by frog
I have just listened to both David Parker and John Key on National Radio roll out the phrase ‘a balancing of environmental and economic interests’ when describing their race to backtrack on the Emissions Trading Scheme.
I thought The Inconvenient Truth and the Stern Report may have covered off this topic in popular culture, but apparently not. It seems politicians in both Labour and National continue to believe in some sort of economy that exists separate and isolated from the environment.
I can picture the environment they have in mind when they say this – it’s kind of a large, green, leafy thing, full of birds and just past the edges of the city. It has a pleasant decked walk way and picnic benches scattered throughout. Presumably the economy needs protecting from this benign-looking but greedy environment. It’s certainly a different sort of environment from one that encompasses an area roughly the size of the entire planet (give or take a few hundred square metres where the National Party and Labour Party head offices are located).
Published in Economy, Work, & Welfare | Environment & Resource Management by frog on Mon, May 19th, 2008
Tags: David Parker, Emissions Trading Scheme, john key, labour party, national party, Stern Report, The Inconvenient Truth
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
I would liken them to Volgons, and if you have seen the Volgon planet you’ll know there isn’t a green thing on it apart from mould. (Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Key points out the emperor has no clothes.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Bankrupting the country is not going to help the environment either in the long term. If the economy suffers, environmental concerns will be cast aside as an unaffordable middle class luxury. When you are struggling to pay for food and rent, carbon emissions are the last thing on your mind.
So it would be better to at least ensure that environmentalism is not overly destructive to jobs and people’s standard of living- especially as the ETS is largely a symbolic gesture which will have very little effect on overall carbon.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What the knot of frogs are ignoring is reality, and Key has hit it squarely on the head. Kudos to the Nats on this one.
Heres the deal: If NZ fails to manage its economic performance, NZ as a country is dead. If NZ fails to manage its emissions better, then there is no impact to NZ.
Now this simplistic analysis ignore the fact that in the somewhat longer term, if the planet as a whole fails to manage its emissions that will be bad news for the planet. But the two are disconnected, both in reality and in politics, and in the minds of the voters.
At this moment, on this issue, the Nats are coming out as heros. How could the Greens have been so asleep to let this happen?
Thats rhetorical, ‘cos here the answer: desperation.
The Greens are so desperate to get any greenish legislation through the Beehive that they are automatically in favour of anything remotely green, irrespective of how bad it actually is.
Don’t tell me the Greens didn’t know or understand what a bad piece of work the ETS is. Everyone knows it’s rubbish to the core, fatally flawed beyond any use. Yet the Greens continue to support it.
What the Greens should have done is to have been honest, said the ETS was pretty much worse than no legislation at all, and dumped it a while ago. When the Nats did the about face, then the Greens would now be the ones basking in glory.
I’ve whittered on endlessly about how there is no exchange for dollars for Kilos of CO2. The only possible realistic place to tinker with NZ emissions is with resource consents and the RMA. Currently, emissions get off almost scott free, and in particular, there is no electrical energy use element in the consenting process. Change that, and you’ve got a tool to influence emissions. I know this is not an easy thing to manage, and is politically sensitive, as its not a free market based solution, but with enough thoughtpower something equitable and in NZs interest as a country can be created.
And thats what “Balancing environmental and economic interests” means. Key has provided the platform from which to launch a sensible long term emissions policy. The only question is, who will make use of that platform…?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
It’s the EFA all over again.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
uk_kiwi said: If the economy suffers, environmental concerns will be cast aside as an unaffordable middle class luxury.
I don’t get this, uk-kiwi. Under Kyoto New Zealand has to pay for its emissions anyway. That’s a done deal, whether there is an emissions trading scheme or not. The issue is, who pays.
At the moment, the taxpayer pays, so there is no incentive for emitters to reduce their emissions or even curb the expansion of them.
Under an ETS, the polluter pays. Sure, they will pass on what costs they can’t mitigate or offset, but there is an incentive to mitigate and offset, so overall NZ will pay less than it would with the taxpayer subsidising emissions.
Another thing I don’t get is why those on the right are arguing the taxpayer should subsidise the cost under Kyoto of New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions. You are the same people who are usually arguing that the taxpayer subsidising anything is a bad.
… as the ETS is largely a symbolic gesture which will have very little effect on overall carbon.
That’s only true of the Government’s one. The Green Party one would be far more effective.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
So where is the Green Party one so that we could have a look at it?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Under Kyoto New Zealand has to pay for its emissions anyway. That’s a done deal, whether there is an emissions trading scheme or not. ”
Is it though? The Canadians have all but pulled out of Kyoto as it would place unreasonable demands on their economy, and are having just as much trouble with their own ETS. It’s not just NZ that objects to billions of dollars being given away for little or no real gain.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
the country will become bankrupt id the planet and nz becomes environmentally degraded.
short term economics, long term consequences.
think inside the square
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
canada’s economy is putting unreasonable demands on the environment
tar sands anybody….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Here is a Greenpeace opinion-editorial running in the NZ Herald today:
National Party Environment Spokesman Nick Smith debates hia party’s climate change policies at a political debate onboard the Rainbow Warrior in April.
Greenpeace/SharomovBig business in New Zealand must be rubbing its hands: its plea to MPs has succeeded: “Don’t take any action on climate change, or if you do, subsidise us enough so we don’t feel it.?
It’s hard to think of a message more out of step with the values of ordinary New Zealanders.
Climate change is the world’s greatest collective challenge. The recent cyclone in Burma demonstrates all too starkly the damage and suffering caused by extreme weather events. Expect more of these events in coming years, and expect them to be more extreme if we don’t take action to deal to their root cause.
Despite this ticking clock, we’ve seen an orchestrated attempt by big business to scuttle proposed climate policies. Many aren’t happy to see their polluting plans challenged, including state-owned polluters like Genesis Energy and Solid Energy and the farming lobby.
One of the most extraordinary aspects of the current emissions trading debate has been watching free-market proponents abandon their principles in favour of protectionism and corporate welfare, rather than carrying their fair share of the costs.
As a result, Labour and National have come under intense pressure to delay, weaken or even scrap proposed climate legislation. Embarrassingly both have buckled under the pressure. With each demand from business and every political backtrack, New Zealand loses credibility. As one key political commentator puts it: “when it comes to climate change, New Zealand is no longer a serious player?.
New Zealanders are genuinely concerned about climate change and want action. A recent poll by the New Zealand Business Council for Sustainable Development shows most of us– including business decision-makers – think climate change is urgent and needs tackling now. Most think – logically and reasonably – that polluters should pay for their emissions. Very few back the Government’s capitulation to big business pressure.
They realise that every tax dollar spent on free credits to polluters is money that can’t be spent on public transport, hospitals and schools. Worse, polluters will have less incentive to change their ways so they’ll pollute more, thereby increasing New Zealand’s Kyoto bill. And who picks up that bill? Taxpayers.
While many in the business sector are getting on with tackling climate change, the public face of New Zealand business has been hijacked in recent weeks by big polluters. Their message is disguised with voodoo economics and scaremongering, but is clearly: “don’t expect us to help New Zealand tackle climate change?.
Foot-dragging from business is nothing we haven’t seen before.. Big polluting businesses have always been averse to anything that’s going to cost them money in the short term, even if the long term benefits are immeasurable and in the long term interests of all New Zealanders. Their chronic inability to grasp opportunities is a short-sighted recipe for New Zealand’s economic decline..
In 2005 the Government proposed a carbon tax. Business leaders promptly tossed their toys out of the cot and the tax was canned. Three years later, they’re doing it again over the ETS, and, in some cases, even calling for a reconsideration of the tax they originally opposed.
Take the agricultural sector. Farmers are particularly vulnerable to droughts, floods and cyclones and if there’s one thing we can expect in New Zealand from climate change it’s more droughts, floods and cyclones. Furthermore, consumers in key markets for our farm produce are worried about climate; they want to know their suppliers are taking climate change seriously so retailers are working hard to find out for them.
You’d think Federated Farmers would be driving tractors up the steps of Parliament demanding action on climate change. Sadly, the last time we saw a tractor negotiating the steps, National MP Shane Ardern was at the wheel protesting Government efforts to address the problem. The result? Instead of paying for its emissions, New Zealand agriculture is getting a whopping tax-payer subsidy. It’s like a huge neon sign to consumers in EU markets saying “we’re not the environmental leaders you think we are?.
Finally, Rio Tinto threatened to pack up and leave New Zealand if the emission trading scheme proceeds. Again, nothing new. The company – which has received cut-price power for decades – has a habit of threatening to do a runner every time it feels its charmed existence in New Zealand is at risk. This is a company that prides itself on its environmental integrity, conducting a survey in 2003 in which almost 75 per cent of stakeholders identified “taking responsibility for greenhouse gas emissions as the critical climate change issue?. One of its core values is “caring about the world in which we live?. Yet it’s willing to up sticks and leave New Zealand, firing thousands of loyal employees in the process, and shifting to somewhere where it readily admits its activities will be far more damaging to the climate – all to safeguard its profit margin.
New Zealand has a lot of values it could bring to bear in tackling climate change: resilience, fairness, doing the right thing, being progressive and caring for the environment. Unfortunately, the face presented by big New Zealand business is myopic, defensive, uncaring and desperate for corporate welfare. They are telling the world New Zealand is not serious about tackling climate change. The rest of New Zealand knows we can do better.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
uk-kiwi said: The Canadians have all but pulled out of Kyoto
No, it’s actually worse than that. The Tory-led Government in Canada remains part of Kyoto, but fails to comply with its Kyoto reporting requirements.
In doing so, they blame their Liberal predecessors (with at least some justification), but are promising they will eventually comply with those requirements – they just need more time. Yeah, right!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I see Greenpeace have their heads in the usual place…
Taking action to prevent climate change = good.
Thinking that a taxation scheme qualifies as action = myopic, stupidity, etc.
Of course we as New Zealanders want climate change. What we don’t want is what the politicians want to deliver, which is no climate change action, and more cost to consumers. Thats the bit that politicos (inc our very own Fwog) can’t seem to get their heads around…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
treesoft,
“The recent cyclone in Burma demonstrates all too starkly the damage and suffering caused by extreme weather events. Expect more of these events in coming years, and expect them to be more extreme if we don’t take action to deal to their root cause.”
There is absolutely no proof that todays weather systems consisting of storms, droughts, rains, tornadoes, heat, cold or any variations thereoff and combination of one or more, is any worse or any better then any other time in the earths history.
There are no records that measured these weather occurances over a extended period of time. Even the last 150 years the measurement accuracy has to be questioned.
Simply put, it is scaremongering based on no scientifically measured figures.
Pure fabrication by the weather change proponents.
For about the hundreth time I will ask this question of the Green movement.
How will (through taxation) sending a billion dollars to Russia every year help New Zealands emmision standards?
While people may be concerned about climate change, the answer to controlling the climate (becasue that is what you are trying to achieve) through taxation to send a billion dollars to Russia is pretty much entenable.
What they want to know is who will audit that the carbon credits bought actually exist, that the middle men like Al Gore dont clip the ticket at an expected 30%.
But most importantly they want to know if it will actually make a difference.
You make think so but when I see figures of $100B in PROFIT for big corporates to participate in carbon trading, i know it is a scam.
Another question not answed going back to the replanting of forests. Who owns the carbon credits. The State or the land/plantation owner?
With the tightening of the belt through Cullens 8 years of overspending in the public service (which if it reaches 36 percent of all working person will collapse the economy totally) there is no more room for extra taxation.
In fact the new government (Labour or National) is going to have to clear out the non productive (becasue of being non taxpaying) public sector to relieve the burden on the productive tax payer sector.
You cannot tax the tax payer anymore then you do now so where the money for the Kyoto scam iss going to come from I really dont know.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“The Canadians have all but pulled out of Kyoto”
The wheels are already falling off aye Toad
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Just that successive Canadian governments have not been honest to the international comitments they signed up to.
I’m not saying Kyoto is perfect – it is far from perfect. But at the moment it is the only international mechanism we have to combat climate change.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
toad,
Problem with Kyoto is that it is so bad, it should be thrown out.
As it is so bad it wont do nothing to combat climate change.
Just line the pockets of the Al Gore’s and the multi nationals bankers. How dumb are we?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Somehow there is a perception out there that pro environment=anti economy.
The job of the Greens should be to show the pro environment initiatives that will benefit the economy.
Now I’m sure you guys (frogs, sorry) think you are doing that, the trouble is the 90+% of the public don’t see you that way.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Firstly, the relationship between the environment and the economy isn’t an inverse one. In fact, the economy depends on the integrity of the environment- it’s only in the very short-term that sacrificing environmental integrity for economic gain seems to be a good idea. Unfortunately, because economic success is measured in terms of annual growth, not only are companies encouraged to think in the short term, they’re also encouraged to jump through hoops to grow significantly rather than providing a good linear return on investments.
Gerrit: You mention sending off so much cash to Russia like there’s an alternative. The fact is that successful countries like New Zealand have reached their current level of development by trashing the environment. It’s hard to get an international agreement for a consistent drop of greenhouse emissions without acknowledging that the developed world is largely responsible and has to bear the cost. You say we should dump Kyoto as soon as we can- but if we do that, why would anyone else try to lower their emissions? We were already losing what little credibility we had on climate change by paying lip service to an ETS with Labour and National’s brief stint in grand coalition over it.
Basically, we are in a very scary place- where success can’t be measured the way businesses think it is supposed to be, where we are stuck with an obligation to do the more of the legwork on climate change than less developed countries when we’ve hardly started on it, and in that sort of situation business doesn’t want to take risks. It wants to push as hard as it can to post a profit and look like it’s weathering the storm. And in doing so they’re effectively trying to wreck the one small step towards dealing with it that we were about to make.
As for the Greens showing how to make money off being pro-environment? I think we’ve already pointed out dozens of ways that this can be done. The problem is that business doesn’t want to listen at all and is instead throwing a tantrum. It’s just a matter of whether the Government will find a way around that or not.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
gerrit, you may want to check this paper out then:
http://www.groen.be/folders/docPage/NATURE03906.pdf
Kerry Emanuel wrote the definitive paper on hurricane intensity ‘Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30 years’. Emanuel found a close correlation between hurricane intensity and sea surface temperature.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I thought it was a well known fact that hurricanes have a correlation with sea surface temperatures. If the sea surface temperature starts to rise we can see huricanes further north and more frequently further north.
Oh BTW you think Katrina was bad try a Hurricane like that hitting New York City and Long Island. That will make New Orleans look like a boy scout retreat.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Ari,
“Gerrit: You mention sending off so much cash to Russia like there’s an alternative.
yes there is an alternative, a very BIG and BRAVE alternative.
We state that we will not be party to Kyoto any longer as the moneymen are lining up to gild their cages on this fraudulent and unauditted scam called the carbon trading scheme.
As an alternative we will lead the way in becoming carbon neutral by taxing local emmisions and keeping the tax take internal. Spending the emmisions tax take locally on reducing our own emmissons.
That is what people will vote for. Provided you leave them some money in the back pocket (done by getting the hugely bloated, over managed, public sector back in to productive work)
And that is what every country in the world will be following.
Turnip28
Cant have been a “well know” fact. I for one did not know about that research. However it does not mitigate my argument that we absolutely do not know if the weather patterns are now more severe then in the last 300 (was going for the 1000) years.
Theoretically it has based on 30 years of studying water temperatures. But what was the water temperature 300 years ago?
That is my argument. It is not known, so that we cannot draw the conclusion that the weather has gotten more extreme.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
OK, who on this thread actually believes there’s a “wait and see” option on climate change and what evidence have you got to back it up to out-argue the world’s best economists and scientists?
The economy is the reason for action on climate change. It’s not about flowers and small fury animals. It’s about avoiding a world economy in permanent reverse.
There is no “choose the economy over the environment” option.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
tom
“There is no “choose the economy over the environment? option”
Oh yes there is
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/05/are_32000_scientists_enough_to.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“American Thinker” as a reference BB? That’s really stretching it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
So by your logic BB you would be very happy to have a Computer Scientist
perform open heart surgery on you. I mean if you are a computer scientist then you must also know everything there is about open heart surgery.
Why does the general public have this image that a scientist is this person who knows everything about all subjects and is an expert on everything.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Toad
Oh yes….they are all funded by Exxon, how silly of me to forget.
Face it Toad, the wheels are beginning to come off the climate change con, you will need to find another Trojan horse to ride your Marxist ideology in on.
————————————————————————————–
Turnip
32,000…are you really suggesting that all of them are wrong?
Stop acting like a child who has had its favourite toy taken away, as I said to Toad the end is near for the climate change con, deal with it and move on.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Actually, don’t think I mentioned Exxon on this thread!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Just saving you the time Toad
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BB I don’t really care what you think in fact I think green’s who spend time trying to warn people about global climate change are wasting their time. I don’t support the Kyoto agreement, I don’t support any carbon trading schemes I do support preparing NZ for both climate change and peak oil.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Peak Oil – Peak Oil; Don’t prepare anyone lets find alternate ways, we communicate by computers not letters sent over on boats across the oceans as in the 1800′s. Surely we can produce an alternate to oil. Seems as if we are held hostage by our own complacence to feed the oil barrens. As for the climate change, even if everyone was doing what they could, I’m not sure it would be enough to change what is out of our hands. I don’t think we have figure out how to control the weather.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)