NZ red-faced over climate change

Why would someone who believes climate change is a hoax and human activity is not contributing to climate change, want a carbon tax? Why would you tax fossil fuels if you don’t believe they are doing any harm? Why would a party that has campaigned on a carbon tax since 1993 and accepted the ETS only reluctantly, not welcome the chance to revert to a carbon tax now?

Why would a “mainstream” party that campaigned on an ETS – but a different one – set up a select committee enquiry into maybe preferring a carbon tax?

What does Key mean when he says the ETS will be “put on hold” when most of it won’t be operational for more than a year anyway?

Why would a government that has set a target of reducing greenhouse emissions 50% below 1990 levels by 2050, oppose and dismantle every measure that could help achieve that, while at the same time reviewing whether there should even be a pricing signal?

Why would a government that wants to be taken seriously internationally, on the eve of the next climate change talks, set up a committee of politicians to review whether the scientists of the IPCC, the Royal Society and NASA, etc., know what they are talking about, or whether an alternative view is “right”?

Why would a government that aims primarily at economic growth and positions itself as business friendly create such policy uncertainty that international investors withdraw from New Zealand?

Most of these bizarre situations can be explained by the transition from opposition to minority government.

Key has set up a carefully balanced government where he can go as far to the right as he wants and justify it as “Act made me do it”. But he doesn’t have to go an inch further than he is comfortable with – “sorry Rodney, Maori Party won’t go there”.

It will be a true National government, able to do pretty much what it wants.

So Rodney’s posturing about scrapping the ETS was just a distraction and a nuisance during government formation. “You want to scrap the ETS Rodney? Let’s put that to the select committee. You want to review the science? Good idea. They can do that too. You think a carbon tax would be better? Fine – let them consider that.”

So Rodney calms down and the government is formed. The test will be when the chair of the committee arrives with a draft terms of reference, and Act has only one vote on the all-party committee. What that will really tell us is whether National is seriously committed to major delay. Considering a carbon tax and reviewing the science as well as considering National’s proposed amendments to the Act would be a huge job. It would take well beyond 2009. Meanwhile taxpayers are covering the cost of 100% of our emissions. Oh – but high income earners will be paying less tax.

Of course, Act doesn’t really want a carbon tax. Neither does the Business Round Table (BRT) which has been advocating it. But it gives them three advantages:

  • more delay – so there is no price for as long as possible;
  • if there is a carbon tax, it will be low, and cause a huge political fight whenever a government tries to raise it. The BRT is talking of $5-10/tonne, while the international carbon price for quality units is around $30-40.
  • A carbon tax can be repealed as soon as there are the numbers in the House. An ETS creates property rights and cannot easily be done away with.

Under these conditions it’s not surprising that the Greens are not leaping at the chance to go there. Also, trying to apply it to agriculture and providing assistance for industries competing internationally with firms with no carbon price create the same problems as with an ETS.

I can’t believe that Key doesn’t understand that the only part of the ETS that is operational before 2010 is forestry, and that to “put the ETS on hold” either means nothing at all, or it means taking away the credits for planting over this last winter, which foresters are entitled to expect under the legislation, and taking away the deforestation penalty. This would lead to a huge deforestation this summer for conversion to dairying – exactly what Nick Smith endlessly criticised Labour for during 2007. To “put on hold” the ETS would require legislation before Christmas to amend the starting date for forestry – with all the international derision and challenge in Parliament. My pick is it was a figure of speech to keep Rodney happy.

Rumour has it that when Key complained about the air travel emissions tax in the UK, he was told to pull his head in and get his own house in order carbon-wise before he became a laughing stock internationally. He may be finding the hard way that sound bites that go down well with the uninformed on the campaign trail raise eyebrows in informed circles around the world and are not so simple to implement.

It must have been embarrassing when Nick Smith announced the cancelling of the green homes insulation fund (negotiated by the Green Party as part of the ETS agreement) and Key was announcing infrastructure spending to keep jobs and businesses afloat during an economic crisis, that Brian Easton was saying on radio that the home insulation fund was one of the best ways to keep jobs going because it could be done fast with little capital and only a very short training period. So should we expect an amendment to the ETS legislation, which has cemented the fund in law, to remove that clause? Will it be called the “ETS (keeping NZ homes cold and damp) Amendment Bill? Will it be introduced before Christmas? I look forward to the debate.

It must be embarrassing that investors ready to build biofuel plants making fuel from wastes and low value by-products are putting plans on hold because the Biofuel Act may be repealed.

It must be embarrassing that the EcoSecurities Group, one of the world’s largest, most reputable carbon trading companies has cancelled its plans to set up in NZ because there is uncertainty over whether the ETS will proceed.

It must be embarrassing for Gerry Brownlee to learn that the so-called ban on incandescent lights, which he campaigned to get rid of, is actually an efficiency standard for lighting just as we have for dozens of home appliances; that the appliance efficiency programme has saved households $148 million on their power bills over 7 years; and that some incandescents, as well as halogens and compact fluorescents will all meet the standard. It must be worse to find that without that standard, many of the best quality lights will not come into NZ because our market is too small if most people are still buying crap. Woops, market doesn’t always work after all.

He will learn similar embarrassing facts about what the showerhead issue was actually all about when he is responsible for cancelling a hot water efficiency standard for new homes.

So the interesting question, which I intend to ask in the House at some stage, is how does National intend to meet its target of 50% by 2050 with no investment in home insulation; no regulations for energy efficiency; no waste-to-biofuel projects; presumably no economy standards for vehicles coming into the country (announced in the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy but not yet legislated); transport investment hugely favouring roads over public transport; and an investment strike in new green technology because of the uncertainty over whether there will be an adequate price on carbon?

Sounds like an interesting term ahead.

89 thoughts on “NZ red-faced over climate change

  1. Once upon a time, the world was flat, that was a fact.

    Once upon a time, the sun revolved around the earth, that was a fact.

    Funny thing facts. Models are also funny as well.

    Climate change is real………….and natural. It has always happened. That is a fact.

    Questions.
    Is this most recent bit because of the presence of man?
    Is there anything we can do about it? Or does mankind/animal kind do what they have always done and adapt to change.
    Do we want to do something about it, when we have just lost our job and the bank wants immediate mortgage arrears paid today.

    Oh, and Jeanette get over yourself over the embarrassment you think NZ is in. Who actually cares firstly about NZ, and secondly when there are much bigger issues going on at the moment.

