ETS is useless, scrap it

25 comments on “ETS is useless, scrap it ”

• Comments are now closed

1. cleangreen 1

   4 October 2017 at 9:31 am

   Yes ageed Iprent,

   ETS is simply a rort, while allowing the cost of carbon credits to drop as low as $2 a tonne now most companies just all carry on regardless using dirty transport like trucks instead of rail and coal instead of recycable energgy sources.

   Even NZ Government agencies like MBIE were caught using cheap phony Ukrane credits to prop up their carbon emissions to stay within their guidelines like the lying sods they were.
2. Stuart Munro 2

   4 October 2017 at 9:39 am

   The problem with an ETS was always that the scum who cheat on their taxes will cheat on their ETS costs. It’s surprising that we got a government so overtly corrupt as to endorse the practice though.
3. ianmac 3

   4 October 2017 at 9:41 am

   Remember those sandwich boards? “The End is Nigh!”
   So prophetic and unless the warning is heeded there won’t be anywhere for my grandchildren to live.
   Out with ETS. Bring in a scheme where users pay and if that hurts dairy hard luck.
4. Andre 4

   4 October 2017 at 9:44 am

   My problem with emissions “trading” is it inherently implies some sort of right to pollute. So I much prefer a simple greenhouse gas tax that sends the message “if you want to dump your waste into the commons and trash it, you have to pay for it”.
   • weka 4.1

     4 October 2017 at 9:52 am

     I’d prefer we used both regulation and market tools. If you pollute you pay, but also there are limits on how much you can pollute.
5. red-blooded 5

   4 October 2017 at 9:45 am

   I’m not going to claim particular expertise in this area, but it seems to me that the British approach is better for a highly populated, densely urbanised country like theirs. It forces them to look at issues like building standards (energy efficiency), sustainable power production, mass transport solutions etc. Of course, all of those things are necessary here, too, but the fact is that our greatest carbon emitters are our farmers and we do have to find a way to limit their emissions. If a rejuvenated ETS can have that effect, then that’s a good step – not the only step we should take, but a good step. If not, then I’m fine with dumping it, so long as there’s a more effective solution that can gain majority support and has demonstrably better outcomes.

   All credit to the Clark government who at least tried to do something and who were forced to back off their original idea of a straight carbon tax and came up with this as a compromise. If the Nats had kept their hands off it and not exempted all their buddies from it, the ETS may have made more difference than it has. That doesn’t make it the only way to go, though, and I certainly think we should be open to other options.

   One final word – it looks like all the Brexit bullshit is endangering the British approach, which is sad but not surprising:
   https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jun/26/uk-on-track-to-miss-carbon-emissions-target-due-to-stalled-energy-policy
6. eco maori 6

   4 October 2017 at 10:29 am

   Yes throw out this piece of bullshit legislation out and start with a fresh canvas and design the new law solely for the purpose of mitigating climate change and keep it simple so everyone understands the principles of OUR new law and if some one comes along and try’s to change it they will be stopped in there tracks I do back down on some things
   as that is wise especially if one is wrong But i wont back down on the fight for MOTHER EARTH
7. geoff 7

   4 October 2017 at 11:04 am

   I can only see NZ adopting a comprehensive climate change policy if the National party is on board with everyone else.

   Without that it’ll be too difficult for any other governing party, or group of parties, to pass a law with teeth because National will always be the the divisive mouthpiece for federated farmers, fonterra etc.

   Examples like the fart-tax protest and the Morrinsville protest show how effective our ag-industry is at bringing political parties to heel.

   You could say that Labour is just being spineless but because the ag-industry political campaigns are so good at swaying public opinion it’s understandable that political parties with a sense of self-preservation shy away from them.

   This situation will only change if all parties are in agreement and then there won’t be any comparative political downside for any particular party that attempts to legislate against the interests of agriculture.

   So basically it wont ever happen 😛
   • lprent 7.1

     4 October 2017 at 3:36 pm

     In which case scrapping the ETS is still a good idea.

     The big problem with ETS is that it has allowed the hidden cross subsidy from other industries and taxpayers to the farming community to be concealed.

