Written By: - Date published: 1:04 pm, November 21st, 2008 - 98 comments
Categories: climate change, International, national/act government -
Tags:
According to a leading financier, carbon credit broker Nigel Brunel, of OMF Financial, New Zealand has become “a bit of a joke” in Europe as National/ACT looks set to delay, even abolish, our Emissions Trading Scheme.
If you’ll forgive me an anecdote, I’m reminded of the introduction seminar when I was at uni in Finland. We were being told what a great country Finland is, sophisticated, egalitarian compassionate. The speaker told us ‘in 1906, Finland was the first country to give women the vote’. Well, my hand shot up – ‘no, it was New Zealand in 1893′ (turns out, it’s more complicated than that). The point is, every country likes to be able to tell itself that it leads the world, especially a wee, easily-overlooked settler-state at the bottom of the world. We love to claim to have led the world on women’s suffrage, the 40-hour week, the welfare state, going nuclear-free. We see ourselves as a society that others should seek to emulate: fair to its members and protective of its environment.
How embarrassing, then, that we have given up our leadership role on climate change and, instead, become a joke. Even as the rest of the world, with the US finally on board, redoubles its efforts to deal with this threat we are moving in the opposite direction.
How backward are we becoming? Well, 17 years after the world’s governments signed the Framework Convention on Climate Change – after years of negotiations the world’s nations agreed there was a real problem. No serious country denies the reality of climate change. Yet, National/ACT is set to have a committee of politicians re-examine the science. While the US and Australia rush to catch up with emissions reduction schemes like our world-leading ETS, National/ACT is going to look at ‘adaption’ instead. That is, rather than reduce the problem now, National/ACT wants to talk about how our descendants can make do in a hotter, stormier, more flooded world that we leave them.
It’s not just our pride, or even just our environment, at stake. Our economy loses out too, Brunel says:
‘We are the antipodes of Europe. Their time zone is the exact opposite of ours, and there’s a real opportunity to have a 24-hour carbon market that starts in Europe and when they go into their night we take over. ’There is real interest in that because carbon is such an important market over there. Some very big players were very keen to establish a market down here because of the ability to then create a 24-hour market. ’This was New Zealand’s opportunity to reinvent its financial markets by being the Asian centre of the carbon trade.’
But this week’s announcement that the incoming government will put the ETS on hold pending a review that will go as far as considering a carbon tax instead of an ETS and will re-examine the validity of the science behind climate change, has jeopardised everything
‘We have just fallen off the radar in Europe,’ he said. ‘They are saying ‘all you do is talk. You’ve been talking since 1992. You are all talk and no action. You maintain that you are so clean and green and try to be leaders and all you do is nothing. You make a decision and then you change your minds. How can we do business with people like that? We can’t take your seriously’.’
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
I don’t know the answer to that, northpaw. It’s probably a conservative group, but it was the only international media publication that google news listed discussing New Zealand and the ETS, which would appear to debunk the claim from Nigel Brunel that New Zealand has become the joke of Europe over National’s plans.
Northpaw, global recognition isn’t enough. Darfur is globally recognised but not in the way we want it to be.
I’m after actual & real benefits to New Zealand, given from trading partners, as a result of those micro & internal reforms.
I’m not contesting if it’s real or not. I’m saying by New Zealand doing anything, we are crippling NZ for the sake of looking good.
Defining ‘crippled’ would be a good start.
infused, gosh and golly, a hard act to follow.. witness, you wrote:
And push massive costs on to small businesses in New Zealand? But New Zealanders and small businesses in enzed love massive costs. Look at all those failed financials. Costs and losts! Risk,
where’s the risk— hey guys (had been their well-throated cry) aint nothin’ to it, give dis guy the money and forget it, you’ll be home and hosed.. whenever!!That was then: this is now. Worse to come. Yep, the cost of lost. The latest job ad reads: wanted white knight.
Do you see one.. anywhere?
Nick,
Northpaw, global recognition isn’t enough. Darfur is globally recognised but not in the way we want it to be.
I’m after actual & real benefits to New Zealand, given from trading partners, as a result of those micro & internal reforms.
You appear to be answering your own question, not mine. Would you please do so. Hint, if not the aforementioned achievements then what – (do you suppose) – would constitute “actual and real benefits to New Zealand”.?
I’m saying: so what if NZ is becoming a joke internationally (which it isn’t). The European ETS is a disaster. We could actually become a “global leader” (as much as I hate using that term) in refuting this global warming nonsense.
A carbon credit broker wants to us to adopt a carbon credit trading system. What possible reason on earth could he have for wanting such a thing?
Probably his concern for the planet. Yeah, that figures.
That’s exactly right, Billy. In other news, a cinema owner doesn’t want to ban movies, and a brewer wants to continue making beer.
In other news:
“Tobacco companies critical of moves to restrict tobacco sales”.
And anyway, we never had a leadership role on climate change to give up. We had a leadership role in talking about how we wanted to be a world leader but, instead, did worse on emissions than John Howard’s Australia and George Bush’s United States.
If talking about how good you are at something makes you a “world leader” then I am simply tremendous in bed.
Nick: We could actually become a “global leader’ (as much as I hate using that term) in refuting this global warming nonsense.
That might be a plausible argument if anthropogenic climate change were a matter of belief – eventually, you might argue, people would see the error of their ways and agree that there was nothing in it all along. This is a very tempting position to take since the horizon for real environmental impacts is still a fair way off, and is partly explained by the rather high correlation of climate skepticism with age – those who have the least to lose from climate change are least inclined to believe it to be real.
However, it’s not a matter of belief – it’s a matter of science. Essentially, your choices as a non-expert are to believe the IPCC and the vast bulk of properly-qualified research and opinion on the matter (hereafter `orthodoxy’), or you can believe the broad argument put by the authors of the Great Global Warming Swindle (et al), viz. that the temperature record is inconclusive and all the research saying it is has been distorted by greedy scientists keen to get their hands on large volumes of research funding in order to … what … keep getting research funding – the argument breaks down here – (hereafter `heterodoxy’.) The orthodoxy in this case constitutes believing in science – the rational, objective assessment of verifiable and reproducible phenomena. The heterodoxy posits the motive fallacy as sole evidence to support the claim that science has been subverted by the forces of greed, and by extension that the scientific establishment is corrupt. Which raises an interesting question which I put to coge upthread: are you going to discard all science equally? As a non-expert, upon what basis do you decide what science to believe, and what to ignore? Do you reflect that the same corruption attributed to climate scientists is demonstrably evident in the medical system, where doctors have been known to prescribe drugs on a commission basis (not in NZ, thanks to PHARMAC), and refuse to trust the medical profession or take drugs prescribed by your doctor?
So the ideological question of anthropogenic global warming becomes interesting – there’s a great degree of correlation (in the Global North, at least) between those who do not accept anthropogenic climate change and those who stand to gain in net terms (either to gain or not to lose) by the absence of policy concerned with preventing or ameliorating the effects of anthropogenic climate change. But it’s somehow churlish to point out that the very motive fallacy deniers use to make their primary claim against the scientific establishment is the one which best explains their behaviour and their selective belief in science.
L
What did David Skilling recommend?
Billy, Tim: Heh, you came up with the motive fallacy too (though I concede it’s clearly not a fallacy in all these cases).
L
Lew
Any evidence that our markets are based on the clean green image? I know that’s what the former PM liked to portray and where a lot of brand money is being spent, I’m just not sure if it is true.
Most of our product is going out as a commodity – milk powder, bulk meat, fish, aluminium. Is there anything that indicates this is anything but price driven? How much premium are we getting as a result or preferential market access? Is it really ‘clean green’ or supply chain and quality management driving it.
Lew, I think when the only source that New Zealand’s becoming the laughing stock of Europe over its ETS policy, which was announced by National pre-election and voted on by the New Zealand public, is a New Zealand carbon trader, then the motive fallacy isn’t a fallacy.
This post isn’t about climate change denial or whether New Zealand should have an ETS at all. It’s about whether New Zealand’s international reputation is being severely damaged by this policy change. We don’t have a credible source to back up that claim. In fact, there’s significant evidence that even in Europe, governments and populations are getting cold feet over even the European ETS.
Infused:
And yet, that’s not the point anymore. We have a bill to pay that’s based on our carbon emissions. The most fair way to distribute costs is with a market-based ETS solution to push costs to small businesses relative to their destruction of the environment.
And if the emitters don’t pay it, the tax payers do, so don’t pretend that the cost to consumers doesn’t exist without an ETS/tax.
insider. you ever seen an ad about nzoverseas or seen nz products marketed overseas? it’s all about the green paradise image
New Zealand shafted itself on this one.
Steve
That might be for some niche products, but is that done for the ones that really bring in the money and are used as components of other products? AS for tourism, we sell the attributes we have which are low population, nice scenery relatively ‘unspoiled’, where we have a relative advantage. Norway does the same yet are one of the largest oil producers. That conflict doesn’t seem to cause them issues. Not sure why not being seen at the bleeding edge on climate isues would for us. The exchange rate I supect would do more damage.
I’m a little confused – are we are leader for having a policy even if under the same party that introduced the policy we actually did worse? Wouldn’t that be a joke?
Mr Shankly, are you the character from the eponymous Smiths’ song?
Daveski, I’m a little confused.
National, ACT and their business backers have staunchly opposed anything that the Labour Government brought to the table in almost every area (besides the s59 bill which the Nats supported). They were in such blind opposition to the government that they voted against business tax cuts.
Every time Labour brought up the idea of spreading the cost of New Zealand’s emissions across those that cause them, the right-wing, their business backers and the lobby groups exploded. See the carbon-tax protest, the silliness from ACT about the ETS.
Should the government have ignored those that the legislation would affect most?
What kind of emissions reductions policy (the only way the government has control over the businesses emissions) do you think that National and ACT would have agreed to which would have made our emissions profile better for that period of time.
The answer is they wouldn’t have agreed to any policy. The joke is now they’re turning around and trying to blame the government for increasing emissions.
Insider: My job isn’t to make up for your ignorance about NZ’s extremely well-documented international branding and marketing programme. Go overseas and ask some random foreigner what they know about New Zealand – the top five things will include `sheep’, `All Blacks’ and `clean and green’.
Tim: Yes, yes, I conceded it wasn’t the motive fallacy. My comments above largely aren’t concerned with the change of policy, more with the long-term matter of principle as to what we do about it, of which the policy change is a factor.
However, to address the matter of the policy change. Inasmuch as the change casts doubt on the clean/green/100%pure brand I believe it’s a retrograde step, especially since the proposed solution is to relitigate a lot of matters which have already been thoroughly litigated, both by scientists and by politicians. I’m not saying Brunel is demonstrably right in saying NZ is a laughing-stock for changing horses in mid-stream on this one, but his principle holds – it casts doubt on our intentions and delays measures to reduce emissions and therefore the Kyoto obligation. The longer and more bitter the dispute (bearing in mind we’ve already debated the matter for six years) the more potential damage. Just this fact of relitigation will delay by at least a year the implementation of any scheme, which will delay emission-reduction programmes and thereby increase our overall Kyoto obligation. But connected to this, a lot of the discussion in support of the policy change seems to be fixated on the idea we can or should realistically do nothing. This is certainly the ACT position, and I believe for the reasons I’ve outlined above that it would be an absolutely unmitigated catastrophe if this were to happen.
Furthermore I’m arguing that, even if we could without penalty renege on our Kyoto obligations if anthropogenic climate change were not real, the fact is that according to the best scientific evidence we have at our disposal, it is real, it will affect us, and no amount of ideology will change that. This really means that in order to believe that we can or should renege on our Kyoto obligations, one must believe two propositions that I’ve demonstrated are unfounded, first that we can better afford to damage our international brand, alienate our trading partners and expose ourselves to the international opprobrium that that entails than to simply pay the obligation we agreed; and second that we should ignore the recommendations of the properly-qualified scientific establishment to do so, and instead take the word primarily of a heterodox minority and those who are subject to the motive fallacy in that their livelihoods and business models are in danger from policy based on hard science.
So ultimately what I’m saying is: choose rationality, science and mathematics – support strong and meaningful emissions reduction policy implemented as soon and as clearly as possible; if not for the environment and future generations, then at least for the economy and the current one.
L
Tim Ellis,
In fact, there’s significant evidence that even in Europe, governments and populations are getting cold feet over even the European ETS.</em
Online link/s s’il vous plait. And to confirm you did say “significant evidence”.
Lew made a very valid point earlier regarding belief, believers, believers in what, when, how etc.. I suspect your answer – forthright if you please and thus distinct from Nick’s evasion despite given ample opportunity to explain himself – will assist the folks here to comprehend from whence you cometh..
tim Ellis,
oops! bad markup – read emphasis first para only
Lew you make some really interesting observations in this thread. You imply that it is often the older generations that are skeptical, as they think it won’t effect them. I’m not sure it is that simple. Older people have kids & grand kids, & they care very much for the future of their offspring, including ones yet unborn. Some of us baby boomers grew up with the fear of nuclear war, so we understand the inate fears of the young. We’ve also been around long enough to know that often new ideas are floated from time to time. Theories du jour. Scientists have said many many things over time that have later been proven false. I would imagine if someone wanted to be highly qualified in relevant science, they would not get the necessary grades if they dared to disagree with global warming. Thus over time all the educated are believing the same things. The politicisation of science is surely contrary to what science is. I believe that in ten years new issues will be used to blind us using “science”. From where I’m standing man made climate change is a tool to gain power, combining fear, politics, & money.
Be assured however this pans out for NZ, it won’t be the end of the world.
Well, not all of us oldies are climate change sceptics. So, I don’t agree with the theory of Coge above. I’ve seen all those things change (and some not chamge), but I’m also open to new information and scientific evidence. Man made climate change is a tool to gain power? How exactly?
IMO, the scientific evidence indicates people need to change their lifestyle, especially those who are biggest consumers. So, from people I’ve come across who are climate sceptics, it seems to me that the main motivation is that they don’t want to change their lifestyles. And I guess that would include more older people who are firmly embedded in consumer living.
And the world has come perilously close to nuclear war, and that and nuclear power are still dangers.
Lew and Northpaw:
I don’t think it’s feasible to renege on our Kyoto obligations, so I don’t think there’s much point in litigating whether man-made climate change is real or not. National isn’t proposing that we renege on our obligations. You’ve made very valid points if National was intending to follow Act’s policy of withdrawing from Kyoto, but nothing they have said in their ETS policy contemplates this.
There are valid questions about whether we got the best deal for New Zealand. Certainly when we signed up for Kyoto the projections were that we would receive a net benefit. The last nine years have turned that benefit into a massive liability. I suspect National will want to renegotiate some aspects of that liability, although with tumbling dairy prices and a much gloomier world economic outlook, it’s highly probable, in my view, that the total liability will reduce. I don’t see a problem with trying to negotiate a better deal from Kyoto. If we can, we should.
The next issue is, if there is going to be a considerable Kyoto liability, what is the best way to pay for it? Labour rushed through a scheme that appears to have major flaws, and carries the risk of crippling industry in the process. For what benefit? So that we can be a global leader on climate change? I think that price is too high. I don’t think that to preserve our clean and green image, we need to be a global leader. We only need to be consistent with what the rest of the world is doing.
I don’t think that a rushed-through scheme that cripples industry in the process will be durable. There are major issues still to sort through: the US needs to sign up, as does China, India and Brazil. There are far too many questions that need to be resolved before we disadvantage New Zealand industry while our trading partners get off scot-free.
The Government signed up to Kyoto. There will be a liability. The taxpayer should carry the burden until the global issues are sorted out. The alternative–to export jobs and transfer emissions to economies that don’t pay the cost–just doesn’t seem either economically sensible, or achieve any positive environmental outcomes.
Regarding the Finland thing about women getting the right to vote and stand for election in 1906
Well they they say NZ was a part of the British Empire in 1893.
Finland was part of the Russian Empire in 1906, as the Grand Duchy of Finland and didnt declare independence till 1917 at the bolshevik revolution
Coge, and Carol: You imply that it is often the older generations that are skeptical, as they think it won’t effect them. I’m not sure it is that simple.
I certainly don’t mean to imply that everyone over a certain age thinks `bugger those younguns’ – I was just remarking on the correlation. There are other correlations I reckon are just as interesting – income to disbelief; level of education to belief; etc. Belief and justification are complicated things and not entirely rational; that’s ok. But the policy process ought to be rational, it shouldn’t rest on gut feelings of the sort you describe.
I would imagine if someone wanted to be highly qualified in relevant science, they would not get the necessary grades if they dared to disagree with global warming. Thus over time all the educated are believing the same things. The politicisation of science is surely contrary to what science is.
I once told a (Labour) Minister for the Environment that I was a political scientist, and he told me there was no science in politics and no politics in science. As you correctly note science is concerned with truth, and if what you believe (that truth is being discarded in favour of ideologically convenient answers) is true, then we’re all in big fucking trouble.
But what you’re essentially describing here is a black-helicopter conspiracy theory that the scientific establishment at large is working against, not for the interests of humanity. I don’t believe it – the establishment is incredibly tolerant of heterodox views on the grounds of Mill’s fallibility principle, and it seems to me that the main challenge for those wanting to take a heterodox view is reconciling their desires with the vast bulk of evidence which contradicts them. Sometimes everyone believes the same thing because that’s what the evidence requires.
If you genuinely believe it I’m interested in the answer to my initial question above – do you discard all scientific orthodoxy equally, and if so, upon what do you base your decisions about scientific matters? If not, upon what basis do you discard some scientific orthodoxy and not others, being yourself not in a position to adequately judge what is and what isn’t good science? The fundamental point you make – that science self-corrects by admitting its mistakes – actually undoes your point here – unless you believe it’s permanently and thoroughly broken.
Be assured however this pans out for NZ, it won’t be the end of the world.
To be perfectly frank, since this is an article of faith for you, I’m no more inclined to believe it than I am to believe in the big man with the beard in the sky. I try to believe in science, and particularly in its self-correcting nature, so the assurances of someone who doesn’t are just a curiosity to me.
But thank you for your thoughtful reply nonetheless, coge.
L
GWW: If I recall correctly, NZ wasn’t the first to grant universal women’s suffrage since MÄori women were still enjoined from candidacy until after World War I (but I’m too lazy to check the real answer).
Tim: Oh, I don’t think National intend to renege on our Kyoto obligation – that would be electoral and economic suicide. I’m just commenting that many of National’s apparent supporters seem to want this.
I don’t see a problem with trying to negotiate a better deal from Kyoto. If we can, we should.
Well, if we can. I don’t think it’s going to happen. True, the fading economy and weakening dairy sector will help this – just as the obligation blew out so big during the oughties because of economic and dairy growth, but overall I don’t see it. And it is a gamble – if we try and fail, that again hurts our reputation and delays the implementation of emission-reduction measures. That has a cost; Key is playing a risky game, both by risking international criticism to repeal a functional, if imperfect, ETS and by trying to talk the price down after the contract is signed.
I don’t think that a rushed-through scheme that cripples industry in the process will be durable.
Well, this scheme clearly isn’t durable because either a) National wasn’t consulted fully enough to be happy with it or b) National decided to play political games with it. (Or a combination of the two).
The taxpayer should carry the burden until the global issues are sorted out.
This is the worst possible solution in my view, because the moral hazard removes any incentive to reduce emissions. In principle this could also be used as a pretext for either tax increases, the gutting of services, or increasing government debt, since we can’t just spare any extra billions out of the tax take during a recession. Simply bad policy in my view; the polluter pays principle is the critical factor to me because it alone will reduce emissions and therefore liability over time.
L
I should have prefaced my view that having the taxpayer carry the burden for an extra year until we have a workable ETS that irons out the issues–particularly the entry of other players and ensuring that we’re in synch with our trading partners–isn’t a problem as far as I’m concerned. Granted, if we were talking about delaying the ETS indefinitely, then that would be a major problem. But one extra year isn’t.
I missed your earlier comment SP:
That’s exactly right. Do some research of your own about what National’s intentions were. They spelled them out in the minority select committee report, and referred to that report in its ETS policy. They aren’t minor quibbles with the ETS. They were:
1. That the ETS Labour introduced didn’t adequately balance economic interests with environmental interests.
2. That the ETS anticipated major windfall gains to the Government, which was not acceptable.
3. That the NZ ETS needs to be aligned with the Australian scheme.
4. That the ETS provided incentives to industry to exit New Zealand.
5. That the ETS unfairly penalised SMEs.
6. That the ETS phased out industry support without reference to international negotiations.
7. That the treatment of Agriculture, Forestry, fishing, and thermal generation was flawed.
Those aren’t minor issues, SP. They are fundamental. With all due respect to you, you are clearly not an authority on National’s policy, particularly since you don’t even appear to have read National’s select committee report to make such an absurd statement that National had a single, minor concern with Labour’s ETS.
Steve:
The first country to give woman the vote was infact the USA.
Not in their presidential election though.
Tim Ellis, with all due respect:
not an authority on National’s policy,
I would ask whether National is an authority on its policy. Seven intentions were listed, only one of which was specific. The remainder amount to mere assertion. And I am surprised to find you positing that such things are what you call “fundamental” issues.
if you feel inclined to expand any of them in the interests of clarity would you do so please in the context of a rapidly changing global economic scenario.
Yes, one could wish for the very best of attainments from new blood and perhaps minds at the international table, yet even if that were to assist solutions it could not resolve the user-based problems of growth and business-as-usual. So.. no I won’t press this upon you.. In return, however, it seems to me entirely reasonable to ask you what a twelve month delay could achieve that imminent dynamic policymaking cannot.
Or has National not heard of such possibilities?