National’s ETS changes
November 9th, 2011 at 3:16 pm by David FarrarNational has released its policy on climate change and the environment. The policy has a long list of achievements, but I want to focus on the ETS changes:
The 2011 ETS Review Panel recommended moving to full obligation in three equal steps between I January 2013 and 1 January 2015. It is National’s intention to implement this recommendation.
This is nothing major, and seems sensible to phase in the full obligations.
National believes it is important to maintain land-use flexibility for pre-1990 forest land. We will introduce offsetting on 1 January 2013 regardless of the lack of international agreement.
This is very sensible. It basically says you can offset new forests against cutting down existing ones. Allows a landowner to use the land most suited to forestry for forestry and the land most suited to (say) dairy for dairy.
The agriculture sector is liable to surrender units for agricultural greenhouse gas emissions from 1 January 2015.
National will review this in 2014. We will not impose a liability unless there are practical technologies to reduce emissions, and our trading partners have made further progress with their climate change policies to reduce emissions.
I actually disagree with National on this one. The ETS review panel chaired by David Caygill did a very good job I thought, and made the case that the industry has shown the ability to reduce emissions. Sure, there is no silver bullet, but I don’t think delaying the start date endlessly is a good idea. The industry moves into the ETS at a very slow rate, and a preferable strategy would have been to have it come in, and maybe then cap the level it moves to if technology has not found ways to reduce emissions.
Advocate for an international agreement that requires all major emitters to reduce their emission levels over time.
National sees no point in any future international agreement that does not include a commitment from major emitting countries to reduce their business-as-usual emissions levels. We’ve made our 2020 target conditional on this.
This is vital. If China is not part of any agreement to at a minimum hold, if not reduce, emissions then the efforts of the rest of the world will count for nothing.
Related posts:
- What should be NZ’s 2020 emissions target
- Tim Groser on Climate Change
- World’s worst emitters?
- A step forward
November 9th, 2011 at 3:22 pm
The only sensible policy would be to repeal the whole thing, not enter any more international agreements unless everybody else was on board and playing by the same rules and basically just put this nonsense to bed.
Vote:November 9th, 2011 at 3:25 pm
yep repeal any type of ETS or Carbon Trading .. saw Gillard on the Aussie news talking up their scheme .. big battle there
Vote:November 9th, 2011 at 3:26 pm
Because of National’s stance on the ETS, if I had any practical alternative to voting National, I would do so. But it seems this is the Dead Rat to swallow if we want to keep the complete lunatics from taking over.
Vote:November 9th, 2011 at 3:32 pm
I still remember the Polish (?) president who said, when asked what his granddaughter would think about his inaction on climate change, “nothing, because in 20 years no one will care”.
Vote:November 9th, 2011 at 3:33 pm
” If China is not part of any agreement to at a minimum hold, if not reduce, emissions then the efforts of the rest of the world will count for nothing.”
Last year China increased their emissions by 700 million tonnes.
I see for 2008 NZ is listed as emitting 33 million tonnes (don’t have time to search for more recent figures).
What is the fucking point? We’re crippling our economy for what exactly?
Vote:November 9th, 2011 at 3:36 pm
Stop arsing around, National. You were elected, in part, to get rid of it.
Vote:November 9th, 2011 at 3:38 pm
David, you are away with the faries. The ETS is diplomatic BS. Leave it be. Go, David, and review the Club of Rome or Erlich’s population bomb. Time to get off the grass buddy!
Vote:You should also read Willis’ (Fed Farms Nat Pressie) warning to Greens and Labour today and then think about your own conclusions.
Care to wager on the ETS’s (or Gillard’s dumb Carbon tax) longevity?
November 9th, 2011 at 3:38 pm
Czech I think. Either way, no one will care.
Vote:November 9th, 2011 at 3:52 pm
A beltway issue for policy wonks – based on flawed projections and shonky distorted science.
Yes, away with the fairies pretty well sums it up.
Vote:November 9th, 2011 at 3:56 pm
David Farrar says:- “If China is not part of any agreement to at a minimum hold, if not reduce, emissions then the efforts of the rest of the world will count for nothing.”
So what you’re asking is for the Chinese to cap their per capita CO2 output levels at 5.3 tonnes p/a, whereas the United States can cap theirs at 17.5? (2008 levels)
That’s a ridiculous argument, and one the Chinese will never agree to.
What would be much more realistic is for all countries to meet somewhere in the middle, say for the Americans to reduce to 12 tonnes p/a, and for the Chinese and Indians to cap at maybe 9 tonnes p/a. Yes this will almost certainly lead to catastrophic global warming, but it’s the best outcome we’re gonna get IMO.
The American consumer is the main problem, not the Chinese consumer, because the latter have to do what they’re told.
Qatar are the world fucktards @ 53 tonnes of CO2 p/a.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita
Vote:November 9th, 2011 at 4:04 pm
Scott Chris – why should NZ do anything when China’s annual increase of emissions is more than 20 times our total annual emissions?
Vote:November 9th, 2011 at 4:10 pm
Repeal the ETS. And if you need any extra reasons why, read this book. http://tinyurl.com/c7ppddy
Vote:November 9th, 2011 at 4:16 pm
Our ETS is bullshit if you don’t count the cost of actual bullshit.
and hasn’t Nick Smith got truckloads of land tied up in forestry…what a strange coinkydink eh ?
Vote:November 9th, 2011 at 4:34 pm
Remember the claim that “97% of climate scientists support the AGW position?” Did you know that that 97% were actually just 72 scientists out of a total of 75 who were selectively polled on the topic while many thousands who disagreed were excluded? Its a giant con and we need to wake up.
Vote:November 9th, 2011 at 4:38 pm
RightNow says:- “why should NZ do anything when China’s annual increase of emissions is more than 20 times our total annual emissions”
Country on country total output comparisons are meaningless, and are generally only used by politicians. The bottom line is per capita output, because that is a direct reflection of how wealthy you are as a citizen, or more importantly, how wealthy you are allowed to become. The more you consume, the more energy you require.
The Chinese argument, along with all the developing nations, is that if their output is capped at present levels, their citizens will not be permitted to become wealthier, whereas the American consumer can continue to drive happily around in an SUV whilst running domestic climate control 24/7.
How would you feel about that if you were a Chinese person?
Vote:November 9th, 2011 at 4:41 pm
Ah, the spineless Labour lite.
Vote:Just repeal the whole thing. It’s a farce, a scam, concocted by hopeless Labour and inflicted on NZ by the feeble National Party.
November 9th, 2011 at 4:42 pm
Yep, it’s a nonsense. I note the Irish have put theirs on indefinite hold. The last two ferociously cold winters have dimmed people enthusiasm on this crap. The only sensible thing to do is to scrap this rubbish altogether.
Vote:November 9th, 2011 at 4:43 pm
“How would you feel about that if you were a Chinese person?”
I’d call bullshit.
Same as I do as a NZ person…
“BULLSHIT”
What’s your point?
We’re at 7.8 tonnes per capita p/a at the link you provided, way below USA, way below Australia, below 49 other countries in fact. We’re even below the arbitrary caps you suggested for China and India of 9 tonnes. So why should we do anything?
Vote:November 9th, 2011 at 5:03 pm
Rightnow says:- “So why should we do anything?”
Two reasons.
1) Our methane output.
Vote:2) Our “Clean Green” brand image.
November 9th, 2011 at 5:12 pm
1) Nothing to do with CO2
Vote:2) What does that have to do with CO2? The direct impact is on tourism, is there any proof that there is any negative economic impact, and if so how does it compare to the negative economic impact of the ETS?
November 9th, 2011 at 5:23 pm
RightNow, methane is 21-times more effective at trapping heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide by weight.
Vote:November 9th, 2011 at 5:25 pm
The Kyoto Protocol is about use of fossil fuels. Do sheep and cows use fossil fuels?
Vote:Well WTF!
November 9th, 2011 at 5:34 pm
Simply put: the ETS is just another tax. More money for the coffers of the greedy government.
Vote:Thank you, Nick Smith and John Key…….not!
November 9th, 2011 at 5:35 pm
Jimbob, most greenhouse gases released by human activity are a result of the use of fossil fuels hence the focus on fossil fuels. However, there are other greenhouse gases, like methane, that also have heat trapping properties that human activity has increased.
