a bit of fly shit?
Vote:November 12th, 2011 at 3:38 pm
“We need to be credible to our trading partners”…How credible can we claim to be when a Labour lead government, however unlikely they are to get it, have included the ETS revenue in their budget to pay for their election bribes…I have no doubt that National would do the same…so much for our Kyoto obligations and saving the world…
Vote:November 12th, 2011 at 3:40 pm
Sort of puts into perspective the madness of those that would penalize all Kiwis because they wish to lead the world. Yes indeed the would be Emperors of NZ are as naked as jay birds, now if we could just turn them into dodos.
Vote:November 12th, 2011 at 3:43 pm
Pita
I’m sure that National have said on more than one occassion that ETS is there to meet external costs, not as a revenue raiser for the consolidated fund.
The reality, that most ignore, is that carbon and food miles barriers are the new trade barriers. We don’t put up with this stuff, then its harder to sell stuff. Haven’t seen the numbers but I recall Key justifying ETS on a trade basis alone.
If we are targeting the high end/premium end of the market for exports, we need to sell to “discerning” consumers who believe all this malarkey and want to know that we are doing our bit.
DPF or others more in the know than me might be able to clarify numbers ???
Vote:November 12th, 2011 at 4:11 pm
David, this whole business is a CROCK.
As you are aware, but are apparently unwilling to recognise:
1. There is no evidence (as opposed to unsupported assertion) that an increase in CO2 will in any way damage the planet or life, per se. On the contrary, CO2 is life giving.
2. World temperatures are falling, NOT increasing
3. Soot is not CO2.
4. Steam is NOT CO2.
5. Carbon etc (soot) is NOT CO2 or methane.
4. This whole business is reminiscent of the late, and unlamented, Club of Rome, the 1970s “ice age” and Erhlich’s “population bomb”.
Since we are trapped in the Kyoto crap, the Government’s current and announced position is the best we can hope for until the world comes to its senses. In the meantime our diplomatic panty waists have a defensible position.
AND JUST IN CASE YOU ALL DID NOT NOTICE…… Mrs Darth Vader (aka Clark/Davies) supports a world wide transaction tax with the proceeds going where? Her rotten branch of the UN.
Vote:November 12th, 2011 at 4:24 pm
India and China won’t have caps placed on them. For that we owe China and India a debt on gratitude.
Vote:November 12th, 2011 at 4:28 pm
David Farrar says:- “There is absolutely no environmental or economic gain from the rest of the world flagellating itself, while China won’t commit to any cap.”
A perfect example of how real figures can be used to distort an argument. Vintage Slater, and by association, Farrar.
What is the moral basis of your argument David? Surely the average Chinese has the right to consume as much carbon as his American counterpart?
The average Chinese consumes *one third* the carbon of his American counterpart.
The Chinese will cap their emissions at a level that Americans are willing to bring themselves down to.
Problem is, the Americans don’t want to commit to that.
Therein lies the problem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
[DPF: You are wrong. China will not agree to any cap. Even if the US eliminated all carbon emissions entirely, China's emissions alone will in a decade or so be greater than the rest of the world today]
Vote:November 12th, 2011 at 4:32 pm
DPF, your spin doctoring is becoming tedious. We all know the whole thing is a scam, and the dreaded ETS is nothing but a new tax imposed by your beloved National Party, aka Labour lite, on the productive sectors of the New Zealand economy.
The sooner the tax is abolished, the better.
Vote:November 12th, 2011 at 4:32 pm
By off shoring China is burning our carbon for us.
Vote:November 12th, 2011 at 4:33 pm
The Greens plan on spending hundreds of millions of taxpayers’ money on their pet “green” projects.
Every single penny of that money will be lost. These people, who almost invariably have never had a real job and have lived off the taxpayer all their spoilt lives, will carelessly piss away every dollar of those confiscated workers’ earnings.
“Solar Glut Worsens as Supply Surge Cuts Prices 93%: Commodities”
“The cost of solar cells and microchips has nowhere to go but down because of a supply glut for the commodity they’re made from, a brittle charcoal-colored semiconductor baked in ovens at 600 degrees centigrade.
Polysilicon has plunged 93 percent to $33 a kilogram from $475 three years ago as the top five producers more than doubled output, data compiled by Bloomberg shows. The industry next year will produce 28 percent more of the raw material than will be consumed, up from 20 percent this year… “Polysilicon is a grossly, grossly, grossly oversupplied commodity product” … “We’re staring at years of stability where polysilicon pricing sits at something approaching cost of production and doesn’t move.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-10/solar-glut-to-worsen-after-prices-plunge-93-on-rising-supply-commodities.html
Vote:November 12th, 2011 at 4:36 pm
“A perfect example of how real figures can be used to distort an argument. Vintage Slater, and by association, Farrar.”
Vintage reality denialist, Fail Scott still rejects the use of facts in an argument. Do try and get a grip, you may be able to prove with philosophy that black is what, but its not going to help you cross the road.
Vote:November 12th, 2011 at 4:37 pm
Data for graph:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2_emis/Preliminary_CO2_emissions_2010.xlsx
Vote:November 12th, 2011 at 4:42 pm
Murray says:- “Vintage reality denialist”
Qualify that assertion. Calling me names isn’t an argument Murray. Point to the exact errors in my analysis.
Vote:November 12th, 2011 at 4:44 pm
Nov. 9 (Bloomberg) — Energy will become “viciously more expensive” and polluting if governments don’t promote renewable and nuclear power in the next two decades instead of burning coal, the International Energy Agency said.
Global demand for energy is set to increase 40 percent by 2035, the Paris-based agency said today in its annual World Energy Outlook report. Consumption will rise 1.3 percent a year to 16.96 billion metric tons of oil equivalent in 2035, spurred by China and other emerging economies, the IEA said.
Vote:http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-11-10/energy-costs-to-rise-viciously-without-nuclear-iea-says.html
November 12th, 2011 at 4:48 pm
The sooner we can get rid of this crazy ETS the better.
That is one of the reasons I am giving my party vote to ACT, and every sane person should do the same.
Every time I see the Manaiacal Dr. Smith with his Marty Feldman gaze proclaiming the glories of our carbon trading scheme I am further convinced of the insanity of it – along with increasing amounts of data and numbers of scientists who are coming out against AGW.
Vote:November 12th, 2011 at 4:54 pm
David Farrar says:- “You are wrong. China will not agree to any cap.”
To the contrary:
http://www.cleanbiz.asia/story/china-officials-agree-energy-cap-part-low-carbon-plan
That argument aside, you know as well as I do that this is a political argument between the United States and China centering on relative competitiveness and relative wealth. Complicating the whole issue is the artificially low yuan.
Vote:November 12th, 2011 at 4:56 pm
Wasted vote Don, based on current polling. Vote Act = vote Rena. But if that’s what you want …
Vote:November 12th, 2011 at 4:57 pm
When the price of oil shoots up alternatives are found (like burning old tyres and pine needles).
Vote:November 12th, 2011 at 5:04 pm
Further to the link to the underlying data:
If the data is sorted from highest to lowest for Total CO2 emission in 2010, New Zealand is second to lowest between Ecuador and Lithuania, and 0.35% of China and 0.53% of the USA.
We really need to get a move on and pull our weight and save the world.
Vote:November 12th, 2011 at 5:07 pm
the only reason I would be happy to be in this mad arrangement would be to be in-line with the rest of the world AND I knew that all the money went into R&D to find ways to reduce whatever causes we humans contribute to climate change.
Vote:In other words, there is NO WAY in hell that I support any extra tax/levy to be ripped from my wallet for this scam.
The Nats are already in, at a lowish level, BUT if those crazed Green Melons form a Govt with the tax everything that moves Labour lot, then god help us all.
November 12th, 2011 at 5:07 pm
Not a wasted vote at all, thedavincimodde. I disagree.
Just the face of the demented Nick Smith, the intellectual father of the dreaded ETS tax, should put anyone off giving National his/her vote.
Vote:November 12th, 2011 at 5:09 pm
This argument that we need to be “credible with our trading partners” is nonsense. Nobody is going to get autarkic on us if we get rid of our ETS. Besides which, Canada has basically told the world to go fuck itself with regard to the environmental religion, and nobody seems to be too upset with them, other than the usual bunch of smelly hippies.
Vote:November 12th, 2011 at 5:11 pm
wat dabney (889) Says:
November 12th, 2011 at 4:33 pm
The Greens plan on spending hundreds of millions of taxpayers’ money on their pet “green” projects.
Every single penny of that money will be lost. These people, who almost invariably have never had a real job and have lived off the taxpayer all their spoilt lives, will carelessly piss away every dollar of those confiscated workers’ earnings.
Vote:====================
Wat would you libertarians do if energy prices went sky high? Ans it wouldn’t happen in a free market as every invention has its price.
Wat would you Libertarians do if man made activities caused environmental damage. Ans: that wouldn’t happen or we would figure out a way to controll it (as every necessity has its price in a free market).
November 12th, 2011 at 5:15 pm
Nothing can Go Wrong…,Go Wrong…, Go Wrong…,Go Wrong…,..Go Wrong…,Go Wrong…, Go Wrong…,Go Wrong…,… 2001 A Space Odyssey.
Vote:http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0062622/
November 12th, 2011 at 5:16 pm
Dead right, Blair. Hence, my line of reasoning against the fallacious argument posited by DPF.
Labour lite should come clean, stop the lies, and say it’s taxing us because it loves the revenue.
Vote:November 12th, 2011 at 5:19 pm
projectman says (ironically I guess):- “We really need to get a move on and pull our weight and save the world.”
In what way is a country on country comparison valid in the argument surrounding carbon emissions?
Vote:November 12th, 2011 at 5:21 pm
The idiocy continues: Why we need a Carbon trading scheme.
Vote:November 12th, 2011 at 5:21 pm
I don’t see much pushing bicycles (if you’ll pardon the pun). The fossils are still behind the wheel of the 4×4 basking in their glory.
Vote:The bicycle is one of the best inventions ever, it is (only) relatively recently that they have figure out why they stay up, the way they do.
November 12th, 2011 at 5:23 pm
hj,
You sound drunk. Are you drunk?
Vote:November 12th, 2011 at 5:33 pm
Yes, It is an Election Year
Spokes took a quick look at the 3 major parties web sites to see what they think of cycling. A search was done on each site using the word ‘transport’.
On the National party website transport is found under the infrastructure tab and leads to a page of various infrastructure projects. This is as close as it got to cycling.
“Better State Highways
Improving our highway links is important not just for commuters, but for all those who need faster, more reliable connections between cities and markets.
$12.2b investment in state highways over 10 years.
SEVEN ROADS of National Significance fast-tracked.”
Link: http://www.national.org.nz/budget2011/Building_infrastructure_for_growth.pdf
The Labour site does not have a specific heading for transport policy but came up with a speech given by Labour MP Phil Twyford at the Smart Transport Conference.
“We must equip our transport system for the shape of the 21st century economy.
It is essential we protect the nation against the challenges of peak oil and climate change…
…All transport modes should be looked at equally – not starting from a position that only one mode can be good for the economy or the quality of our lives…
…It seems to have escaped the Minister, but cycling and walking are transport too – they are not just recreation options…”
Link: http://labour.org.nz/news/smart-transport
The Green party site offers a page on policies with a specific transport link leading to a policy summary and a link to their written transport policy. Here is the opening bit:
Key Principles
A greater emphasis on sustainable transport options
Transport must meet rural and urban needs and will help create thriving communities
Good access to save transport for people of all ages and abilities
Effective participation in transport decisions by local communities and Maori
Transport decisions must take into account the economic, social, health and environmental effects of transport choices.
Specific Policy Points
…Fund up to 100% of projects for public transport, cycling and walking infrastructure and regional transport centres, that are approved by the New Zealand Transport Agency…”
Link: http://www.greens.org.nz/policysummary/transport-policy-summary-smart-moves
This was followed up with a search on ‘cycling’ which found National mentioning the opening of the new velodrome and a coroner’s inquest, Labour having quite a few cycle transport related items and the Greens offering pages of cycling related articles.
Vote:http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2011/11/carbon_emission_changes.html#comment-901090
November 12th, 2011 at 5:36 pm
wat dabney (890) Says:
November 12th, 2011 at 5:23 pm
hj,
You sound drunk. Are you drunk?
Vote:=======
Answer this:
Is the human economy a subset of the worlds eco system or vice versa?
November 12th, 2011 at 5:38 pm
Scott Chris says “In what way is a country on country comparison valid in the argument surrounding carbon emissions?”
It shouldn’t be necessary to state the obvious, but, quite simply, the only difference NZ will make will be to screw our economy, meanwhile making not one scrap of difference to total worldwide CO2 emissions (irrespective of whether one believes or disbelieves the mantra of the CO2 doomsday scenario). This point has been made many times by those with even a modicum of realism about the issue.
Vote:November 12th, 2011 at 5:58 pm
projectman says:- “It shouldn’t be necessary to state the obvious”
I didn’t say country on country comparison of carbon tax regimes. I said a comparison of carbon emissions. You’ve somehow conflated the two.
The only valid comparison is a per capita one. Now *that’s* stating the obvious. It clearly defines our individual personal responsibility, if indeed you consider carbon emissions to be a matter of personal responsibility.
Or would you rather hide behind the arbitrary notion of statehood?
Vote:November 12th, 2011 at 6:11 pm
The world runs on fuels which produce carbon dioxide. There is nothing out there that can change that fact. Goverment mandated fixes wont change a thing except leave the poor a lot poorer.
Vote:The good new is that 4 or 5 parts of carbon dioxide in 10,000 means zip.
Which one do you think NZ should get rid of first 1 3 4 or 2.
November 12th, 2011 at 6:15 pm
Smith, Key and other National tards sold their ETS tax by saying we had to honour our Kyoto commitments.
Kyoto finishes next year and with very little if any chance of a new agreement being arrived at National ( being the ethical and moral giants they are ) should scrap the ETS then, right? Hmmm….
Vote:November 12th, 2011 at 6:24 pm
“The only valid comparison is a per capita one.”
Well, it isn’t. Not when you’re demonstrating the essential point that the emissions of half the World’s population make NZ’s as a rounding error in comparison, regardless of the variations per-capita. It shows that NZ can’t make any difference whatsover to this non-issue.
Vote:November 12th, 2011 at 6:30 pm
The source article for this graph is here
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/09/what-hath-kyoto-wrought/
The main point in the article is that Kyoto has had no effect on global emissions whatsoever. The main driver of emissions is economic growth, i.e GDP
Clearly, CO2 mitigation policies are not working
Vote:November 12th, 2011 at 6:44 pm
Chicken Little (757) Says:
November 12th, 2011 at 6:15 pm
Smith, Key and other National tards sold their ETS tax by saying we had to honour our Kyoto commitments.
Kyoto finishes next year and with very little if any chance of a new agreement being arrived at National ( being the ethical and moral giants they are ) should scrap the ETS then, right? Hmmm….
Totally correct but unfortunately the Nats don’t have Cabinet Ministers with any Intellectual Integrity and therefore it won’t get changed but massaged into some other form with another name. You watch and see.
Just like youth rates. Cabinet Ministers too bloody dumb to be able to see the obvious so rush off to some stupid bloody civil servant that’s never paid anyone wages to get the BEST Opinion. That’s the Nats for ya. Dumb as dumb can be.
Vote:November 12th, 2011 at 6:49 pm
Don the Kiwi (649) Says:
November 12th, 2011 at 4:48 pm
The sooner we can get rid of this crazy ETS the better.
That is one of the reasons I am giving my party vote to ACT, and every sane person should do the same.
Don the Kiwi. Good to see you have seen the light.
Now if lofty and Pauleastbay would start to put their thinking hats on progress can be made.
Vote:No Hope for Scott. He’s a dogma challanged individual who will never know how to stand up for his own country. Just follow Helen around in his blue suit.
November 12th, 2011 at 6:56 pm
wat dabney says:- “It shows that NZ can’t make any difference whatsover to this non-issue.”
By the same argument, a single person says, “what difference do I make?” and resolves to do nothing at all.
End result? 7 billion people do nothing.
I thought libertarianism was all about taking *personal* responsibility. One’s country is merely a geographic and ethnic fluke.
Still, it isn’t an issue for you, so the argument about taking personal responsibility for carbon emissions isn’t relevant to you.
Vote:November 12th, 2011 at 6:58 pm
Party vote ACT, me too.
Vote:November 12th, 2011 at 7:20 pm
Chicken Little is right , Kyoto is a gonner. Even Ban Ki Moon said during his visit to Australia & NZ earlier in the year that there was very little chance of a global agreement to come out of the Durban meeting. He thought the way forward was local initiatives. Guys like him do not make “slips of the tongue” comments on these types of issues.
Vote:One of the figures to come out of Australia’s carbon tax scam is that by 2050 ( if their scheme lasts that long) going by the Aust. Treasury figures , Australia will be sending $A 57 billion / yr overseas to buy carbon credits and meet all its promises to the UN etc. At that rate NZ might catch up to Aussie –its just a matter of waiting. But they might be saved by the lapsing of Kyoto as well!!
November 12th, 2011 at 7:48 pm
At 4.11pm I posted as follows:
“David, this whole business is a CROCK.
As you are aware, but are apparently unwilling to recognise:
1. There is no evidence (as opposed to unsupported assertion) that an increase in CO2 will in any way damage the planet or life, per se. On the contrary, CO2 is life giving.
2. World temperatures are falling, NOT increasing
3. Soot is not CO2.
4. Steam is NOT CO2.
5. Carbon etc (soot) is NOT CO2 or methane.
4. This whole business is reminiscent of the late, and unlamented, Club of Rome, the 1970s “ice age” and Erhlich’s “population bomb”.
Since we are trapped in the Kyoto crap, the Government’s current and announced position is the best we can hope for until the world comes to its senses. In the meantime our diplomatic panty waists have a defensible position.
AND JUST IN CASE YOU ALL DID NOT NOTICE…… Mrs Darth Vader (aka Clark/Davies) supports a world wide transaction tax with the proceeds going where? Her rotten branch of the UN.”
To all those who continue to believe in the Gorecon, I paraphrase Gerry McG and John K, and say:
“Show me the evidence – not BS assertions by Moon’s flunkies.”
Vote:November 12th, 2011 at 8:18 pm
Scott Chris,
“By the same argument, a single person says, “what difference do I make?” and resolves to do nothing at all.”
But that is precisely your own position (or are you going to pretend that your CO2 emissions are appreciably different from mine or anyone else’s here?)
“I thought libertarianism was all about taking *personal* responsibility. One’s country is merely a geographic and ethnic fluke.”
Indeed. If AGW were a genuine issue there is no question but that CO2 should be taxed as a negative externality. But it isn’t so it isn’t.
Vote:November 12th, 2011 at 9:10 pm
Scott Chris,
‘David Farrar says:- “You are wrong. China will not agree to any cap.” To the contrary…‘
That would be this China, would it?:
“China Threatens Massive Venting of Super Greenhouse Gases in Attempt to Extort Billions as UNFCCC Meeting Approaches”
“In the run-up to the international climate negotiations in Durban later this month, China has responded to efforts to ban the trading of widely discredited HFC-23 offsets by threatening to release huge amounts of the potent industrial chemical into the atmosphere unless other nations pay what amounts to a climate ransom.
China’s threat comes after the European Union and other nations moved to ban HFC-23 credits from internal carbon markets in recognition of the perverse incentives created by these credits under the UN Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). The vast amounts paid for HFC-23 offsets have led factories in China and elsewhere to manufacture far more HCFC-22 and its HFC-23 by-product than necessary, just to maximize the amounts paid to destroy HFC-23 through the UN-backed carbon trading scheme.
In a shocking attempt to blackmail the international community, Xie Fei, revenue management director at the China Clean Development Mechanism Fund, threatened: “If there’s no trading of [HFC-23] credits, they’ll stop incinerating the gases” and vent them directly into the atmosphere. Speaking at the Carbon Forum Asia in Singapore last week, Xie Fei claimed he spoke for “almost all the big Chinese producers of HFCs who “can’t bear the cost” and maintain that “they’ll lose competitiveness”.
China’s claim belies the fact that HFC-23 can be destroyed for just 0.20 cents per CO2e tonne. The destruction of one CO2e tonne generates one Certified Emission Reduction (CER) under the CDM, which historically has been sold on carbon markets at an average price of $18 — 70 times the actual cost of destroying HFC-23.
Because of these vast profits, China has repeatedly rejected attempts to destroy HFC-23 emissions through the Montreal Protocol. At the 2009 and 2010 Meetings of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol, China blocked progress of a North American proposal to pay the actual costs of destroying HFC-23 emissions at plants not currently covered by the CDM, which account for over half of developing country HFC-23 production.
HFC-23 is produced as an unintentional by-product of the refrigerant HCFC-22, itself a powerful greenhouse gas and ozone depleting substance. This means that the quantity of HFC-23 produced is directly related to the production of HCFC-22. HFC-23 is an important contributor to climate change because of its incredibly high 100-year global warming potential (GWP) of 14,800.
“Attempting to force countries into squandering billions on fake offsets that actually increase production of greenhouse gases is extortion,” said Samuel LaBudde, Senior Atmospheric Campaigner with the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA). “China is not the victim here, and a world order responsive to climate change cannot be predicated on unrepentant greed.”
With a 65 per cent tax on CDM projects, the Chinese Government has already received $1.3 billion — enough to destroy all the HFC-23 it produces for decades to come. Despite this, China still vents at least as much HFC-23 as it destroys, since about half of its HCFC-22 production is ineligible for CDM funding. Xie Fei’s statement makes it clear that preventing emissions is not nearly as important for China as continuing the enormous CDM revenues that benefit its government and industry alike.
“Carbon offsets derived from HFC-23 crediting only serve to subsidize the production of greenhouse gases and have no place in the future of carbon markets,” said Mark Roberts, International Policy Advisor for EIA. “If China is genuinely concerned about climate change rather than profiting from a fatally flawed system, it will stop blocking efforts to control HFC-23 emissions and stop threatening to hold global climate hostage to its unrealistic demands.”
In the week before the Durban climate talks, the Montreal Protocol will again consider the proposal to control non-CDM HFC-23 emissions. Similarly, the CDM Executive Board will also convene to discuss revisions to the HFC-23 methodology, based on recommendations from its Methodologies Panel that recognize at least two-thirds of the HFC-23 credits issued to be fraudulent. To date, China has blocked moves in both forums. The CDM Executive Board must also decide whether to renew existing contracts for HFC-23 destruction and allow crediting for facilities not covered by the CDM, considerations that are strongly opposed by the international NGO community.
“The minimal cost of capture and destruction of HFC-23 should be borne by the HCFC-22 producers as the price of responsible business practice,” said Clare Perry, Senior Campaigner at EIA. “HFC-23 CDM projects have cost European taxpayers untold millions, and allowed European industries to increase their emissions while subsidizing chemical producers in China to produce yet more greenhouse gases. These dirty credits should be discontinued immediately.”
China has failed to use any of the windfall revenues from the sale of HFC-23 credits to address emissions of HFC-23 at Chinese plants not covered by the CDM. Virtually every manufacturer of HCFC-22 in the world outside of China or not covered by the CDM voluntarily captures and destroys HFC-23 by-product as standard business practice, including manufacturers in the EU and the US. ”
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/china-threatens-massive-venting-of-super-greenhouse-gases-in-attempt-to-extort-billions-as-unfccc-meeting-approaches-2011-11-08
Vote:November 12th, 2011 at 9:25 pm
“Hey, developing countries! Jeopardise your economic growth so we can feel good about ourselves!”
Good luck telling that to the Chinese and the Indians.
Good luck getting that through the thick heads of the Greens and the Western governments in thrall to that ideology’s ludditry and scaremongering, as perfectly exemplified by the Keystone XL debacle.
Nuclear, gas, hydroelectric. Yes, keep drilling for oil because you need it for engines. Geothermal if it’s available (which it is in NZ). Everything else is a mug’s game.
Vote:November 12th, 2011 at 10:05 pm
wat dabney says:- “But that is precisely your own position (or are you going to pretend that your CO2 emissions are appreciably different from mine or anyone else’s here?)”
I don’t have to pretend. I am carbon negative. I own 100 hectares of 15 year old radiata pines, pruned and thinned to 350 stems per hectare and a further 8 hecares of fenced and pest free regenerating native bush.
Every second of every day my 35,000 trees sequester more carbon. I haven’t sold my carbon credits yet. (although if I continue not to do so, the government will claim them on my behalf!)
That’s me taking personal responsibility.
With regard to the Wall Street Journal article…. Any story that begins, “China threatens to extort etc” is gonna be political. It’s simply an agency of the USA posturing before the Durban climate negotiations. The “extortion” was attributed to the revenue manager of the China Clean Development Mechanism Fund, an organization responsible for renewable energy projects funded by carbon credits. Here’s a more positive and less political article about them:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-22/china-cdm-fund-to-have-1-5-billion-for-clean-energy-projects-by-2012.html
Vote:November 12th, 2011 at 10:13 pm
I said:- “Every second of every day my 35,000 trees sequester more carbon”
oops… obviously trees don’t photosynthesize at night. Silly me.
Vote:November 12th, 2011 at 11:26 pm
David, this whole business is a CROCK.
As you are aware, but are apparently unwilling to recognise:
1. There is no evidence (as opposed to unsupported assertion) that an increase in CO2 will in any way damage the planet or life, per se. On the contrary, CO2 is life giving.
2. World temperatures are falling, NOT increasing
3. Soot is not CO2.
4. Steam is NOT CO2.
5. Carbon etc (soot) is NOT CO2 or methane.
4. This whole business is reminiscent of the late, and unlamented, Club of Rome, the 1970s “ice age” and Erhlich’s “population bomb”.
Since we are trapped in the Kyoto crap, the Government’s current and announced position is the best we can hope for until the world comes to its senses. In the meantime our diplomatic panty waists have a defensible position.
AND JUST IN CASE YOU ALL DID NOT NOTICE…… Mrs Darth Vader (aka Clark/Davies) supports a world wide transaction tax with the proceeds going where? Her rotten branch of the UN.
And the world is still flat, science is bunkum and I cant see cause I have my head up my arse.
[DPF: Yes CO2 is life giving, but it also traps heat in. It's about having the right balance in the atmosphere.
You are also wrong to say world temperatures are falling. Please cite a reference. The mean 2010 temperature was the highest on record]
Vote:November 12th, 2011 at 11:27 pm
The more interesting graph would be actual CO2 emissions be capita.
Vote:November 13th, 2011 at 1:09 am
DPF you need to make a credible answer to Scott Chris. His point is that China is still well below the US and NZ in terms of per capita emissions. Your position – that we should not agree to any caps unless China does, and there is no benefit in reducing our emissions – is both illogical and unreasonable. Regardless of what China does, the world climate will still be better than it would have been if developed countries cut their emissions. Sure it would be better still if China agreed to keep their levels at incredibly low per capita levels, but they are not going to agree to that, and why the hell should they?
[DPF: No you are totally wrong. What the graph shows is that the impact of the rest of the world is minimal compared to China. The entire developed world could go carbon neutral, and by 2020 China will have emissions 50% higher than the rest of the world had in 2005.]
Vote:November 13th, 2011 at 6:49 am
The west have exported emissions to China.
Manufacturing is basically the largest emitter—and, we all know that manufacturing has been shifted from countries like the USA to China.
Simple really.
Total emissions are a global output, trying to limit them on a national basis was never really going to help.
Vote:November 13th, 2011 at 7:12 am
David, you say: “This is not to say, we should do nothing at all. We need to be credible to our trading partners.”
These are our top ten export markets, in dollars and as a percentage of the totat:
Australia: $9.7b (23.73%)
China: $4.1b (10.10%)
USA: $3.6b (8.74%)
Japan: $3.1b (7.55%)
UK: $1.6b (3.85%)
S Korea: $1.3b (3.25%)
Singapore: $1.1b (2.81%)
Indonesia: $897m (2.21%)
Hong Kong: $826m (2.03%)
Taiwan: $814m (2.00%)
Of these, Australia has just legislated for a carbon tax (not an ETS) that will be immediately repealed after its next election. The UK is part of the EU ETS, but 70% of the EU economy is services, for which its ETS is largely irrelevant, 28% is manufacturing and 2% is agriculture. Only 40% of the EU’s electricity sources are covered by its ETS and agriculture is completely excluded.
The rest of our export markets have done and are doing, broadly speaking, nothing.
So which trading partners are we trying to impress with the world’s first-and-only-ever all-sectors, all gases ETS?
You shouldn’t be so quick to repeat Nick Smith nonsense.
Vote:November 13th, 2011 at 8:07 am
Matthew Hooton says:- “You shouldn’t be so quick to repeat Nick Smith nonsense.”
So New Zealand taking a nationally responsible position within the world community and enhancing our brand image is a bad thing?
Fact is, we can’t compete with most goods manufacturers on a cost basis, so we’re simply maintaining and adding to the perceived value of our products.
I doubt Smith would have introduced the ETS otherwise.
Vote:November 13th, 2011 at 8:48 am
Scott Chris – can you name a single NZ exporter that uses the fact we have an ETS in their marketing? I am sure there must be one but I am not familiar with any.
Vote:November 13th, 2011 at 9:01 am
Matthew Hooten says:- “can you name a single NZ exporter that uses the fact we have an ETS in their marketing?”
No, but I’m certain that it is being used as a selling point, even if the farming sector isn’t yet part of the scheme.
Plenty of “warmist” buyers out there.
Vote:November 13th, 2011 at 9:13 am
Per year changes only matter if the two groups are starting from the same base. Otherwise, only the per-capita, or total emissions matter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita
Of the countries we’re interested in:
11) Australia
12) USA
15) Canada
23) Russia
…
78) China
Or total emissions 2009:
https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AonYZs4MzlZbdFF1QW00ckYzOG0yWkZqcUhnNDVlSWc&hl=en
1) China
2) USA
3) India
4) Russia
5) Japan
6) Germany
7) Canada
However, year on year is pretty pointless, particularly considering that the US has been in the middle of an economic downturn for the past 4 years, and China’s been inflating like crazy. It’s bad math.
Vote:November 13th, 2011 at 9:40 am
Scott Chris – amazing you can be certain of something yet not have a single example. I suspect there are no examples at all.
Vote:November 13th, 2011 at 9:46 am
You can smell an enormous rat when a staunch Labour supporter is praising National’s ETS tax.
Vote:What a revelation!
November 13th, 2011 at 9:57 am
“nationally responsible position”
Is crippling our economy to benefit the third world a nationally responsible position? NO
It may be a global responsible position
We are struggling to compete on the world stage if we want to remain in the first world we must stop all this bullshit or drown in are own responsible but stupid position .
At 0.1 percent of world wide emissions crippling our economy to make a statement is futile stupidity at its worst.
Vote:November 13th, 2011 at 10:09 am
Matthew H
What about the trade barrier/protectionism argument? Is there no merit in that or do the numbers just not stack up relative to the downside of no ETS?
There are certainly lobbies on the basis of food miles and the fact that the food miles argument doesn’t stack up (we are at least about 20% less as I recall than they can produce domestically) doesn’t necessarily mean that they won’t be used. I’m thinking particularly of UK/Europe and agricultural exports.
The other point, arising from the export stats you quoted, is the sensitivity of ETS will vary by market and product. China won’t care, but the poms/Euro lobby will for agricultural products. I commented earlier regarding targeting the top of the market and possible discretionary responses to perceptions oF NZ. It doesn’t follow that the views of those in the part of the market that we target will necessarily coincide with those of their governments.
Are you aware as to whether there are any numbers on this malarkey or is Nick Smith indeed just pulling it out of his arse?
Last, there is the prospect that, in itself, the absence of ETS isn’t a deal breaker but that does not mean that, at the margin it cannot be so. eg domestic pressure from local producers who are in reality after protectionism. Trade agreements don’t count for much (apples exports to Australia).
Vote:November 13th, 2011 at 10:29 am
Well reasoned argument Dav.
Manolo
I just call it as I see it. I do NOT support the labour party, or any party on the left side of the political spectrum, but that is beside the point.
If ACT was socially liberal, I would vote for them, but with Banks there, ACT are my enemy.
Vote:November 13th, 2011 at 10:37 am
thedavincimode, could you please distill your position: Are you for or against the ETS tax?
Vote:Thank you.
November 13th, 2011 at 10:43 am
If Scott Chris thinks an ETS is best thing since sliced bread, fine he should feel free to donate. I think it’s the biggest fucking con ever, why should i have to pay.
Vote:November 13th, 2011 at 10:58 am
thedavincimode
Bluntly, Nick Smith is indeed just pulling it out of his arse.
There are two types of potential trade barriers – formal governmental ones and informal customer or consumer ones.
At the governmental level, given no country has an all sectors, all gases ETS (and the EU has a very limited ETS) which country could possibly impose trade barriers against NZ on the grounds we didn’t have an ETS? In any case, WTO rules would over-rule any such non-tariff trade barrier (as, eventually, they did on apples to Australia). It is impossible to believe that any country would impose such sanctions against us and, to be fair, I don’t think even Crazy Nick makes such a claim.
At the consumer level, food manufacturers, supermarkets or individial consumers could decide not to buy NZ goods because we did not have an ETS. But look above at where our products actually go and ask yourself how likely this is. And if the treat were real, you would think that at least one NZ exporter would be saying: “Proudly made in New Zealand, the home of the world’s only all-sectors, all-gases ETS.” But none do (as far as I am aware). In any case, if such risks did arise, then individual companies could enter the non-governmental carbon markets and buy carbon credits (as some airlines and other companies already do) in order to maintain their green credentials. Of, if we really did start to notice consumer resistance to NZ not having an ETS, then we could simply attach ourselves to another country’s ETS (which would be a bit difficult for now, given no other country has one, but Crazy Nick reckons its only a matter of time before another country follows us, so that wouldn’t be a problem down the track … )
PS. Also, you rightly comment that the Chinese will never care about an ETS but you worry Euros might. But look above, only one EU country is in our top ten – the UK, and it accounts for only UK: 3.85% of our exports. So that is not a risk worth insuring ourselves against by raising the cost structure across the economy.
Vote:November 13th, 2011 at 11:05 am
Manolo
I’m for it provided we are ultimately financially better off with it or it can otherwise be demonstrated that it is so clearly in our national interest that we need to have it.
I’ve always looked at it as being a cost of trading with the world or being part of it. Eg if its used directly or indirectly as a pretext for trade barriers. I don’t see the point in making a stand on a point of principle on an issue like this if its just going to help us go down the shitter. Its a cost of doing business.
I’m at the disadvantage of being unable to drag a PhD in AGW out of my arse like everyone else here, so I find it easier to just think about the money.
