Anyone concerned about ETS commitements?

First commitment period ends this year I believe. Anyone worried?

Here's some quick research I did on it last year (references at bottom!)

"As awareness about climate change and the role mankind has played increases around the globe, there has been a shift in global consciousness to now look at ways in which this change can be reversed. Although many ideas around climate change have been challenged by skeptics, and there remains some uncertainty about how quickly things are being escalated due to mans involvement, The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) strongly indicates that human activity has been a predominant factor and that climate change is “… very likely not due to known natural causes alone” (Chapman & Boston, 2007, p42).

This partial literature review will look at the implementation of the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) in New Zealand and what this scheme will mean for us as a country and where the liability of costs will fall. It will also look at if the ETS will reduce emissions and potentially result in an improvement to the health of the planet. The reason that I chose to look at the ETS is that I believe it links well to the class topic: Ecological Global Crisis Awareness and the Effect on The Planet: The Human Response.

Definition

The Emissions Trading Scheme is a form of carbon tax which requires countries which emit over their allocated amount to buy carbon credits from countries which have a surplus (Boston, 2007). The ETS, during Commitment Period 1 (CP1) from 2008-2012, requires most industralised countries to bring their emissions to the same levels as they were in 1990. There are no restrictions about how countries achieve this, nor is there a necessity in regards to who will fund any carbon credits that need to be bought. Developing countries are exempt from the ETS as are some industries within developed countries.

Unlike a normal tax which would be paid to the government and then utilised and distributed domestically, the ETS should work as a “cap and trade” system (Bertram & Terry, 2010). Having a cap implies an emission limit that a country or industry can not go above, whilst trade refers to the trading of carbon credits domestically or internationally to offset emissions

History

The ETS came as a result of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol which New Zealand ratified in 2002. By ratifying this agreement New Zealand became legally committed to bringing down emissions to 1990 levels or paying the difference by buying carbon credits from countries with a surplus.

In 2008 the Labour government passed the Emissions Trading Scheme Act and in 2009 the National government amended and passed a new version of this Act. Both Helen Clark and John Key appeared committed to reducing emissions with the ETS. In 2006 Clark talked of New Zealand becoming carbon neutral and having no emissions, whilst Key in 2007 suggested the desire to cut 2007 CO2 emissions by 50% by 2050 (Bertram & Terry, 2010).

Research

Camilla Needham wrote an article in 2006 called Emissions Trading Scheme: The Business Response. In this article she pointed out that emissions had increased by 26% from 1990-2005. Due to New Zealand industries already operating in a reasonably effective manner and there being no current way to reduce agricultural emissions, Needham believed it would be difficult for New Zealand to actually reduce gross emissions. However, she did believe that the ETS would force companies to “… find new ways of working in order to remain economically and environmentally sustainable” (Needham, 2006, p60).

The University of Auckland Business School wrote an article in 2009 which summarised New Zealand’s commitment to the Emission Trading Scheme. It stated there had been major increases to emissions levels since 1990 and in 2006 emissions were 26% higher than 1990 (Jiang, Sharp & Sheng, 2009). As of 2008 New Zealand obligation for the first commitment period (2008-2012) was $593 Million (Treasury, 200. Looking at the industries responsible for gross emissions agriculture came out on top contributing 48% of the emissions, which

predominantly were from methane and nitrous oxide. It was also pointed out in this paper that agricultural emissions would be exempt from the ETS until the second commitment period of 2013-2016.

The Carbon Challenge (Bertram & Terry, 2010) dissected the ETS, looked at its short comings and documented who would actually carry the end bill for any carbon credits that would need to be bought. Although the ETS is meant to be a “cap and trade” system, Bertram and Terry (2010) believe that the ETS is all about trading with no actual cap. Without an actual cap on emission levels as long as industries can trade carbon credits to offset their emissions there is no mandatory or legally binding reason to actually reduce emission levels.

The 2008 Minister for Climate Change Issues Hon David Parker estimated the ETS would result in a “… 1% reduction for the period of 2008-2012” whilst under Nationals 2009 amendment gross emissions would only be reduced by 0.6% (Bertram & Terry, 2010, p 17).

These articles all suggest that the implementation of the Emissions Trading Scheme will cost New Zealand a small fortune financially whilst not actually doing anything to significantly reduce emissions.

Who’s paying?

Households and private road users account for 19% of emissions but contribute 52% of costs under the 2009 ETS. Small to medium industries and transport operators account for 11% of emissions yet contribute 38% of costs (Bertram & Terry, 2010). What this shows is that even though smaller industries, transport operators, households and private road users only contribute 30% of emissions they will fund the vast majority of the total costs.

Conversely large industrial companies account for 15% of emissions and contribute only 1% of costs. Agriculture accounts for 49% of emissions yet only pays 3% of the costs (Bertram & Terry, 2010).

Conclusion

Recent research into the Emissions Trading Scheme clearly shows that major emitters are not carrying anywhere near their fair share of the burden, and that tax payers are required to fund the vast majority of any deficits which are encountered due to the implementations of this policy. With New Zealand emissions projected to rise to 36% above 1990 levels by 2020 (Bertram & Terry, 2010) this has the potential to create a bill for future tax payers of up to $7.6 Billon.

If the Emissions Trading Scheme does not actually provide motivation or strong legislation to ensure that industries are committed to lowering emissions, the question has to be asked if it will make any difference to the heath of our planet or not.

References

Needham, C. (200. Emissions Trading Scheme: The Business Response. Retrieved on 8/4/11 from www.management.co.nz

Jiang N. Sharp, B. Sheng, M.. (2009). Policy Watch New Zealand’s Emissions Trading Scheme. University of Auckland Business School: Auckland

Bertram, G & Terry, S. (2010). The Carbon Challenge New Zealand’s Emission Trading Scheme. Bridget Williams Books Ltd: Wellington

Boston, J. (Ed). (2007). Towards a New Global Climate Treaty Looking Beyond 2012. Milne Printers Ltd: Wellington "

tl:dr

How about you craft an argument rather than cut and pasting thousands of words?


I'm not really worried because there is fuck all I can do about anything related to the ETS, and the whole thing is pretty fucked.

Well, I crafted that copy/paste myself Kris ...

I see not much has changed around here...

The thing that really gets my goat is Nick Smith a couple months back said the dairy emmissions would never be included (ie: they'd never pay their fair share, or any share for that matter, and the tax payers would fully pay for this). Conflict of interest much when a lot of our dairy farms are owned by overseas entities?

I actually only came back when I realised I could access biggie from work and couldn't use facebook ;-p

Anyone who says anything about this should first declare their conflict of interest as someone who causes emissions.

how many emissions i cause is a completely private affair , nor does it affect my judgement.

That's a moot point. It's silly to say that if you cause emissions by driving or travelling etc, you can't have an opinion on the topic.

Treaty of Waitangi payments are round $1.7 Billion I believe ... our first commitement payment due at the end of this year could be up around $1.8 Billion. Treasury back in 2008 calculated it to be just under $600 Million.

Unless the ETS is tossed out it is gonna cost NZ some serious money ... my biggest issue with the ETS is it will make fuck all difference to global emissions and it will have a nil effect in making any real difference ... and NZ, who globally emitt very little (and most via dairy) will pay an absorbenent amount through this.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/3599250/ECan-sacking-right-decision

the environment and the planet is way more important to us than money will ever be

ETS is severly flawed, it was setup badly by labour and then national made it worse... but to defer our responsibilty by saying we're small and insignificant is a huge copout

our emmissions are increasing... and thats something we should be ashamed of

Posters should declare if they think AGW will be fixed by procrastination and shooting down possible solutions

I have been saying this for years. Most people don't get it - taxing people for consumption they cannot reasonably reduce or make cleaner achieved nothing other than punishing them. A huge proportion of most first world country citizen's emissions can't be reduced with any current or in-research technology by any meaningful amount.

Change habits is what will bring about change and in two decades of discussion basically nothing has been achieved on a global level. Wherever one location has managed to improve their habits another has gotten worse to cancel them out.

its the failings of looking for a market lead solution...

at the very least it should be taxing the producers of the emissions not the consumer - gutless politicians (both sides of the house) whom have no interest in much more than the next election to blame

end o times

Got corporatocracy?! I'm totally with you on the emitters being the ones to pay, but under the current ETS legislation it's either the end users or the tax payers who will be funding this jaunt ... add to that that developing countries aren't included (or has that recently changed?) and you just imagine outsourcing services to copuntruies where the emissions aren;t counted and/or tryting to gain access to developed countries which are open to foreign investment (ie: NZ)

in short those we entrust to protect our future are failing us

so who got a new ipad then

and we're failing ourselves

It looks like the Greens pragmatically (ie not seen as ideal best optiion) support the ETS:

"The Green Party believes that putting a price on greenhouse gases is desirable to reduce emissions, as well as to incentivise energy efficiency and renewables. Our strong first preference is for a carbon charge, recycled into income tax reduction for all taxpayers, and into funding carbon abatement. However there is currently little chance of this happening in NZ, so we will work to improve the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) put forward by successive Governments."

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/3095679/Controversial-ETS-bill-passed-in-urgency

End users always pay, even if you directly charge the producer they will pass the costs on, it's unavoidable.

that is true... but a company knows that if it just hikes prices to pay for their emissions charges the market will react accordingly - isn't this the sort of shit the nats and co are all about?

instead the socialist bastards seem to always want to directly and indirectly tax the consumer....

Taxing producers more for anything they do directly results in higher end cost for whatever they are selling. That's what businesses do when costs rise - it goes to the consumer.

The major producers, in this case the dairy sector, will never ever have pay their fair share. Initially it looked like they'd end up paying no more than 10% by the 2nd or 3rd commitement period (2016/2020), but I'm thinking that Nick Smith was suggesting they'd never pay anything ... nice lobbying Fonterra

Tax Fonterra for emissions and pass legislation that they can't raise prices in nz.

Wouldn't that be ideal ... and unlikely to ever happen

and as I said the consumer then acts accordingly - if its essential then the consumer sucks up the raises, if not essential there is a potential for a decline in use/sales - thus the producer has an incentive to look for cheaper/greener options to reduce the ETS 'burdon' and maintatin sales and thus profit

or in another case a energy company is looking to increase the amount of power they generate, they decide on a new power plant, they have two options, coal or wind... one carries with it huge ETS taxes the other few... thus the costs of generation take into account the cost of emissions not the wider tax paying population base

course I need not explain how markets can work to you

I'm the leftie

The thing is, the areas where people create the bulk of their emissions and which are things basically everyone needs happen to be the areas where competing suppliers don't have any foreseeable advantage over each other in terms of emissions per X supplied. So everyone is basically in the same boat... sucks but what can you do?

The greener options currently available (if taken in true cost to produce) price those suppliers out of the market.

Which is the same as can be said for preventing something like a metre or more rise in ocean level this century, with catastrophic consequences for every ecosystem, social system, and economy on the planet.

If the ETS actually made any difference to global emission levels or potentially would help out the planet I'd be all for it, but thge way it's set up it'll make nil difference to either.

its designed to fail - refer to those in charge

Over the last few decades I've raised from seed about: 4 dozen Kauri, 6 dozen Kaihikitea, 2 dozen Taraire, and a variety of other misc native trees, which have mostly been given away to be planted on private or public land, and some have been sold.

Given that google informs me a "biggish Oak can weigh 30-50 tonnes or more", then if I can guess these trees might be about 10 tonnes in size when I kark it.

So 10 tonnes x 168 trees = 1680 tonnes.

Guessing that 60% of a trees weight is water, that leaves 1600 x 0.4 = 672 tonnes. The woody part of that matter is about half cellulose and half lignin, which are both about 50% carbon. So 672 x 0.5 = 336 tonnes of carbon.

Given that carbon emissions in NZ are about 8 tonnes per capita then I've covered for the rest of my life. After that I'm in credit assuming that no one goes and fucks with my trees.


SO I GUESS THAT GIVES ME THE RIGHT TO SAY NZ NEEDS TO UP ITS GAME

its what we do as a collective that counts

individualism will only fail our species and the planet as it currently is

I'm under no illusions this makes any difference at all in the scheme of things

So I just read "the last time CO2 levels reached those we see today, the West Antarctic Ice Sheet had melted, adding 3.5m to the global sea level. That gives you pause for thought as we wrangle over cutting emissions."

Correlation does not equal causation.

Also the last time CO2 levels were as high as they are today - was that humanity's fault or *stands back in shock* has the earth always had fluctuations in temperature throughout it's long history as part of a natural cycle?

Oh so you really want to go down this road?
You want us to get into a discussion about if the problem is real and we caused it?

Not really. Al Gore said it's true and I'd be a fool not to believe him.

Fantastic logic haga. They told you to hate on Gore and you did.

Did you know a UK judge found that Gore's documentary An Inconvenient Truth "was broadly accurate ... "its four main scientific hypotheses ... are supported by a vast quantity of research."

I told you I didn't want to argue - I don't like it however when it's implied that the whole man made global warming debate is over and all scientific research and scientists support the hypothesis that humanity is the cause of it all when that obviously isn't the case. As for "they" telling me to hate on Al Gore - who are they exactly? Ironically - using the power of the internet that he himself invented - you yourself can find plenty of evidence of his dodgy past behaviour - not to mention he has a vested financial interest in the cause.

That aside - even supposing that all research shows that man made CO2 emissions are the primary cause of global warming - or climate change as it's called these days - then how does a globally insignificant (and broke) country like New Zealand paying for its emissions change anything substantial, when other countries won't commit to do the same?

On second thought maybe I do want to argue.

It's a sign on utter depraved desperation to suggest that global warming is not happening because there are no dissenting voices

You've said that in a confusing way, but I don't think I said what I think you are saying I said if you get what I'm saying.

You are presenting global warming as a hypothetical, something that might or might not be happening.
By talking about "all research" there is the implication that a single dissenting voice is sufficient to reject the reality of gw.

I think maybe you've missed what I've said. I don't doubt the reality of climate change, and there is study after study showing that it's happening - what is contentious is whether the change in climate is primarily caused by man made greenhouse gas emissions.

Also to imply that there is a single dissenting voice saying that is wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

Just supposing for a second that something else may be the cause (you can't blame human activity for the ice ages and inter glacial periods now can you) then an ETS is going to achieve bugger all, and like I said even if it is the number one cause then there's no point having New Zealand pay for it's tiny contribution (when we can't afford it) when a large country like China can pollute all it likes.

OK so we agree it is happening. But you want a question mark over: 1) Whether or not we are the cause, or if other factors are involved? 2) If there are other factors what is their relative degree of influence?

I'm not going to pretend I know everything about the issue - but I think it's disingenuous to say that all is known, and that we shouldn't be concerned about the ETS. On both sides of it are people and organisations pushing their agendas and it's sometimes hard to know who or what to believe. Blindly following or only listening to one side, or only looking at research that backs the conclusion that you've come to while ignoring research which shows otherwise isn't going to get the truth of it.

Just to be clear - I believe humanity has had all kinds of negative effects on nature, pretty much every world ecosystem is in decline, we pollute our planet in all sorts of very measurable and non debateable ways. I even voted for the Greens as I liked their policies about green technologies, and a country like New Zealand could be a global leader in exporting green technology if we invested in it.

However what I see with ETS is no solution to a global problem irrelevent whether caused by us or not, and is only going to stifle our economy while achieving nothing in the process.

Your list of sceptical scientists amounts to just under 40
On the same page there is survey data suggesting anywhere from one to six percent of scientists think human activity has little or no effect on warming.
In 2007 the IPCC found that human actions are "very likely" the cause of global warming, meaning a 90% or greater probability.
On this page there is a list of over 100 scientific institutions who think "the danger of manmade global warming if a fact"
http://cleantechnica.com/2011/11/03/global-warming-truth-the-world-is-warming-we-are-causing-it/

Labour in Aussie are bringing in their carbon tax scheme in the next couple of months and it has business people fretting about how it is going to face rape their economy while everyone else has no idea what it will actually do.

Myself, I'm ambivalent. Not a breeder so give no fuck ^_^

There are all kinds of ways in which we can do something about global warming, and it doesnt matter if you believe in markets or if you are a socialist. There are answers. But vested interests and the profits of some groups will suffer.

Once you accept as fact that the overwhelming strength of evidence points to global warming as real and caused by us then you have to face the implication (not guaranteed as certain) that the most rational thing to do is to accept that we dont have any choice except to address this problem, even if it means short term pain. The alternative - of being the gambler who risks everything against powerful odds - risks setting off run-away warming fed by feedback mechanisms.

Economists have calculated the costs of global warming, and they are massive. They get bigger the longer we wait. It's time to reorient the economy around different ways of producing and consuming energy, and doing so may even have economic benefits.

The ETS could make a difference if it forced the biggest producers of CO2 and methane to pay a price for the priviledge becasue it would force them to reduce their emissions or pay to offset them. Problem is of course we have so far excluded our biggest emitters.

That's a whole lot of ifs.

Why would it force anyone to do anything? Or are the countries that've signed up going to sanction those that have not? Last I checked we have a free trade agreement with China. And like you've just said - even if they did sign up, they have the choice of paying to offset their emissions, which would defeat the whole purpose.

is inaction when potentially the species is at threat a better survival plan compared with doing something, even if its fundamentally flawed?

as for china, look at their 'green' projects... they have much to be proud of (and are enacting change at a rpaid rate) where we're still debating cows arses

What's required is initiative on the basis of the urgency of the problem - there really isn't time to stuff around anymore and grizzle about the other guy. We have already set processes in motion that will lead to a significant rise in sea level and catastrophic consequences. Our best hope now seeing as how useless we are is to not set feedback mechanisms in motion leading to runaway warming.

The day will come when we burn oil to run the pumps to try to hold back the ocean. Its not far from getting that crazy.

Another way is possible.
Denmark aims to supply 35% of its total energy from renewables by 2020 and 100% by 2050
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/mar/26/wind-energy-denmark

Um, if both fail to fix the problem then the end result is the same Bob.



Well maybe the world should model itself on China then since they are such a pioneer for environmentalism.

better to try and fail and be the end of our species than not I would suggest, rather strongly

and I didn't suggest China is some sort of environmental pioneer we should all emulate... but as per above they are making an effort - only this morning I read an article about a wind farm they're trailing that would produce more power than all of NZ's generation capacity

and what is NZ doing - allowing any old tom dick or harry to dig up our land for coal et al and our govt is gambling big on us finding significant oil....

Well, some ~75% of our energy is ALREADY from renewable sources. There's a few problems in that it drops in winter as coal/gas plants take up the slack, and new renewable infrastructure hasn't been coming on line, but in 07, the Clark govt set a target of 90% renewable by 2025.

As far as I'm aware our major problems are not so much the generation of energy in the form of electricity (we have many renewable sources - although we could do better), but our emissions from transport and dairy farming.

Government is reluctant to fund public transport because, in my view, it subscribes to an austerity perspective on economics which suggets the state should cut spending, not try to raise revenue, not plan development, and not be responsible for not much at all. Consequently the population drives everywhere.

Farmers are an interest group the government has no wish to tackle becasue again it doenst wish to take any responsibilty for the economic direction of the country and all it can see is short term economic pain which in the absence of a some kind of bigger plan might well become a significant and chronic ache.

Record volumes of milk have helped diary giant Fonterra increase its half-year net profit by 18% to $346 million - raising the prospect of hitting $20 billion in revenue this year.

http://www.odt.co.nz/news/business/203487/fonterra-increases-half-year-profit-18

sounds like a nice excuse for doing nothing bob

Agriculture/dairy farming predomiantly produces NO2 and Methan rather than CO2 .... and, like you've said, are excluded from paying their fair share. In fact Nick Smith said tax payers would be funding all of it indefinitly.

With Fonteras profits up due to higher milk production, it doesn't take a genius to see a massive conflict of interest with the lobbying they've done to achieve this and the internatiobnal investment we're seeing in dairy farming in NZ.