by frog
Presumably that means in 2011, after the Greens’ peak oil conspiracy has been exposed and everybody has returned to enjoying endless supplies of cheap petrol, and when petrol is eventually introduced into the ETS, the price required to have the sort of behavioural change the Prime Minister is seeking would need to be more in the range of $1 per litre of petrol rather than the currently mooted 8 cents per litre. I’d be interested to see her selling that to the roading lobby after they got her to back down on the current proposal.
Published in Economy, Work, & Welfare | Environment & Resource Management by frog on Tue, May 6th, 2008
Tags: Carbon, climate change, Emissions Trading Scheme, Jeanette Fitzsimons, MED, peak oil, petrol, Prime Minster, Reserve Bank, Treasury
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Loading...
The people at the reserve bank should listen to Fatih Birol head economist at the IEA.
http:/www.peakoil.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=38082
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Labour should say that it was the money saved on Kyoto Accord obligations (the billion to half a billion fall resulting from rising petrol prices) that was used to buy back Rail or would be the money used to rebuild rail with new investment.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Green Co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons said the Government’s announcement was a hastily constructed panic reaction to pressure in election year.” Of course it is. But what bozo came up with the idea of introducing it on Jan 1st, smack in the middle of the summer holidays and the very same day that regional petrol taxes could be introduced?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“The Prime Minister is defending her flip flop on the Emissions Trading Scheme on the basis that oil prices are rising and thus having the same effect on motorists’ behaviour as the ETS would have done anyway.”
hah! sounds like we’re going to gamble that the oil will run out before we can destroy the environment.
otherwise it could just indicate the carbon charge was not going to be high enough anyway.
still clarke referred to current oil prices as a spike, which indicates she thinks (or wants us to think she thinks) this is an aberration which will be corrected with a fall
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“This, as Jeanette has pointed out on The Panel this afternoon, ignores the fact that taxpayers are subsidising carbon polluters.”
General taxation is subsidising buses and trains(?) too, no?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The Greens talk about Peak Oil but the Greens aren’t survivalists.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/may/02/communities.fossilfuels
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Well, Henry laid into Norman this morning and boy, was it was a joy to watch. Norman came across as an utter chump, not because he is, but ‘cos he’s defending the indefensible.
Time and time again, Norman talked about “paying for the pollution”, but whereas this sounds good in theory, it has no basis in reality. Last I saw, God isn’t accepting NZD in return for reducing climate change. No motorist is subsidising the pollution of another motorist. What rot!
Lets put it another way. Using pricing in general as a tool to affect buying habits only works when the payee has a choice.
Let me illustrate.
If all petrol rises by 8c/L, I don’t have a choice, I just have to pay it, as all petrol costs the same, and I have no alternative transport option. (And I’m not going to get one either, so lets not play that game)
But, lets say we taxed the farty cows, and NZ dairy products prices went up. Now I have a choice, I can buy other foods instead, or I could buy imported dairy products that will be cheaper as they don’t have ETS taxation. I have a choice, and thus my behaviour may well change.
Chances of Green Party failing to make 5% – rising all the time. Its difficult to remember a time when a party was more out of step with… well… everyone. And worse than that, on an issue they are just plain wrong with; its not even a defensible position of being the only one marching in step.
“When you’re in a hole, stop digging” – You there at the helm – WAKE UP!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
StephenR, No, subsidies for buses and trains come from the National Land Transport Fund. To date this fund has not received any funding over and above the revenues from motorised road users. Now that the govt has bought back the railways that will change.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Interesting. Do subsidies just come from council rates then?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
buckley
Of course what RN should have said
1. congestion charges for SUV’s during peak traffic times and a tax on their purchase.
2. 1 day in 5 being a carless day in congestion zones (compulsory car pooling or public transport or telecommuting working from home one day a week).
Buying a SUV is a choice. Encouraging the development of public tranport demand supply (and increasing boradband supply in congestion area suburbs) or car pooling.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
StephenR, As far as buses are concerned this quote from today’s Press sums up the situation for operating expenses.
“The $68 million annual cost of the Metro bus system in Christchurch is funded 50 per cent by bus fares, 25% by ratepayers and 25% by government subsidy.” The latter is actually roading revenue appropriated by statute to the Land Transport Fund but politicians like to think of it as their money.
Capital spending seems to have different rules in which PT passengers don’t seem to have to make any contribution and the Crown appears to be able to direct Land Transport NZ to fund up to 100%, although the normal split is 60% LTF and 40% regional ratepayers.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Heh.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)