Not all ETSs are created equal

34 comments on “Not all ETSs are created equal ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Tigger 1

   24 November 2009 at 2:39 pm

   This is a truly bizarre comment. It’s like saying – I made a knife, you used the knife to stab someone ergo I am to blame for the murder.
   • Clarke 1.1

     24 November 2009 at 3:01 pm

     Oh, I think you’re trying to bring to mind that old saying: “It’s not guns that kill people, it’s Americans that kill people.” At least, I think that’s how it goes.
     • Tigger 1.1.1

       24 November 2009 at 4:07 pm

       No, I’m actually saying that Colin appears to be blaming Labour for the MP/National ETS.

       By the way, can you call it a ‘scheme’ if it doesn’t actually do anything to reduce emissions?
       • Ari 1.1.1.1

         25 November 2009 at 6:05 am

         Tigger: Even if it did reduce emissions, it’s not an ETS anyway. The way it’s structured now it’s effectively a very small carbon tax.
2. randal 2

   24 November 2009 at 2:49 pm

   well both the mavens at the dompost (richard long and karl dufresne) have not said a good word about john key, the maori party and the ets for a long time.
   if they keep this up then neither the nats or the maori party are going to be around after 2011 anyway.
3. tc 3

   24 November 2009 at 2:56 pm

   Yet another attempt at ‘balance’ as he’s been caught being not so friendly to ETS in doing his job as an ‘independant’ journo and a taxpayer.

   A classic example of ‘the morning after the night before ‘ when you did what your instincts told you then awake to the reality of relationships you’re committed to.

   It’s hilarious watching the pro NACT members of the media trying to appease their idols with this type of counter measure…..ah the poison challice tasted so sweet in 2008.
   • Swampy 3.1

     25 November 2009 at 12:44 am

     he is balanced, very fair, and I recall someone accusing him otherwise lately had to eat their words
4. lprent 4

   24 November 2009 at 2:58 pm

   Does Colin Espiner not know what in the hell he is talking about? That has to be one of the more moronic statements I have ever hear a journo say.

   National doesn’t have a cap on pollution the way that they have modified the ETS. So there won’t be any trades. Therefore no price signals to the market.

   Don’t they teach journos like Colin to do anything apart from writing? Basic research for instance. You’d hope that he is a aberration….

   Perhaps he’d listen to a real journo. One who actually knows what he is talking about. Rod Oram on Radio NZ at about 11am does know.
   • tomfarmer 4.1

     24 November 2009 at 5:34 pm

     Hi there Lprent,

     if memory serves you’d go backaways in politics,, not being rude you understand, but so as to pitch cred here.. important because there’s not a lot of time left before NZ gets hung out to dry.. yep, and Maoris, and pakehas, asians.. just everybody.

     Re espiner’s stuff up is not knowing the operational politics that corporates are deploying today.. amendments being numero uno..

     I’ll be quick now.. have your folks dig out MTBE.. methanex.. Canada vs Ethyl Co.. and maybe in a day or so you’ll come on over for spotton link.. sorry being so clipped like this but genuine..

     best..
   • Swampy 4.2

     25 November 2009 at 12:44 am

     Nonsense, that is one of the most balanced blogs I have read, in fact most of his blog posts are very balanced, he is paid to write politics not to promote the Labour party.
5. snoozer 5

   24 November 2009 at 3:12 pm

   Espiner’s also got it wrong when he says Labour is going to filibuster http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/blogs/on-the-house/3092455/Labour-plans-to-Philibuster-on-ETS?comment_msg=posted#post_comment

   Labour is putting up about 15 amendments, all substantive. National will be putting up tonnes of amendments.

   He’s just a National shill.
   • snoozer 5.1

     24 November 2009 at 3:22 pm

     I mean here – http://norightturn.blogspot.com/2009/11/climate-change-filibuster.html
6. BLiP 6

   24 November 2009 at 3:33 pm

   As much as it grieves me to say, Espiner does have a point,

   Labour needs to get off its high horse on the ETS issue and accept that it caved in to business pressure by failing to introduce a carbon tax. This whole issue has been shifted away from concern for the environment to a series of arguments concerning balance sheet technicalities, allegations of race-based preferences, and who did what when. Labour should apologise, withdraw its ETS nonsense, and re-focus its efforts on introducing a carbon tax. If the costs of goods go up as a result, then consumers can decide whether or not they want to buy them and business can adapt its practises accordingly.
   • snoozer 6.1

     24 November 2009 at 3:39 pm

     Labour didn’t do anything wrong. It wanted a carbon tax but couldn’t get the numbers, so it went with an ETS. Not as good an ETS as it might have been but far better than National’s
   • mickysavage 6.2

     24 November 2009 at 4:06 pm

     Labour did not cave in. Its preference was a carbon tax. The numbers in Parliament did not allow this.
     • Richard 6.2.1

       24 November 2009 at 9:11 pm

       And rather hilarious to hear Fed Farmers actually saying that maybe a carbon tax – the FART tax – might be the way to go. Nats keeping quiet on this as you would expect. Would make being a Nat MP somewhat untenable for Shane Ardern (remember the tractor up the steps of Parliament?)
       By the way, Rod Oram’s article in SST was excellent. Maybe Espiner could learn a thing or two from him.
       • George.com 6.2.1.1

         24 November 2009 at 10:09 pm

         Back in 203 were Fed Farmers simply being obstructive or was there an element of stupidity in their actions as well?

         They want a fart tax? Fine, invent a time machine and go back 6 years and support one.

         Otherwise, get over it and get on with it. I have to live with the $90,000 plus debt Nick Smith is going to leave me with (until his scheme is replaced by a betterand more enduring solution).

         rob
7. Santi 7

   24 November 2009 at 3:50 pm

   National’s ETS is a dog bred to replace Labour’s mongrel. By the way, both are pieces of crap that will ruin the economy of New Zealand.
8. Lew 8

   24 November 2009 at 4:26 pm

   “How can National possibly be opposed to free education — National has an education policy, hello!”

   “How can ACT possibly be opposed to a top tax rate of 50% on incomes above $500,000 — ACT have a tax policy, hello!”

   “How can the Greens possibly be opposed to mining in the DOC estate — they have a conservation policy, hello!”

   Etc.

   L
9. tc 9

   24 November 2009 at 4:39 pm

   Santi sums up alot of peoples atitude to the issue of Climate Change……we can’t afford it ! We also can’t afford fuel efficiency standards/bio fuel/energy efficient lightbulbs and renewable power generation to name a few according to NACT.

   Like it or not Santi, this is the way the world is moving so we either lead and make it work for us and our exporters by having a better emissions profile or do what JK is doing and run us well down the list of preferred suppliers.

   I’ll leave the impact on our clean green tourism alone and what you tell the grandchildren to figure out yourself.
10. felix 10

    24 November 2009 at 4:42 pm

    It’s also extremely ironic to hear Colin commenting about Labour’s words when HELLO Colin uses words!!!

    Jebeers freakin Krisco
11. Chris 11

    24 November 2009 at 5:13 pm

    Who *actually* either reads or listen’s to Colin Espiner? He’s another Farrar in waiting so why on earth waste time pretending he’s ‘independent’ or ‘has integrity’?
    • Lew 11.1

      24 November 2009 at 5:51 pm

      If you read The Press or stuff.co.nz, you read Colin Espiner. The political editor of a daily newspaper does more than just blog his thoughts.

      L
      • Clarke 11.1.1

        24 November 2009 at 6:50 pm

        Coin has thoughts?!
12. Lew 12

    24 November 2009 at 7:18 pm

    You might not like his politics, but anyone who can blogs must at least be a sentient being, right?

    Right???

    L
    • lprent 12.1

      24 November 2009 at 7:34 pm

      Except for the ones where I could write a phrase dictionary program to duplicate their apparent sentience. If they would fail the turing test, then I tend to class them as rogue programs with bugs. That is the main standard used for detecting trolls.

      You should see the stuff that winds up in spam….
    • NickS 12.2

      24 November 2009 at 7:44 pm

      @Lew

      Does Turing compliance count as being sentient?
13. Lew 13

    24 November 2009 at 7:50 pm

    I’m sorry, NickS, I can’t let you ask that.

    L
    • NickS 13.1

      24 November 2009 at 8:20 pm

      …Not again.

      Now, where did I leave that EMP bomb?
14. Draco T Bastard 14

    24 November 2009 at 11:05 pm

    http://norightturn.blogspot.com/2009/11/climate-change-rort-waiting-to-happen.html

    This means that forest owners – who will (like everyone else) get a free allocation to help them meet the inevitable obligation when they cut their trees down – have effectively been given a legislated monopoly on carbon laundering, able to sell their forest allocation overseas at high prices while replacing it with non-forest credit bought at the capped price for instant arbitrage profits.

    But there’s another problem: the government still allows “banking” during the transitional period. Carbon credits don’t expire, and if the price rises, polluters can simply sit on their free allocation, meet their obligation by buying from the government for $25 / ton, and sell up when the price cap and export controls are removed in a few year’s time.

    What National have just gone into urgency to pass has got to be the worst policy submitted to parliament since Muldoons time.
15. Swampy 15

    25 November 2009 at 12:35 am

    This is National’s fiscal stimulus. It is quite plain that Labour’s ETS would have a negative impact on the economy, and the cynical of us have to ask why it was rushed through Parliament just before the election. Labour lost the election because of it so I think it is flogging a dead horse to complain about it,
16. Sanctuary 16

    25 November 2009 at 10:08 am

    Sometimes Espiner says the most stupid things – things even moderately informed people get a WTF? thought balloon moment when they read them. The great man should employ a journalist to do some research before he comments.
17. Guster 17

    25 November 2009 at 7:33 pm

    The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate

    Kevin Trenberth

    I seem to be getting an email a week from skeptics saying where’s the warming gone. I know the warming is on the decadal scale, but it would be nice to wear their smug grins away.

    Phil Jones

    In any case, if the sulfate hypothesis is right, then your prediction of warming might end up being wrong. I think we have been too readily explaining the slow changes over past decade as a result of variabilitythat explanation is wearing thin. I would just suggest, as a backup to your prediction, that you also do some checking on the sulfate issue, just so you might have a quantified explanation in case the prediction is wrong. Otherwise, the Skeptics will be all over usthe world is really cooling, the models are no good, etc. And all this just as the US is about ready to get serious on the issue.

    Mike MacCracken

    Ironically, the E1-IMAGE scenario runs, although much cooler in the long term of course, are considerably warmer than A1B-AR4 for several decades! Also relevant to your statement A1B-AR4 runs show potential for a distinct lack of warming in the early 21st C, which I’m sure skeptics would love to see replicated in the real world (See the attached plot for illustration but please don’t circulate this any further as these are results in progress, not yet shared with other ENSEMBLES partners let alone published).

    Tim Johns

    The key thing is making sure the series are vertically aligned in a reasonable way. I had been using the entire 20th century, but in the case of Keith’s, we need to align the first half of the 20th century w/ the corresponding mean values of the other series, due to the late 20th century decline. So, if we show Keith’s series in this plot, we have to comment that “something else’ is responsible for the discrepancies in this case. Otherwise, the skeptics have an field day casting doubt on our ability to understand the factors that influence these estimates and, thus, can undermine faith in the paleoestimates.

    Michael E. Mann <mann@multiproxy.evsc.virginia.edu

    Hi Mick,

    It was good to see you again yesterday if briefly. One particular
    thing you said and we agreed was about the IPCC reports and
    the broader climate negotiations were working to the globalisation
    agenda driven by organisations like the WTO. So my first question
    is do you have anything written or published, or know of anything
    particularly on this subject, which talks about this in more detail?

    My second question is that I am invovled in a working group
    organising a climate justice summit in the Hague and I wondered if
    you had any contacts, ngos or individuals, with whom you have
    worked especially from the small island States or similar areas,
    who could be invited as a voice either to help on the working group
    and/or to invite to speak?

    All the best,

    Paul

Links to post

1. Rod Oram on ETS and Monetary Policy at The Standard: posted on 25 November 2009 at 12:16 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS