Written By: - Date published: 2:20 pm, May 28th, 2008 - 45 comments
Categories: climate change, greens -
Tags: Emissions Trading Scheme
The Dompost reports that the Greens will not vote for the Emissions Trading Scheme if the introduction of transport fuels into the scheme and the end of free allocation of credits are delayed. Without the Greens, the Bill will probably not pass.
I have a lot of sympathy for the Greens’ position. The ETS is not all it could be as a scheme to tackle climate change. BUT it is the only game in town. If the ETS does not pass there will be no carbon pricing scheme. Don’t think for a second that National would introduce one. They want the ETS to fail and always have. When push comes to shove, National will always be on the side of the pollutors.
The Greens must be able to find some arrangement with labour to support the scheme in return for some policy concession - a subsidy on the construction of renewable power generation, for example, to encourage renewables and keep electricity prices down, or a major low-carbon technology research and development prpgramme.
It’s no use the Greens cutting off their nose to spite their face. Better to have the ETS in place as a foundation for climate change policy going forward than a policy vacuum.
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
Inventory – Whatever happens, we’re also only 3 1/2 years from the point where we have to start paying for our emissions. Personally, I’d rather see polluters internalise the costs of their emissions sooner rather than later, so people have a direct incentive to reduce emissions sooner rather than later. Distributed responsibility (which is what exists without an ETS) rarely gets anything done.
Personally, I remain unconvinced by the man-made global warming argument. But considering most of the short term emissions reduction actions make good sense regardless I honestly don’t care. We’re facing an electricity shortage and an oil shortage, and are beginning to see the effects of ongoing ocean acidification. Don’t you think it would be a good idea to start installing efficient lightbulbs, insulating houses, and switching to high efficiency transport now? And regardless of whether coal/gas power plants contribute to global warming, they definitely are finite in availability.
The ETS creates an additional economic incentive to do what already makes environmental AND economic sense. By the time we run out of no brainer behaviour changes in 10 years time maybe we’ll have more of an idea of what our goals should be.
You sound like everyone else from big industry. “We LOVE the idea of an emissions reduction scheme, and would be HAPPY to pay for it, we’re just a little concerned about its present ‘structure’. So, while unreservedly supporting the idea, we’re pretty keen to carry on externalising our costs onto the public at large for another few years”. I’m not sure if that’s your intention or not… but the arguments align.
It’s not in a rush, it’s been ongoing for three years, it’s going through the legislative process at the normal pace. God, what a dumb statement.
Steve/Lew – I accept that this has been a long process – my reference to haste concerns the push to get this passed into law before this Parliament dissolves. When the House returned two weeks ago, there were 37 sitting days left this year – assuming an elkection at the latest possible date. We’re now down to 28 days, in turbo-charged, election-focused, point-scoring mode. There’s no guarantee that Labour has the numbers to advance the Bill, so what temptation is there to offer “sweeteners” for support. The run-up to an election is NOT the time for legislation of this significance.
Thus spoke Erikter:
“Indeed. And it’s all possible because of the Greens’ flexible principles and accommodating nature. They are ready to compromise if the price and perks are right.
The Green Party lust for power is stronger than its principles.”
“Your suggestion of subsidies for solar power is to be taken as another green joke. When the time arrives for that technology, it will accessible to the masses and there will be no need for a subsidy.
Like it or not, you cannot control a capitalist market.”
I think you got called a troll for comments such as these. A little harsh perhaps, but then baseless sweeping generalisations can be construed as such.
Comment one: You’re quite sure that none of the policies the Green Party hoped to implement have happened? Name a couple of their ‘bottom lines’ they’ve been rolled on.
And I’m still waiting for the Green policy that says “The Greens are opposed to an ETS that is weakened from a previous iteration of said ETS’ from your last comment – that you didn’t back up.
Comment two: Tell that to the Germans. Have a look at their use of wind and solar power, and ask youself why Germany is leading the world at production and installation – and why price of production ($/MwH) has dropped so much. Maybe you can’t control a capitalist market, but with the right moves you can heavily influence it (which is good, given the market is a god-awful failure at internalising its own disasterous outcomes).
“The run-up to an election is NOT the time for legislation of this significance.”
Inventory2 – so you’re saying that during one third of the time, the government should have a moratorium on getting important things done? Surely not.
So how do you decide that, say, Cullen can give a budget, but something like the ETS is a no-go. I’m afraid your viewpoint seems to lack a degree of practicality.
Matt – High five
Heh, the government should do nothing for one third of the time.
T-rex – I somehow completely missed your comment at 9:58, but seemed to rather strongly echo it!
Regarding your post at 11:25, I have one distinction. in the end, it is not producers that will pay for pollution – the costs are always passed on to the consumer. But internalising the costs of consumption is really what it is all about, even if the method is to internalise the costs of production.
edit alex – none of that cynicism thank you very much!
The time for that technology was thirty years ago.
Like it or not, the capitalist market doesn’t actually work.
erikter
Hmm, like the railroad, electricity, atomic, airline, car and computer industries came about without extensive government intervention on their behalf.