Comments on: Weakened ETS now law

By: Logger

Logger — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 07:55:34 +0000

If people really understood how many “holes” there are in this ETS they would be stunned. Example : Genesis has a built up a large coal stockpile at Huntly. Under the law this is stock and does not count for emmissions when burnt. As a result Huntly will have no emmission cost for 12 to 24 months coming up. One of many for anyone who really wants to dig into the regulations and understand how careful accounting will avoid many costs for emitters.

By: Macro

Macro — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 21:53:08 +0000

John Key is my electorate MP – I shall take great pleasure in mailing him regularly on climate.

By: Doug Clover

Doug Clover — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 20:16:09 +0000

The panicy response is also a concern in the energy arena.

There is more and more evidence that the global peak in oil production is nearer than previously (officially) thought.

My concern is that the global economy will try and sustain the currrent transport paradigm using coal, lignite, tar sands, kerogen, and methane caltrates. The implications of these options on climate and other environmental effects are horrendous.

Doug

By: Gareth

Gareth — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 19:57:24 +0000

There’s no doubt that flexibility will be required. I’ve said many times that the risk is not that the world will decide to do nothing, but that it will (eventually) panic and start taking draconian action. We need policy that can be ramped up smoothly in line with our international commitments.

For the time being, my feeling is that we need two approaches — a focus on personal commitments to emissions reductions (10:10) to make lowering carbon fashionable, and try to bring home to the National caucus the real gravity of the situation confronting us all. Perhaps every National MP should discover that they have a “climate buddy”, whose job it is to keep them up to date…

By: Doug Clover

Doug Clover — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 19:38:03 +0000

Gareth

I think that it is now more productive to treat this ETS fait accompli and as the basis of future ETSs, which are progressively more comprehensive and effective. We need to think about how we can modify this ETS to something more effective when the political landscape changes. By which I don’t necessarily mean a change to the left in NZ I mean when the global political consensus moves beyond just rhetoric.

In the interim I would strongly recommend that the new lot of welfare bludgers start now thinking about how they will wean themselves off the taxpayers’ teat.

Doug

By: R2D2

R2D2 — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:36:27 +0000

Yes New Zealand should be ashamed. Think of all the other nations in the world to have ETS’s far stronger than ours!

The EU includes only CO2 emissions from selected industries and covers a whopping 40% of total EU emissions. And they only give 90% of units as allocations.

The Aussies and US haven’t yet passed schemes into law, but they will! And the proposals they have are so different to Nick Smith’s…. The US will include all gases except agricultural and allocate 85% of units free, while the Australian scheme is SO DIFFERENT TO OURS RIGHT??

And the US scheme will be phased in from 2012-2016, the Aussies from 2011. When does ours start again?

Yes New Zealand is defiantly a climate laggard. We should be doing as the rest of the world is and implementing comprehensive ETS’s, not bowing down to corporate interests that hate our grandchildren’s grandchildren!

So yes, National campaigned on not leading the world in climate policy, but this is not even middle, this is some NZ should be ashamed of!

By: Mr February

Mr February — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 10:14:16 +0000

It is just gobsmacking. Nick Smith could only make the NZETS worse by introducing carbon credit surrender obligations for permanent forest sinks, the Department of Conservation, the Greens, Greenpeace, and anyone else who disagrees with him. It will be remembered as the ‘world’s worst emission trading scheme’, not as the ‘world’s first emission trading scheme’.