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

  2. “Rumour has it that when Key complained about the air travel emissions tax in the UK, he was told to pull his head in and get his own house in order carbon-wise before he became a laughing stock internationally.”

    Source please?

    And which party was in power for the last nine years?

    You can’t have it both ways Jeanette, where were you fighting this ‘good’ battle against labour? The election was just 2 weeks ago.

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

  3. “And which party was in power for the last nine years?”

    Certainly not the Green Party, which has never been part of Government.

    “Who actually cares firstly about NZ, and secondly when there are much bigger issues going on at the moment”

    Precisely. Climate change is a much bigger issue than any embarassment to New Zealand. Just as well our population is no bigger than that of Beijung or Los Angeles.

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

  4. Sweetdisorder

    The most recent bit is because of the presence of man.

    There are several things we can and should do about it.

    We will ALSO have to adapt to change.

    The banks themselves are the source of most of the economic troubles we have, and THEY, not us, are the entities that needs to be corrected.

    Moreover, people who went ahead and paid stupid prices (with the banker’s encouragement) for houses like those built here in NZ (because the tax man plays favorites for the bankers), are pretty much on their own. If the prices tank and they are underwater for a decade, so be it.

    A rumour is a rumour. I fail to see the point of demanding a source. If there is one the brits will eventually spill. I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see Key rebuffed in that manner though.

    As for embarrassment. It has only begun. It is certain to continue. The rest of the world has abandoned neo-conservative positions and is shifting left, it is seeing the economics of banks and bankers (the economics of John Key and Rodney Hide) increasingly as a mistake that has gone on too long.

    BJ

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

  5. The Planet doesn’t care about human induced climate change.
    It has gone through many changes in its lifetime.

    The Planet doesn’t care about humans, nor about the other life forms that live here.

    We humans are the only ones who can do anything about slowing and reversing the current human induced changes that are underway.

    Personally, I am doing as much as I can, and I am learning as much as I can.

    The best chance we have for ourselves and our descendants is if we all do as much as we can … and all “pull together”.

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

  6. Jeanette and the Greens in Opposition poking a big green finger into National’s eye. This will be fun!

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

  7. ‘sweetdisorder’ exhibits many of the caustic attitudes and sour turns of phrase that now-absent critics on this blog commonly used. Curious :-)

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

  8. It’s not embarrassing at all, Jeanette.

    In case you hadn’t noticed (of course, you haven’t) the world changed when the markets crashed. People care about being able to afford their mortgage, and keeping their jobs. They do not care about esoteric warmist science.

    Kyoto dies when the markets crashed. Key is, wisely, stalling for time until the big boys pull the plug.

    We’re now in an age of economic pragmatism.

    ” He may be finding the hard way that sound bites that go down well with the uninformed on the campaign trail ”

    The Green campaign?

    You best face reality. We CHOSE National.

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

  9. >>As for embarrassment. It has only begun. It is certain to continue. The rest of the world has abandoned neo-conservative positions

    National aren’t neo-cons.

    New Zealand has been far to the left of those other countries under the LabGreensFirst. National are merely pulling us back to the equivilent of, say, the Australian Labor Party.

    The world has rejected leftism.

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

  10. “In case you hadn’t noticed (of course, you haven’t) the world changed when the markets crashed. People care about being able to afford their mortgage, and keeping their jobs. They do not care about esoteric warmist science.”

    Jeanette has noticed and addressed this in her piece, so don’t pretend otherwise. So now we have two crises to deal with and pretending one can be ignored is a luxury only the rich can afford – maybe. Of course you may be right about other countries pulling back, we’ll have to wait and see. All the more reason for the likes of the Green Party to be speaking up as loudly as ever.

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

  11. >>for the likes of the Green Party to be speaking up as loudly as ever.

    No one is listening. The Greens have the same power as ACT did under Labour.

    >>Jeanette has noticed and addressed this in her piece

    Cost benefit analysis required.

    A few low revenue investments not going ahead is not an economic threat. Complying with Kyoto is an economic threat.

    Which is why it is dead, but you’ll find out soon enough…..

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

  12. Sweet… tads
    Current CO2 levels in the atmosphere commit us to an average global temperature increase of 1.1 degrees C by mid century. Foolish Nats believe we can increase the global average by up to 5 degrees by the end of the century with no ill effect. Temperature increases of less than that will make NZ a malaria zone.

    And … it’s quite rich that you both mention the financial reckoning that has occurred. Key made his money through speculation. It’s actually not funny that he now has no sound answers for protecting our real wealth and values.

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

  13. Fastbike

    The world has been hotter and the world has been colder. Adapt or die.

    I don’t disagree with climate change, that is easy enough to see and understand. I understand ice ages and warm periods, the planet has had them before and I am sure we will have them again.

    What I disagree that it is mankind’s fault.

    If it is getting hotter then can we start growing our own coffee in the Northland. Gotta always look for the bright side in every case lads. Its easy enough to be a glass half empty person.

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

  14. Oh, and are not co2 levels only one bit of one percent of the atmosphere? Are you telling me that the atmosphere has been that finely balanced on a tipping point all these many billions of years?

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

  15. “Which is why it is dead, but you’ll find out soon enough…..”

    One of us will for sure.

    The most insidious form of ignorance is misplaced certainty – Robert Costanza

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

  16. Why would a government that has set a target of reducing greenhouse emissions 50% below 1990 levels by 2050, oppose and dismantle every measure that could help achieve that, while at the same time reviewing whether there should even be a pricing signal?

    I think everyone posting here knows that Key doesn’t really mean it. A target 42 years into the future (when all the current voters will be old or dead) isn’t really a target at all, and he has no policies whatsoever to achieve the GHG cut.

    But a lot of people will have voted for Key on the assumption that he actually meant what he said on the campaign trail.

    Greenfly

    ‘sweetdisorder’ exhibits many of the caustic attitudes and sour turns of phrase that now-absent critics on this blog commonly used.

    Are you implying that someone is nym-shifting from a discredited ID, probably the same one that I’m thinking of? Shame on you!

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

  17. Greenfly

    I am and always have been sweetdisorder. If you have something to say, spit it out boy.

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

  18. The Carbon cycle has been in balance pretty nicely for quite a long time. The ocean absorbs it pretty quickly (in geological terms) if it goes up or down, and the temperature doesn’t change all that fast as a result. Usually the CO2 in the atmosphere is a function of the temperature and the temperature is the result of the other forcings and the CO2 level. Changes happen over thousands of years. Not this time.

    We’ve released about half the carbon sequestered in fossil fuels over the entire history of the planet, in the space of about a century. The ocean is absorbing it as slowly as it has ever done… and turning acid. The CO2 levels will reach a new balance at a new temperature level sometime in the next thousand years… maybe. The forests aren’t growing as fast as we can burn them.

    Understanding why an imbalance in the cycle leads to cumulative changes requires a deeper understanding than simply citing a percentage. That sort of thing is meaningless. Impressive in some circles but meaningless to people who understand any part of the science.

    At 2 degrees we can probably stand it.

    At 3 degrees a lot of poor people will die.

    At 4 degrees human civilization is threatened in most of the world.

    At 5 degrees human civilization is history and species survival comes into question. At the rate we are going we could see 5 degrees in 250 years.

    There is no particular reason that 5 degrees would be the limit given the release we are continuing to make. I doubt we will continue to make them so fast now.

    However, there is no guarantee that we will reach over 3 degrees. IMHO the resource wars have an excellent chance of creating a nuclear winter and bringing the next glacial period down on the wreckage of civilization.

    Adapt will work, barely, for 2 degrees… it fails pretty quickly as the temperature goes up more.

    Good luck, we’ll all need it.

    BJ

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

  19. BJ,

    yes wars and plagues have always been natures way of cleaning up things. If what you say is true, then one or another this made made component of global warming will be fixed.

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

  20. Tads – National isn’t a majority government, it is a minority government with several partners. A few more people chose National, a few less chose NZFirst… the result was a margin of about 1 % and to blow that out of proportion is to make a fairly substantial mistake. Obama takes the climate problem seriously. Most world leaders do these days.

    Nor is any amount of “sacrifice” of the ecology going to save the banking system. Friedman’s theories have been proven wrong… proven ridiculous in fact. Monetarism has not worked. The entire economy of the world is constructed on debt-based fractional-reserve fiat currencies. Every time these have been used the economic system has ultimately failed in the country that used them. So the bankers decided to use them for the entire planet. We’ve just pumped more taxpayer money into the banks than we’ve spent on anything else in world history.

    The monetary effects of anything we do to fix our greenhouse problems will be extremely small beer compared to the way the bankers and businessmen have raped the taxpayers of most of the world. Even smaller compared to what we will have to do to fix things economic.

    BJ

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

  21. untidylolly – cut from the same cloth I guess – birds of a feather, peas in a pod…

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

  22. Before Jeanette goes all holy on EcoSecurities Group, and their decision to withdraw from investing in New Zealand, she should have gotr frog or a Green researcher to do a company search on their validity.

    If we look at the fiancials they make sorry reading

    http://www.ecosecurities.com/Home/Investor_relations/Financial_performance/Company_Summary/default.aspx

    market capitalisation, 45million pounds
    assets, 132million pounds (not bad)
    turnover in 2007, 7 million pounds (you do the ROI – not good)
    profit, zip, zero, nada,
    share pricee, 37.5pence

    While they have a fancy web site that promises the earth, they have a less then stellar.

    The investment in New Zealand would have been capitalised by borrowing as they dont have the cash in the bank.

    Maybe, just maybe they pulled out of the investment as they could not raise the money in this time of credit squeezes?

    Especially hard for a company with such low prospects (even though the brokers have a recommended BUY with turnover forecasts up to 24million pounds and a EPS of 27pence in 2009)?

    The company has the glossy brochure of an Al Gore carbon trading company with the actual performance of an Enron.

    What will rightlyfully kill the ETS is this type of charlatan company. And Enron type shonky dealings in unauditted emmision trading.

    I think the Greens should be red faced for promoting shonky capitalism such as this investor.

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

  23. Gerrit

    Fair enough, but carbon-trading isn’t yet a viable business and it won’t be until the countries that are talking about it actually start doing it. Any company setting up, unless Warren Buffet or Bill Gates decides to create it from their pocket change, will have to have mostly debt rather than income.

    If they are as reported “one of the largest players in the international carbon market” and have poor financials one shudders to think what the others must be like. So far I see no Enron scaled fraud but there is always potential for trouble in an emerging market.

    However, I DEFINITELY see the point that they would love an excuse to cut back expenditure here so as to concentrate on the Europeans who are definitely putting together a market while we come to the party late or not-at-all.

    respectfully
    BJ

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

  24. >>But a lot of people will have voted for Key on the assumption that he actually meant what he said on the campaign trail.

    I think you’ll find most people in New Zealand aren’t interested in AGW.

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

  25. BJ,

    They have been going for 3 years so should have been making something of a profit.

    More disturbing trends in their annual report

    They have 300 staff (on 7 milion pound turnover – not even New Zealand government departments are that over staffed!). They have had, in the 2007 financial year, a 61% increase in adminastrative costs.

    The asset base is purely carbon sinks. The value of these is placed at the top end of the scale. Question, is this an Enron type self valuation or an independently audited valuation? It is not clear in the annual report.

    The share price has reached a high of 1.85pounds and has dropped to 37pence.

    What one needs to do is see if a Warren Buffet will buy large into this type of stock and judge if the ETS market has a life. The alternative is if noone buys into the company, then the fiancial markets will have decided the ETS market is a dead duck.

    Their total reason for being is to get money from investors, buy carbon sinks and sell these at a profit.

    Where would New Zealands motivation be to sell (lease) them land to plant a forest (carbon sink) when the profits for the carbon credits flow overseas (less company tax)? And we (New Zealand) have to buy carbon credits on the international capitlist market)

    Surely we (New Zealand Inc), should be planting the forest (heck, we have the land, the people and the seedling trees) to create our own carbon sinks to either trade or offset our own carbon emissions.

    For a political party that hates? capitalism and corporate entities, the Greens are sure buttering up to an Enron type scam.

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

  26. The insulation project could also help our struggling sheep farmers if wool was used, rather than fibre glass.

    In the 1990s, spunky little wool insulation businesses attempted to take on the might of Carter Holt Harvey and its Pink Batts empire. CHH responded by massively undercutting the cost of Pink Batts and forcing the wool companies out of the market. Both our High Court and Court of Appeal found CHH’s actions to be a clear example of predatory pricing (unlawful under the Commerce Act) but the Privy Council bizarrely overturned them.

    Now would be the chance for the government to restore the balance, by choosing wool as its preferred material. It’s far healthier and could do much to stem the flow of sheep farms converting to dairy.

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

  27. Savings in Power from home insulation would far outweigh any investment the Govt was to make.
    Why isn’t this scheme going ahead?
    Because it will cut profits for the Power(full) Companies – follow the money and see who is going to be affected; I’m afraid that individual gain will outweigh collective good under this new government.

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

  28. IceBaby

    I think you’ll find most people in New Zealand aren’t interested in AGW.

    Maybe not in your circles ;-)

    Have a gander here:
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10417692
    People are making lifestyle changes as concern over global warming grows.
    Nearly four in five people (77.7 per cent) polled in a Herald-Digipoll survey believed they needed to make lifestyle changes to reduce global warming.

    But my original comment wasn’t specific to AGW. Key ran a campaign aimed at grabbing votes from the centre and he made certain commitments: and to be tearing them up as soon as he won is a pretty cynical move.

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

  29. I think you’ll find most people in New Zealand aren’t interested in AGW.

    I think you’ll find that they are, but it will never be their first priority.

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

  30. >>believed they needed to make lifestyle changes to reduce global warming

    The “green aware” people I know think all that means changing a lightbulb and putting out recycling. They aren’t going to alter their lifestyle significantly.

    >>and to be tearing them up as soon as he won

    I’m not sure he’s tearing them up, he’s simply remaining vague about the topic, as he was during the election.

    Anyway, seems that National now understands MMP. You don’t have to honor any commitments you don’t want to. You simply blame non-delivery on the on the compromises needed under MMP power sharing agreements.

    If Labour could do it for nine years, why can’t National?

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

  31. I’m not sure he’s tearing them up, he’s simply remaining vague about the topic, as he was during the election.

    Which part of “introducing legislation to repeal the ETS” do you not understand? National explicitly campaigned on retaining the ETS.

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

  32. Gerrit – Just how do you read Jeanette’s words as a Green endorsement of capitalism and Enron? Boy you have a good imagination! I think if you read it again in context, you will see that it is just one example of the type of business uncertainty that Key has created with his waffling. Key says we must increase foreign investment in NZ at all costs in order to boost productivity, but then slams the door. (Not that I think that traders are particularly productive, but it’s just one more example, not Jeanette’s argument itself.)

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

  33. “We’re now in an age of economic pragmatism. ”

    Good, community ownership of the means of production, local trading, collective working practices, limited markets and a sharp reduction in international trade should do a lot to get our carbon footprint down.

    These were also the pragmatic policies that humanity followed for thousands of years until we were pushed into unsustainable capitalism and eventually became so dislocated from reality as to accept it as normal.

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

  34. V
    “transport investment hugely favouring roads over public transport”;

    Since when did public transport not need roads?
    Buses, shuttles and taxis all need roads.
    Only trains don’t need roads – but they don’t pay for their capital and don’t serve 80% of the population. Auckland’s taxis already carry more passengers than the rail system is projected to carry by 2030. (And those projections won’t be achieved).
    The rail lines should be ripped up and the beds converted to truck and bus lanes.

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

  35. These are very interesting debating points. I suppose it’s timely to point out that if the Greens had behaved very differently before the election, they would have had the opportunity to have much greater influence over this National Government. Just as the Maori Party decided to see after the election which Party was most able to deliver on its policies in Government, the Greens could have sat down constructively with the National Party and negotiated the best possible deal for the environment.

    Sadly, the Greens showed themselves to be the Labour Party in environmental drag, and threw out the opportunity to work constructively with National after the election. It really does look like sour grapes now.

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

  36. IceBaby

    You don’t have to honor any commitments you don’t want to. You simply blame non-delivery on the on the compromises needed under MMP power sharing agreements.

    Given that Act went into the discussions with no bottom line, that might not wash. I’d like to think that our incisive, investigative news organisations will… no hang on, I’m taking that back.

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

  37. >>Which part of “introducing legislation to repeal the ETS” do you not understand?

    “National agrees to a review by a special select committee of Parliament of the current Emissions Trading Scheme legislation and any amendments or alternatives to it, including carbon taxes, in the light of current economic circumstances and steps now being undertaken by similar nations. National further agrees to pass forthwith an amendment to the ETS legislation delaying its implementation, repealing the thermal generation ban and making any other necessary interim adjustments until the select committee review is completed.”

    New Zealand is not alone in reviewing climate change legislation. The deepening global economic turmoil is impacting heavily on governments around the world that are concerned about the economic cost of environmental commitments”.

    >>Sadly, the Greens showed themselves to be the Labour Party in environmental drag

    Yep. If they were that concerned about the urgency of environmental issues, they would have been negotiating with National.

    Perhaps they aren’t quite so urgent as they were making out.

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

  38. frog,

    Ecosecurities is in Jeanette words one of the worlds “most reputable carbon trading companies”.

    When in reality they are a scam artist company with unaudited assets, no money to invest, pays no dividend, etc.

    Well if they are a prime example of who, New Zealand has to deal with in an ETS, then Jeanette is heaping praise on an Enron like entity.

    And having Morgan Stanley as a shareholder is not considered a capitalist entity so despised by the fundy left?

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

  39. Gerrit – you are awash in hyperbole. Your description of this pariah company would fit nicely over just about any startup! Besides, I think Jeanette was just echoing the sentiment (and words) expressed in the linked article. Just because you think carbon trading is a scam, doesn’t mean that internationally big business isn’t taking it seriously. It is going to happen, whether you think it is a scam or not. Should NZ business miss out just because you think it is unscrupulous?

    The Greens have always preferred a carbon tax to an ETS. Unfortunately, thanks to idiots like National, ACT and the business roundtable, that cab has left the rank. Get over it. We have. Isn’t it time you moved on?

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

  40. >>Should NZ business miss out

    On what? A chance to make a loss? Where’s your cost benefit analysis?

    Sometimes I wonder if your decision making process consists of:

    Does if have a green angle? If yes, then support it.

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

  41. Good article in NZ Herald on this subject by Peter Neilson, Gary Taylor and Peter Clark

    The new Government’s decision to put the emissions trading scheme on hold pending a review came as a bolt from the blue.

    Stakeholders had been led to expect that there would be some changes to the ETS but the proposal to pass legislation putting it on hold was completely unexpected.

    The decision has thrown the emerging carbon market into disarray. It has undermined the recent launch of the New Zealand Stock Exchange’s carbon trading platform, TZ1.

    EcoSecurities, one of the largest promoters of emission reduction projects in the world, pulled out from the launch of its New Zealand business.

    It has brought into doubt the forest sector’s investment in large-scale carbon sequestration [storing carbon in forests].

    According to one report it led an Asian investor to cancel a 25,000ha afforestation project. There are other indications that investment in new plantings has evaporated.

    But more importantly, the decision does harm to New Zealand’s clean green brand. It undermines our environmental integrity and makes us look silly on the international stage.

    In a world sensitive to environmental performance, it may have consequences for marketing of our primary products and could well impact on our attractiveness as an international tourist destination. We really must walk the talk on environmental policy.

    The Government should think again. Its pre-election commitment to review six areas of concern with the trading scheme is well understood and was properly signalled in advance. It is entirely appropriate to conduct that review via the proposed select committee process during 2009 with amending legislation (if required) passed before the end of that year.

    Given that there are no sectors other than forestry actually in the emissions trading scheme until 2010 (when industrial processes and stationary energy join) there is therefore no need to put the scheme on hold. Doing so has no positive effects and, in addition to the negative ones signalled above, could drive up New Zealand’s net emissions by deferring much-needed investment in tree planting.

    We are already a long way from meeting our Kyoto targets. Further delay will increase the costs of meeting those obligations and that burden will be met by taxpayers.

    The rest of the world has moved on and accepts the overwhelming evidence that human-induced climate change is happening and that the United Nations’ International Panel on Climate Change is the authority on this issue.

    As the counsel for EcoSecurities said recently in the Herald, “… to have come down here to launch a business and then to have to report to our directors that actually they are revisiting the science on climate change really doesn’t help perceptions of New Zealand.”

    The suggestion that the emissions scheme could be replaced by a carbon tax is also unwelcome. A carbon tax was proposed earlier in the decade and opposed by many of the entities that are now supporting it.

    It seems that some stakeholders will support any climate change policy so long as it’s not the current one. Delay is clearly their objective which may reduce the costs of their transition but only by shifting it onto taxpayers.

    A carbon tax is an arguably useful way of transitioning towards full-blown emissions trading. But New Zealand has moved past that point in its policy development. Emissions trading involving all sectors and all Kyoto gases is a more efficient way of finding least-cost emission reduction projects and giving a clear signal to investors.

    Having carbon valued at the world price sets New Zealand up for later integration with other schemes in Australia, Europe and the United States.

    It is noteworthy that President-elect Barack Obama said recently that he would support a cap-and-trade system – essentially an emissions trading scheme like New Zealand’s. He would also establish strong annual targets to reduce emissions to their 1990 levels by 2020 and reduce them an additional 80 per cent by 2050.

    Clearly we have important partners that see emissions trading as the preferred way to encourage the transition to a low carbon economy.

    There is one other important point we wish to make. It is clear that New Zealand and much of the rest of the world is in or heading towards recession.

    One way of getting out of that is for the Government to stimulate the economy by bringing forward infrastructure spending.

    If we can bring some really smart thinking to the table, we can target that spending to projects that speed up New Zealand’s emission reductions – things like retrofitting insulation in old housing stock; bringing forward geothermal and wind generation projects; electrifying commuter trains in Auckland; widely deploying emerging electric car technologies; improving the overall efficiency of the transport system and encouraging many other such investments in the private sector.

    In our view the new Government needs to rethink its climate change policy. It is not in New Zealand Inc’s interests to go down the pathway of further uncertainty.

    This opinion piece reflects concurrence across business, the environment and forestry on the way ahead: Abandon the proposed legislative freeze. Allow the new emissions trading market to develop. And introduce a range of complementary policies to sit alongside and reinforce the emissions trading scheme.

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

  42. What a rant. Other countries are now viewing their trading schemes, as is New Zealand. End of story.

    I think WhaleOils response to that article hit the nail on the head:

    http://tinyurl.com/6lvfux

    6.4% of New Zealand thinks AGW is a priority, and the LabGreen stooges can’t appear to accept the fact they lost.

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

  43. The Greens have always preferred a carbon tax to an ETS. Unfortunately, thanks to idiots like National, ACT and the business roundtable, that cab has left the rank.

    What an extraordinary thing to say, Frog. Have you been in a time-warp for the last nine years? Have you totally overlooked that Labour was the government over the last nine years, and had both the legislative power, and the political mandate, to introduce a carbon tax, but didn’t? Have you overlooked that the Greens could have forced Labour’s hand at any stage, but didn’t?

    How do you blame National for the lack of a carbon tax that Labour didn’t progress, while Labour was in power? What a strange fellow you are.

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

  44. What a rant. [...]
    I think WhaleOils response to that article hit the nail on the head

    Argh! My irony meter just exploded!

    Other countries are now viewing their trading schemes

    Which ones have ditched legislation that could reduce GHG emissions in favour of debating whether the science is correct? And which of these has a green reputation to protect for its main industries?

    6.4% of New Zealand thinks AGW is a priority

    I think it would be more accurate to say that 96.3% of voters didn’t choose the party of climate change denial. Unfortunately, that’s what we appear to have got.

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

  45. timellis – At what point could the Greens, outside of government for the last nine years, have forced Labour’s hands? It was the rhetoric and propaganda of National, Act and the BRT that kept the debate from happening properly and scaring the likes of Dunne And Peters into backing down on a carbon tax. Those two would have gone anywhere they thought would keep them elected, and they were always scared of missing a chance to bed down with national.

    Labour never had the legislative power or the political mandate by itself. You give them far too much credit. What rock have you been under? It is always convenient to forget that Labour was always a minority government, just like National is now.

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

  46. Frog, I think your losing the plot.
    You are ranting about a whole lot of maybe’s and what if’s, and you are starting to sound a little unhinged.
    Go and read nationals environmental policy, it might make you fell a little better.

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

  47. Good grief, frog didn’t write this podt at all!! it was Jeanette!!
    Oh dear :)

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

  48. >>Unfortunately, that’s what we appear to have got.

    Well, you should have listened to the people who said you needed to become more centerist in order to increase your power. You’ve made your bed to the left of Labour, so only have yourselves to blame.

    >>And which of these has a green reputation to protect for its main industries?

    I’ve yet to see any evidence that people will change their buying habits based on the fact New Zealand is reviewing the ETS scheme.

    New Zealand will need to follow if it affects trade. So I suspect John Key is wisely playing a wait and see game. New Zealand should not lead on this – because we can’t – and I suspect other countries will be watering down their commitments for the next ten years, at least.

    The game changed when the markets went south. Wakey, wakey….

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

  49. and I suspect other countries will be watering down their commitments for the next ten years, at least.

    How long is this recession supposed to last, again?

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

  50. >>How long is this recession supposed to last, again?

    Those bailouts were BIG.

    Anyone’s guess….

    I’m thinking three years, then another seven to get back to where we were….maybe…

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

  51. What observation would falsify the theory of catastrophic human-induced climate change?

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

  52. IceBaby

    Well, you should have listened to the people who said you needed to become more centerist in order to increase your power.

    I assume that was directed at one of the Greens?

    I’ve yet to see any evidence that people will change their buying habits based on the fact New Zealand is reviewing the ETS scheme.

    Will you at least acknowledge that our image has value for farming and tourism? And that if we go from “100% Pure NZ ™” to the Dirty Old Man of the South Pacific, it would have a negative impact?

    New Zealand should not lead on this

    When did we ever? We’ve done stuff all on this issue for the last 15 years, and Hide would take us back to square one.

    The game changed when the markets went south.

    Yes, the game turned from laissez-faire to a keynesian green… but not in NZ.

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

  53. >>And that if we go from “100% Pure NZ ™”

    We’ve been over this one before. It can easily retain that label, because we are underpopulated, covered in green, and, relatively speaking, pristine.

    >>When did we ever?

    Well, the Greens keep insisting on it….

    >>but not in NZ.

    If New Zealanders think they’re insulated from this, they are deluded. They’ll find out soon enough….

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

  54. It can easily retain that label, because we are underpopulated, covered in green, and, relatively speaking, pristine.

    I’d agree that’s the reason we still have our image in spite of a less-than-great environmental record. But the image isn’t bulletproof, and our tourism/farming competitors will call us on it.

    >>but not in NZ.
    If New Zealanders think they’re insulated from this, they are deluded. They’ll find out soon enough….

    I was referring to the game change in that the US, much of Europe et al are looking at greening their economies as a stimulus package. I don’t think it’s a big stretch to say that in NZ we’re going in the opposite direction.

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

  55. Key has set up a carefully balanced government where he can go as far to the right as he wants and justify it as “Act made me do it”. But he doesn’t have to go an inch further than he is comfortable with – “sorry Rodney, Maori Party won’t go there”.

    Jeanette…I think that balancing act is as much as we can ever expect from a government that has no choice but to juggle.

    New Zealand now has a disparate population, pulling in several (many) different directions and there is no other choice.

    National only got voted in because sufficient of the populace got tired of the giveaways and saw a greater need to foster business and productivity.

    The game now (in my opinion) is to find and fund New Zealand developed green technologies that can be made and marketed by us, and foisted upon a world that will buy them VOLUNTARILY.

    I just don’t see any government getting away with FORCING green concepts upon an increasingly poor and struggling marketplace.

    And why should any government even try to do that? It would only serve to turn even more people against the green message.

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

  56. “Will you at least acknowledge that our image has value for farming and tourism? And that if we go from “100% Pure NZ ™” to the Dirty Old Man of the South Pacific, it would have a negative impact?”

    Well, we have been dumping thousands of tons of 1080 poison all over the country for many years, and Europeans hate the stuff.
    There was also a documentary widely aired in Europe on NZ’s 1080 use and it didn’t affect much at all.
    What is more likely to affect our tourism and farming industry more than any thing else, is the world wide green movements growing obsession with carbon miles. And we just had a massive example of this from the UK
    As people start thinking about how far their food is comming from, and how far their holiday destination is, it won’t matter one iota how “green” Kiwi land is, unless of course we only want to attract environmentally irresponsible tourists.
    NZ’s export markets and tourism industry are not sustainable under this green ideology.

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

  57. A carbon tax can be repealed as soon as there are the numbers in the House. An ETS creates property rights and cannot easily be done away with.

    An ETS does not and cannot work without a concurrent carbon tax.

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

  58. >>But the image isn’t bulletproof, and our tourism/farming competitors will call us on it.

    Meh. Like who, exactly?

    “AUSTRALIA’S delay in announcing its 2020 greenhouse target until after a UN summit is a defensive move suggesting the Government will not take a lead in post-Kyoto talks. That assessment comes from observers of the climate negotiation process. The delay also means Australia will not reveal its target until European leaders try to paper over growing divisions on a plan to cut emissions by at least 20 per cent by 2020. A news release late on Friday said Canberra would take account of international developments before revealing the depth of its emissions cuts.”

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

  59. BTW:

    If one argues that New Zealand should do what the rest of the world is doing when imposing carbon charges, on the basis we’ll be left behind, then one should also argue that we should follow the rest of the world when they take a “wait and see” approach.

    Lest we get left behind….

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

  60. bjchip Says:
    As I pointed out earlier… we may not survive the transition.

    bj….some humans will definitely survive the transition. Many of them.

    Which ones: those who have the money and brains to insulate themselves by using access to high energy output technologies. eg nuclear and coal etc etc.

    I’m not suggesting thats where our own direction has to lie, I’m just saying that globally there are many who have already chosen that path as their personal lifeboat and we are foolish to believe that they will mourn those who perish.

    Check out the response of the US administration to the New Orleans (weather induced) predicament. They don’t really give a damn. “If they can’t swim, let ‘em sink”. As long as the (nuclear-fuelled) lights are still on in New York, who’s worried??

    In many ways that attitude is a vision of what could potentially befall us when Earth decides to play swings and roundabouts again (manmade AGW or not)

    I suspect there are many who have a vested interest in seeing efforts to stabilise the climate die off. If the climate does pack up there will be plenty of good land for the rich to chose from when the poor have all been washed away or died of starvation.

    A wealthy relative of mine put it very succinctly recently: he said “change is a good thing. The harsher the changes, the better the pickings for the rich who have planned ahead”

    Are governments elsewhere around the world really interested in protecting the planet?

    Who in New Zealand really wants to bankrupt themselves trying to use green solutions to stop whats happening to the planet? – especially if our puny efforts are fruitless on a global scale?

    It’s time for NZ to stop playing with the big boys and start designing our own unique “green lifeboat” concepts that will sustain us through a (potentially) nasty future. We actually have to plan ways through this that might REQUIRE us to keep using ugly technology like coal, simply to keep things on an even keel while we come up with better technologies in the assumption that we actually can’t do much on a global scale to improve whats ahead.

    National is smart enough to understand the need to avoid bankruptcy, but who can educate them as to what type of lifeboat we really need? What really is the way forward for New Zealand? How can we combine green ideals with the need to survive whatever comes our way?

    I think our use of homegrown technologies is one answer that needs to be strongly encouraged. The kiwi number 8 mentality has been stifled for too long.

    We need:
    Floating houses like the Dutch.
    Toilets that don’t require plumbing into a central collection system.
    Power stations built on hilltops, not in valleys.
    Deregulation of our vehicle fleet so that new, local designs can thrive.
    Tax incentives for development of renewable energy sources.
    Reduction of taxes for businesses that sell product direct from their gate (whether it be eggs, beef, socks, whatever) – ie encouragement of local markets.
    Most of all we need to create an environment where hobbies can easily be turned into businesses without being crushed by the IRD.

    New Zealand needs to think locally and forget about what the rest of the world is doing to the globe. We just have to find our own way to survive it.

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

  61. I just don’t see any government getting away with FORCING green concepts upon an increasingly poor and struggling marketplace

    No… it won’t be government. Governments are too stupid and too short-sighted and too intent on retaining power. It won’t be people either.

    Failing those two the force will come from the planet itself, eventually, and it does not care if we live or die. That’s going to depend on our choices.

    Choices that are now being made for us by the shortest sighted among us.

    We’re toast.

    respectfully
    BJ

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

  62. Jeanette, The emmission trading schemes don’t work. I lived in Los Angeles and saw what the scheme had done. Lots of businesses failed because they couldn’t keep up with the price of the carbon emissions. Mostly your ma and pa rental yards. Yes, the generator engines did emit gases, but this didn’t stop the larger companies buying the smaller ones out, raising their prices and still emitting the same gases. The AQMD was forced to drop it and the air quality in LA didn’t change. Los Angeles was double the size of New Zealand is now then in the late 80’s. I think when New Zealand only emits .03 of the world co2, we would have to go through huge changes and loose businesses and hence employment for no change at all. I don’t think John Key was laughed at. I think this is your imagination.
    What I would like to see is get people out of their cars, get a monorail system here. They can go up to around 250 plus k’s per hour. Or work on solar heating, wow, that would reduce carbon emmissions, don’t you think? I haven’t seen any of this while labour was in power. Also, I use the new light bulbs because they are cheaper to run. This was my decision and I find it insulting that you have to waste taxpayers money to decide for me.

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

  63. If global warming is caused by human activities then why haven’t countries like China introduced population control, then there would be less humans and less human activitiy and subsequently less global warming.
    The threat of global warming has nearly finished future electricity generation in the US. I was reading something from somewhere by some insider in the US electricity generation industry and he basically stated that the US will have major serious blackouts possible within 3 to 5 years. Because no new coal fired plants are coming online and older plants will be decommissioned because they are not be maintained for fear of new legislation to do with global warming. Another Casualty of Global warming.

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

  64. paranoid peter Says:
    December 1st, 2008 at 10:27 pm

    > If global warming is caused by human activities then why haven’t countries like China introduced population control, then there would be less humans and less human activitiy and subsequently less global warming.

    what do you mean ‘why haven’t countries like China introduced population control’? China has the strictest population control in the world!

    Of course, China also has the fastest growing greenhouse gas emissions in the world, because of growth in GDP per capita. And in most first world countries the growth in emissions is almost entirely due to growth in GDP per capita, because across most of the world the rate of population growth is tailing off, but the growth in GDP per capita keeps on going. It is possible to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while still increasing GDP, but it’s not a combination that happens by accident.

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

  65. The situation isn’t entirely hopeless if National replaces goals of environmental sustainability with goals of increased economic productivity, provided Kwy & Co are familiar with this ecomomic modelling described at The Oil Drum
    http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2977

    “One economic growth model that explains growth quite well is Accounting for Growth, the Role of Physical Work by Robert U. Ayres and Benjamin Warr, Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, February, 2004). This model looks at the amount of work (in a physics sense) that is done by energy. Thus, it considers both the amount of energy used and how productive that energy is. For example, power stations in 1900 converted only 4% of the potential energy in coal to electricity, but by 2000, the conversion efficiency was raised to 35%. This model explains the vast majority of US real economic growth between 1900 and 2000, except for a residual of about 12% after 1975.

    A closely related result from the Ayres and Warr paper is that declining real cost of energy, particularly electricity, and the rising use of the much cheaper electricity, fed economic growth in the 1900 to 1998 period.”

    The full papaer is here:
    http://www.iea.org/Textbase/work/2004/eewp/Ayres-paper1.pdf

    Essentially they are arguing that the most important factor of production for at least the last hasn’t been capital or labour, it has been falling energy costs. Firstly as a result of replacing manpower and horsepower with engines and motors. This has involved a feedback loop in which increased use of these engines and their energy supplies has led to economies of scale driving down costs and further increasing the use of these engines which in turn further drives down the costs. A virtuous circle as long as their is abundant energy available.

    One crucial aspect of past economic growth is that while cheap energy has been a crucial driver it wasn’t actually cheap energy to begin with. But the new engines (steam, otto cycle, turbines, etc) used energy far more efficiently than what came before so that the energy actually didn’t need to be cheap because the cost of the energy input relative to the amount of work being done was lower because the conversion efficiency was higher. You get this going from manpower to horse power in terms of the amount of arable land needed to feed the man or horse, and of course you get it going from horse power to windmills then steam engines then petrol engines or electric motors. Thus the authors of the above study argue that 75% of the improvement in US productivity came from energy efficiency and it’s economies of scale feedback loop.

    Ergo, if the government is serious about improving NZ’s economic productivity it will have to do the very things that the Green’s are promoting solely as “environmental” initiatives. This isn’t a radical idea. A McKinsey Associates study published a few months ago identified a wide range of energy efficiency investments that were profitable in their own right and many other’s that would be cheaper than paying carbon taxes or buying carbon credits.

    Furthermore, the severity of the current recession is being measured by it’s impact on GDP growth and employment. No measurements are available of economic activity that doesn’t involve financial transactions. The fact that people are spending less doesn’t automatically mean people are worse off (unless they own a credit card company or or sell credit in some other way). Commuting by bicycle instead of by car switches financial cost for time cost. GDP only measures the former so assumes a deficit has occured in the national economy whereas in the personal economy of the person making the changing the economic impact has been neutral, simply shifting from one type of personal cost to another.

    Before you panic about the imminent collapse of the global economy just remeber that economists are slow learners. Marx lived through the Victorian part of the industrial revolution but completely ignored invention as an important function of production, choosing to focus on capital and labour instead. That focus would have made sense 100 years earlier when the economy was still dominated by landlords and peasants. The importance of inventiveness was only accepted by mainstream economists in the 1950s. The finite nature of the earth’s resources still hasn’t been accepted by most economists. It hasn’t dawned on mosty of them that the most basic mathematical laws of economic were adapted from the incomplete laws of physics and have never been revised to keep up with developments in physics. If they had been then they wouldn’t still be based on the notion of a flat earth that extends without limits to every point of the compass.

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

  66. Hey… OUR economy is dominated by landlords and peasants! What progress :-)

    BJ

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

  67. Its only going to get worse here in the US now that Obama is president.
    Come January and the congress starts handing out money left and right

    What is that going to do to the US dollar and the global economy. NZ and the rest of the world is NOT decoupled from the US economy.

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

  68. “I think bjchip is right, the world is stuffed :)

    That line should have read:
    I think bjchip is right, the world is stuffed :( :(

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

  69. ahem..!..

    “..Shunda barunda Says:
    December 2nd, 2008 at 10:37 am

    Just listen to the sneers at this fellow who called the current economic woes 2 years ago..”

    could i note that if you go to whoar and key in ‘meltdown’ to the search-engine..

    ..you will find that my first warning was issued in august 2006..

    ..and repeateted..seemingly endlessly..since then..

    http://whoar.co.nz/?s=meltdown

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

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

  70. bjchip:

    You said . . . . on November 30th, 2008 at 6:41 pm that

    “The most recent bit is because of the presence of man. ”

    Who knows, maybe an earlier one was as well, with Noah the only survivor!

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

  71. Noah can’t have been the only survivor: he must have been married. Who else would have nagged him to get the Ark built in time?

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

  72. A deep thought on the length of the recession.

    It won’t be over until our balance of payments is in sustainable surplus.

    Help!

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

  73. GG

    Several kids as well I believe, all asking for branded goods and money for a car!

    But wives nag? I asked mine. She said: “Nag, I don’t nag, I’ve never nagged! If you want to know about nagging I can teach you all about nagging! You just listen to me, if I decide to nag you you’ll know about it, I can Nag for New Zealand to Gold Medal standard.” I think she was a friend of Mrs. Noah!

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

  74. Turnip

    It doesn’t matter which of the two branches of the wealth party runs the government. Both are wholly owned subsidiaries of the bankers.

    To whom roughly 7 Trillion dollars in money and guarantees has been fed by THIS administration… and they are not lending it out, they are keeping it. Do you really think the Democrats will do worse? I don’t expect them to do much better… but both major parties are in thrall to the bankers and don’t you EVER forget it.

    On this issue Greens and Libertarians share a complaint. We may have different answers about what the remedy is but… we both do see a mistake.

    respectfully
    BJ

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

  75. I agree BJ it doesn’t matter who runs the show nothing will change.

    BJ the democrats have held the purse strings in the US for the last 2 years. Trust me the spending come January is going to pick up.

    It was the house republicans who tried to stop the bailout not the democrats. The thought of rep Barney Frank being unleshed on the US Taxpayer come January is not something any American should be looking forward to.

    The question is will Obama be able to stand up to the senate, congress and special interest groups. My answer is no and we should expect more of the same.

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

  76. Excellent post Kevyn and thank you for the link.

    Owen McShane – your post strikes me as a rather large dollop of ideological diarrhea. I was almost blinded by the bias that you spout.

    No mode of transport pays it’s way. Cars, trains, planes, ships, and bicycles are all subsidised to some degree.

    What’s relevant is how large the subsidies are, how subsidies are provided, and for how long the subsidies have been in place.

    There are large direct subsidises for rail, but there are also large subsidies for private vehicles. Free parking and air pollution are but two examples.

    Accurate pricing of these items is likely to see an approximate doubling in fuel tax as well as parking prices in the order of $2/hour.

    This could triple the cost of owning and operating vehicles – reducing their economic utility and the associated demand for vehicle travel.

    Rather than ranting about ripping infrastructure up, we should be looking to move towards a more efficiently priced transport system for all modes.

    As an aside – I’m bored of cantankerous old men like Owen McShane asserting that they know more about everything than everyone else.

    The sooner these people pull their heads in the better. We need informed public debate on transport policy and pricing mechanisms; not ideology.

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

  77. P.S. This is not to say that cantankerous old men have no contribution to make, only that they – more than most people – need to be more aware of the limits of their own knowledge.

    YouTube videos of Alan Greenspan acknowledging the existence of shortcomings in his economic framework are the most sobering reminder that even the most intelligent amongst us are unable to fully comprehend complex systems.

    Someone said “the older I get the more I know what I don’t know.”

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

  78. >> be more aware of the limits of their own knowledge.

    He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool; shun him.
    He who knows not and knows that he knows not is teachable; teach him.
    He who knows and knows not that he knows is asleep; wake him.
    He who knows and knows that he knows is wise; follow him.

    Attributions: Persian apothegm, Sanskrit Saying

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

  79. sdonovan Says: Owen McShane – your post strikes me as a rather large dollop of ideological diarrhea. …. I’m bored of cantankerous old men like Owen McShane asserting that they know more about everything than everyone else.

    The sooner these people pull their heads in the better.

    Perhaps you could indicate which part of Mr McShanes post you find so ideological??

    Each of the points he made seems to be factual does it not??

    Kick the ball not the man.

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

  80. “A carbon tax can be repealed as soon as there are the numbers in the House. An ETS creates property rights and cannot easily be done away with. ”

    A Carbon tax may just be a better way of modyifying behavious and not to discuss it demonstrates the closed mind/we know better that typifies the last 9 years of givernment.Discussion gives all sides the chance to air their opinions and more information often leads to better decisions – reconsider the EFA for instance! You may noty have noticed however how easily Labour removed Maori property rights in the Forshore & Seabed legislation so if the Greens actually want to be considered as a credible voice they need to address the actual facts and all potential solutions and not lecture/pontificate entrenched views – adapt to the situation of become a DODO.

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

  81. I think we should put more into our children’s education, as when they will grow up it will be a natural thing to care about our environment.

    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>