Chauvel on the ETS

35 comments on “Chauvel on the ETS ”

• Comments are now closed

1. cocamc 1

   24 September 2009 at 6:15 pm

   you guys are incredible. Not a year ago Labour rammed through their own ETS. Where was the bi-partisan ship then. Oh thats right – Nat Bad, Labour Good.
   • burt 1.1

     24 September 2009 at 6:51 pm

     Exactly cocamc, it’s always good when Labour do it and always bad when National do it.

     ‘Labour National will have no option but to repeal these changes when next in power. “

     Is probably exactly what DPF said about the ETS rammed through by Labour. Wasn’t it also passed under urgency when Labour did it ? Guess urgency is good when Labour do it because it saves time.
     • mickysavage 1.1.1

       24 September 2009 at 7:46 pm

       At least Labour tried to get agreement on the scheme and did not tell a load of porkies like Smith has.

       National opposed every policy Labour put up. There was no good faith then, there is no trust now.

       It is not that difficult a debate.

       The policy objective is to reduce the amount of CO2 and other gasses being released into the air.

       This current amendment will not achieve that policy objective. We need to stabilise CO2 concentrations at no more than 450 mpl.

       National are not talking about achieving this, nor does it seem they even want to achieve this.
2. So Bored 2

   24 September 2009 at 7:01 pm

   Burt and cocamc, you sound like a pair of pillocks because you are missing the point entirely. There is a global crisis, who did what when no longer counts, its all hands to the pump and there is no time to waste. Chauvel is right.
   • burt 2.1

     24 September 2009 at 7:07 pm

     So Bored

     There was a global crisis when Labour rammed their ETS through.

     WTF are you talking about?
     • So Bored 2.1.1

       24 September 2009 at 7:11 pm

       I dont give a monkeys as I said about whatever Labour did, who cares? The partisan approach is no longer relevant.
     • wtl 2.1.2

       24 September 2009 at 7:24 pm

       It is National not wanting to work with Labour now, just like it was when the initial ETS was passed.
     • burt 2.1.3

       24 September 2009 at 7:36 pm

       So Bored,

       It was never relevant. But it was massively defended on this blog when Labour did it – is that making this blog not relevant ?
       • So Bored 2.1.3.1

         24 September 2009 at 7:54 pm

         So Burt, if it never was relevant why are you taking a partisan position? This blog may have a left versus right slant, my point is on this issue thats of no longer of any relevance, its too late for partisan positions. So be my guest taking party positions, you may ponder on the relevance of it when you are sitting under a rock to keep out of the heat.
         • burt 2.1.3.1.1

           24 September 2009 at 8:08 pm

           I don’t agree with either policy, Labour’s or National’s. Perhaps if I invest some money into Al Gore’s carbon trading company I’ll agree with Labour’s – perhaps if I owned a large dairy farm I’d agree with both.
           • Galeandra 2.1.3.1.1.1

             24 September 2009 at 11:52 pm

             Perhaps if I invest some money into Al Gore’s carbon trading company…
             Pity about the conditional mood .. first useful thing you’ve ever offered, from what I’ve seen.

             Spam word-ought !!!
       • Maynard J 2.1.3.2

         24 September 2009 at 7:56 pm

         Burt – what overtures were National making to Labour around a bipartisan ETS in 2007-2008? They were trying to skive out of it by changing their tune and calling for a Carbon Tax, after calling for an ETS, after calling for a Carbon Tax 9Basically calling for whatever Labour were not doing.

         There was no possibility of a Bipartisan ETS because National were not interested.
       • burt 2.1.3.3

         24 September 2009 at 8:07 pm

         Listen to you both. National didn’t like the Labour policy so Labour had no choice but to go it alone. Labour don’t like the National policy so National are being partisan.

         Keep going guys.
         • mickysavage 2.1.3.3.1

           24 September 2009 at 8:13 pm

           How about an actual analysis of the history before you announce the conclusion?
           • George.com 2.1.3.3.1.1

             24 September 2009 at 9:44 pm

             Burt. Track this issue back for several years. The initial carbon tax idea put forward by Labour, the fart tax campaign by National, Don Brash & co being obstructive at every turn. Now hand on heart Burt, tell me that National has played the issue of climate change wih a straight bat. You can’t, can you. For all of Labours faults, and yes there have been some in regards to climate change solutions, they have been a damned more constructive and consistent than National. One party has tried to find a solution (and they might not always have done that in the best way) , the other just wanted to play politics.
           • burt 2.1.3.3.1.2

             24 September 2009 at 9:51 pm

             George.com

             Both parties are playing politics. Labour’s ETS was just a joke surely – rammed through in the last few days of parliament before an election. I don’t care how well thought out you think it was – there were many amendments and a lack of process in the passing of that ‘legacy – we got ya’ piece of crap.

             Oh, I’m not saying National’s scheme is good – it’s also crap.
           • mickysavage 2.1.3.3.1.3

             24 September 2009 at 10:07 pm

             Sorry Burt

             Labour wanted to do something. The Nats blocked and delayed and held off any sort of action as much as they could.

             Labour decided to go with it. They were not playing politics. They wanted to save the planet.

             National wanted to maximise the political benefit.

             Prove me wrong!
           • burt 2.1.3.3.1.4

             24 September 2009 at 10:26 pm

             Labour wanted to win the election – they knew if they lost their ETS would most likely be repealed and they knew if they won they would have lots of time to pass a well thought out scheme. They also knew the extended exclusion for dairy farmers was popular rather than environmentally sound.

             Tell how there was no politics in this? What part of saving the planet is served by the way Labour handled this and by the expedient exclusions included within it?
3. Killinginthenameof 3

   24 September 2009 at 7:02 pm

   Good on Chauvel, this is the kind of talk we need from Labour.
4. Maynard J 4

   24 September 2009 at 8:21 pm

   “Listen to you both”

   Talking to me Burt? Genuine question, not sure if you meant me there. As I said though – when one party is not interested in a bipartisan ETS, there will not be one. It can only happen when both parties are interested. I know that you think that everything that happens now is a direct equivalent of what Labour did, but this is a joke. Labour did not pass a bipartisan ETS, so no one is allowed to criticise National for not passing a bipartisan ETS…

   How simplistic can you get? Very.

   I do not think Labour’s ETS was passed under urgency, but even of so when pople have been criticising National’s use of urgency it has been for two reasons – passing legislation through all readings, and passing legislation purely because it is unpopular to keep it under the radar.

   But in your mind, if Labour ever used urgency, then no one is allowed to criticise Nationl for doing it – because it is exactly the same, right burt?
   • mickysavage 4.1

     24 September 2009 at 9:12 pm

     “But in your mind, if Labour ever used urgency, then no one is allowed to criticise Nationl for doing it because it is exactly the same, right burt?”

     Good comment.

     Bad bad Labour for doing x.

     National is justified in doing x because Labour did it.

     WTF?
   • burt 4.2

     24 September 2009 at 9:39 pm

     Maynard J

     No I didn’t say that and I don’t think that at all. I’ve stated before there is a place for urgency – when something is urgent. The end of a term of govt is not grounds for invoking urgency – quite the opposite actually. Govt should move to caretaker mode the moment the election process begins which under the restrictions imposed by the EFA (which we had last year) was arguably the start of the year the election is in.

     Now if we were being invaded and we needed to pass a law allowing all people to use weapons without normal license requirements – that justifies urgency.

     National using urgency for all the stuff they have so far is appalling.
   • burt 4.3

     24 September 2009 at 9:48 pm

     Maynard J

     When I said;

     National didn’t like the Labour policy so Labour had no choice but to go it alone. Labour don’t like the National policy so National are being partisan.

     I was responding to your justification for Labour ramming their ETS through without cross party consensus as being OK because There was no possibility of a Bipartisan ETS because National were not interested.. Which is basically what Labour did to National.

     Now unlike you, I’m not saying one is justified and the other is not – I’m saying both have their heads up their asses.
     • r0b 4.3.1

       24 September 2009 at 10:28 pm

       Two men accuse each other of committing a murder.

       In Burt’s mind both are accused so both must be guilty, and Burt is a moral genius for being consistent enough to demand the death sentence for both.

       In Burt’s mind anyone who tries to evaluate the evidence, defend the innocent and prosecute the guilty is a mad partisan fool, a moral and mental pygmy compared to the greatness that is Burt.

       Welcome to the wonders of the mind of Burt.
     • burt 4.3.2

       24 September 2009 at 10:36 pm

       rOb

       Not quite – but in my mind both would stand trial in court and if either are guilty (or both) then they would be charged.

       Based on your position – since others were doing it too and it’s all quite confusing – we should let both off and change the rules to avoid such nuisance in the future.
     • r0b 4.3.3

       24 September 2009 at 10:44 pm

       This is a court burt, it’s a court of public opinion. And you are here arguing (on a range of different issues) that both are guilty and both must hang. No attempt to evaluate the evidence, no attempt to reach a reasoned conclusion, just continual lectures on how much smarter and more consistent you are because you just know that everyone is equally guilty.

       It’s a little tiresome.
     • burt 4.3.4

       24 September 2009 at 10:52 pm

       So was there a murder or wasn’t there ? I guess it’s irrelevant because there was more than one suspect and when that happens it’s not fair to prosecute all parties who were involved.

       Tiresome is you having two standards – one for your team and one for others. But keep defending that position because it will give me years of fun pointing out your double standard. You better hope National never validate an alleged breach of the law – but I’m sure the situation will be different then won’t it.
       • r0b 4.3.4.1

         24 September 2009 at 11:04 pm

         So was there a murder or wasn’t there ? I guess it’s irrelevant

         It may be irrelevant to you Burt, but I’ll keep on making my decisions based on the evidence thanks. Goodnight.
       • burt 4.3.4.2

         24 September 2009 at 11:06 pm

         rOb

         You have demonstrated that you don’t think courts should be involved when politicians are involved in allegations of breaking the law. So yes I guess you will keeping making your decisions.
5. Maynard J 5

   25 September 2009 at 10:41 am

   Burt: “When I said;

   National didn’t like the Labour policy so Labour had no choice but to go it alone. Labour don’t like the National policy so National are being partisan.

   I was responding to your justification for Labour ramming their ETS through without cross party consensus as being OK because There was no possibility of a Bipartisan ETS because National were not interested.. Which is basically what Labour did to National”

   What does this mean? I simply cannot interpret this into any form of a meaningful sentence. Labour putting through an ETS is what Labour did to National? What? Labour tried to work with National and they were rebuffed – how can you say that is the same when National never tried to work with Labour?

   “Now unlike you, I’m not saying one is justified and the other is not I’m saying both have their heads up their asses.”

   Please try again, and explain how Labour could have gotten a bipartisan ETS when National were not vaguely interested in working with them, and then explain how that is exactly the same as National putting through their ETS without Labour after two years of overtures from Labour on a bipartisan ETS, and it failing because National decided to not work with Labour, despite Labour’s efforts.

   How one-eyed can you get burt, and yet pretend that you are not being partisan? You must admit, this is very amusing, someone trying to pull off what you are here and trying to be taken seriously.
   • So Bored 5.1

     25 September 2009 at 11:18 am

     Maynard,rOb, George your forbearance and tolerance amaze me, your rewards in heaven will be great, When I saw Burt was on a path to logical oblivion and was attempting to prove black white I stayed with my original contention that he was sounding like a pillock and went to bed.

     Its now 18 hours later and the proof is in the audit trail of Burts commentary, I rest my case.
   • burt 5.2

     25 September 2009 at 5:06 pm

     Maynard J

     I understand, without Helen telling you what is right and what is wrong you just can’t work anything out for yourself.

     Tell me again how it was OK for Labour to ram their ETS through under urgency in a partisan way and then tell me immediately after that how disgraceful it was that National rammed their ETS through under urgency in a partisan way.

     I’ll respond with appropriate – Yes Labour Good (while nodding head) then I’ll respond with Yes National Bad (while shaking head) then So Bored can keep up as well.
     • Maynard J 5.2.1

       25 September 2009 at 5:30 pm

       Are you trying to set a record for ignoring the point Burt?

       Tell me again, why you think it is exactly the same, in light of:

       a – National were not interested in working on an ETS with Labour, so Labour could not have done it whether they wanted to or not.

       and

       b – Labour were interested in a bipartisan ETS, and actively worked on one with National, only to have the door slammed in their face, so National had the option of a bipartisan ETS where Labour did not.
       • burt 5.2.1.1

         26 September 2009 at 9:35 pm

         Maynard J

         I think the Labour ETS was a joke and I’ll explain why. The same reasons for being a joke are also applicable to the National ETS.

         Let me explain;

         The term ETS under both the Labour and National policies are not Emission Trading Schemes at all – They are Emission Taxation Schemes. The reason I draw a line and say a taxation scheme is hopeless is that it makes no attempt to provide an environmental benefit and arguable will have negative impacts.

         Take coal for example (or gas, oil etc). A trading scheme would slap a tax on the coal at the point of extraction which would then be passed on in the same way as GST is. This therefore ensured that the ‘carbon costs’ to the planet have been accounted for and irrespective of who burns the coal. Under a lazy scheme we would put a tax on the coal when it is consumed.

         So, because of the lazy method we can mine as much as we like and sell it to China who burn it in plants with lower emission standards than we might burn it in here. Furthermore if China burn it – no emission taxes are ‘traded’ for the carbon released. But they would be if we taxed it at extraction.

         Further to this if we tax it at sale in NZ then we will use less and then we could say we have reduced consumption – but we have not have we. The mining goes ahead at the same rate and well sell it to countries who just burn it anyway so what would a local tax achieve?

         It would lower our export price because we reduce our local market and it would see it burned in places where there may or may not be any emission taxes paid and possible also see it burned in more polluting ways than it would be in NZ.

         If we taxed it at source we might not sell as much and I guess from an export revenue perspective this might be be bad – but aren’t Emission Trading Schemes about reducing consumption rather than ensuring expert revenue?

         Now if Labour or National want to get serious about environmental policies rather than pay lip service and pretend to be good global citizens then they would have addressed this issue.
6. Zaphod Beeblebrox 6

   25 September 2009 at 1:41 pm

   ACT and the MP were the two parties who were violently opposed to having an ETS for differing reasons according to their select committee reports.

   Yet the both voted for it!

   So much for your principles.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS