Yes to the Emissions Trading Scheme

The Green Party caucus has just voted to support the Emissions Trading Scheme. I was watching caucus debate through the window and can confirm the decision did not look to be a foregone conclusion. Jeanette’s media release highlights some of the improvements to the scheme:

We have always said the scheme needed to share the effort much more fairly. Along with the one-off financial payment, this goes a long way to compensating households for their higher prices, and reducing energy waste and carbon emissions.
Revenue from the ETS will be recycled into a Billion dollar fund to make New Zealand homes warm, dry and cost-effective to heat.

To avoid locking New Zealand into old technology, there will be a contestable pool of credits for firms with new technologies that help set our economy on a low carbon path. Rules around allocation of free credits will be tightened so that not all firms will get 90 percent if they don’t need them.

Agriculture has received a lot of debate on this blog, and has been an area of constant concern or the greens in regard to the trading scheme. The other major area of concern has been protecting biodiversity:

We reported on Thursday that we had achieved virtually nothing in two areas – agriculture, and protection of important biodiversity from pine plantings. We have now made some progress on both, though it is not all we would like.
A target for agricultural emissions reduction before 2013 will be gazetted along with other targets for emission reductions. Government has also agreed that there will be investment in a range of technologies and practices which can reduce agricultural emissions, particularly nitrous oxide. These will include not just nitrification inhibitors but also low input farming which can be just as profitable; biogas plants to convert manure to energy; and methods to control soil damage in wet conditions such as herd homes and stand off pads.
We received a lot of feedback that many people are concerned the legislation provides no protection for areas of significant biodiversity, such as tussock and regenerating native forest, which might be converted to pines in order to earn credits. The Government has now agreed to a gazetted timetable to develop and implement a National Policy Statement on Biodiversity under the RMA.

And, then she discusses the major problem that has been troubling the Greens in recent weeks:

The biggest danger of this legislation is that it will reassure people that climate change has been addressed and we can get on with business as usual. Nothing could be further from the truth.

We did not achieve an independent carbon authority, but instead allocation plans will be scrutinised by Parliament.
The Minister has admitted that this trading scheme will reduce projected emissions by only 2 percent. Far more than that is needed, and quickly, if the world is to avoid the huge financial, social and environmental costs of a rapidly changing climate.
It was a difficult decision because we do not believe that emissions trading, in itself, will do enough to reduce emissions.

The Greens will continue to fight for greater energy efficiency standards, better and more public transport, accelerated technology change, and a host of practical emissions reduction technologies which will save far more carbon than trading will.
A price on carbon will help to encourage sustainable alternatives to our energy wasting, unsustainable, fossil fuel-based way of life. It is a start, but it is not nearly enough.

138 thoughts on “Yes to the Emissions Trading Scheme

  1. Tough decision, but probably the right one to make in the end. Well done Greens.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  2. It was always going to be a difficult choice, but this scheme is considerably better than what was being thrown up a few months ago, with room for improvement. I’d still like to know about caps and allocations etc., but that should be apparent in a few days.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  3. Oh, what a surprise! Whoever would have picked it! Sarcasm ends…

    What a truly stupid move, politically speaking. Mind you, full applause from the right :)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  4. Hard call, but the right one I believe. Now we need to get the message out that climate change has not been solved and this is just one step on a very long journey.

    Thanks to the Greens for giving this such serious and honest consideration and for listening to the arguments.

    Kia Maia.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  5. What a joke, the Greens are going to pay for this at the ballot box.

    I NEVER want to see anybody from the Greens claim that they are a party with integrity.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  6. Yes, according to BluePeter, David Farrar, and a band of hyperventilating trolls (first few comments on Key Wee Blog include – *^%(&* #$*%(^)&#%, and gutless &^%(*&%), Jeanette Fitzsimons was lying to you and I when she said that the Greens had not made up their minds on the bill, and that there was a lot that was good with the bill, and a lot that was bad, and they would seek feedback and balance the arguments for and against. Nope, they just wanted to waste the time of intelligent New Zealanders.

    These claims speak entirely about the worldview of those who hold them.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  7. >>hey would seek feedback and balance the arguments

    Simple. Publish the lot, minus names.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  8. Blue Peter, you either know that is impossible, or you haven’t thought your argument through.

    The submitters gave their arguments in good faith, with the understanding that they were only for the consumption of the Green MPs and policy team. They were not told that their arguments would be published, and would likely have disclosed sensitive or identifying information that cannot be edited out without huge amounts of work (over 2500 submissions). It’s part of good faith that you don’t disclose a private submission without the prior consent of the submitter, and no such consent was asked for or given. The Greens are a party of integrity, and believe strongly in proper process that is both inclusive and respectful of those who participate.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  9. bigbro – the Greens are a party of integrity (it’s well known within the party and by the green’s many supporters :-)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  10. That Green detractors can make such definitive statements on their motives and integrity only makes me laugh. A great indicator that the Greens did the right thing is that you all are so upset :-)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  11. >>The submitters gave their arguments in good faith,

    How convenient.

    Believe what you like. I, for one, do not believe that a green party would take policy advice, on their core area, in the last three days, from an anonymous email poll. On one hand, it was argued it was all about the quality of the arguments submitted, while on the other, the whole time Frog was posting updates of the submission numbers.

    But it is pretty much irrelevant now. The ETS is law, and the Greens have shown where their loyalty, and principles, lie.

    Anyway, it’s not me you have to worry about. It’s those silent green supporters who put principles first.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  12. >>that you all are so upset

    On the contrary, I’m delighted. And if you read between the lines, so are the Nats.

    Now….can you work out why? :)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  13. BluePeter, just so I’m clear on what you mean by transparency, can you provide some examples of transparency over action on emissions from whatever party you support – as a bench mark for the rest of us to measure against? Many thanks.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  14. There’s still a chance that the resident dinosaurs will get their wish —– NZ First is (predictably) holding all the cards now.
    Yes, this could well be the death knell for the Green Party which may lose its political voice at the next election. This, however, could easily mean that the environmental versus development fights will just get all that nastier.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  15. A billion dollar home warming fund? Jeeze – those Greens must be crazy.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  16. BluePeter – encouraging people to ‘read between the lines’ to see what National really think is a risky call, don’t you think?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  17. Greenfly

    But I’m not the one banging on about how principled I am, transparent I am, and “not like all the others” :)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  18. BP – but given the chance to show how principled and transparent the party you support is …(some examples here from you should do it…)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  19. The only people I can see declaring that this is “the death of the Green Party” are those like BluePeter and bog bro who want the Green Party dead anyway. They’re pissed off. Quite why, apart from thinking that all the climate scientists in the world are conspiratorial liars too, I don’t know. But they’re trying to make themselves feel better about it by stating that this act was done from expediency and is a sham.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  20. Greenfly

    I don’t “support” any party, Greenfly. I vote for the least offensive.
    I don’t expect any of them to be transparent, because they are made up of politicians.

    Someone had a good phrase in an earlier thread – “it’s like sending your daughter to work in a brothel, and acting all surprised when she becomes a hooker”.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  21. Congrats to Jeanette and Russel and team,

    I have to say that a billion dollars to make homes warm and dry IS too good to turn down and will be a step in the right direction for the climate. I think you did a little bit of good – I just wish there were more of you in there to fight the good fight.

    ruth

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  22. georgedarroch

    Look back over Frogs post on this topic.

    I’m just wondering when that dim light will flicker on… :)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  23. Ah well, climate change has been addressed and we can get on with business; no need to consider the Greens for my Party Vote anymore.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  24. Why your interest in things political BP, if you are sooooo jaded? And why haunt the Frogblog if the Grens aren’t to your liking? Perhaps you should take up a new interest that satisfies you – Civilization? Emperor? Age of Empires?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  25. “..A great indicator that the Greens did the right thing is that you all are so upset :-)..”

    you are feckin’ ‘gloating’ valis..?

    ..excuse me while i vomit..

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  26. “Look back over Frogs post on this topic. ”

    What exactly? You’re right, I am too dim to see what you’re talking about, apart from your obvious delight at being given an opportunity to call Jeanette Fitzsimon a liar and say it will cost the Greens support. And if it does, then so be it – the Greens make the decisions they think are right, not those they think will give them votes – that’s what integrity is about.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  27. Phil, we can see your vomit. It’s all over your post. “..!…!….!…?…?”

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  28. Well done in a difficult situation Green MPs and the Parliamentary Team !

    eredwen

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  29. >> Quite why, apart from thinking that all the climate scientists in the world are conspiratorial liars too,

    Yes, it is a bit strange really. I guess it is closely associated with the ‘tragedy of the commons’ (the finite source being the atmosphere)? Surely this ETS should be viewed as a (albeit half-hearted) way to try and make the polluter pay irregardless of whether or not there is an effect on the climate? — A sort of corollary to ‘user pays’?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  30. well, you had my vote anyway, but I think you done good out there today. I know it’s a tough call but I’m really thankful that you were honest about the pros and cons and didn’t pretend it was all roses and sunshine.

    cheers,
    Ned.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  31. “..it will cost the Greens support. And if it does, then so be it – the Greens make the decisions they think are right, not those they think will give them votes – that’s what integrity is about…”

    whatt..!!!

    a bill that does nothing for climatechange..

    ..and that is ‘integrity’..?

    (..well..!..blow me up with a big straw..and call me sarsparilla..!..)

    ..’integrity’..you say..

    um..!..for whom/what..?

    ..the environment..?

    ..no..?

    ..help me here..!..

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  32. I’m with BP

    You Greens should remember this day and plan to have an anniversary this time next year when you are all wondering why the Greens did not make 5%.

    The day will be remembered as the beginning of the end.

    From a selfish point of view I just wish you have managed to do something about animal welfare but then I suppose you gave up on REAL Green issues some time ago.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  33. phil – look up ‘integrity’ then see if you think the Green MP’s have it. It’s straightfoward. (I’m guessing you don’t). Those who are commenting in favour of this afternoon’s decisions think they do.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  34. Ergh, and there goes what was possibly the best election platform and along side it any chances of the Greens surpassing 10 percent, or 5 percent for that matter.

    ohwel, should we just form the ‘Progresive/Liberal Greens’ now? A.K.A ‘The Party for Practical and Effective Policy for a Prosperous and Sustainable New Zealand’, in other words the near exact opposite to this one.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  35. BP -I’m still eager for your feedback re; ‘reading between the Nat’s lines’

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  36. God you guys are losers. The day the Green Party makes decisions based on what Fed Farmers and the right wing troll brigade want us to do is the day I leave. I don’t think this is a great ETS but I think it was the right thing to do – a bit of pragmatic work towards our goal is a whole lot better than the heap of nothing we’d get by sinking it and leaving it up to the next government – whatever that is. And, if the Greens are in the next government we can always toughen the thing up in post election negotiations – oh and make better public transport a top priority because without options for those without the money to keep driving we really are leaving NZers stranded. Go the Greens!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  37. you really are ‘fools’..

    ..and i’d steel yourselves for your next round of polls..

    ..and on a political/election tactics level..

    ..you just p*ssed 10-15% support down the toilet..

    (as a green..i am sitting here cringing as i listen to fitzsimons prattling on on national radio..about her ‘win…

    of $1 billion..for home insulation..

    ..spread over 15 years..(!)..

    ..(8 million a year..!..

    subtract admin/etc costs..

    amd once again folks..

    ..clark ‘gets’ the greens..

    ..for peanuts..!

    un..bloody..believable..!

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  38. ‘Big Bro says “The day will be remembered as the beginning of the end.”

    No, I think that was the day Rod Donald died

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  39. Well, I suppose you can’t always have what you want, but sometimes you might get what you need. Personally I think there might have been more advantage to holding off, but I don’t think it’ll be the end of the world, and it’ll be a gain in some sense if this scheme gets implemented more quickly than a post-election one would.

    Hopefully National will continue to embarrass Labour on this enough that it becomes an election issue… although somehow I doubt it.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  40. day two was the unprincipled sandbagging of nandor..

    ..day three was the poxy election finance bill..

    ..day four is nine years of ‘no wins’..

    ..day four is this hospital pass for the big pollutors..

    ..to 2030..

    ..and the big joke is..

    is that it is only in the most peripheral way that this housing insulation ‘win’ has anything to even do with our climate-change/emmitting problems/imperatives….

    ..this whole sorry exercise is like those american bills we read about..with their add-ons..to buy off minority interests..

    oh greens..!

    w.t.f.have you done..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  41. A hard choice I am sure that it will be a succesful one. Lets hope for more Green MPs in the next parliament so that we can make this better!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  42. kjuv,

    The day Rod Donald died was a terrible day.

    However it was NOT “the beginning of the end” …

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  43. Homo sapiens be warned that nimbyism has arrived. These deluded greens think integrity can be found in a political swamp.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  44. Oh and Phil,

    You can’t make significant policy with Six MPs. The Greens have had some wins with private members bills, and had some initiatives in return for various agreements with Labour. If you agree with Green Principles and want to see them influence the house of representatives more then help us get more Green MPs!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  45. I feel sorry for Jeanette……. she would do herself a favour by stepping out of politics before the election. She has really done more than anyone else in this country for the green ideals.
    A ‘real’ green party could perhaps be formed next year from the ashes of this one. But, there’s no doubt about it…. the country gets the government it deserves! It sure will with a National government. We selfish people deserve a government completely out of touch!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  46. phil u Says:
    August 26th, 2008 at 3:59 pm

    > a bill that does nothing for climatechange..

    > ..and that is ‘integrity’..?

    It’s only a first step. The ETS bill defines all sectors and all gases as being inlcuded, then exempts them all from paying anything. Yes, that in itself will achieve nothing. But now the Greens can go into the election with a commitment to pressure whoever becomes the government next to start introducing the emitting sectors into the emissions trading scheme. If they had voted against it, we would be in for another few years of arguing about the framework before we could even begin to bring the emitting sectors into the scheme.

    Whether it works or not depends on how much power the Greens have in future parliaments, but having the framework in law will reduce the amount the Greens will have to push for to get real change.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  47. the ‘Phoenix Party’ prehaps? being reborn from the ashes of the failed policies and ideologies of the previous green/values party, act, labour, national, etc (we can sweep the maori party ashes away, dont want any of that!).
    We just lost ourselves one of the best election platforms we could ask for, and we all know how stupid New Zealanders are; there will be no more progress on this act(?) as we would have ‘done our part’ atleast in their eyes. And no Green party in parliment to improve it eaither!
    prehaps I should to a Shaun Tan and jump to ACT, atleast they still have the potential to get over 5%, though they could learn abit from the grassroots side of the green party, a job for me prehaps?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  48. “..# Tuatara Says:
    August 26th, 2008 at 4:18 pm

    A hard choice I am sure that it will be a succesful one. Lets hope for more Green MPs in the next parliament so that we can make this better!..”

    (should/shall we all wish for horses..at the same time..?..)

    “..Tuatara Says:
    August 26th, 2008 at 4:21 pm

    Oh and Phil,

    You can’t make significant policy with Six MPs..”

    the point is tuatara..is that this bill..which reduces emmissions not a jot..

    (now..just hold that thought for a moment..

    ..that legislation that’ reduces emmissions not a jot.’.)

    ..was not the only game in town..

    ..a strong election campaign on the orignal (spurned by labour) green plan/policy for a flat carbon tax..

    ..would have appealed to people of all ideological persuasions..

    ..and got the greens 10-15%..

    ..and an emmissions nbill that ‘worked’..

    ..let me know if there is anything you don’t understand about that..

    (and i am not being sarcastic..)

    this was a golden opportunity for the environmental movement..

    ..and the greens ‘blew it’..

    ..it’s that simple..

    ..i mean..if not for this..

    ..w.t.f.are they there for..?

    (and i’ll bet a pound of green ‘integrity’..

    ..to a pinch of bullsh*t..

    ..that clark has promised fitzsimons a ministry..)

    ..that is the only rational reason i can think of..for this..)

    ..cos’ on every political science/election tactic level..

    ..it not only sucks..it blows..

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  49. phil u said: day two was the unprincipled sandbagging of nandor.. ..day three was the poxy election finance bill.. ..day four is nine years of ‘no wins’.. ..day four is this hospital pass for the big pollutors..

    Oh Phil! FFS, I didn’t support it either, for the same reasons you didn’t.

    But spare us the hyperbole and vitriol and get over it!

    As for your unsubstantiated nonsense about “sandbagging”, have you not noticed that Nandor has been out and about campaigning for the Greens just as strongly as he would if he were still an MP. He’s just had enough of the Parliamentary lifestyle.

    I think the thing that may have clinched it was the last minute concession from Government to promulgate a National Policy Statement on biodiversity under the RMA. The prospect of foresters chopping down indigenous forest and planting pinus radiata to maximise their profits while avoiding purchasing carbon credits concerned many Greens.

    I just hope they can get the National Policy Statement in place before that happens anyway. I would have preferred the biodiversity provisions to have been in the Bill itself.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  50. georgedarroch

    Frog didn’t support it. PhilU didn’t support it. The “trolls” didn’t support it. And all for the same reason: it won’t work.

    I’m not suggesting for a minute that these people agree with each other, or side with each other – they don’t. But such a situation is political suicide, especially, as PhilU points out, as there was so much upside potential in making it an election issue.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  51. Needless to say I am with Phil and Sapient on this one. I think it would have been better to not support the bill because of its clear weaknesses and run the risk of political oblivion by being labelled stubborn than to support it and face the strong possiblility of political oblivion anyway by being thought of as a Labour ‘patsy’

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  52. Tuatara

    I totally agree !

    Phil,

    Large number of Greens live in areas outside your old stomping ground … and, if our local Electorate is anything to go by, there will be significant numbers of new Greens joining the Party. (The number of Greens in our Electorate has doubled over the last year.)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  53. did fitzsimons handle these negotiations..?

    i ask that because the insulation-win is directly related to her ‘government spokesperson’ role..

    (it’s been a fairly ‘quiet’/muted sorta ‘spokesperson role..hasn’t it..?

    ..and did she present a fait accomplit to the other green mp’s..?

    (how else to explain her (repeated) claims to have not yet spoken to the other green mp’s about this..?..)

    ..(am i getting ‘warm’..?..)

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  54. jolly good eredwen..

    more of the same..!..

    ..then..?

    ..um..!..except..nothing plus nothing..

    ..equals nothing..

    ..this is sorta like passing a bill (ostensibly) to end slavery..

    ..that does nothing about ending slavery..

    ..and just ends up insulating their slave-quarters..

    ..what a farce..!

    ..phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  55. New Zealand has the 4th highest per capita emissions in the OECD. Labour has let emissions growth in the last decade fly while Australia is much closer to meeting their target. The projected 2% reduction isn’t much in it self, but does mean that the runaway growth would stop and plateau. Not a perfect solution for sure, but not an insignificant step either (and doesn’t factor in the $1b in insulation). A first step as Jeanette said, with much more yet to be done. National will campaign against and it will be alive as an election issue, so this will not be the last word.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  56. “..I think the thing that may have clinched it was the last minute concession from Government to promulgate a National Policy Statement..

    oh..!..that’ll do it..!

    ..’promulgating a policy statement.’

    (that would always clinch it for me..too..!

    ..a good promulgation..

    ..(it puts a real skip in your step..!..eh..?..)

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  57. “..A great indicator that the Greens did the right thing is that you all are so upset :-)..?

    “you are feckin’ ‘gloating’ valis..?”

    Not gloating phil, but definitely serious that it is a positive sign.

    And I wasn’t talking about you. Your posts don’t make enough sense to me to draw any such conclusion.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  58. oh look..!..green passive-aggression in action..

    how ‘cheap’/intellectualy devoid/shallow..

    so valis..

    ..do you do anything else aside from ad hominems..and sneers..?

    ..we await with bated breath..

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  59. For your info phil, an NPS trumps all regional and district plans. It has the teeth needed to keep councils from allowing the destruction of biodiversity.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  60. “..It has the teeth needed to keep councils from allowing the destruction of biodiversity..”

    cos’ the greens sure as hell aren’t doing it..are they..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  61. It takes about two years to do as such a think can’t just be imposed. The due date will be gazetted, which is regulatory speak for being officially on the agenda and something the Minister has to do. It is the mechnanism used under the RMA.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  62. OK, phil, I think you are right and I was too personal above. My apologies, but I’m afraid I’m getting the urge again and this only happened because I broke my self imposed rule of not engaging with your unique posts. Quite happy to accept this as my character flaw, but to save us both grief I’m going to try again.

    Cheers.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  63. I feel sorry for Jeanette……. she would do herself a favour by stepping out of politics before the election. She has really done more than anyone else in this country for the green ideals.
    A ‘real’ green party could perhaps be formed next year from the ashes of this one. But, there’s no doubt about it…. the country gets the government it deserves! It sure will with a National government. We selfish people deserve a government completely out of touch!

    I seriously doubt that any Green Party in Parliament would avoid annoying some of its supporters in this situation, whether it was socially liberal or conservative, whether it was radically environmentalist or merely principally environmentalist. One of the side-effects of being a pragmatic Party (and the Greens are) is that sometimes you have to accept compromises. And the thing about compromises is that they rarely satisfy all of the parties involved.

    That said, the real winner here is the Labour Party.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  64. oh..!..look..!

    ..condescending passive-aggression..take two..

    ..you just ‘not engage’ away..!

    eh..?

    ..i’m sure i’ll notice the difference..

    ..phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  65. phil u said:

    “.this is sorta like passing a bill (ostensibly) to end slavery..

    ..that does nothing about ending slavery..

    ..and just ends up insulating their slave-quarters..”

    … Well … as “Pollyanna” would have said :

    Insulated slave quarters is a start … (uses less electricity)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  66. >> One of the side-effects of being a pragmatic Party (and the Greens are) is that sometimes you have to accept compromises. And the thing about compromises is that they rarely satisfy all of the parties involved.

    That said, the real winner here is the Labour Party.

    Point taken, Ari. Still a little disappointed though… especially now that NZ First will get all the publicity vis a vis whether or not the Bill becomes law. At least if the Greens had rejected the ETS Bill they would have stole that party’s superficial thunder, just for once!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  67. and that whole feedback/consultation ‘spin’..?

    whose ‘brilliant’ (publicity-generating) idea was that..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  68. dad4justice – word on the ground is that you are deeply loved by greens from Reinga to the Bluff – never stop being who you are – we’re here for you :-) :-) :-) (triple smiley face d4j !!)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  69. pssst…phil – are you aware that you are doing a double act with with dad4j?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  70. the significant difference is that he is a denialist..

    ..and i am a ‘not enoughist’..

    ..phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  71. You greens make me vomit. You gutless jellyfish are crap.

    You know, I’m all for letting people say their peace, but this is just invective. You could at least tell us what the problem you have with this move is rather than hyperventilating all over the intertubes.

    Is he bad enough to moderate yet? =/

    And Phil- I’m sure anyone who is any shade of green feels this bill isn’t enough. :)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  72. Oh dear, why oh why must the green haters come and play in our sandpit? Don’t they have enough fun over at farrar’s national party spitoon?

    Of course the deal isn’t perfect – what did you expect from 6 MPs? Which just illustrates why if you care about green principles and think the greens didn’t get enough on the ETS you should vote for them – and get all your friends and family to vote for them – we will not see the changes we need until the government of the day has no choice but to listen to the green party. And to do that we need the numbers. More greens = better ETS. That said, I still think that when it comes to climate change, doing something now is better than maybe doing something else later. This is the future of the planet for goodness sake people, it’s not a bloody bridge to Tauranga.

    tony

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  73. “.This is the future of the planet for goodness sake people..”

    precisely why i am so p*ssed..

    nine years have already been wasted..

    ..and now this..

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  74. The future of the planet Tony, oh yes don’t we EXPORT coal so the Chinese can stoke the furnaces while laughing at the stupid West?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  75. I don’t think that most people realise just what is involved in holding strong ideals. You’re always fighting for more than people will give you, and as a result you’re constantly trying to decide whether it’s better to agree to something that goes halfway to where you want, or reject it and fight for further, and risk endangering even those gains.

    The difference this time is that the Greens asked the nation for their reasoned opinion on the matter, and made their dilemma public. For this they get called liars and publicity stunt pullers, and decried for making a position that didn’t give right wing hacks the fight they wanted. But it’s something that the Greens have to do quite regularly. They can’t always get what they want, but their compromises are to drive through policy rather than accumulate power or votes. Which is why the claims of Labour and their activists that the Greens will not accept less than the pure driven snow are so wrong – practical idealism is all about strategic compromise, and strategic refusal to compromise, and deciding which will get you closer to your goal in the short and long terms.

    I give my full respect to Jeanette and the Green MPs and policy team for their reasoned decision, which appears to be the right one. The gains in insulation particularly warmed my heart.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  76. Couldn’t have put it better than George. Pragmatic progress towards the goal – while still being honest and not pretending it’s the magic bullet. That is the only respectable way to do politics.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  77. >>The difference this time is that the Greens asked the nation for their reasoned opinion

    Give it up, George.

    They are politicians. They are JUST like all the rest. If you ever forget it, you’re just another useful feckin idjit.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  78. “..decried for making a position that didn’t give right wing hacks the fight they wanted.”

    by that claim you clearly demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of the possibilities to hand..

    ..and opposition to it is ipso facto evidence of rightwing hackery..eh..?

    ..cheap/shallow/ad hominem personal attacks..

    ..not addressing the issues at all..

    ..just slagging..

    ..very ‘green’ there..george..

    ..phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  79. BluePeter, why not just say it properly: that I’m a fucking idiot.

    p….h…..i…!…l…!…?…u, there are credible environmental reasons why one might be opposed to this bill. However, a number of environmental groups urged the Greens to support the bill, including Greenpeace, who decided that it did more for the environment than all the other immediately available alternatives. The Greens thought it did considerably more than nothing, and so did I for that matter, or they would have rejected it rather than addressing it the way they did. The question was, in the face of the need for urgent action on climate change, does it do enough fast enough, when compared to the alternatives facing the Greens? Ultimately, by a small amount they decided it did. (although Toad and others think that it wasn’t enough to support, and this is a legitimate disagreement)

    Jeanette Fitzsimons isn’t the climate change messiah, but she knows a hell of a lot more about climate change than almost anybody in New Zealand, and she’s honest about what the facts are (in private brutally so). In your comment above you’re trying to claim that Helen Clark and her negotiating team pulled the wool over her eyes. You can choose to believe that.

    But tell us what the Greens could have done differently.

    Why? Why? Why?
    What?
    Why exactly?
    What? Why?
    Be more constructive with your feedback, please. Why?
    Why?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  80. Phil u said: ..very ‘green’ there..george..

    ..very ‘tedious’ there..phil..

    Get a grip, and say something new for once Phil. Recycling the same old arguments doesn’t cut it.

    The ETS deal is done, you and I didn’t particularly like it. Difference is, I can move on, and try to work for something better in the future.

    You, Phil, just attack the Green Party – who are the only party that will actually progress issues re greenhouse emissions in your or my lifetime.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  81. While not a terribly effective campaign strategy for Greens, it’s not going to stop them reaching the 5% target (it does however end any prospect of of moving on upwards to 10% this time around). What might is losing non environment voter catchments – such as with Labour’s universal student allowance idea. Greens should counter that with an increase in the amount of the allowance to the adult over 25 rate dole (this for all students).

    As for Labour making concessions in the area of national policy statements impacting on the regulatory process – please note National is intent on changing the RMA.

    The Greens need to do some analysis of National ETS (and RMA) policy and place it on the net, and refer voters to this prior to the election.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  82. Goodness me! People should stop being so damn SENSITIVE and leave the Nats et al to moan alone. Ie, don’t let them get your hackles up and don’t bother responding. They’re not worth the effort.
    As for those genuine greens who don’t like the ETS – well, neither do i, but politics is the art of the possible, and better this than nothing. Call it a start, and work from there.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  83. how about bringing the student allowence up to dole levels for all university students, including the under 25’s and individuals, such as myself, with ‘well-off’ parents. Would be nice to not have to borrow the money…
    But back on subject, Russel may get up my nose at times but he comes over as a very politically savvy guy; I wonder if he argued to do the practical thing and make this a campeign issue or he just folded? we have missed a big thing here, but I supose whats done is done, it just makes it even harder to pas the threashold. I suppose there is no chance of submiting a members bill to have the threashold removed beofre the next election? but then again I guess it has to get drawn out too.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  84. “..You, Phil, just attack the Green Party – who are the only party that will actually progress issues re greenhouse emissions in your or my lifetime..”

    yeah..right toad..shame nothings happened yet tho’..eh..?

    it’s been an interesting/enlightening ‘debate’..

    i’ve been trying to argue/raise the issues/argue the urgencies..

    ..and the ‘green response’ has been one of personal denigration/slagging..

    ..attacking the messanger..and just ignoring/refusing to address the issues under discussion/debate..

    ..with you..toad..as one of the main ‘slaggers’..

    ..and..amusing..given i’ve been accused of ‘rightwing hackery’..etc..

    ..that this is classic (rightwing) ‘kiwiblog’ tactics..

    ..for shame..

    this exercise has been the textbook example of why the green party has failed miserably at being an effective voice for the environment..

    ..nine years..?..and this..?

    (and psst..what’s the bet peters gets ‘more’ from clark/labour for his support of this useless legislation than the greens have ‘got’..

    (a ‘got’ stretched over15 years..and able to be changed by any incoming govt ..or at any time..during that 15 years..(!)

    ..do you lot have any feckin’ idea what ‘winning’ means..?

    ..phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  85. and could you ‘negotiate’ your way out of a wet paper bag..?

    the evidence to date would suggest..’no’..

    nine years of walking away in triumph..

    .with empty hands..

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  86. Deleted for abusiveness, haha only the demented greens could pull that one, as they are experts at finding some high moral ground to cling to. Did Trevor Mallard get deleted for smacking the crap out of a National MP?
    My only wish is for kiwi’s to WAKE UP and understand how dangerous you twisted sods are.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  87. go away..d4j..

    ..you never ever say anything that is even faintly lucid..

    ..have never ever presented even a pale imitation of a reasoned argument..

    ..you just gibber and drool..

    ,,and are indeed..

    ..a fool..

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  88. you should also go to the tv3 website (sunrise)..

    ..and view linda clarks’ ‘puzzlement’ at the greens’ ‘giving up on’ their (purported)..

    ..’leading the debate on climate-change’..

    ..”they have handed the debate over to the main parties..labour and national..’

    ..and that she can’t see how this won’t further damage an already hurt/struggling green party..

    ..but her overwhelming response to this act of (possible) suicide by the green party..

    ..is (as is mine)..

    ..one of head-scratching/shaking puzzlement..

    ..(the greens/fitzsimons not only ‘blinked’..they/she cringed in obsequious subservience..

    ..to helen clark/labour..

    ..and i know that criticising ‘saint jeanette’ is tantamount to high treason..

    ..and ‘speaking the unspeakable’..

    ..but..the fact the (claytons) ‘win’..is in fitzsimons (govt spokesperson) area of ‘interest’..

    ..the fact of fitzsimons’ repeated claims to the media..

    ..that ‘the green mp’s haven’t even discussed it yet.’.(!)

    (and this a couple of days out from the ‘decision’..(!)..

    and something else that had linda clarkes eyebrows cleaving her forehead..eh..?..)

    ..and the (reported) ‘vigorous debate’ in the green caucus..

    ..leads me to the conclusion that responsibilty for this can be laid at the feet of jeanette fitzsimons..

    ..that her and helen clark cobbled this together..

    ..and that ‘hard-ars*’ negotiation was absent from any ‘talks’..

    ..and that fitzsimons presented the party/mp’s with this ‘stinking albatross’..

    ..as a done deal’..end of story..

    ..to hang around their knecks..

    ..cos’..for the life of me..

    ..i can’t see the accumulated wisdom/political ‘smarts’ of those mp’s not recognising the political science/tactics errors..

    ..of/from supporting this bill..

    ..and sadder still..

    ..the flushing away of the opportunity to campaign strongly on the environment..

    ..and to possibly gain a (trans-ideological) 10-15% support..

    ..they are just not that ‘stupid’..

    ..eh..?

    ..phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  89. SPC said: Greens should counter that with an increase in the amount of the allowance to the adult over 25 rate dole (this for all students).

    That one’s already Green policy, and has been for a number of years I think.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  90. now ..here’s an interesting exercise..

    ..try and figure out how this legislation could have been ‘worse’..

    ..it’s looking more and more like that hot-water-cylinder-wrapping ‘win’/debacle..

    ..eh..?

    ..was that another one ‘negotiated’ by jeanette fitzsimons..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  91. “..But tell us what the Greens could have done differently.

    Why? Why? Why?
    What?
    Why exactly?
    What? Why?
    Be more constructive with your feedback, please. Why?
    Why?..”

    (how many times do i have to say it george..?..for feck’s sake..!

    ..can’t you read..?..)

    ..announce that because..(as everyone admits)..

    ..it will not lower emmissions a jot..

    ..that the green party could not support a bill that does nothing..

    ..(except hand polluting-passes to agriculture and the trucking industry..(!)..)

    ..and then make a return to the original/’green’ idea of a simple carbon tax..

    ..with no feckin’subsidies to the dirtist pollutors..(untill 2030..!..)

    ..this was a campaign gift..

    ..and campaigned on as a bottom-line for any post-election negotiations..

    ..would have garnered wide trans-ideological support..

    ..and would have had the greens cracking ten percent..

    ..as it is now..

    ..there is at least a 50-50 chance there will be no green party in the next government..

    (the next polls will give some indication as to the fallout from this…

    ..and should even the core green support hold their noses..and get them back over that 5% threshold..

    ..and force in parliament will be only a pale shadow of what it could/might have been..

    (and that is really sad..depressing even..)

    and i am becoming more and more convinced this (extremely puzzling) bowing to whatever clark wants..

    ..is at least in part..driven by jeanette fitzsimons’ desire to become a minister for the environment..before she retires..

    ..(with the/a promise made by clark to fitzsimons re post-election arrangments/cabinet appointments..’sealing the deal’ for them both..)

    ..cos’..in part..for the life of me..i can think of no other explaination..

    ..to both accept nothing..as your ‘climatechange due’..

    ..and to spurn a campaign gift from the (environmental) gods..

    ..and for what..?

    ..phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  92. Phil, of the 103 posts to date on this thread, over 20% of them are yours – some, it seems, replying to yourself. They are repetitive, boring, difficult to read, and I suspect discourage people from coming here.

    Fine to have your say, but can you please cut down the verbal diarrhoea a bit.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  93. Its the dope talking Toad, I tell ya, to much of that stuff fries your brain.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  94. While the Greens may be supporting the ETS, the government can no longer be assusred of Winston Peters support.

    With the latest Owen Glenn statement indicating that Winston lied to parliament and the people, Helen Clark has little option but to take stringent measures to censure Peters and remove his status as Foreign Minister.

    Meaning that NZ Firsts MAY no longer support the ETS as without the partisan Wilson as parliament speaker protection, he will be gone from the government.

    Interesting development for Labour and more specifically Helen Clark.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  95. yeah..interesting how few greens have spoken up/out..

    ..tho’ i guess defending the indefensible..dos bring its’ challenges..

    ..and still with the ad hominems..no addressing the arguments/issues..

    ..eh frog..?

    hey..!..it just reflects on you..eh..?

    ..and..’all in your own words’..eh..?

    ..and backon topic ..

    ..care to attempt to answer the ‘how could it have been worse?’ question..?

    ..(take your time..!..)

    ..phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  96. my only (faint) hope is that for some legal reason or another..

    ..peters is unable to support the bill..

    ..then we would be back at square one..

    ..and much better off for it..

    ..phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  97. phil,
    Having just watched the three videos of Jeanette’s Press Conference (post negotiation), I find it difficult to believe that the Greens could have made a better decision at this time.

    It is always easy to criticize.

    It takes clear thinking to continue to look ahead, and it takes courage to “stay in there” with the possibility of taking any and every chance to turn the proposed “sows ear” of Legislation into something that bears at least some resemblance to the “silk purse” of Climate Change Legislation (that the Greens know is needed.)

    What should she have done instead?
    Thrown herself on the floor and produced a spectacular tantrum?

    (Methinks you might be the one who could teach her how to do that!)

    eredwen

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  98. eredwen..see my 9.48 response..

    (..am i in some perpetual deja vu machine..?..)

    read that..

    ..if you have any questions..

    ..about either the bill with no gains for the environment..

    ..and the throwing away of a possible/probable 10-15% election result..

    ..get back to me..

    ..pghil(whoar.co.nz)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  99. frog,

    Surely (within reason) people can follow a thread while ignoring the posts of contributors whose content and method of writing upset them. (phil u’s posts are visually distinctive and therefore would be easy to ignore.)

    Personally I find the posts of several other regular visitors to frogblog inappropriately aggressive and offensive much of the time … to the extent that I tend to stay away (and I have discovered that other female contributors feel the same) … but that has been treated as “our problem”.

    If this is about “singling out” or “banning” people let’s at least be be consistent!

    Personally I’d like to see the occasional general comment on appropriate behaviour made, and, if more is needed, a personal email written.

    eredwen

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  100. eredwen, Apologies for any inconsistency in my moderation. I’m willing to delete aggressive offensive posts as required, but as posts get longer and older, and comments become more pointless, such as has happened on this thread I have to admit to not reading every comment (or even many comments). And so I only tend to delete those that are drawn to my attention. That could be the cause of any inconsistency. I have not banned anyone, or singled out anyone, although there are some commenters I keep a close eye on.

    Anyway, here’s a general comment on appropriate behaviour as requested:

    “Be nice to each other. Imagine your grandmother is reading over your shoulder as you type. Focus on the issues not the other commenters. have fun.”

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  101. whoar..!..david farrar has had ‘legal advice’..

    ..given me a ‘life ban’..

    ..and threatened to take my son away from me..?..

    whaddayareckon..?

    the vile/odious little rightwing trout is obviously petrified of the power of the written word..

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  102. Sheesh, I hate to think what some of these people’s grandmothers must be like.

    Sorry Frog – please delete this offensive post!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  103. SPC said: Greens should counter that with an increase in the amount of the allowance to the adult over 25 rate dole (this for all students).

    toad said: That one’s already Green policy, and has been for a number of years I think.

    You should have checked toad.

    The Green Party site says this is their policy.

    Establishing a universal student allowance, at the level of the unemployment benefit, for all full-time students (including students aged 16 and 17 in tertiary education). As steps towards this, the Green Party will:

    Progressively reduce the age at which students cease to be means tested on their parents’ income.
    Re-introduce the independent circumstances allowance based on work history.
    Continue to raise the parental income threshold.
    Increase the accommodation allowance to the same level as that provided for beneficiaries.
    In relation to the allowable income for students receiving an allowance, ensure that Studylink applies the Student Allowance Appeal Authority rulings that calculations be based on average weekly income, and not on income in any one week.
    Make all unemployed students eligible for the unemployment benefit over the summer holiday, irrespective of parental income.

    You see toad by offering a universal student allowance – rather than moving towards one – Labour has surpassed Green policy.

    And for your information – a student allowance at the rate of the dole is not he same thing as paying the higher rate rate dole (over 25+) to all students.

    Most students are under 25 and are paid about $30 less than the over 25 rate dole. Given recent increases in the price of food, power and fuel and the expectation of rising unemployment – some students unable to find part-time work will be unable to continue study.

    IMO the priority now is to increase the universal allowance to the adult over 25 rate because of of student hardship. This would cost less than Labour’s universal student allowance (because only about 50-60% receive the allowance). Until extending the higher rate allowance to all students – allow those borrowing for their living costs off their tertiary debt to do so at this higher over 25 dole rate).

    Given the Greens role in moving workers doing the same work to the same pay (regardless of age), why not have the same policy for students -equivalent support regardless of age (at the over 25 rate).

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  104. As to negotiating with Labour – the concessions on home energy use efficiency.

    These public investments both lower home owners costs and also reduce demand for power which should reduce future costs of power per unit used for both the householder and business (which should result in a more competitive economy and somewhat paradoxically a growing one – albeit sustainably. It’s the sort of investment that one could justify borrowing for more than for roads as National intends. So how is obtaining more funds for this is a concession to the Green cause? Sure its better policy, for this being part of ETS, but surely Labour played the Greens by allowing this to be the concession – by not including it in the original proposal. This because they have had advocacy for this approach from the Green party leader for years and they drip feed a little more each year or in such legislation to maintain support year by year, bill by bill. If the Green Party did not exist, would not Labour have done what they have done and had this in the bill anyway?

    What the Greens really do is

    1 allow the environment activist to have representatives and a voice at the parliamentary level (even if to be played by the political professionals).

    2 ensure the media cannot ignore the issue, even if they facilitate attacks on the Green Party as some threat to economic well being (and or National being in power) or for not being more effective.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  105. update on my life ban by david farrar..

    ..i was ‘suckered’..the email purporting to be from farrar was a ‘fake’..

    ..(and it well and truly sucked me in..)

    .(heh..!..)

    (i’ll check with the author next time..)

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  106. georgedarroch Says: the Greens make the decisions they think are right, not those they think will give them votes – that’s what integrity is about.

    Oh what a great attitude…”Let them eat cake!”

    Now, where have I heard that before…?

    I guess this makes it clear that the Greens care more for their own opinions than they do for the quality of life of countless New Zealanders busy raising their kids and trying to keep their jobs.

    This ETS is going to cost families a lot of money, and that money is not going to help the environment it is going to line the pockets of scheming credit traders.

    The Greens can keep their “integrity”. It is as much use to the planet as Winston Peters “integrity”.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  107. I occurs to me that inorder to keep up with the postings on this blog most days one needs to make it their full-time job.

    Whoa, I just worked out why we pay phil so much!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  108. greengeek

    What did you prefer to ETS – would it be carbon charging? How would this be better for the general public or business (it would be a more effective way of confronting global climate change)?

    Do you prefer more effective climate change prevention policy (and is the economic cost not more in the short term so that change does result from it?), or no climate change prevention policy?

    You make the contradictory claim of being on the side of the planet and also the short term economic well-being “quality of life” of workers and the families they provide for. Just how does someone of the older generation truly provide for the future generations (ioncluding their own children) – by building a sustainable economy. What’s your way of going about this?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  109. Greengeek, the Greens worked very hard to ensure that there were redistributive provisions, that houses are insulated (meaning warm and healthy people spending much less on heating) – things that the Government had to be fought over, and that National don’t give a whit about.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  110. georgedarroch Says: Greengeek, the Greens worked very hard to ensure that there were redistributive provisions, that houses are insulated (meaning warm and healthy people spending much less on heating) – things that the Government had to be fought over, and that National don’t give a whit about.

    However…the belief in ‘redistributive’ provisions is exactly what is repulsive about the ETS. You obviously trust the manipulators to do what is right. I simply do not.

    I have watched for years as good intentions are destroyed by ethic-free individuals and corporations who manipulate moneystreams to their own advantage, and I expect the same from Kyoto and the ETS.

    I find it repulsive that the Greens have found it acceptable to wield a big (and costly) stick over the heads of ordinary New Zealanders in this way.

    If aspects of the ‘green’ message are realistic and compelling, New Zealanders will have no problem accepting them. If it is necessary to resort to structures like the ETS (green backmail) to advance policy, then wise Greens should think twice.

    This seems like green fascism to me.

    If families cannot afford the ETS, why hit them with it?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  111. SPC Says:
    What did you prefer to ETS –

    You make the contradictory claim of being on the side of the planet and also the short term economic well-being “quality of life? of workers and the families they provide for.

    Just how does someone of the older generation truly provide for the future generations… by building a sustainable economy. What’s your way of going about this?

    Excellent questions. If I give the long answer my keyboard will die. I’ll try to be concise.

    Firstly…you label it a contradiction that I care about both the planet and the quality-of-life of our citizens, yet I don’t see it that way.

    There are many ways to balance planet survival with human quality of life. Education and awareness is obviously the primary method. It is paying huge dividends.
    (One of my main complaints about the NZ Green party is that they constantly undervalue the green awareness of our young people, and fail to harness the minds of the ‘green intelligentsia’ coming out of our schools, and instead seem to respond to the old-school ‘green-smoking’ treehuggers)

    Technology will transform the planet over the next 20 years and there is no point breaking families finances before the technology is ready.

    New Zealands emissions are not going to destroy the planet, our only value is token, and we need to wait for the technologies to be available and mature before we force ourselves to live by them.

    It is unwise to be punitive in the hope that we will develop the technologies afterwards.

    In terms of developing technologies, simple tax breaks and other incentives should be the first and preferred method of encouragement.

    Why do we have so few people fitting solar water heating on their roofs??? It is a disgrace that our government has not adequately encouraged this in most parts of NZ.

    I think ultimately supporters of the ETS believe we are in imminent danger of climate change destroying our future, but that is just not the case.

    If you honestly believed that destruction was imminent you would build (for yourself and your family) a floating, self-contained solar powered houseboat, and perch it on a high hill.

    I feel most NZ Green Party supporters are living in comfortable warm homes, tapping away on frogblog, and not living a truly green lifestyle at all, and it annoys me that they support the ETS because of a false belief that it will take us toward green goals.

    In my opinion the most likely outcome is that it will generate widespread hatred for green concepts.

    That is hard for me to swallow, given that I have spent 30 years scrimping and saving towards becoming reliant on solar power.

    I know firsthand how difficult it is to be green and I think simple, targeted laws are the way to go to bring about a greener society.

    eg: laws that give cycles road priority (not just painted bike lanes that disappear into the backs of parked trucks and gravel ruts.)

    Laws that permit citizens to build their own homes, rather than having to finance $400,000 inflated monstrosities on the basis that it is ‘safer’ for a home to be “approved/inspected/triplicated” etc etc etc (Imagine how much money a family could put into solar panels if they could build themselves a $50,000 house and put the other $350,000 into ‘green’ tehnologies)

    Laws that make it legal to drive a homebuilt electric car on local roads.

    Laws that discourage 4wd diesels being on the roads with no good reason other than self-protection in an accident (thus endangering other light-vehicle users)

    I could go on and on (I usually do), but in a nutshell I have much more belief in individual decisions (properly educated) rather than government regulations that are based on idealism.

    What our governments need to do is unshackle individuals, and give them every assistance in developing green lifestyles, rather than taking a punishment approach.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  112. bb, Don’t go -:) go -space:) – like this – :) :shock: There’s a help page off the homepage, opening it another tab is what I did just now to find out how to do this one :idea: :wink:

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  113. On reading this analysis of carbon trading ETS:
    http://www.thecornerhouse.org.uk/pdf/document/carbonDDlow.pdf

    I am not sure how much benefit our ETS will be. This will depend very much on the government’s actions in setting the caps and managing the allocations. Still I think your decision to support the ETS may have been the right one in the circumstances, and full marks for holding out to get some meaningful and useful concessions.

    The important thing is for everyone to realise that this ETS isn’t going to be enough on its own. We will still need to work on regulations to improve efficiency and labelling, and a whole host of other measures.

    It isn’t the ETS that will affect our economy. It is our commitment to Kyoto. Now we have to find the money or reduce our emmissions, or face an international backlash.

    Trevor.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  114. Trevor; you don’t think the ETS will ‘lock-up’ tracts of land and take it out of a) productivity and b) availability as a tradeable commodity??

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  115. Greengeek – If it happens, it will be as much because of Kyoto as the ETS. I don’t think that will be necessary though, and who would buy product land just to do that? A more sensible approach would be to raise trees and feed them into Huntley instead of coal.

    Trevor.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  116. Oops – make that “productive land” instead of “product land”. It’s getting late :)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  117. Trevor29 Says: If it happens, it will be as much because of Kyoto as the ETS. I don’t think that will be necessary though, and who would buy productive land just to do that?

    Trevor, as I understand it, the ETS (and Kyoto, or any carbon trading scheme) encourages emitters to “buy the rights” to the vegetation growing on a specific piece of land to offset their emissions.

    Imagine that such a piece of land was a golf course that was now being allowed to regenerate.

    The ETS would “lock-up” that golf course for the next 30 years, forcing it to be left in regrowth mode. Without the regrowth, there is no offset credit.

    The Chinese are buying up half the Pacific for various reasons. Who knows if they are doing so for precisely this reason…to offset their emissions.

    Emissions trading is going to be BIG business, and will give international conglomerates property rights over NZ soil.

    I think the bigger question is not “who would buy productive land to do so” but perhaps more “which New Zealanders will sell the rights over their relatively unproductive land to do so”

    How much DOC land might form part of such a system? And what effect would that have on us financially?? No-one is going to pay us millions of dollars without some payback.

    Will we see marginal farming lands sold off for regeneration simply because one farmer wants a good-sized retirement payout? I think so. We will pay for it with higher food prices. Or with the need to import food because less of it is grown here.

    I say the ETS is a mistake.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>