I'm a greeny and think that the ETS is a crock of faeces

[shrub]

I am unashamedly a greeny (I love riding in this beautiful country too much to be anything else), but I think the shiny new ETS scheme Our Masters have decided to bless us with is not a good thing for the environment or the ordinary people of NZ.

Any emissions trading scheme is based on the idea that if I pollute, all I need to do is purchase credits from someone who doesn't pollute and put my prices up to cover my increased costs. As a classic example of how it works, I have a business that pumps carbon in the atmosphere and have to do something about it. The best solution would be for me to have to clean up my act and stop polluting, but that takes effort and would cost a fortune, so I discover that there are a heap of farmers in India who use bicycles to pump water from wells instead of electricity or fossil fuels, which means they're able to sell their carbon credits (this actually happened).

So I buy their carbon credits to offset my emissions, and raise my prices accordingly; I can't help it, those evil greenies made me do it by forcing in the ETS. The consumer pays more, the guys on their bikes can't afford to buy electric pumps because if they did they'd lose their carbon credits and I continue to pollute. Fantastic.

And I haven't even begun to discuss the disproportionate impact on ordinary consumers like you and I compared to the impact on the corporate sector. I'm just glad I have a tax cut to look forward to so I can cover the costs of increased GST, increased ACC and now the ETS.

[avgas]

I hate to add salt to the wound.....but the rabbit hole goes a bit deeper than that even.

Not many NYC investment bankers (origins of many credits) decrease carbon emissions, they simply "buy" and "resell" the figures....

Hence why its an ETS - not a regulatory commission.
Only other thing I think it compares to it would be the "options" market. Where you are not buying anything that exists - but a fictitious figure, stating something will change. Unlike the stock market where you are buy a figure of value in a corporation.

[shrub]

I hate to add salt to the wound.....but the rabbit hole goes a bit deeper than that even.

Not many NYC investment bankers (origins of many credits) decrease carbon emissions, they simply "buy" and "resell" the figures....

Hence why its an ETS - not a regulatory commission.
Only other thing I think it compares to it would be the "options" market. Where you are not buying anything that exists - but a fictitious figure, stating something will change. Unlike the stock market where you are buy a figure of value in a corporation.

Absolutely. And the hole goes deeper still - Our Masters will now put their hands on their hearts, put on an earnest expression and announce that "we've done our bit for climate change", meanwhile the problem grows and grows and grows and grows..... Kind of like Bradford's Bill a couple of years ago - well meaning, but instead of addressing the problem yet another law was passed meaning Our Masters can wash their hands of the problem - "smacking is illegal, what more can we do?"

[Scuba_Steve]

ENRON anyone???

[george formby]

Just another business in the 1st world economic model. ETS is not intended to fix anything, it is designed to make money for the brokers & carbon traders. If the gummint really wanted to do something positive they would be spending money on alternative energy solutions & closed loop industrial & building practices developed, designed & made right here in little old godzone.
We don't need your steenkin ETS.

[slofox]

ETS is the best example of total bullshit I have seen in a while. As the OP said, it doesn't fix anything - it just works on the principle that "if ya throw money at it it'll all go away". ETS fixes NOTHING!
As Murray said this morning on another forum, "BAH! HUMBUG!"

[retro asian]

I wonder who the minister in charge of ETS is....???


....oh yeah, that's right:

[Naki Rat]

Absolutely. And the hole goes deeper still - Our Masters will now put their hands on their hearts, put on an earnest expression and announce that "we've done our bit for climate change", meanwhile the problem grows and grows and grows and grows..... Kind of like Bradford's Bill a couple of years ago - well meaning, but instead of addressing the problem yet another law was passed meaning Our Masters can wash their hands of the problem - "smacking is illegal, what more can we do?"

And of course the costs of ETS are just passed down the line to the consumer whose only retaliation is to boycott, but when the ETS is so all encompassing we are pretty much pissing in the wind on that front

[shrub]

And of course the costs of ETS are just passed down the line to the consumer whose only retaliation is to boycott, but when the ETS is so all encompassing we are pretty much pissing in the wind on that front

One of the interesting features of business in the 21st century is the decreasing number of players in a given sector as businesses engage in takeovers and mergers, which opens the door to widespread collusion and removes the opportunity for consumers to find genuine alternatives. We're kind of heading from democracy to feudalism, only this time our lords and masters are global multinationals.

[MisterD]

The best solution would be for me to have to clean up my act and stop polluting, but that takes effort and would cost a fortune,

Yeah, but you putting your prices up is supposed to put you at a competitive disadvantage against someone who isn't polluting (coal power station vs hydro f'rinstance). Theoretically, anyway.

It's a bag of shite from top to bottom and I have no idea why the government is so keen to cripple our economy...it's not as if JK needs a job at the UN after his terms as PM.

Nice to see Nick Smith standing up against the power companies though and making sure they don't use the ETS as an opportunity to rort us. We can't have anyone encroaching on the government's monopoly in that regard now, can we?

[shrub]

Yeah, but you putting your prices up is supposed to put you at a competitive disadvantage against someone who isn't polluting (coal power station vs hydro f'rinstance). Theoretically, anyway.

Only problem is the modern business model doesn't work that way because the small number of players mean everyone is basically doing exactly the same thing.

What we need is an environment that supports innovation, entrepreneurialism and vision, and for us to use our legendary Kiwi ingenuity to develop technological advances that can produce energy and products in a low carbon manner. What we have is a "business as usual" model.

[mashman]

ENRON anyone???

No thanks i've just eaten ...

did none of you see the program on Swarms last night? They said there is a massive population explosion of Pyrosomes... Pyrosomes, and some jellyfish, take carbon to the seabed believe it or not... perhaps a pool full of these suckers would bring your carbon footprint down

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

You really think they want to true fix any problem... sorry but there is too much money to be made...


just slaves to the system...

go search NASA website and burried deep within (enough to hide it but not enough to say it was hidden) all the planets are warming up at the same increased rate as Earth... hmmm but they can't tax you on that because how did we effect Mars???

[Mully]

On an unrelated note, I'm offering a "Last day of June" special for all KBers:

Buy some carbon credits from me, and I'll throw in some magic beans!! No postage required, because these are magic beans that will just appear to you.

Sorry, cheques not accepted. Direct deposit preferred. PM for account details.

Form an orderly queue please - I have plenty.

[bogan]

What we need is an environment that supports innovation, entrepreneurialism and vision, and for us to use our legendary Kiwi ingenuity to develop technological advances that can produce energy and products in a low carbon manner.

fucking aye!

does the ETS directly affect farmers, ie does a tree earn them x$ and a cow cost them y$

I found some shit about planting trees on thier site

To be eligible to earn emission units, the forest needs to be a minimum of 1 hectare, planted after 31 December 1989 with a forest species capable of growing to five metres plus.

which is weird, cos I was unaware that 20 year old trees stopped converting 'bad air' to 'good air'