40 thoughts on “Have your say

  1. If you vote for the current ETS, Labour will eat your vote. By keeping the ETS issue alive, the Greens have a big plank in their arsenal for the election campaign. Please learn from the Electoral Finance Act.

    On the other hand, if you wish to leave an epitaph for the Green Party in the shape of the current ETS, go for it. Think carefully, because once you’re out, you’re out.

  2. samiuela: “If the Government’s ETS proposal is ineffective, then the answer seems obvious: don’t support it.”

    The point is that it is NOT obvious. There are both big negatives and big positives, so the choice is not easy.

    I agree with your second point that possible negative effects on future measures should be well considered.

  3. Toad,

    If the Government’s ETS proposal is ineffective, then the answer seems obvious: don’t support it. Make it really clear that the reason the Greens don’t support it is because it won’t work (and give the reasons why it won’t work). People are not dumb, they will respect a well reasoned argument, even if they don’t personally agree with it.

    An ineffective ETS is only likely to hinder future efforts to make meaningful reductions, because people will say: “why do we need this new measure when we already have the ETS?”

    Cheers,

    Miuela.

  4. I think Kyoto and any ETS will both cause untold damage to NZ (which is hard for me to say as I am really keen to see pollutant energies reduced)

    NZ is already in the doldrums and we have to be creatively motivational rather than negatively punishing if we want changes in carbon-generating behaviour.

    Both Kyoto and ANY kind of ets are open to international manipulations that are poorly understood by the average kiwi, and there is no good reason to expose us to those forces. It would be like having international financiers playing roulette with the NZ economy.

    As if it wasnt bad enough already.

    Where energy policies are concerned, we need to isolate ourselves, not expose ourselves.

  5. greengeek, signing Kyoto doesn’t mean we are obliged to have an emission trading scheme.

    Especially one as ineffective as the Govenment’s proposal. There are other, and better imo, options available to move the sot of greenhouse emissions onto the polluters – eg a “carbon” tax, which is entirely consistent with Kyoto. Or even an ETS that which will actually do the business, which the Government’s one will not.

  6. I vote No…do not support the ETS. It was a mistake to have signed Kyoto, and anything that follows from it will only bankrupt New Zealand.

    It would be better to pursue a hardline environmental policy OF OUR OWN DESIGN, IN OUR OWN TIMEFRAME.

    big bro Says: When the Greens do support this bill in the house (because the reality is that they have already decided to do so) they can kiss goodbye to the slim chance that they had of making the 5% threshold.

    BB, You are probably right that there will be a huge anti-green reaction to the ETS. However, I suspect this reaction will be one that intensifies (already) anti-green feeling, rather than increasing the NUMBERS of anti-green feeling.

    Very few kiwis really understand what is happening to NZ with Kyoto and the ETS, so I am not sure that the Greens will lose too many votes over this. Maybe lose slightly more than they gain? Maybe taking their vote from 5.8% down to 4.9%?? Something like that.

  7. don’t put words in my mouth plse greenfly..

    ..i am reporting farrar reporting this..

    ..and evaluating the possibilitiy of it being true..

    (thru non-tinted glasses..)

    ..phil(whoar.co.nz)

    ..i repeat..(for the third time..)..i hope farrar is wrong

  8. BP, that’s my guess too, so big bro, no I won’t take your offered bet against.

    “..the Greens disappeared when you rigged our electoral system to find a way to get Red Russ into the house…”

    Is that the best straw you can clutch at? I can only laugh.

    “What you fail to see or admit is that once again you are being used as a pawn in the career aims and ambitions of Helen Elizabeth Clark, she had UN ambitions and she wants to go to the UN with the title of “first in the world? despite the huge and possibly terminal damage it will do to our economy.”

    Can’t even laugh at this, its such a sad bit of reasoning. You could well be right about Clark, but this is core Green policy we’re talking about. Jeanette is as much an expert on this stuff as anyone in the country and it is ludicrous to suggest she’s being taken for a ride for the PM’s vainglory.

  9. what i am saying..greenfly..

    ..is that farrar is ‘connected’ in wellngton..

    ..he has good sources of ‘inside’ information..

    ..and he has a record of not saying things like that..unless they are true..

    ..and why is it so far-fetched to you..that should they have already decided to do labours’ bidding..

    ..that they would do this ‘damage-control’..?

    ..jeeeeeze..greenfly..!

    ..take off your green-tinted glasses..eh..?

    ..and i did say..that i hoped i was proven wrong..

    ..eh..?

    ..phil(whoar.co.nz)

  10. phil – alarm bells should be going off in your head from the comments by Farrar, but not for the reason you suggest. Are you pitting Farrar’s integrity against that of the Green MP’s? Jeeeeeze Phil !!!

  11. and valis..i have no access to internal green party forums..

    ..could you please go to them..and get greens to place their feedback..

    ..i am sure the green punters are ahead of the mp’s on this..

    ..(as they are on most issues..)

    ..phil(whoar.co.nz)

  12. Valis

    Rubbish, there is every basis for my assertion.

    It was fair (not that long ago) that one could suggest that the Greens and ACT were the only two parties who had ethics and morals, the Greens disappeared when you rigged our electoral system to find a way to get Red Russ into the house and this so called “public consultation” is nothing but a sham.

    Tell you what Valis, I bet you $50 (to the animal charity of your choice) that the Greens swallow this huge dead rat and vote with Labour despite all the bleating the Greens have done about the ETS in its current form.

    What you fail to see or admit is that once again you are being used as a pawn in the career aims and ambitions of Helen Elizabeth Clark, she had UN ambitions and she wants to go to the UN with the title of “first in the world” despite the huge and possibly terminal damage it will do to our economy.

  13. valis..these are valid questions to ask..

    ..wouldn’t you be p*ssed to find/know that you had been ‘played’..as a form of ‘damage-control/spin..?

    ..and that ‘the deal is already done’..?

    i mean..that’s aside from actually wanting effective legislation..

    …eh..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

  14. “When the Greens do support this bill in the house (because the reality is that they have already decided to do so) they can kiss goodbye to the slim chance that they had of making the 5% threshold.

    Party of ethics……yeah right!”

    Put up or shut up big bro. There is no basis for your assertion that the Greens have made up their minds, either in what has been said publically, or based on past behaviour. They may well vote for it given their policy on the matter, but the rest is pure conjecture.

  15. this is farrars’ latest ‘call’o this..

    ..i find farrar not to be one to say something..

    ..unless he is certain of his facts..

    ..and he is decidedly emphatic here..

    ..(which is setting off all sorts of alarm bells in me..)

    “..It is a stunt, and I feel sorry for all the people who take the time to e-mail in their views on a decision that has already been made in substance, if not in form..”

    frog..are the mp’s/leadership going to appear here..?

    ..to tell us what is what..

    ..or will it be the (standard) stony silence..?

    ..phil(whoar.co.nz)

  16. We’ve been here many times before.

    Labour want to pass something.
    The Greens have serious misgivings.
    The Greens make like they aren’t going to go with Labour for a few days.
    The Greens vote with Labour.
    The Greens then make the excuse that it was better passing a turkey than nothing at all, and that we “won valuable concessions”.

    Same old, same old.

    I don’t know why you just don’t join Labour and be done with it.

  17. When the Greens do support this bill in the house (because the reality is that they have already decided to do so) they can kiss goodbye to the slim chance that they had of making the 5% threshold.

    Party of ethics……yeah right!

  18. valis..the green mp’s may well have decided that..and this feedback gathering exercise may well be just an attempt at ‘damage-control’..

    ..i hope not..

    ..but this is why i questioned frog about ‘why is the public feedback not able to be seen by us all..?’..

    ..why is it being kept secret..?

    ..the cynic in me would say that even if the feedback was overwhelmingly in favour of rejecting the bill..’

    ..and campaigning on/for a strong e.t.s..

    ..that this feedback could be just ignored/massaged at will..

    ..which kinda makes a bit of a farce of any claiming to be responding to the will of the people..

    ..as i said..i hope i am wrong..

    ..but if farrar is correct/’in the know’..

    ..and the greens ignore the whirlwind they have (involuntarily) whipped up..

    ..and do swallow that dead rat of a bill..

    ..it will turn to bite them on the ars*..

    ..hard for them not to be seen as ‘sell-outs’..on the environment..)

    ..and may well see them tossed out of parliament..

    ..far far better to take any gains/good bits from this bill as the starting point for post-election negotiations..

    ..and to prove to so many people (of all ideological stripes) who care for the environment..

    ..who want to give you a party vote..

    ..that the greens are proving themselves as worthy of their vote/support..

    ..this is a real watershed for the green party..

    ..i hope you choose wisely..

    ..phil(whoar.co.nz)

  19. Since some of you seem to be interested, here’s the comment I sent in:

    Support the ETS.

    I say this because of the important electricity sector – which the
    proposed ETS handles well, and which matters much more than its
    small share of NZ emissions would suggest.

    In electricity, the ETS could really make a difference. The main power-generation technologies – coal, gas, geothermal, wind, etc. are all very similar in cost, so a carbon price has real potential to tip decisions one way or another. There is a lot at stake here – the emissions from just one new lignite-fired power station could easily match those from the entire existing electricity industry.

    This is not true of some other sectors. A carbon price will put a few more cents a litre on petrol, which will lead to a corresponding tiny shift in vehicle purchasing decisions, which all helps. But the changes really required – better urban planning, public transport infrastructure, a much more fuel-efficient vehicle fleet, etc. – are not going to be directly brought about by any ETS. As far as the ETS is concerned, there isn’t much at stake here.

    From a political perspective, electricity should dominate your thinking because it will be very hard for any future government to take it *out* of an ETS. There’s no carbon-leakage issue, and no-one can claim renewable generation isn’t viable when we already have so much of it. But, whatever this government decides about transport and agriculture will likely be re-worked by the next one – so there is little to be gained by fretting about those sectors now.

    Conclusion: for the decision you’re making right now, much of what is really at stake lies in the electricity sector. Since the ETS handles that sector well, support it.

  20. “I agree with you and DPF, the Greens have decided that they will back this bill.

    Now who was it that has been banging on all week about the Greens being the party with ethics?”

    Whoa there, big bro, that question can’t be asked unless your very large assumption is true. Got any proof? Didn’t think so. Phil makes a very good point that the ETS would be a great thing for the Greens to campaign on. But against that is the reality that no better opportunity is likely to come from the Nats, for whom this issue is completely about politics. I think what’s resulted from the negotiations is a so-so bill and that the Greens are genuinely conflicted about what to do. They have conducted ETS talks publically while talking to the government for the whole process, so it isn’t odd that they’ve decided to engage with the public at the end as well.

  21. i didn’t say that..!..bb..

    ..this is what i said..

    “..first:,..greens..

    i don’t agree with you that they will swallow it..

    ..that would be too stupid on so many levels..

    ..this is election campaign manna from heaven..for them..

    ..campaigning on a strong climate-change bill will sharply differentiate the greens from..everyone else..

    ..(and if they can’t sell the ‘unswallowability’ of the rest of us..(heading into a deep recession)..

    ..being expected to subsidise/pay for the polluting (untill 2013)..

    by a dairy industry that that had an average ‘payout’ last year in excess of $750,000..

    ..they should pack up and go home..eh..?.)

    ..and i also think the greens have unleashed a whirlwind of (green) opposition to any bill that is nowhere good enough..

    ..i think the greens will campaign on a strong(er) ets..

    ..(that includes those (fat) polluting dairy farmers..)..

    ..being their bottom-line for any coalition deal..

    ..that makes ‘political science’ sense..

    ..and of course the worst news for your lot this week was the news that 50% of us think national are lying through their teeth..

    ..(even 25% of professed natty supporters said the same thing..heh..!..)

    ..that is one mighty big credibility chasm you are staring down into ..eh..?

    b.tw..do you think you might ever get around to answering questions left at the foot of your column from last week..?

    ..or is this commenting facility just one-way-traffic..?

    (phil(whoar.co.nz..”

    (why do you just make things up..?..b.b..?)

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

  22. Phil

    I agree with you and DPF, the Greens have decided that they will back this bill.

    Now who was it that has been banging on all week about the Greens being the party with ethics?

  23. david farrar..(writing in national business review)..is claiming you are just going through the motions with this consultancy process..

    ..and that you have already agreed (with labour) to swallow the dead rat of a lousy/ineffective bill..

    ..what say you..?

    “..A Yes Minister Consultation

    Q: Why would you consult on what to do, when you have totally failed to achieve any of your bottom lines?

    A: When you are about to do a u-turn and eat a dead rat so large, it could feed a family for a week.

    Best Play of the Week

    The Greens get an A- for their u-turn on the Emissions Trading System Bill.

    Some pedants will argue that they have not actually yet done a u-turn, they are merely consulting on what to do.

    If you believe that, I have a set of Yes Minister DVDs you should purchase and watch.

    The Greens themselves admit that they have failed to gain any concession of substance on an earlier entry into the ETS for transport and agriculture. They have also failed to get a biodiversity standard. So there should really be nothing to consult on.

    The fact they are consulting, is because Helen Clark has once again favoured Winston Peters and NZ First over the Greens. Clark has gambled that if she got Winston on board (which might explain why the Labour MPs were so helpful to him at the Privileges Committee), the Greens would blink and be willing to throw away their bottom lines.

    So no one at all should be surprised when they announce on Tuesday that after much thought and reflection and consultation, they have reluctantly agreed to back the ETS Bill. The press release has probably already been written.

    So why do they get the prize for best play of the week? Because it is about what play is best for NZ, even if not best for that party. Bringing agriculture into the scheme early was a degree of purism that would not benefit New Zealand. We are almost the only country that is even having agriculture in an ETS, and there will be no tangible environmental benefit from pushing the sector in early – only an economic cost.

    It is a rare day I give the Greens the prize for the best policy play of the week. But by selling out to Helen and Winston, they have managed it!..”

    (mmm!!!..eh..?..)

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

  24. I think this approach is great, democracy where politicians actually ask for opinions from the public about things that matter. For people who know the details of this useless piece of legislation, it might make sense to kill it and start again after the election. I’m not sure that the public or the wider green movement will understand that, however, so perhaps it better to pass something to make the idea of a price on carbon a reality, even if the cash register is badly wired and there’s a banker with a fraud conviction working the till.

  25. a rightwinger commenting at chris trotters’ blog..

    ..posited these reasons why labour should welcome any green call to make a strong e.t.s. a campaign issue..

    (and he sorta makes sense..!..go figure..!..)

    “..PaulL Says:
    August 22nd, 2008 at 10:51 am

    Nice AK. The mission is too important to be subject to principle. The means justifies the end? I haven’t heard that one for a while.

    Rather than complaining about those on the right who can see the obvious principle issues that this would cause for the Greens, and point it out, you might think about those in the Labour party who are urging the Greens to abandon their principles. Because, of course, they’re disinterested observers. There would quite clearly be no advantage to the Labour party if the Greens abandoned all their principles and became a “me-to? Labour party. If the Greens should be concerned about the motives of the people they are taking advice from, I probably wouldn’t be pointing first at the right as having something to gain here. I would say it more likely that the right are the disinterested observers who can call it like it is.

    I also want to call bullsh*t on Chris’ suggestion that passing the ETS is even a good thing for Labour. I’ve been thinking about this overnight, and I can see how it is to Labour’s advantage. Consider the contrast.

    With the ETS passed, the National party will be able to attack every detail of the policy, and will be able to point out any anomalies that it creates. The Labour party will be forced to continually promise to fix it in the next term, making it look like it was rushed or bad legislation, with which the media will then immediately draw parallels to the badly conceived EFA. National won’t be forced to offer alternatives, because the media story of the day will be how Labour’s bill impacts, how the detail works, who is disadvantaged, how it won’t reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The media cannot deal in detail and at the same time contrast between the parties, so it’ll be a goldmine for National as each week they point out some other anomaly or problem that it causes.

    Without the ETS passed, the question the media will focus on is “who has the better policy.? The media won’t go into the detail, because that would involve thinking for themselves. So they will focus equally on the Labour and National policies, how they are similar and how they are different. The public will (rightly) draw the conclusion that they are both bad compromises, and the whole area is a mess. That is a much better place for Labour to be.

    But of course, it would be very unwise for the Labour party to accept advice from an evil Kiwiblog Righty like myself – I’m sure I have some sort of secret agenda in pointing this out..”

    (makes sense..eh..?..)

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

  26. a rightwinger commenting at chris trotters’ blog..

    ..posited these reasons why labour should welcome any green call to make a strong e.t.s. a campaign issue..

    (and he sorta makes sense..!..go figure..!..)

    “..PaulL Says:
    August 22nd, 2008 at 10:51 am

    Nice AK. The mission is too important to be subject to principle. The means justifies the end? I haven’t heard that one for a while.

    Rather than complaining about those on the right who can see the obvious principle issues that this would cause for the Greens, and point it out, you might think about those in the Labour party who are urging the Greens to abandon their principles. Because, of course, they’re disinterested observers. There would quite clearly be no advantage to the Labour party if the Greens abandoned all their principles and became a “me-to? Labour party. If the Greens should be concerned about the motives of the people they are taking advice from, I probably wouldn’t be pointing first at the right as having something to gain here. I would say it more likely that the right are the disinterested observers who can call it like it is.

    I also want to call bullshit on Chris’ suggestion that passing the ETS is even a good thing for Labour. I’ve been thinking about this overnight, and I can see how it is to Labour’s advantage. Consider the contrast.

    With the ETS passed, the National party will be able to attack every detail of the policy, and will be able to point out any anomalies that it creates. The Labour party will be forced to continually promise to fix it in the next term, making it look like it was rushed or bad legislation, with which the media will then immediately draw parallels to the badly conceived EFA. National won’t be forced to offer alternatives, because the media story of the day will be how Labour’s bill impacts, how the detail works, who is disadvantaged, how it won’t reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The media cannot deal in detail and at the same time contrast between the parties, so it’ll be a goldmine for National as each week they point out some other anomaly or problem that it causes.

    Without the ETS passed, the question the media will focus on is “who has the better policy.? The media won’t go into the detail, because that would involve thinking for themselves. So they will focus equally on the Labour and National policies, how they are similar and how they are different. The public will (rightly) draw the conclusion that they are both bad compromises, and the whole area is a mess. That is a much better place for Labour to be.

    But of course, it would be very unwise for the Labour party to accept advice from an evil Kiwiblog Righty like myself – I’m sure I have some sort of secret agenda in pointing this out..”

    (makes sense..eh..?..)

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

  27. I agree with Phil and toad.

    This ets is too weak to be worth supporting. It gives too much to the big polluters.

    Lets the Greens be GREEN not labor lite.

    If no emissions scheme eventuates – the blame lies with labor for being defenders of polluters, intensive dairying and multinational corporates.

  28. Wow, Phil. Seems we actually agree on something (the substantive position the Greens should take on the Government’s ETS, that is – not your bleat about the Greens’ public feedback process on it which, as frog says above, is completely unfounded).

  29. frog..yes..i left this on the ‘what matters’ thread..yesterday..

    ..and this morning..i feel the same..

    ..to me the way to go is ‘bleeding obvious’..

    ..and should you not go that way..

    ..i will ‘despair’…

    “..# phil u Says:
    August 21st, 2008 at 3:09 pm

    having just heard jeanette on the radio..

    ..my feedback would be not to help pass a (faintly) incrementalist bill..

    (that still forces everyone else to subsidise/pay for the polluting farmers..

    ..untill 2013.!.)

    ..but to say no..(for all the right reasons..)

    ..and to fight the campaign on that issue..

    ..with a strong e.t.s. being your bottom-line for any coalition negotiations..

    ..there’s your 10-15%..!

    ..there’s your trans-ideological issue to run on..

    that and food safety..

    ..should be your twin issues..

    ..there’s your election campaign..!

    ..on a platter..

    ..phil(whoar.co.nz)

  30. Phil, once again, for absolute clarity, no one is stopping anyone leaving their thoughts and comments here on the blog. We are using and promoting both fora.

    Have you got any thoughts to contribute about the issue rather than the process?

  31. frog..

    ..why not seize the opportunity to promote/collate feedback in both forums..?

    ..it dosen’t need to be either/or..does it..?

    ..i think the circulation of pro/anti-sentiments/arguments..

    ..would be a very (democratically) healthy exercise..

    ..walk the walk/hop the hop..

    ..frog..

    ..phil(whoar.co.nz)

  32. i’ know ..!..’stupid’..!

    ..silly them..!..eh..?

    ..i mean..point me at a ‘tidier’ local/international ’round-up..eh..?

    ..than whoar..?

    ..each and every day..

    (whoar always delivers..!..

    eh..?..)

    ..(and i mean..relying on the likes of our dailies just leaves you in the dark..

    ..feeding on bullsh*t..)

    ..eh..?

    ..so..’spread the word..!’..

    ..eh..?

    ..phil(whoar.co.nz)

  33. Believe it or not Phil, a large percentage of the population don’t actually read blogs. Not even yours! Imagine that!

  34. Phil – on this forum, meaning the previous two posts, all the comments are visible as usual. However, many people are intimidated by blogs or simply don’t know how to use them. Besides, we don’t want people to be shy with their opinions because they would be made public. Hence the email address.

Comments are closed.