by Jeanette Fitzsimons
It now seems almost certain that electricity, stationary energy and industrial emissions will not come into the Emissions Trading Scheme on Jan 1 next year as provided for in the legislation.The Act provides for detailed allocation plans to be developed and brought to Parliament for each sector that is trade exposed and so qualifies for free permits. The legislation sets only the broadest parameters as to how these free permits will be allocated firm by firm, and leaves a large job to be done by officials. That is why the Greens pushed for either an independent authority to allocate, or some process of parliamentary overview of their decisions before we passed legislation giving them all that power.
The problem the Government faces is that it is legally bound to prepare those plans as long as the current legislation is in force, but it intends to change the legislation when it has developed its ideas. It cannot have officials prepare, consult on and issue allocation plans based on legislation it intends to change, and cannot have them prepare plans based on legislation that has not been drafted yet, let alone passed.
It is running out of time to resolve this impasse.
I asked Minister Nick Smith, appearing at the select committee last week, whether the liability for the energy sector to hold permits to cover its emissions would come into force without allocation plans having been finalised. He replied “that’s inconceivable”.
The committee has a large number of submissions to hear before it can consider and report back. Then the Government has to decide to what extent it wants to change the scheme and draft an amending bill. This will then come to our select committee before passing through the House. It’s looking increasingly unlikely that this can be done before the House rises for Christmas as the committee has no power to sit additional hours and we have not begun hearing submissions yet.
If new legislation is not in force by the end of this year, the Government will have to bring forth temporary amending legislation to delay the implementation of the law until they have their final proposals ready. That would be effectively a “suspension” of the ETS.
As long as the electricity sector is not facing a price on carbon there are no windfall profits (from selling hydro power at the same price as fossil power, despite it not facing a carbon price) from which to fund the Green Homes insulation project. Is this what National meant when it said our $1 billion fund was “unfunded” – that they had effectively destroyed the source of funding intended for it?
Another embarrassing wrinkle is that the terms of reference for the “Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee” do not refer anywhere to reviewing the ETS. The questions we are asked to address are high level ones like whether a carbon tax would be better; whether we should just adapt to climate change rather than seek to mitigate; and what the trade and economic implications are of a carbon price. Nowhere does it charge us with examining the ETS that now exists in law and recommending how it might be changed.
Yet the Government has made it clear that is all it is interested in doing. Does the committee have any role at all, other than to keep Rodney quiet?
Published in Environment & Resource Management | Parliament by Jeanette Fitzsimons on Sat, March 14th, 2009
Tags: climate change, ETS, Jeanette Fitzsimons, Nick Smith, Parliament, politics
More posts by Jeanette Fitzsimons | more about Jeanette Fitzsimons
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
http://whoar.co.nz/2009/lord-stern-on-global-warming-its-even-worse-than-i-thought/
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The outlook is grim. Nevertheless there’s no use us getting ourselves so worked up about it in New Zealand that we harm our economy significantly in the short to medium term.
Until such time as the governments of the USA, Europe, China, India and a couple of dozen other countries accept that we’re in deep trouble and initiate government action on a massive scale all we can do is be enthusiastic followers.
While China continue to roll out a coal fired power station every two weeks it wouldn’t make a significant difference to the final outcome if we in NZ went back to the stone age.
We need to agitate for change worldwide. Sure, we need to change our lightbulbs, use our bikes, and all the rest of it. But if we go overboard with the ETS we’ll damage ourselves and accomplish a negligible difference in world emissions.
We can make a better contribution by putting more resources into research: feed crops to reduce methane from stock; wind and tide energy for instance.
The Scots are on the right track with their £10,000,000 prize for a viable tidal/wave energy plant.
Perhaps the biggest single change which would produce meaningful results would be for us to lobby for a tax on oil worldwide so that it never sells for less than (for instance) US$100 a barrel. Then the alternative energy industry would have a stable economic platform on which to invest.
Thomas Friedman’s onto it:
http://www.thomaslfriedman.com/bookshelf/hot-flat-and-crowded
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Our biggest hydro schemes are located in the coldest parts of the country. So, potentially, the windfall profits from hydro can be returned to the residents of those coldest places through the Green Homes project. But has the scheme been set up to ensure that the Green Homes funding is allocated to regions according to need by paying for higher insulation standards in colder regions or is it going to be allocated on a per capita basis? The latter option will see the South Island and central North Island further subsidising life in Auckland.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
listen kev..if it weren’t for the likes of me..
..and the other urbane sophisticates of auckland..
..and (near)environs..
..the country would just be known for cowsh*t in our creeks..
..and the hicks who put it here….
…eh..?
..(‘never mind the view..!..look at all that sh*t..!’..)..
.. and..um..!..as for this insulation issue..
..that you hicks have got yr hands out for yet another subsidy..
.(.were you hicks all born with yr hand out..?..sheesh..!
..relying on us ‘urbane sophisticates’of the harbour city/happy place..
.. to ‘help’ you..
..yet again..?
..eh..?
why don’t you hicks just stuff wool in yr walls/cavitiies..?
(i hear tell that’d be great .. for what ails you..)
..and..why on earth do you need/want us jafas to come and stuff wool in yr cavities..?
..c’mon..!..try and get those braincells to ‘zzzttt!!’
..get up to speed..!
..eh..?
..you can’t just expect us to always come to your aid…
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Surely the jafa solution is to import cheap petrochemical based insulation from China and truck it to big box stores on the outskirts of hick towms whilst relaxing with a nice Whitestone brie (on a Temuka platter) washed down with a Marlborough Chardonnay (in a Whanganui glass goblet) while watching Lord of the Rings on their Korean home theatre.
A greenie sneering at wool insulation is something I didn’t expect.
http://www.woolbloc.co.nz/
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
‘watching ‘lord of the rings;..’…(shudder..!..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Whanganui?
Now that you mention it:
http://mywitsend.co.nz/wanganui/580
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The answer Kev is that Green Homes Fund did indeed allow for solutions that took region and other factors into account, so not one size fits all. Of course the Nats have canned the fund so all bets are off. They say they will do a scheme of their own, but the parameters are unknown.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Valis, That’s good news. Labour wasn’t exactly reknowned for letter common sense prevail.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Thank you Jeanette for a very informative post. Its not the sort of information we are likely to find elsewhere. I think you have answered your question re the purpose of the “Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee”. Again just a smoke and mirrors play to show how “concerned” we all are with the issues. (And we will do what we were going to do all along – no matter what the recommendations!)
The more I hear about our present people on the treasury benches the more I grow in the feeling that NZ’s ship if state has lost its rudder and is being tossed on a raging sea with no one in command.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>if state has lost its rudder and is being tossed on a raging sea with no one in command
A return to common sense, more like.
A pointless tax, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
How much carbon would we have to remove to offset the Australian bush fires?
Anyone know?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“A return to common sense”
BluePeter
In your opinion maybe – but did you actually READ the post? There is NOT one ounce of common sense in anything that this current “govt” is doing. Read what Jeanette says. There is an ETS in law yet the govt sits on its hands and does nothing to ensure that the provisions it puts in place will happen. The Committee that is supposed to “review” the scheme has no terms of reference to do so! Now explain to me how that is common sense.
The ETS is NOT a tax – it replaces what was originally proposed as a carbon tax – Shane Arden drove his tractor up the steps of parliament you may recall – Now that was the tax scheme. The ETS is a different thing, altogether but obviously you haven’t got your head around it yet.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“How much carbon would we have to remove to offset the Australian bush fires?”
Assuming that the bush regrows back to its original condition as it has after previous bush-fires, the answer is simple – none.
Unfortunately the same can’t be said about the carbon released from burning cars and houses, which have been made from (or contained) fossil fuels.
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
phil “listen kev..if it weren’t for the likes of me..”
ah ha ha ha
whoar: driving new zealand’s economic recovery…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)