     I’m aware that wasn’t what was intended. However it will always happen. Instead a better way would be to extend the Fiscal Responsibility Act to bring in the forward liabilities into the current budgets.
     • Ad 7.1.1

       4 October 2017 at 3:52 pm

       Extending Geoff’s point, you would only scrap it if the threat of implementing it was so great that the agricultural lobby was so incensed and so outrageously effective on tv that a Labour-Greens government felt forced to pick up the phone to National.

       That is the scenario Helen Clark got into with the ant-smacking bill in 2007.

       At that point in a properly orchestrated political cycle, you would have an alternative sketched out that a great majority of the House could accept as binding for future generations.

       That would put the issue in the same kind of policy strata as ACC, NZSuper, Superfund Guardians, the Gold Card, the Auckland reforms legislation, and others that have withstood the test of time.

       Doing anything else without getting National’s buy-in is pointless.
     • CoroDale 7.1.2

       4 October 2017 at 8:58 pm

       Your article above was very good, but be fair, the ETS could be fixed, as dairy grazing is competitive, and incentives around organic could be strategically played toward medium term goals and international norms, especially if milk prices fall faster than the NZD exchange rate. I’m putting hope on these and many other positive signs of transition, which would bring favour back toward ETS. (Though your points around special interest groups are the most significant and immediate factors against ETS, agreed)
8. Sparky 8

   4 October 2017 at 12:39 pm

   In my view climate reform is something for people to collectively demand from organisations, which is already happening with fossil fuel divestment in banks and uni’s amongst others.

   I’d say hanging our collective hat on politicians doing anything constructive about it ever is the worst kind of folly. Most of them are a lost cause and the few that aren’t are a rational voice in a choir of idiocy, self delusion and greed.

   In the US for example green solutions are coming to the fore because people are demanding them and this is in spite of the lack of climate policy on the part of the Dems and Republicans.

   Perhaps the only country who has a firm grasp of the problems and is doing something about them right now is China who have a plan in place to move to electric cars and are actively replacing fossil fuels with other solutions such as nuclear (yes not perfect but still less impact on climate change). Wonder what that tells us about democracy….
9. Eco maori 9

   4 October 2017 at 12:42 pm

   Never say never because we won’t give up the fight as we cannot give up on OUR children future
10. Draco T Bastard 10

    4 October 2017 at 2:50 pm

    Needless to say the only political parties in parliament that support continuing the ETS in anything like its current form are the freeloader party National and their sock puppet Act – ironically the two parties who were most opposed to the scheme in the first place.

    And the two parties that go on most about personal responsibility and user pays. Seems that they only apply those policy criteria to poor people.

    Forests don’t sequester virtually any significiant carbon over the long term.

    But they’re really good at producing fertiliser that can run down from the forested hills onto the farms.

    When put in place around waterways they’re great at filtering out excess fertiliser and thus keep the waterways clean.

    Meanwhile Labour’s policy is to keep the ETS but to bring agriculture and some other freeloader industries into it. In other words to patch the existing system.

    Frankly I can’t see that working politically. I can’t see that the Labour caucus will be able to withstand the shit storm of embedded special interests, lobby groups and their court cases claiming damage to existing interests.

    QFT

    It was an interesting idea at the time when it was new and innovative. But now just one of many similar failures that demonstrates that faux market solutions interfered in by government responding to special interests aren’t useful for solving long term issues.

    1. It proves that the market doesn’t work.
    2. It proves that the market is defined by its regulations. Lack of regulation effectively removes the market.
    • lprent 10.1

      4 October 2017 at 3:51 pm

      When put in place around waterways they’re great at filtering out excess fertiliser and thus keep the waterways clean.

      Yep. And for preventing wind erosion of soils, stopping hillsides dropping into creeks and a host of other reasons. For those kinds of purposes I’m a tree-hugger.

      They’re just pretty useless for sequestering fossil carbon.

      1. It proves that the market doesn’t work.

      Markets are very efficient in the right time frames. Unfortunately that is less than 5 year time horizons. Frequently less than 2 years.

