Fancy that. Kiwis hate National’s ETS

It was no surprise to me to find this morning a new ShapeNZ poll shows  Kiwis overwhelmingly reject National’s proposed changes to the ETS.

Eighty-two percent of National voters believe emitters should pay for any emissions in excess of New Zealand’s agreed limit under the Kyoto treaty, not taxpayers. Among Maori Party voters this rises to ninety-one percent. Voters of all types soundly reject the long phase-out of free credits and support more transparency around who is getting handouts.

Is it any wonder, given that the biggest change is that polluters will now be paid by the taxpayer not only for their current pollution, but for any increases for the next couple of hundred years. What a crock!

Nick Smith has made a real hash of his assault on ACC, picking on sexual abuse victims and baby boomer bikers. He’s also made a real hash of his ETS proposals, sucking up to business and kicking the taxpayer in the teeth for generations.

The only thing that remains to be seen is whether the Maori Party will support either of these debacles. It would be ironic if they provided their support in exchange for something they already have – kaitiakitanga  over the foreshore and seabed.

12 thoughts on “Fancy that. Kiwis hate National’s ETS

  1. I don’t see why you’d write off our “other objectives” about biodiversity as ideological, but then I can’t fathom how you’ve become so fixated on this one thing as a silver bullet for the problem. Its myopia that’s often the best indicator of ideological blinders.

  2. Its all ideological crap Valis.
    If the situation is as dire as some of you guys suggest then we have the solution and we have to use it, but you won’t do it because at the end of the day there are other objectives first.

  3. cantab – what is being advocated is more than emitters having to pay for their emissions. It also includes paying those people that increase the amount of CO2 being absorbed, such as foresters and groups doing pest control work.

    Trevor.

  4. The problem with the Kyoto Protocol wasn’t that we signed it. Instead the problem was that we continued to act as if we hadn’t signed it – and still act that way.

    Trevor.

  5. cantab – As for Kyoto , it was a disaster for this country
    from the get go.

    Which party was it that signed New Zealand up to the Kyoto Protocol?

    (clue: smells of old money and flip-flops)

  6. And, Cantab, the argument that the New Zealand taxpayer is liable to pay the farmers share of the ‘Kyoto bill’ makes no sense at all, when you consider the amount of product that is exported and therefore not consumed by New Zealanders.

  7. cantab asks:

    How do you get joe public to truly understand the implications and real cost of an ETS unless they pay their way.

    ‘Joe’ will willingly ‘pay his way’ but directly, where he can see it and where he can choose to ‘buy or not buy’. He won’t be happy to have money siphoned out of his wallet as a tax that has no connection to his spending. By all means raise the price of meat and milk, but don’t pluck notes from Joe’s paycheck to cover the costs that others, including farmers, have incurred.
    Joe will get angry. Especially if the deceit is pointed out to him.

  8. Cantab

    The Green position is that the commons has a price and the person using it to produce something or provide some service, pays.

    The person using it is then free to, and encouraged to, pass on costs as appropriate in the provision of his/her goods and services to the public. Which then decides if IT will pay… and so on as the market is recognized as doing a good job of efficiently allocating resources in this sort of situation.

    As for the implications and real-cost of the ETS. That rather depends on the price of the CO2 credits available.

    I wasn’t here to consider the Kyoto negotiations, so I can’t speak to whether what we negotiated made sense or not. Given the part of the presentation of “Forest and Bird” relating to our native bush and the sequestration allowance table details that were basically unknown at the time, I might guess that faulty assumptions were the rule rather than the exception… but I don’t know.

    We didn’t sign up for much. We have to be realistic about some other things though.

    First: Even if we signed up for 25%-30% reductions or 40% reductions… we still have to consider that those reductions are binding only if other people in other countries work to the same sort of reduction targets and associated pain. Despite the propaganda, we’re not all that crazy about going back to primitive levels of existence.

    Second: We can ease off far more easily than we can tighten up. If we set tight goals and we determine at some point that they are tighter than necessary, loosening them is not difficult to arrange. If we see that the uncontrolled feedbacks make them moot, we can withdraw them… and any economic benefit that we imagine might be available at the easier compliance levels becomes available.

    If on the other hand, we set lax goals and we then discover that we’ve got to go harder, the economic pain becomes a step increase from whatever little bit we started to do. Moreover, because we’d gone deeper into the emissions hole to stimulate the economy, we’d have made that step a larger step than it might otherwise have been.

    Environmentally, Politically and Economically I would prefer to be in the state of overdoing it a little at first, than of coming up short and having to play catch up. One almost never succeeds in catching up.

    respectfully
    BJ

  9. Just for a different view, try this. How do you get joe public to truly understand the implications and real cost of an ETS unless they pay their way. If all you advocate is “emitters” paying for this sham, then you are just encouraging people to have nothing more than a cursory understanding of this issue. As for Kyoto , it was a disaster for this country from theget go. The team that negotiated our position dropped the ball , big time. People invest more time into understanding an issue if they are hit in the pocket first, rather than being lead by 40 second snippets on mainstream media.

  10. How much can we embarrass them? I wonder.

    If they withdraw the modifications they’ll just play up their responsiveness to the public.

    You have to know that that is how they’ll spin it, and never mind the degree of idiocy involved in doing it in the first place. Russel was not a meter away when I lambasted them for it in select committee. I don’t have much more to say.

    BJ

Comments are closed.