Nix Myth.. the mathematician..

[Winston001]

So much for the free market, huh? Instead of providing price signals to polluters so that they can have an incentive to innovate and tidy up their act (and our, and our kids' environment), let's load up tens of billions of market distortions, just to keep the party backers happy. Fucking corporate socialism.

I don't understand how the Emissions Trading Scheme is supposed to work. Anyone got a link?

I note that Australia has now exempted agriculture so they can forget about the ludicrous taxing of animal emissions.

As for Kyoto, unless the Asian tiger economies stop pouring pollution into the atmosphere and water, anything we do is pointless.

[SPman]

I am kind of, but not really, almost, feeling sorry for Poor Minister Myth.

Nick Smith is a lying scumbag - just about every time he opens his mouth out pours the most outrageous crap!
He deserves a kick in the nuts!

If I were in his shoes I would be wholesale sacking the bastards that fed the line of bullshit that he has been given to spout.

That would be the National party...

[rainman]

I don't understand how the Emissions Trading Scheme is supposed to work. Anyone got a link?

In principle, the intention is to contain or reduce the amount of CO2 and equivalents (Carbon dioxide (CO2), Methane (CH4), Nitrous oxide (N2O), Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), Perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and Sulphur hexafluoride (SF6)) emitted by an economy, by establishing a tradable emissions permit scheme - but the devil is in the details, certainly in the case of this ETS. IIRC a similar emissions trading mechanism was successful in the US at reducing CFC emissions as a result of concerns around the ozone hole.

The wikipedia article has a decent summary:

A central authority (usually a governmental body) sets a limit or cap on the amount of a pollutant that can be emitted. Companies or other groups are issued emission permits and are required to hold an equivalent number of allowances (or credits) which represent the right to emit a specific amount. The total amount of allowances and credits cannot exceed the cap, limiting total emissions to that level. Companies that need to increase their emission allowance must buy credits from those who pollute less.

So far so good, it's just regulating the commons - in this case being clean air. Polluter pays: those that need to pollute or can't innovate and find cleaner processes pay those that can innovate/don't pollute. Ideally the cap lowers over time, so that the total emissions reduce and our kids inherit a world worth living in. The Kyoto Protocol basically works on these principles too.

Of course the question is in the measurement, and who gets measured, etc. Labour's ETS was flawed in a number of ways, and delayed entry into the scheme for certain sectors - details here. But they were heading in the right direction, at least.

National's revised ETS is completely screwed (actually it's us being completely screwed): It further delays entry of key sectors like agriculture, mutes the pricing signal with a $NZ25 per tonne of carbon cap, effectively removes the "cap" component, allocates credits on an intensity basis (encouraging, not discouraging, pollution), and carries on free allocation of units to polluters for 75 years, among other things. Apparently there is also some race-based sweetheart deal with the Maori Party (who have shown the worst mix of naivety and opporturtunism ever since getting into bed with the government), but details on that aren't clear to me yet.

Basically the National Party have wilfully destroyed the existing ETS, and have no interest in reducing emissions. NZ will be more of a laughing stock on the world stage as a result. Their scheme heavily subsidises the (big business) polluters, with us taxpayers picking up the tab - $92,000 per family per year until 2050, by some estimates.

National has of course rushed this through without sufficient consultation, and their usual level of respect for democracy. Even Treasury (who are not bleeding heart liberals by any means) said in their Regulatory Impact Statement on the new ETS: "the level and quality of analysis presented is not commensurate with the significance of the proposals". Treasury estimates show that implementing this ETS will increase government debt by 13-17% by 2050.

In the real world, a $50bn fuckup will certainly get you fired. Betcha Nick Smith gets a pat on the back instead.

How's that change feeling, NZ?

[GOONR]

Nick Smith is a lying scumbag - just about every time he opens his mouth out pours the most outrageous crap!
He deserves a kick in the nuts!


That would be the National party...

Here here!! I'll hold him down, you kick him!

[Winston001]

In principle, the intention is to contain or reduce the amount of CO2 and equivalents (Carbon dioxide (CO2), Methane (CH4), Nitrous oxide (N2O), Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), Perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and Sulphur hexafluoride (SF6)) emitted by an economy, by establishing a tradable emissions permit scheme - but the devil is in the details, certainly in the case of this ETS.

Of course the question is in the measurement, and who gets measured, etc. Labour's ETS was flawed in a number of ways, and delayed entry into the scheme for certain sectors - details here. But they were heading in the right direction, at least.

National's revised ETS is completely screwed (actually it's us being completely screwed): It further delays entry of key sectors like agriculture, mutes the pricing signal with a $NZ25 per tonne of carbon cap.....

Basically the National Party scheme heavily subsidises the (big business) polluters, with us taxpayers picking up the tab - $92,000 per family per year until 2050, by some estimates.....

Cool and thanks. Looks like I need to understand Labour's version before grasping Nationals changes.

I have to say it seems odd that polluters can carry on polluting by buying carbon credits. I suppose that encourages forestry etc which can sell the credits.

I have a couple of problems. I hypothesise that large corporate polluters are also large employers and important to our economy. Killing business for a principle isn't so attractive when it takes food out of people's mouths. Which incidentally is why I don't criticise India and China.

I also struggle to conceive of New Zealand as being a polluting nation. We have a very low population density - only 4 million people. Almost all of the country is covered in bush, forestry, and grasslands which soak up carbon. And for a first world nation, we don't have much heavy industry and emissions. Lots of green hydro and geothermal though.

NZ still has to do its bit as part of the international community. Nevertheless after thinking about all of this for some years I've come to the conclusion that nobody anywhere is going to voluntarily give up their lifestyle. And I don't believe governments can force it.

Which rather leaves a mess for our children......except the current massive world population explosion leads there anyway. Dystopia....

[SPman]

I have a couple of problems. I hypothesise that large corporate polluters are also large employers and important to our economy. Killing business for a principle isn't so attractive when it takes food out of people's mouths. Which incidentally is why I don't criticise India and China.

I also struggle to conceive of New Zealand as being a polluting nation.

As an example.....it would be far cheaper to close down the Bluff Comalco smelter, give every employee $250k redundancy and divert the Manapouri power into the National grid, than keep it running and give it the subsidies that are being proposed under Nats EFTs scheme.

NZ is among the largest group of polluters, per head of population, in the world!

[GOONR]

His calculator is bust again :slap:

Smith Continues To Manipulate ACC Numbers


This is a repost but couldn't work out how to link directly to the other one, sorry!

[scissorhands]

His calculator is bust again :slap:

Smith Continues To Manipulate ACC Numbers


This is a repost but couldn't work out how to link directly to the other one, sorry!

Busted!!!! He's a low down ratbag. I'm just doing my job...dont wash with me. Personal responsibility Nick!

[cowpatz]

The ETS is just a money carousel with very little incentive for any business to clean up it's act. After all any costs will simply be passed onto the end user or consumer.

This is just a glorified blackjack game for those in the club.