Greens back emissions trading scheme

48 comments on “Greens back emissions trading scheme ”

• Comments are now closed

1. vto 1

   26 August 2008 at 5:27 pm

   when will this govt stop increasing the amount of money it TAKES from people?

   because as far as i can see it has been CONSTANTLY increasing ever since its fearful birth.

   I feel my blood starting to boil. Best leave. Later.
2. higherstandard 2

   26 August 2008 at 5:29 pm

   But VTO this will make such a massive difference to the global environment that surely people will be happy with the extra cost incurred ……. ah just a sec.
3. Draco TB 3

   26 August 2008 at 6:09 pm

   This is good. It is also good that they’ve made some grounds on getting some of the changes needed into the present version of the ETS. It’s not perfect but it is the most important aspect of what we do – it is a start.
4. dad4justice 4

   26 August 2008 at 6:20 pm

   This is pathetic. Parliament is a shambles and a disgusting spectacle emitting more stinking fumes than a sewage treatment plant. The bullshit in the Beehive is fucking sickening!!! My blood is boiling Miss Klark !!!!~!!!!
   What a cot case nutbar country !!! What a bunch of wankers. No doubt feminist Radio NZ and TVNZ think its funny.

   Captcha = Mad Speaker
5. Matthew Pilott 5

   26 August 2008 at 6:20 pm

   Pull your head out, vto. Corporate tax cuts, massive subsidies, WfF for starters. I have no sympathy if you feel angry because you might now have to pay for your own pollution. I’ll be damned if I want to subsidise your excesses of consumption!
6. Dean 6

   26 August 2008 at 6:21 pm

   “This is good. It is also good that they’ve made some grounds on getting some of the changes needed into the present version of the ETS. It’s not perfect but it is the most important aspect of what we do – it is a start.”

   It’s also an exercise in fooling the populace that the Greens had any intention other than supporting the ETS. It’s be like ACT calling for submissions on tax cuts or a flat tax.

   It amazes me how many people fall for this kind of charade, or at least desperately spin in it’s favour and pretend that they don’t know that’s what they’re doing.

   BTW Draco, how much has a unit of carbon under the ETS been costed at, and how much are they being traded for overseas?
7. dad4justice 7

   26 August 2008 at 6:32 pm

   Like fuck I will pay anything for this carbon shit. Time to act people as enough is enough ! We people must fix this nutbar government. Kiwi’s are being pushed too far by bullshitting fucked up spin doctors !!!
8. QoT 8

   26 August 2008 at 6:46 pm

   So, just to be clear, THIS ETS is a “rushed response” … but a brand-new National government, after coalition negotiations and portfolio divisions and maiden speeches and God know what other rigmarole, is going to produce one no more than 9 months after the election … which won’t be?
9. Anita 9

   26 August 2008 at 6:54 pm

   vto,

   when will this govt stop increasing the amount of money it TAKES from people?

   Huh?

   In what sense do you think the government is taking money from people with the ETS?
10. higherstandard 10

    26 August 2008 at 7:02 pm

    Anita

    Surely you jest do you seriously believe that an ETS is going to have no effect on CPI.
11. Ari 11

    26 August 2008 at 7:15 pm

    vto:

    when will this govt stop increasing the amount of money it TAKES from people?

    because as far as i can see it has been CONSTANTLY increasing ever since its fearful birth.

    I feel my blood starting to boil. Best leave. Later.

    We’ve got some pretty ridiculous tax cuts quite recently, I should remind you.

    I should also point out that whether the ETS was passed or not, the taxpayer would STILL be paying for our Kyoto obligations. It’s just a matter of whether we make the actual polluters pay, or we subsidise them off the taxpayers’ backs like we currently do.

    edit: HS, whether it increases CPI or not is a matter of corporate responsibility, not government responsibility. Whether they charge extra for it or not, their emissions are having negative effects on the environment that until their entry into the scheme, they will have no incentive to remedy. In some senses passing these costs on to the consumer could be good, as it will give them a financial incentive to shop more ethically.
12. dad4justice 12

    26 August 2008 at 7:15 pm

    The whole ETS concept is a con job and if National have any brains cells(?)they will chuck the nutbar idea in the offal pit asap.
13. Anita 13

    26 August 2008 at 7:22 pm

    hs,

    I believe that sometime, somehow we were eventually going to have to start paying the true cost of our consumption. This is significantly less than this, but it is a necessary and inevitable first step.

    So the government will (hopefully) create a mechanism to decrease our carbon emissions, and because we are currently smitten with market mechanisms it’s a market mechanism, using price signals.

    So yes, some things will become more expensive.

    But, and this is only my first but, the government isn’t taking our money. It is simply legislating that we (individuals and corporates alike) pay the correct price to the correct producers. Do you complain about the government taking our money when it raises the minimum wage?

    And but, my second but, we were going to have to start paying the true cost some day, so this is not an additional cost.

    And but, my final but, this is a necessary outcome of a market economy. We use market mechanisms so we use pricing signals. I’m happy to chance that underpinning economic philosophy, are you?
14. randal 14

    26 August 2008 at 7:39 pm

    will the emissions trading take into account the overheated rantings from mental midgets who think they understand how the world works?
15. higherstandard 15

    26 August 2008 at 7:39 pm

    Anita as some other wag said

    “We lead the world with legilstaion that will do serious harm to our economy with no measurable benefit to the environment. Our trading partners will be breaking out the champagne.”

    “Agriculture accounts for 30% of New Zealand’s emissions—but farmers are asking themselves what quick-fix is available to limit gas emissions from millions of sheep.”

    And meanwhile China, India and the USA can pollute away to their hearts content.

    And in regards to the true cost – we do pay the true cost which will now be inflated by an ETS which will impose costs on producers of food and power which will be passed on to the public all for no effect on the environment
16. Dean 16

    26 August 2008 at 7:47 pm

    “And but, my second but, we were going to have to start paying the true cost some day, so this is not an additional cost.”

    Your doublethink is outlandish.

    How much are carbon credits being priced at by Labour, and how much are they being traded for in international markets?

    Do you even know?
17. MonkeyKing 17

    26 August 2008 at 7:51 pm

    Just as well we have a free trade agreement with China. Bring on the cheap Chinese goods!
18. Pascal's bookie 18

    26 August 2008 at 7:51 pm

    It’s kinda funny how some people think that a couple of points of difference in the marginal income tax rate will produce all sorts of economic benefits due to the awesome incentive changes, but the same people don’t think that other taxes that are more directly related to activities than income tax will have any incentive effects whatsoever.
19. randal 19

    26 August 2008 at 8:17 pm

    pb all thee rantings are no more than opinions not backed by any study or practical experience. this is democracy for peanutheads with a pc!
20. vto 20

    26 August 2008 at 8:19 pm

    A few daze ago I travelled from the east of the south island to the west and back again. I passed about 5 coal trains.

    I will try to keep this question simple: why do we ban coal from being burned here in the name of pollution and then export it to china for them to burn there? Does that not defeat the purpose of the banning? (sorry, two questions then) Does pollution in china not pollute the planet in the same way as it does in NZ? (three questions)

    It kind of encapsulates the whole matter …

    And so why is Helen Clark being a HYPOCRITE ? (four questions, but all of the same)

    It kind of encapsulates so many politicians and the esteem in which they are held…
21. burt 21

    26 August 2008 at 8:28 pm

    vto

    I have asked that question many times and it seems that there is no suitable answer. I think the only up side is that we (NZ) are not the ones burning it so the export income we received from selling it can be used to buy pledge cards etc.

    But clearly if it’s being burned on planet earth, here or in China, then it’s being burned. This brings up the question of the efficiency of the plants it’s being burned in. Are the ‘plants’ it’s being burned in in China more environmentally friendly than the ‘plants’ where we burn it in NZ?
22. dad4justice 22

    26 August 2008 at 8:31 pm

    Chinese burn our coal. When do they start trading in Weet – Bix carbon credit cards? Don’t answer randal you lunkhead.Who the hell do you think you’re fooling Miss Clark?
23. vto 23

    26 August 2008 at 8:55 pm

    d4j shuush, you’re scaring away the serious answerers!
24. Anita 24

    26 August 2008 at 9:07 pm

    vto/burt,

    I think my answer is probably that this is the outcome of using a market based mechanism 🙂 But that hardly defends the ETS 🙂
25. Anita 25

    26 August 2008 at 9:09 pm

    (and being ideologically committed to the most deregulated possible kind of globalisation : )
26. RedLogix 26

    26 August 2008 at 9:12 pm

    This line that because NZ accounts for such a small proportion of world carbon emmisions that it’s not worth us doing anything about it is intellectually and morally bankrupt.

    The only valid measures of our emmissions relative to other countries has to be either Tonnes/capita or perhaps Tonnes/$GDP. Nothing else makes sense. And by these measures NZ is one of the worst polluters in the world, placed somewhere at the very bottom of the table in terms of merit.

    We have no excuse to hide behind.
27. vto 27

    26 August 2008 at 9:16 pm

    ha ha Anita, a bit like Lockwood said… “having to swallow dead fish”.

    That about sums it up.
28. Matthew Pilott 28

    26 August 2008 at 9:20 pm

    vto – the coal we export is top quality stuff sent to other countries for steel production. Stuff burned for electricty is cheap, sooty crap. The less the better. So (also relevant to burt’s q) it’s a different product, we don’t have equivalent ‘plants’, nor can we generate electricity for China.

    Incidentally, a cap and trade system, such as the one being implemented, mean that if you go over your cap, you must trade for credits from carbon-reducing initiatives. Hey if that caught on world-wide…

    I am happy there will be an ETS because there will eventually be a price for pollution internationally, and I’d rather not subsidise other peoples’ pollution as a result of their consumption in themeanwhile because the market is an absolute failure at internalising its problems. Go Labour – Party for personal responsibility!

    Yes, vto, pollution from china is equally a polluting as equally polluting practices in other countries. Does that mean we should do the same here? I’ll spare the obvious by suggesting you thinkof your favourite nasty practice from overseas and ask yourself why we’d start doing it here. Where’s the hypocracy?

    (p.s. WfF, massive subsidies, corporate tax cuts – are you a goldfish?)
29. Anita 29

    26 August 2008 at 9:27 pm

    vto,

    Yes. I wish we had the courage and vision to do it properly, but the ETS is better than nothing.
30. higherstandard 30

    26 August 2008 at 9:48 pm

    Anita

    “But, and this is only my first but, the government isn’t taking our money.”

    Jeanette Fitzsimons

    “Revenue from the ETS will be recycled into a Billion dollar fund to make New Zealand homes warm, dry and cost-effective to heat,”
31. Anita 31

    26 August 2008 at 9:54 pm

    hs,

    a) context

    b) references

    [c – going to bed :]
32. Quoth the Raven 32

    26 August 2008 at 10:05 pm

    vto – What is it with you righties and China we only export a small fraction of our coal to China. Why don’t you complain about Japan? Surely you’re not complainging about globaliszation and the free market. It’s gloabl capitalism, vto China is now the world’s factory making all the little shiny plastic doodads people fill their homes with. I think it comes right back to that overconsumption thing.
33. burt 33

    26 August 2008 at 10:36 pm

    RedLogix

    This line that because NZ accounts for such a small proportion of world carbon emmisions that it’s not worth us doing anything about it is intellectually and morally bankrupt.

    I agree. But I also think we are morally bankrupt (from an environmental perspective) if we don’t oncharge the emission costs for the coal we sell. IE: Tax it at source, production. If, as we are told, the ETS is about encouraging better behaviour then the end consumer should be made to pay the price irrespective of what country they burn it in. We mine and profit from it’s sale.

    Matthew Pilott

    the coal we export is top quality stuff sent to other countries for steel production. Stuff burned for electricty is cheap, sooty crap.

    The coal we export is indeed high quality and has a lower pollution rating than the sooty stuff we choke the sky with here. In my opinion all the more reason to use it for electricity production here in NZ. I appreciate the market dynamics of the situation but if the govt is prepared to levy a tax on us in the interests of good environmental behaviour then it should clean up it’s own back yard first.
34. Dean 34

    26 August 2008 at 10:39 pm

    Matthew:

    “I am happy there will be an ETS because there will eventually be a price for pollution internationally, and I’d rather not subsidise other peoples’ pollution as a result of their consumption in themeanwhile because the market is an absolute failure at internalising its problems. Go Labour – Party for personal responsibility!”

    How much are carbon credits valued at under the ETS and how much are they being traded for on international markets?

    Surely you know?
35. lprent 35

    26 August 2008 at 10:42 pm

    vto: Anthracite coal is not lignite or brown coal. The former is used for things like steel where high temperatures are required. The latter is used for low temperatures like power production and a *lot* more of it is used.

    Types of coal

    The difference is in the amount of energy released per kg, the returns from the gas production, and the types and volumes of gases.

    It is feasible to scrub or use the quantities of gases for steel. It is not economic for power production.

    There is no real alternative to using high yield coal for steel. But the return per kg of CO2 is very high.

    So we should be reducing the low return uses like power generation rather than the high return uses like steel production first.

    You’re comparing apples with oranges again.
36. burt 36

    26 August 2008 at 10:43 pm

    Anita

    I think my answer is probably that this is the outcome of using a market based mechanism

    Indeed. So who is the big nasty company profiting from mining and selling coal?
37. burt 37

    26 August 2008 at 11:43 pm

    lprent

    From that link you provided. Under Coal as fuel, in the context of generating electricity.

    “Standard” steam turbines have topped out with some of the most advanced reaching about 35% thermodynamic efficiency for the entire process, which means 65% of the coal energy is waste heat released into the surrounding environment. Old coal power plants, especially “grandfathered” plants, are significantly less efficient and produce higher levels of waste heat.

    The emergence of the supercritical turbine concept envisions running a boiler at extremely high temperatures and pressures with projected efficiencies of 46%, with further theorized increases in temperature and pressure perhaps resulting in even higher efficiencies

    So it would seem that to be environmentally friendly in the context of some power generation infrastructure that needs to be built in this country we might want to use that high grade coal after all, phasing out our 1900’s models.

    I can’t quite work out what you are saying here.

    It is feasible to scrub or use the quantities of gases for steel. It is not economic for power production.

    There is no real alternative to using high yield coal for steel. But the return per kg of CO2 is very high.

    The return of CO2 from combustion is correlated to the thermal output, so I don’t think it makes sense to justify using higher pollution coal for power generation with economics, then to back that up confusingly represent the environmental costs of burning high quality coal.

    If compared to shit coal 40% as much ‘good’ coal produces the same amount of heat then 60% less shit has been released into the atmosphere burning it.
38. Kevyn miller 38

    27 August 2008 at 1:19 am

    burt, I think Iprent was referring to the fact that much of the carbon released from coal in steel production is actually being absorbed into the steel, but it requires the very high temps generated by antracite coal to get that to happen. Besides, pure antracite is currently selling for twice what boiler blends are selling for. That’s a major barrier to the “clean” coal power staions. They actually need an ETS to price older power stations out of the market.
39. Kevyn miller 39

    27 August 2008 at 1:36 am

    The reason that the ETS will be an expensive gesture isn’t because we are only a small part of the problem but because the Kyoto Protocol fails to account for international trade. Visit treehugger.com and search for “carbon imports”, read some of the posts then follow the links to the Stockholm Environment Institutes study for the UK government. It reveals how the poms have actually increased there carbon emissions by 13% whilst officially reducing them by 13%, all by the simple expedient of increasing imports of consumer goods from China and the former soviet block countries instead of making them in the UK.
40. Darren Rickard 40

    27 August 2008 at 8:07 am

    How will handing out cash in 2010, in the guise of “climate change” policy, to buy Labour votes in the 2008 election sit with New Zealand voters?

    http://darrenrickard.blogspot.com/2008/08/cash-for-voting-labour.html

    Even though it will cost consumers more in the back pocket for the extra “climate change” taxes that Labour and its support parties have already imposed not to mention the additional ones to come.
41. burt 41

    27 August 2008 at 8:26 am

    Kevyn miller

    Besides, pure antracite is currently selling for twice what boiler blends are selling for. That’s a major barrier to the “clean’ coal power staions.

    Exactly, the nasty corporate miners take the profit from selling the good stuff and make us pay for the fact they burn the shit polluting stuff to generate electricity.

    I can see why socialists don’t like the market economy, now who are the major coal miners in NZ? Oh…

    Perhaps I’m naive but I thought the ETS was to encourage good environmental behaviour, not to simply extract more tax from NZ people so that the maximum tax revenue could be gained from exploiting our natural resources and maintaining our low tech polluting status quo.
42. Darren Rickard 42

    27 August 2008 at 9:03 am

    It isn’t about real pollution Burt. “Climate change” is about more tax, redistribution of wealth, State control and re-election of Labour.

    Meanwhile real pollution is ignored.

    Shameful stuff.
43. lprent 43

    27 August 2008 at 9:29 am

    burt: The point that Kevyn was making is that the price of power would have to go up before the higher cost (and lower effective pollution) coals could be used.

    However there are other sources of power that would also become more viable at higher power prices (and with less pollution). The big advantage with coal powered stations is that modern ones are quick starting so they’re pretty good to handle peak loading. But then again so is hydro. The problem with hydro is that you need to hold on to the water to handle the peaks rather than use it for baseload.

    The real key is to find alternate forms of power with relatively low pollution that can be used to replace baseload. That ensures that the hydro (or new clean coal stations) can be used for peaks. Probably the best are forms of wind generation (there is always wind somewhere), tidal (love that moon), currents (eg Kaipara heads), etc. The more mixed power sources we have, the more robust the resulting network is likely to be.

    IMO: The biggest single problem we have in the power grid at present is a not particularly efficient network. I’d hate to figure out the loss rates.

    BTW: With anthracite the yield of energy is far higher compared to the volume of generated gases. That means you generate less gas per Kw and therefore the total cost of sequestering gases generated is lower. In the case of steel some is used in making the steel. In power stations etc, there is a lot of work being done to reduce their gas footprint – algae farms in particular. It is interesting how far they’ve come in the last few years.
44. Matthew Pilott 44

    27 August 2008 at 9:38 am

    “How will handing out cash in 2010, in the guise of “climate change’ policy, to buy Labour votes in the 2008 election sit with New Zealand voters?”

    While I haven’t read your blog, and for good reason, this is about making polluters pay, and then using that money to insulate homes to reduce pollution, by reducing the exact same coal consumption (used in power generation) that you were just moaning about:

    “Meanwhile real pollution is ignored.

    Shameful stuff.”

    Way to contradict yourself.

    Burt, I’m sorry but the two types of coal are not interchangable in the slightest, you’re drawing a logical conclusion from a completely illogical train of thought. Which makes the conclusion…

    For example, you say “So it would seem that to be environmentally friendly in the context of some power generation infrastructure that needs to be built in this country we might want to use that high grade coal after all, phasing out our 1900’s models.”

    and in doing so, miss the point by, well, let’s say three times the original width of the point. It’s not about using ‘clean’ coal at all – it’s about enhancing use of coal to capture more of the heat generated. An equivalent is Huntly’s e3p plant – there are three turbines, which extract a whopping amount of the energy from gas, perhaps as high as 80%, versus 40% for a traditional turbine.

    That isn’t by using some magical form of ‘clean’ gas – it’s about the technology. An ETS, when working, encourages cleaner forms of technology over time.

    Dean, couldn’t tell you right now. Try looking it up, all for yourself.

    Kevyn – the age old problem – if we do it ‘well’, but add cost, then other countries will sell stuff to us made ‘badly’, for less. Child labour, spoils of conflict (think blood diamonds), industry on stolen land, slavery – does that mean we should do all the same practices as other countries, because they can do it?

    If you are saying that other countries aren’t legislating for carbon, so we shouldn’t, then perhaps we need to pay more kids 17c an hour to make jeans…

    Doe anyone know if we’d get in big trouble one way or another for putting a tarriff on the C02 costs of imports?
45. burt 45

    27 August 2008 at 9:54 am

    Matthew Pilott

    Burt, I’m sorry but the two types of coal are not interchangable in the slightest

    No of course not, we would need to spend money on the generation infrastructure to decrease the emission output per kw of power generated. Much easier to tax people more and pretend we are doing something for the environment.

    But hey, if we are all poor then we can’t be as wasteful so one way or another the objective may be achieved.

    Nobody wants to answer who the nasty corporate is that sells the top quality coal for maximum profit while lumbering NZ consumers with a tax for burning the more polluting stuff – who is the greedy corporate that wants it both ways?
46. Matthew Pilott 46

    27 August 2008 at 10:05 am

    “Nobody wants to answer who the nasty corporate is that sells the top quality coal for maximum profit while lumbering NZ consumers with a tax for burning the more polluting stuff – who is the greedy corporate that wants it both ways?”

    That’s because it is a thoroughly nonsensical question. As I just explained to you above. But, for posterity – the two types of coal are not interchangable. It’s like asking why Whirinaki burns diesel instead of nitro-methane. there is no logic whatsoever to your question, and I see this has been explained to you at least five times above. So full credit for persistence, but zero for content.

    “No of course not, we would need to spend money on the generation infrastructure to decrease the emission output per kw of power generated. Much easier to tax people more and pretend we are doing something for the environment.”

    Ye gods, is that a glimmer of light? Yes burt, exactly. We tax the polluter. If the tax is at the right level, the polluter will have an incentive to make that investment. The tax goes towards improving technology to make that improvememnt.

    The tax also goes towards subsidy of non-polluting technology, thereby further marginalising the profit from the polluter. Then all polluters can reduce pollution, both carrot and stick. I think you’re starting to get it – there’s a real outcome here, it’s not pretending at all!
47. burt 47

    27 August 2008 at 10:35 am

    Matthew Pilott

    That’s because it is a thoroughly nonsensical question

    No it’s not. If the emission taxes reduce their profit then they will change their behaviour. If however they are the reciepents of the emission taxes then where is the incentive?

    If [abc coal traders and electricity generators] takes a hit on their bottom line from the taxes then bingo – the ETS achieves it’s goal. If however we the consumers take a hit on our bottom line while [abc coal traders and electricity generators] continues polluting then the ETS is a failure.

    So… Who is the nasty corporate that sells the top quality coal for maximum profit while lumbering NZ consumers with a tax for burning the more polluting stuff?
48. T-Rex 48

    29 August 2008 at 12:33 am

    Burt.

    Think about it. ABC coal traders and high emission electricity generators can either take a hit on their bottom line or pass the costs onto their customers – yes.

    But now consider the impact of DEF low emissions electricity generators. They don’t have to impose a per/kWh cost on the electricty for their customers so they can either:
    a) Sell their electricity for less while keeping the same profit margin, which will mean that customers swap to using their electricity,
    or,
    b) Sell their electricity for the same amount as ABC Inc, which will increase the relative profitability of their business model, and mean that people building new generation will choose low emissions forms, because they’re more profitable.

    Whichever way it plays out, an economic incentive to generate low emissions electricity exists.

    re: Nasty corporates. What? If an internal market existed, or starts to exist, there’s nothing to stop the coal mining groups from selling the coal internally. I have a feeling the “nasty corporate” phrase, which you keep repeating, is just waffle.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS