“Noone yet can aswer where the extra money will come from, when we are staring at eight to ten billion dollar deficits.”

Well we could cut back on roading, jails, or defence, but then there will be arguments about priorities. Or instead lets increase government revenue. How about this for an idea.

It is generally understood that the incentive for earning a reasonable amount of money is the lifestyle choices, but the incentive for earning a really obscene amount goes beyond lifestyle or even beyond greed and the motivation is envy; ie get everyone to envy and respect you. So why not play on this weakness and the government sells the right to wear a really flashy uniform, complete with a badge saying “I earn over $500,000 per year, aren’t I clever”, or something to that effect.

The government would need to charge a high premium for the right to use this; and after all this will be part of the status. The wearer is telling us they are so rich they can afford to spend enough to keep a family of four for life for the baubles of office. It will also have to be accompanied by pretty hideous penalties to anyone cheating. I would suggest confiscating all their wealth. The poor would be unlikely to cheat the system because nobody would believe them anyway. It would only be the moderately rich dreaming of being obscenely rich that would have any incentives to cheat. Punishing offenders would therefore be yet another source of income.

“Silver” and “bronze” uniforms may be made available for those on lesser amounts, depending on the success of the system. I bet this would increase revenue sufficiently to cover all the green initiatives, and it would be environmentally friendly (it may not be good for the spiritual development of those being adored or for their worshipers, but then you can’t have everything)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

The new education curriculum, which comes into effect in 2010, has a component call ‘ecological sustainability’. Schools now must teach, assess and report on ecological sustainability. If government is having doubts about funding enviroschools then I would suggest that funding for teaching ecological sustainability will not get much support or prority. It will be status quo.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

BluePeter Said:
“>>away from the general tax payer

Huh? They’ll be paying it!

You’re assuming the producer absorbs it, as opposed to what they usually do – build it into the price and pass it on. Many industries just aren’t going to achieve huge price differentials by acting one way or another. It’s a myth.”

BP, you’re overlooking the fact that previous governments have committed NZ to paying for Kyoto breaches. The question is should the general taxpayer pay through GST, etc, or should those who buy the most carbon intensive products pay a larger share.

The whole point of the ETS or the scrapped carbon tax was to use commercial “cost plus” imperitive to alter consumer behaviour. If an industry isn’t a major GHG contributor then the ETS shouldn’t create huge price differentials in those industries. Horticulture, viticulture and grain farming are industries where the ETS will have minimal impact for NZ consumers of NZ grown products. Red meat and dairy products are a different kettle of fish. These are fertiliser intensive industries. ETS will reward farmers who have implemented sophisticated fertiliser management systems and punish the laggards and luddites. Something that Fonterra’s blunt “payment per kg of milk solids” regime fails to do.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Sam, On the last point, more roads are needed because industry has gone to where the people are, and vice versa. Or, at least, they would have if the implementers of the Town Planning Act hadn’t insisted that people and industry must be in different areas of the same city.

If you were suggesting we need to be actively moving back to the mixed use cities we had before the Town Planning Act then I’m wholeheartedly in agreement.

But that only addresses urban industries. Rural industries like farming forestry and tourism can’t go to where the people are. That is where this country really needs to spend big on better roads. If we didn’t have governments fixated on urban congestion we could halve the road toll in half a decade and initiate an emissions blackspot program similar to Transits successful 1990s accident blackspot program.

The biggest problem with your suggestion is that using the money motorists are currently paying into the Land Transport Fund for Kyoto obligations makes it very difficult to “sell” a Kyoto surcharge on motor fuels. Besides, if we’re not going spend those billions on roads we should spend it on PT not on what is in effect a fine for not spending the money on PT or fuel efficient rural roads and highways.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

“:But this is still a drop in the ocean. We need to cut billions worth – per year.”

Oh, I thought we were debating $30 million or some such for the enviroschools thing.

But if it’s billions, here’s some thoughts:

Cut defence entirely – that’s close to a billion and a half. Make defence a community responsibility. Plenty of people out there happy to run around the hills with rifles on the weekends.

Cut every hospital manager who can’t explain the value of their job from a patient’s perspective within 30 seconds.

Divide education into “basic skills” and “job skills”. Basic skills should be the classical subjects – grammar, rhetoric, logic (tools for further learning) and modern necessities (civics, law, cooking, how to mop floors, how to fix a fuse, change a flat tyre and fix the brakes on a bike). Fund these for all, close down all “job skills’ courses (if industry needs these skills it will pay for them itself).

No more roads. Let industry go to where the people are, rather than the other way around.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

The LIES about showers and lightbulbs? The lies that had to be retracted with such desperate speed because anything less would have drawn a lawsuit which would have made the Greens MUCH wealthier?

Phhhht! That’s the one thing about NaCTites… they have good memories, as liars must.

BJ

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

But I’m not. That’s the thing – I’m greener than your MPs. They make extensive use of polluting planes, and I do not, even though i could.

Obfuscation. The discussion here is about NZ’s part in the international response to climate change. You’re a bludger because you think we should refuse to do our bit.

That’s why I laugh at their pompous lecturing.

And I at your’s.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

BP

Give me control of the taxes and the climate WILL be affected. I’d have a much harder job doing it with the ETS.

The problem is that you don’t want to accept that it is necessary to do BOTH not just throw up your hands, claim its hopeless and try to get as much profit as you can before it all goes to hell.

Making things worse than they have to be is not a good look. You ARE a wrecker. You ARE being irresponsible (at least in your words here) and you DON’T want to admit it to yourself.

Sorry to have to point it out.

BJ

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

>>We’ve got a couple of toy frigates that aren’t doing anything useful.

“Perhaps, but then they do provide jobs and fisheries patrol? Part of alliance strategies so we don’t actually have to run an air force? i.e. teh cost of getting rid of them would be higher? ”

No need for an airforce either – expensive luxury left over from richer times. We never used the strike wing when we had one. If you are going to justify spending on the basis of creating jobs, we might just as well fund community education- or anything. And last I looked the frigates didn’t do fisheries patrols other than once in a blue moon as a PR exercise. The airforce Orions do the fisheries patrols, a rather expensive option as they’re built for sub hunting. Pretty good patrol aircraft though, should strip the warfighting gear and hand them over to a coastguard.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

>>emissions bludgers

But I’m not. That’s the thing – I’m greener than your MPs. They make extensive use of polluting planes, and I do not, even though i could.

That’s why I laugh at their pompous lecturing

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

The problem with the Greens approach to climate change is that they waste money chasing a global solution rather than dealing with New Zealand.

Since what New Zealand does doesn’t matter to the world, then we should not be sucked into a global scheme that is not going to fix the problem and instead is going to cost New Zealand.

Why do the greens always seek utopian solutions rather than pragmatic ones?

Hey if i had my way
New Zealand would leave the WTO, UN, Kyoto and every other globalist one world government organisation.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Hyperbole. I just hope emissions bludgers like you keep very quite as you go down.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

>the boat you’re in sinks

The boat will sink or float, regardless of what New Zealand does. Better not throw our cash and children overboard as a symbolic gesture.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

I think the Greens have yet to experience the moment when the rubber hits the road. When they do, it will be rather interesting.

They’ve largely talked about climate change in terms of abstract religion. The rubber rolled over the forecourt last year, in the form of showers and lighbulbs. The blowback was significant, and no doubt cost the Greens a few percentage points in the general election.

So what’s going to happen when the ETS hits the average kiwi in the back pocket? They are going to be **howling**.

Will you have the arguments to quell that rage?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Gerrit, I don’t think even the Nats are prepared to pull out of Kyoto, so the issue is how best to lower our obligation.

You’re assuming the producer absorbs it, as opposed to what they usually do – build it into the price and pass it on.

I’m not assuming this at all, BP. I’m assuming that a market mechanism will provide incentive to lower emissions. I’m assuming that paying it from income tax and GST will provide no incentive at all.

We should do no more than the rest of the world. And while China is not on board, then everyone else is just having a feel-good w**k.

So how will you get China on board? The feel good wank is you thinking you’ve saved a few dollars while the boat you’re in sinks.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Valis,

I don’t know the other details, but I think the current estimate of the NZ obligation is $600m.

By some slight of hand we are obliged to pay $600M every year to who?

How?

And Al Gore gets his $200M per year to facilitate this.

And you think the tax payer will mind? When we are running 8 billion dollar annual deficits?

Sometimes wonder where the Greens economic head space is at.

Has anyone a the Greens considered the future or do you think the New Zelaand tax payers will by magic make up the deficit PLUS send money to Al Gore and some overseas country where they used to have industry but dont anymore.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

>>We stop building more roads

Should we leave cars idling then? What are you going to drive your buses down, given the old roads will be progressively clogged? Do you think your rail network will come cheap?

Vehicle numbers on roads are steady or declining. Why do we need more roads?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

>>Not on our own, but with the rest of the world. We’re all in the same boat

We should do no more than the rest of the world. And while China is not on board, then everyone else is just having a feel-good w**k.

>>No, its like saying if we go into debt to insulate our houses

I’ve yet to see any detail of how this will work. There’s an assumption that the world will want higher priced food. In reality, the world will likely start buying from producers not saddled with our level of production taxation.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Evasion and false. The implication is that if we tax New Zealand taxpayers more, we will stop global temperature rise. That is not true.

Not on our own, but with the rest of the world. We’re all in the same boat.

False dichotomy. That’s like saying if we cut off our legs that will make our headache go away.

No, its like saying if we go into debt to insulate our houses, we’ll get it back and more in power and health savings.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

>>away from the general tax payer

Huh? They’ll be paying it!

You’re assuming the producer absorbs it, as opposed to what they usually do – build it into the price and pass it on. Many industries just aren’t going to achieve huge price differentials by acting one way or another. It’s a myth.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)