> relax Toad, the latest and most reliable data shows no sign of sea levels rising around Kiribati.

I wouldn’t expect there to be yet. The only way you’re going to get enough extra water into the sea quickly to raise the sea level a noticeable amount is by a massive speed-up in the flow or melting of glaciers in Antarctica and Greenland. That can only happen once the sea ice at the mouths of these glaciers is gone. Some of that ice has been breaking up, but the sea level rise doesn’t start until the sea ice is gone, exposing the glacier mouths.

We know that this massive speed-up does occur – it has already happened with a few glaciers on the antarctic peninsula – but that’s not enough glaciers to make a difference. Of course what’s happened now is more than a drop in the ocean – it’s some massive icebergs in the ocean – but a massive iceberg falling into the world’s oceans is still largely comparable to emptying a glass of water into a duckpond.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Regards the ETS (and other issues) there is an employment opportunity for one genius, or more.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

relax Toad, the latest and most reliable data shows no sign of sea levels rising around Kiribati.
I would post the data/graph but cannot do so on here.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

really ..!..idiot/savant..

and that’ll be ‘enough’..y’reckon..?

(go and stand in the corner with the other incrementalists/apologists..!..

i thought better of you..)

phil(whoar.co.nz)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

The only way to actually stop an ETS is to put parties in parliament after the election that will ensure one does not go ahead. The only parties promising that are the Family Party primarily, and Act appears to be leaning in that direction too (but is still proposing a carbon tax).
http://www.familyparty.org.nz/policy/environment

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Sure, it confers property rights – but what’s important to note is that those property rights have a limited lifespan, and will usually be purchased from the goverment at auction. The government can quite happily choose to sell fewer permits than it did in previous years – its basically a cabinet decision, requiring no additional legislation. Though policywise, its best to announce such changes well in advance, in order to get emitters to respond early.

Having handed out so many free permits to polluters complicates this somewhat. But its not an overwhelming number, and is compatible with most short-term goals (I haven’t fully crunched the numbers, but I think we can do 20% by 2020 without it being a problem). And there is a review clause which provides cover for a future policy change. The biggest effect of the grandparenting is distributional, effectively funnelling funds to the chosen polluting industries. Its unfair and inequitable, but it doesn’t actually compromise the effectiveness of the scheme unless we’re trying to set a target below the fre allocation.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

You are simply showing that you don’t understand the difference between weather and climate modelling. Modelling weather is basically an “initial conditions” problem, where multiplying uncertainties make it impossible to be accurate over long periods. Climate modelling deals with “boundary conditions” like GHG forcings, and is concerned with developing the statistics of climate over decadal timescales.

And I wouldn’t take Monckton’s word on what climate modellers have or haven’t read. Why not talk to some real ones (we have them in NZ), rather than one of your wacky crank friends?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Toad:
“Ah, the “adapt, because it is too late to mitigateâ€? argument. I’d be interested to hear just how you propose we adapt, Turnip, apart from everyone who lives in coastal regions heading to the mountains, and all that entails. And what about the people of Kiribati – where have they got to go?”

If global warming is correct, we’ll probably have to adapt anyway. How will we do this if we’ve already blown our budget on a futile gesture?
More here, no point in duplicating myself on the same blog:
http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/08/21/focussing-on-what-matters/#commen t-54201

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

This goes on a bit, but I hope you work your way through it.

FIRSTLY, thank you for your explanation. While I have some difficulties with aspects of it, which I will address below, you have at least looked to make a complete system of your ideas, not just expressed the things that are suitable to your personal desires, as many do here. THANK YOU FOR THAT.

Now, some questions.
>
>>I would implement a land tax in recognition of the rental of that land from the people of New Zealand

I believe we already pay this form of tax. It is labeled “rates� and is used to provide services to the local community. While based on the nominal value of both land and improvements, to make the load distribution more equitable in the eyes of local politicians, it is, none the less, a land based tax.
My biggest worry with your proposal is that people without the means to pay additional revenue to the state (e.g. pensioners,) would almost certainly be faced with a cost increase for a significant transition period as ‘federal’ land tax was phased in and income tax (which they don’t usually pay as they have minimal income, phased out. The poor, who rent, would be hit just as hard as the rich who own, as this tax would be passed from landlord to tenant.

>
>> implement fees payable to the state for any commercial natural resource extraction and fees for any commercial use of non-produced communal resources such as water,

I believe these fees are already payable in the form of royalties or licenses. Any substantial increase in them would fall directly, again, to the consumer. For instance, water is sold by a business entity (that would have to pay additional fees) to a city council, who on-charges either through the rates (inequitable cost distribution) or through meter based pricing. Again, the poorer in our communities would end up with larger costs.

>
>>I would also introduce greater and more wide ranging fees for environmental degradation equal to the cost to fully reconstruct the previous status.

This I don’t understand. Does this mean that is I clear a pile of bush from land that I own, and then plant trees or develop a farm, I have to pay a fee equal to the amount required to urn it back into bush land with the same contours, etc.? If this is true, then the investment must at least double, and thereby make all new development that requires land usage uneconomic.

>
>>I would apply GST to all carbon trading not generated by native plantations to provide native replanting efforts and increase the tax basket.

Is this a Tax on a Tax? Is there a market, say for native wood, which equates to the volume of the market for radiata pine, which would provide an economic platform to encourage investment in this type of farm? Radiata is popular because of its speed to maturity and consistency of demand, if (for instance) Rimu does not have such a ready market, and your tax on tax makes radiata uneconomic, we would end up with less tree mass than we currently have, reducing our carbon absorbing capability.

>
>>The tax is then shifted around so that the tax on the ‘Goods’ is as small as economically feasible

Another ‘rub’ point for me. I now have all these new taxes on the cost side of the price calculation, with perhaps less on the profit side. Using your definition (i.e. efforts exerted by people, that are considered beneficial to society) there would be many things that are not classified as goods – for instance are alcohol, prostitution, recreational drugs (including those that are tobacco based), movies, cigarettes, cars, bank transactions, etc., etc., etc., beneficial to “society� or just to an individual?
This ‘moving around’ would seem to make a lot of the things that constitute our standard of living more expensive than is currently the case.

>
>>the end result is a far greater incentive for growth in high value goods and services

I’m afraid this is a leap of faith that doesn’t sit well with me. Based on the examples you have given, I cannot think of anything that I, as an investor, would be incented to manufacture, and most ‘value adding services’ would have to be at costs that the ‘average’ (read mass market) person couldn’t afford because of the tax distribution being biased against individual benefit.

>
>>I would also encourage PPP’s in the form of government owned vital networks such as rail, electricity and local broadband with fees set proportional to upkeep costs to encourage competition in those markets which would otherwise be near natural monopolies

I’m really lost here. If these networks, which of themselves do nothing, are owned by the government, why do you need private participation? Again, we have to look at today’s model and see where it takes us! The electricity ‘system’ is already essentially in public ownership. “Local� broadband has no value without the central core and international gateways, and we already have some idea of the taxation impact of the newly nationalised rail system. (A system which, because of its limited distribution, is unlikely to ever take away the need for the road system. (Imagine being one of the residents in a small town/village/hamlet that no longer has either road or rail access, the former because we abandoned it as ‘unbeneficial’ the latter because the cost of construction was too high. Would you stay?)

>
>>the costs will transfer to the profit margins of the companies
Indeed. Thus reducing the Return on Investment and causing ‘capital flight’ to countries with a more encouraging regime.

>
>Though once the tax is shifted more heavily to the ‘Bads’ the business should become more productive again and this should encourage greater job production in the higher wage areas of the economy which are less affected by the pollution and land levies, assisting in moving us towards the high wage economy that the greens so desire

I really don’t understand this. Whatever the ‘bads’ are, I can see them leaving. This will reduce the number of jobs in the economy, as well as make what ‘goods’ we produce uncompetitive in the global market (for instance, I doubt we could sell animal products under the cost base you propose). This would lead to economic isolation, and from there to industrial isolation (as we would not be able to afford foreign exchange). That leads to us having no cotton goods, vehicles, building materials, (other than native wood), international transportation etc., etc., etc., Which would, I think, result in total economic collapse and people getting out of the country in droves, leaving a small population happy to be living a ‘basic’ life.

If my understanding is right, and the small population happy to be living a ‘basic’ life is your vision for New Zealand, then so be it, and you should clearly demonstrate this in your election manifesto. If I’ve got something wrong in my understanding – which I rather think I may have done – I would appreciate you pointing it out.

Again THANK YOU for the explanation, it is appreciated.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

My opinion is worthless because I question how sacrificing the virgin on the altar leads to better crops next year? So be it.

“Well all the other villagers are doing it!”

>>you have no credible evidence to support your position

It isn’t up to me to prove a negative. You must prove your case, and you haven’t done so. All we’ve got thus far is “New Zealand must do it because a few others are doing it”.

>>It might not be perfect

It is far from perfect. It is wasteful, destructive, and will achieve nothing.
Janets disposition in those videos speaks volumes….

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

I’m not confident they can, actually, at least without a huge uproar. The problem is that an emissions trading scheme confers property rights, and it is very difficult politically for a subsequent Government to legislate to interfere with those property rights.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

And not only the producers: ETS will continue to increase food and fuel costs, thus prices.

It really is a no-brainer, please do not go with this. (It’s simply a tax on living to fix a non-existent problem).

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

I agree with Idiot/Savant on this one. It might not be perfect, but there is really no need to be idealistic about it. The numbers and dates can all be changed by modifying legislation, but a straight repeal is much less likely.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

It is not “just as likely”. You’ve just picked a random variable and deemed it to be important.

>>In other words Blue Peter – you have no ethical values and you don’t know what you’re talking about.

You failed to make your case.

If you take action that introduces significant costs to New Zealand, and has no measurable positive effect, then your actions are both selfish and morally questionable. It is no less contemptible that you appear to be arguing “I do not not know what effect we’ll have, but lets do it REGARDLESS because it feels right”.

Not with my money, you’re not.

>>Other than that I think we would get along fine.

Go join Facebook. I’m not bothered if we get along or not, only with the quality of your arguments.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

My point is not about the practicalities (or otherwise) of the emissions trading scheme. It aims to refute the conclusion that we should do nothing about climate change because the effects are unlikely to be significant. I contend that such an argument is ethically spineless. And it is. I’m not saying do anything, just don’t rule out doing something.

Ha! I’m an obsessed idealogue according to Blue Peter. No – I’m actually rather practical person who just happens to allow ethical values to guide whether I engage on a particular issue. That’s not to say that the ETS is worthwhile – just that it should not be dismissed on the grounds of New Zealand’s contribution to C02 emissions.

As well as being ethically questionable BP arguments fall over on practical grounds. The climate is a dynamic, complex, and non-linear system. In his climatic modelling of European weather patterns, Lorenz found that numerical accuracy to 8 decimal places was not sufficient to reproduce the same weather patterns, even with all the other initial conditions and boundary conditions being equal.

Lorenz’s work showed that climates are complex and extremely difficult to predict. There may be critical points at which our weather patterns flick into something compleletely different from what we’re used to. It’s just as likey to be NZ’s 0.1% emissions that acts as that switch. Obviously this makes climate modelling difficult, but not useless – and modelling suggests that CO2 will increase the Earth’s temperature.

In other words Blue Peter – you have no ethical values and you don’t know what you’re talking about. Other than that I think we would get along fine.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)