by Jeanette Fitzsimons
Last night’s briefing on the ETS finally revealed the two missing columns from the curious page of numbers tabled in the House on Tuesday by Nick Smith.
That table, to the extent it was comprehensible at all, showed there would be a $415m cost to the taxpayer from now to 2013; a saving between 2013 and 2017; but numbers for later years were missing.
The full table occurs on page 33 of the explanatory note to the draft bill. The missing two columns, for 2020 and 2030, show a hefty annual cost to the Crown which by 2030 is estimated to be $2 billion every year. Isn’t that the same amount National can’t find the money for to put into the superannuation fund? It would also fund the completion of Auckland’s passenger rail network – in just one year – and take more cars off the road than the ETS will.
Your suggestions for what they should do with the $2 billion each year after that?
Published in Environment & Resource Management by Jeanette Fitzsimons on Thu, September 24th, 2009
Tags: Emissions Trading Scheme, Jeanette Fitzsimons, Parliament, politics
More posts by Jeanette Fitzsimons | more about Jeanette Fitzsimons
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Loading...
My immediate reaction is simply unprintable. $1 billion over 10 years to Methanex? $2 billion a year by 2030? Even turning it into today’s money we’re talking the entire annual cost of the police. Every year. To foreign polluters.
That’s beyond simply bad policy – it is madness. It is neither environmentally nor fiscally sustainable, particularly in light of Bill English’s “decade of deficits” and the long-term costs of superannuation. It will have to be repealed, and the quicker it is done, the cheaper it will be.
(And when it is, we should present Methanex, Rio Tinto etc – or maybe Nick Smith – with the bill)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Is John Key insane? (the less said about Smith the better).
I suggest that with the money they erect a statue, to the men and women who gave our money away, and destroyed our climate.
The only consolation is that this scheme will not last. It will cause us significant pain in the meantime however. I hear that Labour still wants to play this game, and I have to wonder if they are insane too.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Perhaps the insanity of having any form of ETS is now beginning to dawn on the dwellers of the lilly pond.
And the one thing thats worse: it still doesn’t look like it’ll make one iota of a difference to the actual emissions…..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Not all ETS schemes are created equal.
I’m beginning to wonder if National is deliberately making a complete dog’s breakfast of it, so that in the public’s eye emissions trading gets a bad rep
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Who gets the $2M and what is done with it?
No where can I find an answer to that question.
A url would help.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
At the legislation site. Search for Fiscal Impacts and you’ll find the table.
1/4 of the $2b goes to industrial allocations.
3/4 of the $2b goes to agricultural allocations.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Heh. Also, costs are based on carbon price of $25/AAU. Funny that when they’re costing other people’s options, it’s $100/AAU, but when it’s their own, the price magically quarters itself.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Thanks Keithng
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I see that Rio Tinto have signed up to an 85% by 2050 reduction. here http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601102&sid=arPThh7h5iv0
Which makes our ETS look like the sham it is. I got to wondering why Rio Tinto? Now could I be wrong in assuming – they see NZ as an easy touch?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
And this amended ETS is less equal than any other
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)