Reducing emissions - regulation or trading?
Idiot Savant, don’t you know such straightforward common sense is really out of fashion?
We have to have trading so that people who have no interest in reducing emissions - lots of them are lawyers and accountants and stock exchange agents - can make heaps of money clipping the ticket every time there is a trade. And so others can speculate in carbon prices as they do in currencies (are you getting ready for a flutter, John Key?) and make money that way. That means economic growth will continue as more money changes hands, whether or not it does anything for the climate. Might as well have fun while the planet burns.
Seriously, you are quite right of course that direct measures to reduce emissions like codes and standards will do far more to reduce emissions than trading will. Many of the things you propose we have done in the last 2 years as part of the NZ Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy I’ve been leading. The Building Code for houses has been upgraded (though could go much further yet). The code for commercial buildings is being upgraded. We have standards for many domestic appliances and some industrial ones since my Energy Efficiency and Conservation Act 2000 created the legal power to do this - amazingly, though other countries had been doing it since the seventies, NZ did not have any legal mandate for it to be done here. EECA estimates that households have been saved $148m on their power bills since 2001 as a result of these standards and the good news is there is heaps more to do.
Sadly, we don’t have fuel efficiency standards for cars coming into the country, the thing I most wanted to achieve in the strategy. It is in fact in the strategy and Cabinet has agreed to it but officials have not drafted the legislation in time to get it through the house before the election. People might like to ask potential governments whether they will progress this.
But as well as this, it would be helpful to have a price on carbon because sometimes the market does help with good decisions. The simple way to do it is a carbon tax, recycled into other tax changes and investment in energy efficiency. A trading system will also put a price on carbon, but will it be worth the effort?
That’s what we are trying to figure out in our negotiations.
July 27th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
“People might like to ask potential governments whether they will progress this.”
I take it that Green Party policy is to progress this?
Trevor.
July 27th, 2008 at 11:35 pm
“I take it that Green Party policy is to progress this?”
I hope so. I read Jeanette’s comment as she has been trying to progress this but officials have been tardy. Maybe one of the disadvantages of not being a Minister is that you can’t give officials marching orders!
July 28th, 2008 at 12:49 am
Jeanette, Are you able to provide links to briefing papers with background information on the $148 million saving and on the proposed fuel efficiency standards for cars coming into the country? I couldn’t anything at all on the EECA website.
Are the car standards similar to America’s CAFE? The website mentioned that the star labelling system came into effect in April. Is that incorrect?
July 28th, 2008 at 7:24 am
There is a very good website using an analogy as a critique of the carbon trading system at http://www.cheatneutral.com. I am not sure the analogy holds, but it certainly made me think.
July 28th, 2008 at 8:36 am
At last a bit of common sense. Been saying for a while that the AL Gores are nothing put ticket clippers working in an unregulated market with no auditing procedures in place.
However the carbon tax details. What are they?
Will the tax go towards meeting New Zealands commitment to the Kyoto protical?
If not, what will the tax be spent on?
And as the tax be a neutral one, in what areas will there be tax concessions?
Does this mean the Greens will not be supporting Kyoto anymore (hip hip hurra)?
What was that stupid, childish reference to John Key for?
Surely you should have made that a reference to Al Gore?
July 28th, 2008 at 9:15 am
As you regulars might be aware I’m a (not yet certified) assessor for the ECCA HERS (home energy rating scheme). I know the Greens are a prime driver behind this scheme. The scheme isn’t working at this time and needs political help if it’s going to proceed. The scheme and our training got off with a hiss and a roar, the first intake of trainees got pseudo-accredited as no full accreditation was finalised at that time, fair enough. Those ‘assessors’ then managed to gobble up all the ECCA funding doing trial assessments. I was in the second intake of training, we didn’t get pseudo-accredited, we couldn’t do trial assessments, we invested the same amount of money and got the same training though.
The problem now is that the ECCA budget finished 30/6/08, there is no budget for the 08/09 year and it’s an election year so ECCA will probably remain a headless chook until it gets a new political mandate.
We all remain un-accredited for a scheme that isn’t functional.
If we want an improvement in our housing stock’s energy efficiency we need a functional scheme with fully accredited assessors (the building and architectural trades don’t have a clue).
I’m asking that someone in the Greens takes this issue up and see if you can progress it further, otherwise it’s in danger of being stillborn.
July 28th, 2008 at 9:16 am
You may say “at last”, but a carbon tax has been Green Party policy since 1993. The best chance to create one was scuttled by the old parties in 2005. This is why work is being done on an ETS, which at this point represents the best option for putting a price on carbon (assuming a worthwhile bill can be put together - not at all a sure thing yet). If you don’t like this, talk to the reds and blues. So long as National will give no clue as to what they’d do, the Greens will keep working with the option on the table.
July 28th, 2008 at 9:41 am
Gerrit Says:
July 28th, 2008 at 8:36 am
> And as the tax be a neutral one, in what areas will there be tax concessions?
when this was Green party policy (ie. up until 2006, when the Greens decided to try and influence the emissions trading scheme rather than pushing for an alternative), there were to be income tax cuts to balance off the extra revenue from the carbon tax.
July 28th, 2008 at 10:34 am
Jeanette
RE:
>
>>Sadly, we don’t have fuel efficiency standards for cars coming into the country, the thing I most wanted to achieve in the strategy.
>
This is an interesting piece of policy. Can you give an indication of what the standard you envision would be if it were implemented now, and how long you would allow the current fleet to continue without having to comply? This would certainly give my vote pause for thought.
July 28th, 2008 at 11:53 am
samiam - I think that HERS is stuck in the same holding pattern that the VFES is. Why would any government, which has been successfully branded by its opposition as a ‘nanny state’, announce standards of any kind just before an election? This does not mean that it shouldn’t happen, just that it would be turned against Labour if they got stuck into right now.
HERS stillborn? This may yet happen, particularly if we end up with a National led government. They are inclined to de-regulate and encourage leaky homes rather than encourage HERS and energy efficient homes. Let the market decide? Bye bye HERS. Sorry to be pessimistic, but with the Nats leading, we will only trend backwards.
July 28th, 2008 at 11:54 am
Strings - Hold that thought - er, vote. I am not an official Green Party policy wonk, but I know that a detailed policy concerning vehicle fuel efficiency has been in development. I’m sure we’ll see it soon? ish?
July 28th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Not if you hop into their millpond frog, esp since Winnie seems to be in a death dive. Work with nats not against them
HERS isn’t nanny state as it doesn’t specify a certain standard of housing. It’s purpose is to grade housing into star bands and let the market decide for itself what to do with that information. Nats would support that I’d bet.
Further, with oil prices and regular electricity shortages I suspect the drive to make housing more energy efficient will still fly regardless of which government we get. Curiously the real estate downturn might even help this scheme fly as before any old dog-box would gain in value. I’d expect energy efficient housing to be the most likely to appreciate (depreciate less?) in the current climate.
Like I said elsewhere it’s capitalist, socialist and environmentalist all rolled into one.
July 28th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
>>fuel efficiency standards for cars
Details? Define “inefficient”? What if I use my inefficient car less often?
>>are you getting ready for a flutter, John Key?
Sad and pathetic.
July 28th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
# samiam Says:
July 28th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
> Like I said elsewhere it’s [HERS] capitalist, socialist and environmentalist all rolled into one.
and, of course, a Green Party initiative.
July 28th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
BluePeter Says:
July 28th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
>> fuel efficiency standards for cars
> Details? Define “inefficient�? What if I use my inefficient car less often?
well, you measure the fuel consumption of a car. Then you compare it with other cars that have a similar amount of space for people and luggage. and the one that has lower fuel consumption is the more efficient one.
July 28th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
This is from Treehugger:
Admit it: Jimmy Carter Was Right
# He was right in seeking to raise the fleet auto mileage standard to 48 miles per gallon by 1995. (Even U.S. automakers admitted at the time that they could easily achieve 30 mpg by 1985.)
# Carter was right in exhorting Americans to turn down their thermostats, even if he did look nerdy in a cardigan while urging us to do so.
# He was right to encourage fuel conservation by proposing a 50-cents-per-gallon tax on gasoline and a fee on imported oil —- in effect, a floor for fuel prices.
# Invoking the pioneering spirit of the 1960s moon mission, he was right to recommend a tax on windfall oil profits to finance a crash program to develop affordable synthetic fuels.
# Carter was correct, too, in setting a goal of obtaining 20 percent of our energy from solar power by the year 2000.
The ACJ continues with a description of today’s leadership:
Failure To Lead
“Our leaders’ idea of promoting alternative energy is touting future, nonexistent technologies, and that false savior, ethanol. Ethanol consumes nearly as much fuel to make as it produces, while collaterally raising food prices and damaging the environment.
The latest panacea is drilling in the Arctic and offshore, a short-term solution of dubious value that is wildly popular among oilmen and congressmen up for re-election, and in the Bush administration —- which evidently hopes to use high gasoline prices as a wedge for opening off-limits areas to exploration for its Big Oil constituency.
Meanwhile, Congress has failed to take the simple step of renewing federal tax credits for wind and solar power that will expire at year’s end. How have our perceived options become so narrow and skewed?
It is because without any public debate, a de facto U.S. energy policy has evolved and is now in place: to cling ever tighter to our oil-based economy and its lucrative profits for the scions of the status quo, and to marginalize all who are not on board with this.
And now we are in the exact bind that Carter tried to prevent three decades ago. Acting with promptness difficult to fathom today, our elected leaders then enacted year-round daylight-saving time, dropped the speed limit to 55 and established government price controls. And oh so fleetingly, we downsized what we drove. All gone.” Atlanta Constitution-Journal
Now there are some other items in Carter’s resume that don’t look so good today, like the Iran hostage crisis and the Olympic boycott, and his recent activities have been questioned by some, but when it came to energy, the nuclear engineer and farmer seems to have known what he was talking about…
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/07/admit-it-jimmy-carter-was-righ t.php
July 28th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
The Drake Landing Solar Community is the first solar powered community of North America. Located in the town of Okotoks, Alberta, Canada, the project sets a wonderful example of how every household can lead a sustainable lifestyle. There are 800 solar panels located throughout the community on garage roofs, and they produce 1.5 mega-watts of thermal power during a summer day and supply heat to the district heating system. The whole system meets 90% of the annual heating and hot water needs of the homes.
http://www.inhabitat.com/2008/07/24/a-unique-solar-powered-community-i n-canada/
July 29th, 2008 at 8:02 am
>>the one that has lower fuel consumption is the more efficient one.
But so what?
What if the more efficient car is used every day, and the inefficient car is used seldomly? The inefficient car produces less emissions.
I have a rather thirsty M3. However, I barely use it, as I also like to walk.
July 29th, 2008 at 10:31 am
I agree that it would be beneficial if all the countries in the world took direct measures to reduce emissions.
The unfortunate reality is that many countries, especially in the developing world do not have the ability to do this. i.e. India has trouble even reducing it’s petrol subsidies.
I think that carbon trading is beneficial because it allows a transfer of technology to developing countries - and it provides an incentive for businesses there to reduce emissions too - even when their country has no emissions targets.
I think that the biggest challenge in solving GHG emissions is going to be helping the developing world to develop using clean technologies. Carbon trading helps this happen.
July 29th, 2008 at 10:46 am
Again, the “reduce emissions” concept. This is what socialism has fought against since its inception, but at a Nation level. That’s right, under this philosophy the historic high polluter gets to pollute and the low polluter doesn’t (the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.).
Surely a movement as international as the Green Movement can come up with a global “per capita” pollution allowance that all nations are required to subscribe to? This would allow countries like India, Tanzania, Sri Lanka, Zaire, China, Yemen, etc., to grow their industrial base, while requiring the USA, European Union, Australia, Canada, Russia, New Zealand, etc., to reduce the impact of our industrialisation. The alternative is to push back to an arbitrary ‘base point’, when the poor countries were too under industrialised to provide reasonable standards of living for their populations, and make sure we keep them there!
July 30th, 2008 at 2:33 am
bp, Have you sought professional help? Walking when you own an M3, Did your mother drop you on your head when you were a baby?
Just kidding, of course 
But actually you do raise a good point. If I owned something a bit more fuel efficient than my 300ZX my Scottish genes might not limit my driving the way they do at the moment.
July 30th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
>>>walking when you own an M3
Heh heh. When I roll, I roll well.
But I can’t keep fit behind the wheel, so my baby stays in the garage much of the time.
July 30th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
PS:
>>300ZX
Nice.