IIRC all greenhouse gases are reported in their CO2 equivalence for easy comparison: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CO2-equivalent
Vote:November 9th, 2011 at 5:35 pm
Bullion, that still doesn’t mean methane has anything to do with CO2. Scott Chris hadn’t previously mentioned methane. If his argument is to cap or reduce methane emissions why didn’t he say so earlier? My argument is about CO2.
Vote:I fully support cleaning up our waterways and addressing nitrate run-off, but the focus on CO2 as the big problem is actually detracting from NZ’s ‘Clean Green’ brand.
In fact I’d favour the government creating jobs (thousands of them) and moving people off benefits to go around the country cleaning up the environment.
November 9th, 2011 at 5:46 pm
Global warming,climate change,gloom and doom,human virus…….
All bullshit.
Scrap the ETS scam,get on with drilling ,mining,farming etc. It’s called wealth creation,it’s what we’ve always done.
Vote:November 9th, 2011 at 5:48 pm
Anybody else notice how “climate change/global warming’ is not featuring at all in this election?
Vote:November 9th, 2011 at 5:52 pm
This is smart greening of the National party… The Greens won’t have a policy left that hasn’t been stolen… who said National couldn’t work with the Greens… If farmers can’t see the value of making moves in this area.. National sure can. National will be the only across the spectrum party left in the country.. They are turning away from being a right wing philosophy party to one that is for all New Zealanders no matter what their philosophy.
Vote:November 9th, 2011 at 6:00 pm
RightNow says:- “that still doesn’t mean methane has anything to do with CO2″
I agree, it doesn’t. I suppose a better measure would be our effective per capita man made GHG warming coefficient.
Or call it something simpler, like “warmist panic units”, that measures out actual per capita contribution to global warming on an easy to compare scale.
Talking in terms of CO2 is just a simplification, as this is by far the biggest contributer to total GHG production.
Vote:November 9th, 2011 at 6:01 pm
Sick of this shit.
Vote:If green and other commentators want faming in the ETS on time ,even though we are the only country to include Agriculture in their ETS tax scam,then I say lets do it honestly.
If farmers were paid for the conversion of carbon that grass pasture does then I know for a fact that the farmers would be in credit in a huge way.
No tax expense but a huge and I mean a HUGE refund annually.
But as with all political solutions theres the kicker,even though they say farmers must pay their FAIR SHARE,they wont calculate the honest value of carbon outputs that include grass conversion,they simply wont put that in the equation.
A thief and a liar go hand in hand.
November 9th, 2011 at 6:02 pm
I’m going to go against the majority of Green voters and say that I think this looks like a very strong environmentalist stance for NZ to take. It is a position from where NZ can actually comment on the inaction of others.
Vote:We’re enacting laws to make emissions reduction a reality in our own country – why haven’t you? When are you going to start?
November 9th, 2011 at 6:03 pm
RKBee, I think you may have misread DPF’s post. National weakened the ETS when they came to power, this policy will slow down the implementation of the ETS and potentially delaying the agricultural sectors inclusion in the ETS. I do not see this as a shift towards “greening of the National party”, actually I see it as a move away from what the Green’s would like.
Vote:November 9th, 2011 at 6:07 pm
I regret to inform you kowtow, that you are sadly mistaken.
The planet as a holistic ecosystem is haemorraging from among other things, ocean acidification directly attributable to CO2 emissions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification
Every second breath we take comes from the ocean’s ability to convert CO2 to oxygen. Only its not the ocean itself that does it, but the micro organisms we rely on, also as part of the food chain which are increasingly at risk by ever expanding ‘dead zones’. Expanses of ocean that are devoid of life and once again directly attributable to climate change and mans irresponsible effect on the environment.
google >> acidification dead zones
…and take you pick from the myriad of sources all pointing to the same result.
To put it simply if the oceans die, we die with them and thats not bullshit. Which is why i’m working to do my bit to save them and by association, us all.
Vote:November 9th, 2011 at 6:29 pm
Bullion – there’s extreme Green.. and there’s sensible Green.. National has taken the sensible Green approach.
Vote:National under Key have Maori avid and now Green avid the party.. they don’t need to be extreme.. I’m a Green Conservative they appeal to me.. and many more like me.. they also appeal to conservative Maori.
November 9th, 2011 at 6:30 pm
I heart ENZED and want to donate to the Greens.
Not.
Vote:November 9th, 2011 at 6:45 pm
I’m probably of a mindset more like petal above.
It’s policies like this, the smacking law, and the foreshore and seabed debacle that make me wonder who I’m going to vote for at all.
Maybe I’ll cast my party vote to the new Conservative party.
Vote:November 9th, 2011 at 7:53 pm
Lilman says:- “If farmers were paid for the conversion of carbon that grass pasture does then I know for a fact that the farmers would be in credit in a huge way.”
In comparison to the natural carbon sequestration performed by the original natural forest cover, most pasture performs poorly as a carbon sink.
In fact, many farmers are not improving the organic content of their soil at all. They just bung on more nitrogen fertilizer.
Those who till old pasture and resow do a better job, so maybe this practice could count for carbon credits, as it is actually good farming practice anyway.
Also, many farmers have tracts of native bush that, if properly fenced off, should count as carbon credits IMO.
Vote:November 9th, 2011 at 7:54 pm
What Fletch said.
Vote:November 9th, 2011 at 7:55 pm
I think I might join you Fletch.. In fact I have already joined as a member.. then again i’m a member of quite a few parties.
Vote:November 9th, 2011 at 8:03 pm
Barf wif venality.
Do what you like . I don’t care.
Vote:November 9th, 2011 at 8:06 pm
Bring it on David, there will be civil war in this country before the corrupt bastards promoting this con get on cent of our income. It’s estimated farmers like myself will be paying an extra 40,000 plus a year in taxes. Are our leaders total fucked in the head, many will barely break even. What a great idea shut down the farms, no problem then no evil gases ffs, nothing to eat either. God we are governed by pig stupid fools. Many farmers simply won’t pay, count me in on that. Better to die standing then live on our knees. Why should NZ be the only country in the world to tax agriculture, simple really, it’s the only way these thieving fucks can steal more money. So if any of your National mates come calling with their hands our you better bring help and plenty of it.
[DPF: In 2015 the cost would be 2.5c/kg of mild solids. So does your farm produce 1.6m kgs a year?
Also you can reduce any costs by planting trees - around $575/hectare per year to reduce the cost]
Vote:November 9th, 2011 at 9:59 pm
Nationals policy is BLAH BLAH BLAH..
When will they go back to delivering their constitution ??
Vote:November 9th, 2011 at 10:16 pm
Is that a Feelers song, cos it sux big time !!!
Vote:November 9th, 2011 at 11:49 pm
This video pretty well sums up the arguments against ET Scams
Vote:November 10th, 2011 at 9:23 am
I’m afraid not in the near future. The current “leadership” has lost the plot and become infected with socialists, wimps and useful idiots.
The moniker Labour lite fits National very well.
Vote:November 10th, 2011 at 11:04 am
DFP the cost may well be 2.5c/kg in 2015, man that’s just the starter. So it’s only 2.5c/kg/ms, fuck you are starting to sound like a lefty with ingrained entitlement, it’s our money not the crooks in Wellingtons money.How would you feel if the man decided you are now the new cash cow and you are to cough up an extra $ 7.50 a day seven days a week on a tax that no one else in the world has to pay . It’s straight out stealing and it’s a con and 95% of National party members know it to be so, when well it get through to the socialists in the Nats that many are getting sick of their ETS bullshit.
Vote:November 10th, 2011 at 12:45 pm
China is profiting very handsomely from climate change. Apart from their manufacturing of a large proportion of the world’s solar panels, they also get billions of dollars of carbon credits (including for HFC-23 – a gas used in refrigerators):
Vote:http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/09/green-group-china-climate-blackmail?newsfeed=true
November 10th, 2011 at 2:25 pm
couple of issues – the ETS is absolutely fundamental to sell primary produce in Europe (if they survive their financial meltdown).
With Oz confirming their own ETS … Oz retailers will veto our imports without a NZ ETS otherwise it will be an unfair playing field.
The greatest ETS/Climate Change skeptics are the baby-boomers who simply don’t want their dream-run to finish. It is finished – they better start believing this – as the X and Y generation doesn’t have the capital to buy Baby-boomer assets – so massive inflation, both economic and climate related – has to commence to offer the X’s and Y’s a future.
The worlds about to change.
Vote:November 10th, 2011 at 7:08 pm
^^^^^^^^^
Vote:Dream on.