      Generally reducing in horizon as the information flood speeds up. It used to be in the 20th century that investors looked at results annually, then 6 monthly, then quarterly. These days investors are often looking at monthly or even near real time results – mostly because they can. Because the reporting is getting that fast and cheap. You don’t need telegraph lines or telex lines or costly T1 connections. You need the net, the ever reducing costs of getting a reporting system that you computer talks to, and off the shelf basic AI.

      Lack of regulation effectively removes the market.

      Yep – same reason. Short term profit seeking will usually produce completely perverse results over longer terms than the now ‘normal’ market horizons. Regulation has always been there in any orderly markets to give societal direction past the short-term.

      You can see that happening all of the way back to the societies of the ancients all the way back to Ur.
      • Steve 10.1.1

        5 October 2017 at 10:14 am

        “They’re just pretty useless for sequestering fossil carbon.”

        As others here have already asked as well, can you please point out what research that you base this claim on?.I’d be most interested to read through it myself
        • lprent 10.1.1.1

          5 October 2017 at 11:36 am

          I would have thought it was quite obvious. I’d emphasize that my training is in earth sciences, and I typically think on a geological timescale rather than some teeny short term measure like decades.

          But this is BASIC science. You should find all you need in wikipedia. I’d be surprised if anyone had done any research papers on it.

          So lets make this an exercise for the logic of anyone with a basic understanding of the biosphere… Besides I’m at work and don’t have time to explain basic earth science 101 or basic biology 102. YOU can look all of this up.

          0. Look at the half life of fossil carbon as CO2 in the atmosphere and water before it drops into a carbon sink. Try the Skeptical Science website for a primer on the carbon cycle including the geological sinks. Roughly a hundred years right? Now think about how long that before given volume of CO2 drops to say 6.25% level.. Hundreds of years right..

          1. Now look at the usual age of trees when they are harvested or die. In NZ this is probably between 20 and 30 years. Even if you let it go to a climax forest, at best this will have a median age of something like 40-50 years. Essentially larger trees will block the light and shutdown accretion of carbon. Whatever way it goes, when a tree dies, from this point they are shedding carbon back into the atmosphere as CO2 as they decay. Swamps are way better because once the debris drops into the anaerobic layers, then very little decay gets out as oxides or even as methanes.

          2. Also look at how often do widespread events like fire or outbreaks of beetles happen in forests? These cause massive widespread releases back into the atmosphere, and thereby back into circulation. Same with desertification or changes to savannah. Large flood events and god knows what else. Forests are pretty transient on any kind of geological time scale, in fact on any historic scale when humans are around.

          3. Now figure out the amount of carbon you can possibly grow into trees annually and you will find it is a VERY small percentage of what is currently being released from long-term storage. And as pointed out above it is all transient anyway on any kind of realistic timescale.

          4. Figure out the amount of fossil carbon that has already been released and you will find that there simply isn’t nearly enough land surface area on the world to grow it into trees. And as pointed out above it is all transient anyway on any kind of realistic timescale.

          5. Now research how long the fossil carbon has been building up for. That is measured in hundreds of millions of years of dead trees and swamps. Trying to hold the extracted hundreds of millions of years of fossil carbon in the present as trees is just impossible.

          The effect of putting carbon into forestry is merely to DELAY the flow of fossil carbon into long-term carbon sinks like carbonate sediments and eventually into limestones, coal, oil, etc. It does nothing to sequester more than a tiny fraction of the fossil carbon released, and even less if you use those trees for things like houses, fires, biofuels, furniture, etc.

          In other words while you may be able to reduce the short term peaks of fossil carbon climate change by a few percentage at best, the nett effect is that all it achieves to spread the pain of climate change damage over a longer time period.

          That should give you enough to find the basics. Maybe I will look for a post about this. If I can’t see one I should write a post with some volumes and time spans.
          • Steve 10.1.1.1.1

            6 October 2017 at 8:52 am

            Thanks and fair enough .I understand you are busy.I look forward to reading your view ,if and when you may find spare time.Its real that there is so many question over how much benefit there are.So much to consider. I wonder if perhaps beech forest plantation might be less problematic in regard to fire outbreak compared to pine.Beech grows reasonably fast.There seem to be a fair bit of research going on (although maybe not here in NZ) mainly overseas.Some people say it might at least help us to buy time

            https://www.nature.com/news/carbon-sequestration-managing-forests-in-uncertain-times-1.14687
            • Steve 10.1.1.1.1.1

              6 October 2017 at 9:23 am

              For comparable interest on this subject .Some fairly resent research as applied to Neotropic area http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/5/e1501639.full
11. In Vino 11

    4 October 2017 at 6:06 pm

    Best thread today – glad I read it. Even the unpalatable carbon tax seems ineffective to me.
    In this case it is more serious than cigarettes, which are now highly taxed.
    The Ozone hole was stopped by a direct ban on the fluoro-carbons used in fridges and aerosols.
    Direct bans are necessary here too – but I can hear Captain Mainwaring telling me that I am in the realms of fantasy. Politicians are controlled by big business, and it will take major catastrophes to convince the Trumps of this world…
    So we have to make more individual effort, and keep trying to agitate, supporting Greenpeace, etc I guess.
    But here in NZ, a Labour-based coalition in government may be a microscopic start.
    Why do I have the nasty feeling that Winston will go with National again?
12. JC 12

    4 October 2017 at 7:50 pm

    A poisoned chalice perhaps….

    Lets hope for an answer regardless, and a real Change of Government!!

    As clearly “faux market solutions interfered in by government responding to special interests aren’t useful for solving long term issues”

    https://www.newsroom.co.nz/@environment/2017/09/21/49165/ets-or-carbon-tax-nz-needs-a-strategy
13. Roy 13

    4 October 2017 at 8:22 pm

    Can you point to the research that informs your opinion on trees being useless for carbon sequestration? Thanks.

    Also, even if logging, or better, building, was to happen with the wood, wouldn’t that mean the carbon is extracted from the atmosphere and stored?
    • CoroDale 13.1

      4 October 2017 at 8:44 pm

      Good question. I would assume significant benefits for forest conversion from marginal sheep and beef country.
14. CoroDale 14

    4 October 2017 at 8:39 pm

    Excellent article from Iprnt. I’ll just add two things;
    1) Innovations in digital block-chain and crypto-token technology might favour a revival in carbon-trading.
    2) Don’t panic, go organic!
15. Once was Tim 15

    5 October 2017 at 8:38 am

    @lprent. I could never understand the value of ETS if only because it seemed to me to be susceptible to “the market the market” – which as we know is always open to various forms of manipulation.

    You paragraph:
    “While the tree-hugging idea may play well to some of the green and conservationist audience. It is an appalling stupid idea if they are thinking of it as a carbon sequestering policy. Even if the forests didn’t get cut like the logging and biofuel industries would push to happen. Forests don’t sequester virtually any significiant carbon over the long term. About the only thing that they are effective at doing is to reduce the methane emissions by taking land away from dairy.” was interesting although looking at the actual meaning of sequester (i.e. isolate or hide away, or confiscate, etc.), you could be correct.

    However perhaps your partner witnessed something similar to me (I understand she spent time in the whops near the Himalayas not that long ago):
    Over several weeks of long hot days with absolutely NO wind, the thick pollution generated by brick factories and diesel engines could be seen being drawn towards the thick forest/jungle at dusk – literally before ones eyes. By morning, even by midnight), the air was as clean and crisp as I’d ever experienced.
    I’m left wondering what actually happens with all this pollutant atmospheric shit once attracted into the jungle.
    Being the Doubting Thomas I am, and despite wind measuring devices verifying there was no wind, I watched this from different vantage points along the perimeter, and no matter what the direction the same thing was happening.

    They did seem to know how to deal with cow shit a lot better as well, such that although the various man made water channels could become bunged up with everything from shitty disposable nappies to other forms of plastics imposed on them, 50 feet down and beyond the water table remained unpolluted.
    (No official rubbish collection [yet] – but generations of experience in dealing with crap as best they can. Often the likes of shitty nappies would be burned – but like the brick factory and diesel pollution, it also ended up in the jungle.)

    Do we know what actually happens to all that crap in the jungle if it is sequestered but not ‘absorbed’?

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS