And this amended ETS is less equal than any other

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)

Thanks Keithng

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 It will have to be repealed, and the quicker it is done, the cheaper it will be.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)