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: 0  0 (0)

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

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

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: 0  0 (0)

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: 0  0 (0)

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: 0  0 (0)

bb, Don’t go -:) go -space:) – like this – 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

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

HELP…how the hell do you make that smiley face again?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Thats better, much more concise -:)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Sorry.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

That’s being concise????

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

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: 0  0 (0)

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: 0  0 (0)

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: 0  0 (0)

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: 0  0 (0)

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: 0  0 (0)

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: 0  0 (0)

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: 0  0 (0)

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: 0  0 (0)

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: 0  0 (0)

Valis, Great comment !

PLEASE don’t delete it frog!

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)