Vote:November 13th, 2011 at 11:06 am
It’s amazing how the new cult of the ETS tax, characterised by blind worshipping and servile adoration, has managed to gather so many followers so quickly. It can only be the smell of the money involved and the powerful vested interests.
Nick Smith has done (and is doing) great damage to our economy.
Vote:November 13th, 2011 at 11:16 am
Matthew H
I’ve experienced one marketing walla wrapping it up as a component of Brand NZ – with water quality and little lambs chasing butterflies etc, but no numbers (no surprise you might well say) and another foreign producer identifying this stuff as a potential product value add (ie as part of that brand).
Given what you say about where other jurisdictions are at, it seems that their comments are more directed at their perceptions of our market opportunity rather than our reality.
But then its always easy for someone else to be free with your money …
Vote:November 13th, 2011 at 11:18 am
Manolo
Its only the smell of money that works for me.
But where are these “powerful vested interests” lurking under the bed? Is Nick S preparing for his next career post 2014?
Vote:November 13th, 2011 at 11:24 am
Scott Chris,
Nice for you to own your own private forest so you don’t have to change your lifestyle. But what’s this about making money from it by selling carbon credits?
Forgive me for being cynical but for all your talk of “taking personal responsibility” it sounds like you’ve made a shrewd investment there, effectively having poorer people buy your forest for you (just like the rich and middle class in the UK have made fortunes buying wind turbines etc and had everyone else – including those in the lowest quintile – forced to pay for it (and more) through much higher power prices.)
What happens to your middle-class subsidy farm if the AGW hysteria goes away? You have a clear fincancial interest in keeping the bandwagon going.
thedavincimode,
Your argument that consumers will be swayed by labelling produce as carbon neutral sounds very weak to me. Individual producers can already buy carbon credits (from Scott perhaps?) and so label their produce as carbon neutral. Do we see companies lining up to do that?
You posit so many political what-if’s, whilst suggesting that the invalid food miles argument might be deployed, that your position amounts to nothing but complete speculation. Hardly the basis for policy. The EU might not even exist this time next week.
Vote:November 13th, 2011 at 11:47 am
“The EU might not even exist this time next week.”
Touche.
Vote:November 13th, 2011 at 3:45 pm
DPF, you say, “no you are totally wrong. What the graph shows is that the impact of the rest of the world is minimal compared to China. The entire developed world could go carbon neutral, and by 2020 China will have emissions 50% higher than the rest of the world had in 2005″.
That graph shows carbon emission changes. Not total emissions. Doesn’t it? That’s the title anyway. I grant that that the graph of total emissions would show that China and India et al produce a massively significant and growing proportion of world emissions. But the impact of the rest of the world is not minimal. How can you call 70% minimal? It is simply not true to say that here is absolutely no environmental or economic gain from making cuts to developed world emissions. The climate will be better than it would have been without such cuts.
Vote:November 13th, 2011 at 4:03 pm
Scott Chris,
“I am carbon negative. I own 100 hectares of 15 year old radiata pines, pruned and thinned to 350 stems per hectare and a further 8 hecares of fenced and pest free regenerating native bush…I haven’t sold my carbon credits yet. (although if I continue not to do so, the government will claim them on my behalf!)
A postscript in case it wasn’t clear from my earlier reply.
You might own the forest but if you sell carbon credits against them it is the people buying the credits who are offsetting their emissions, not you. And it’s exactly the same if, as you say, the government sells credits on your behalf.
The short of it is that if your forest participates in the ETS then you can’t double-count them as your person offsets and are no more carbon neutral (let alone carbon negative) than the rest of us.
Vote:November 13th, 2011 at 4:17 pm
Why would Nick Smith (and John Key for this matter) would change its stance on the ETS: from fierce opposition (“NZ shouldn’t lead the world)”, to full believers in this growth-stopping tax?
Where did the National Party leave the pro-business principles that (falsely) claims to embrace?
Shame on those two liars and their eleventh-hour acolytes.
Vote:November 13th, 2011 at 5:08 pm
Presumably NZ is contributing to China’s growth in emissions by exporting coal there. We are also outsourcing a lot of our manufacturing there too.
The ETS would appear to me to be a very expensive branding exercise.
Vote:November 13th, 2011 at 8:28 pm
Kyoto and UNFCCC are concerned with INCREASES of emissions, not absolute levels.
Tha notion that emissions should be parceled out on a per capita basis has the same validity as the notion that every person on this earth should have an equal share of the world’s income. Both are equally absurd, utopian, impractical, unjust, unworkable, and unlikely.
If countries won’t buy from NZ unless we have a harsher ETS than they have themselves, we could still cut our all-sectors, all- gases effort by 90 percent, and trade with every country in the world except Australia. Then, we could trade with Australia as well after their next election.
Vote:November 14th, 2011 at 12:06 pm
Very misleading graphic for two reasons.
Absolute values rather than per capita values – this explains China leading the pack – they have over 1 billion people dontcha know.
Choice of date range – just about the only graph I’ve ever seen that shows a big reduction of CO2 emmissions by America – it helps that CO2 emmissions are heavily correlated to industrial activity and the graph is over the time period of the biggest recession in America since the 1930′s.
Vote: