The new ETS

Maori Party are getting a (deserved) ROASTING for this - after refusing to accept the plan because they wanted a stronger commitment (to save Papatunuku), a dropping cap, agriculture bought in earlier, less of a focus on intensity allocation etc etc they just voted in one that does the opposite of all those things. Mana-enhancing means being National's bitch huh guys?

Just FYI - as taxpayers we are paying $430m MORE A YEAR(!) under this plan than the one that was in place. And it looks like it's so weak as to have no actual incentive to reduce emissions, so we'll just fork out huge sums under our Kyoto liability without actually reducing emissions.
Rough calculation of the taxpayer subsidy to agriculture? $1BILLION a year.

Ace.

yes, but, it saves jobs in dead industries that aren't economically or environmentally sustainable. That's what's important...

If you're so keen to pay more tax why didn't you buy your new mac in nz?

Did you read my post?
That's the exact opposite of my point - I DON'T want to pay more tax. National's ETS makes me pay more tax (by subsidising our carbon emitters Kyoto bill with taxpayer dollars)

You'd be paying for it elsewhere maybe even more than now

Said it tons of times before, emissions trading schemes of this sort will always ensure the end consumer pays more for the same thing and little of significant effect will happen in terms of environmental concerns.

I'm basically against any system like this which is set up to pander to large industries, especially utilities, who have little real motivation to change much at all.

the herald agrees with you gareth

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10597545

the whole point of the ETS is that consumers do pay more for particular products. That way they'll buy less of those products, or people will produce different products that don't attract the same carbon tax.

For all his talk of letting the market do it's thing, key has certainly fucked this up. Instead of deferring to the market he's instead opted for socialist style subsidies

Well, I won't stand for john key's nanny state socialism!!

And this is the absolute perfect example of that model - incur all the costs (mainly through the taxpayer) and completely hide the price signals to ensure nothing changes.

I can't believe a pile of top climate scientists haven't banded together to point out the likelihood that these schemes will have little or no effect on the exact industries which are the worst emitters and also amongst the most ubiquitous.

If you sat down and said: how can we reduce emissions and compel people to do so or risk losing trade deals etc you would never even up with this sort of scheme unless you basically let the worst offenders (countries and industries) run it.

Well Rob the benefit of an ETS is that it DOES cap total emissions (where a tax doesn't). Although National has even removed that now as well (taken out absolute caps and gone to intenisty-based ones that lets polluters keep on getting worse). And not that an ETS is setup to (rightly) not care where they come from. It's about the total level.

The issue is going to be when EVERYONE goes over the Kyoto caps and there's not enough credits generated to pay the deficit.

I thought we voted out the socialists with their subsidies, and their taxing the populace for the benefit of the minority. What happened to individual responsibility.

Oh, wait... it's not socialism if it's for the rich people

I'm against cap-and-trade systems and much prefer an emissions tax. Have debated this many times on here before though and don't really want to repeat myself.

Regarding emissions trading schemes however, we were talking about turning pollution into a property right in economics this week and in order for private property to be successful, it must have the following attributes, be: 1) Exclusive, 2) Universal, 3) Enforceable 4) Transferable

One problem with this scheme is that it's not Universal and thus will have problems anyway.

Figures from Goff's correspondence on the issue with National (via NRT):
•A $25 price cap will blunt the incentive to forestry to invest. Forestry provides the biggest and lowest cost early opportunity to reduce New Zealand net emissions. The cap will be costly for forestry and plantings will not go ahead, at least for another three years. Some forestry interests say they will hold these credits until the price cap comes off and they can get a better price. Already this season 8 million seedlings are about to be dumped due to uncertainty over the ETS policy and the price signal it will deliver.
•The $25 cap will shift a huge cost onto taxpayers. The higher the world price goes, the greater the subsidy for heavy emitters and agriculture.
•A $25 cap in a market with a carbon price of $50 means emitters retain the 90% free credits for emissions above 2005 levels (the level of assistance that they would receive under the scheme we put in place), plus a 50% discount on a $50 carbon price on any additional emission rights they need to purchase.
•The $25 cap is the equivalent of going to a better than a 95% subsidy level in an industry without any output growth.
•Agriculture could effectively pay nothing for the next 10 years. Meantime, nitrogen inhibitors and other practices to reduce emissions will be rolled out, providing windfall gains.
•At present, the 90% subsidies to emitters in the current legislation are reduced by 8% in a straight line beginning four years after a sector enters the scheme. If National harmonises to a reduction rate of 3.6% provided for in the Australian scheme, the cost is about another $1 billion a year - but this doubles if prices are capped at $25 and the world price goes to $50.
•If the carbon price rises to $50, the cost to Government could rise to $2 billion (the equivalent of two rounds of tax cuts or $20 per household per week).

asks boss for $20 a week payrise to offset his ETS costs

for some reason boss thinks he's joking

ETS serious stuff

where is the personal responsibility here.

I don't buy beef, cheese, milk, I don't buy petrol, I conserve power etc

Why should my tax dollars go to paying for people that don't care about the planet!

You could make the same argument for almost anything that taxes cover - welfare, healthcare, education, roading etc - depending on how you life your life

Except an ETS is specifically designed to expose carbon-emitting activity to price signals and therefore incentivise efficient alternatives. Given that Neil is already embracing those alternatives, it seems specifically unfair for him to have pay tax instead while everyone can ignore their emissions.

I'm not feeling that informed or well up to date on this debate, but it certainly has the appearance of a fairly bad policy decision.

an explanation for Maori Party rationale



http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10598192&pnum=0

and the way forward maybe

Brian Fallow

So the international backlash is starting - how's that Clean Green image holding up?

NZ gets "Fossil of the Day" award at the latest round of talks for our ridiculous response.
http://www.signon.org.nz/blog/nz-forever-fossil