Category: Climate politics

You done my brain in

catbrain.jpg Opposing the ETS is easy for those politicians who remain sceptical of the reality of global warming. Heather Roy, the other ACT MP, showed her true colours in a press release at the end of last week. After the now ritual swipe at Winston Peters (and it is hard to resist, I must confess), she feels the need to explain the “greenhouse effect”:

By day the Earth is warmed by the sun’s rays, with some of that energy radiating back into space as infra-red radiation at night and being captured by ‘ Greenhouse’ gases. Unfortunately, the ‘ Greenhouse’ effect has been given a bad name – without it the Earth would be bitterly cold. The most effective greenhouse gas is water vapour – more commonly known as cloud. As most people know, there is seldom a frost after a cloudy night as the cloud traps the ground’s heat.

Not too bad, except for the fact that she confuses water vapour with cloud, which doesn’t bode well for her understanding of the big picture. But things rapidly get worse:

The second most important greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide. Although naturally-occurring, CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has risen over the past 200 years – which is blamed on human activity, especially burning coal and oil. These rising CO2 levels are blamed for global warming – which, it is widely purported, will cause more storms and a rising sea level. Other scientists argue that the CO2 variation is largely a result of natural factors. Therefore, our very expensive efforts to reduce CO2 emissions are wasted. I do not fully subscribe to the mainstream view, for which the science is inconclusive … but there can be no doubt about its political consequences.

“Other scientists” argue that CO2 rise is due to “natural factors”? That’s utter nonsense. No credible “scientist” argues any such thing. Some of the wilder shores of wingnuttery might – step forward EG Beck – but nobody that any responsible politician should be listening to. I wonder if Heather gets her health policy advice from a crystal healer? ACT is clearly parliament’s right wing sceptic rump. I can only hope they get nowhere near climate policy in any future government, and that their other policies are rather more evidence-based.

[Hat tip for lolcat to Jules’ Klimaatblog]

In the (rural) ghetto

cow.jpg It’s no secret that Federated Farmers doesn’t like the proposed Emissions Trading Scheme. But their latest press release (which almost slipped under my radar over the weekend) sets a whole new standard for ridiculous hyperbole. According to Feds president, Don Nicolson, the ETS will be so damaging that it will create “rural ghettos”. Here’s Don in full flow:

“If we want to try and remain a first world country, rather than a third world country, the simple fact is, we need agriculture to prosper and grow. We can’t afford to kill New Zealand’s golden goose. If we do, we will have rural ghettos and a lower standard of living for all New Zealanders. Here’s hoping we don’t kill the golden goose and develop rural ghettos.”

Let’s ignore the fact that agriculture is excluded from the ETS until 2013, and will be treated with kid gloves thereafter. Let’s not mention that it amounts to a subsidy from the nation’s taxpayers to the agricultural sector. Let’s pretend that farmers are going to forced into penury by the ETS, that we can somehow afford to ignore the global move to put a price on carbon. Let’s just have a loud and ludicrous public whinge.

Thanks for the cogent policy advice and intelligent lobbying Don. Don’t give up the day job.

Willin’

NZETS.jpg The Green Party has just announced that it will support the government’s proposed emissions trading scheme, because “the substantial changes we have won to the ETS justify voting for it”, according to leader Jeanette Fitzsimons. The changes include a “billion dollar” fund from ETS revenues to improve home insulation and heating, new rules on credits for firms established to use new low-carbon technologies, and some improvements on agriculture and biodiversity protection.

“A target for agricultural emissions reduction before 2013 will be gazetted along with other targets for emission reductions. Government has also agreed that there will be investment in a range of technologies and practices which can reduce agricultural emissions, particularly nitrous oxide. These will include not just nitrification inhibitors but also low input farming which can be just as profitable; biogas plants to convert manure to energy; and methods to control soil damage in wet conditions such as herd homes and stand off pads.”

No news yet from NZ First, but Greenpeace were (predictably) pleased with the decision.

[Update 27/8: NZ First has announced that it will support the ETS legislation.]

[Update 29/8: The ETS has begun its passage through Parliament.]

Taking tiger mountain (by strategy)

NZETS.jpgWith a final decision required next week, the Green Party has asked for public feedback on whether it should support the government’s emissions trading scheme legislation, and people have not been slow in coming forward. Jeanette Fitzsimons announcement on Thursday explained the dilemma facing the party:

“We set out to achieve a number of things, such as including transport and agriculture into the scheme earlier, a fund to insulate homes to keep power bills down, targets for emissions reduction and support for new innovations that offer significant carbon reduction. […] On some of the issues we have not been able to make progress. We have not been able to get agreement to phase in transport instead it will come in in one lump in 2011, so this has not changed. We have made very little progress on agriculture but we are still talking about this. Very importantly we have not found a way for Government to accept a biodiversity standard to ensure that planting pines does not destroy biodiversity.”

The usual suspects have not been slow to chip in. Business NZ wants them to vote against the scheme; Greenpeace believes they have no choice but to support it. The debate at frogblog and Chris Trotter’s new blog has been interesting, while No Right Turn provides a characteristically concise summary of the situation.

Continue reading “Taking tiger mountain (by strategy)”

Cloud nine

NZETS.jpg National’s new energy policy [PDF], released yesterday, includes a promise that it will “introduce an emissions trading scheme within nine months of taking office that balances our environmental responsibilities with our economic opportunities.” Other highlights of the policy document include lifting the government’s moratorium on development of baseload thermal power generation (preferring gas over coal) but accepting the goal of 90% renewable generation by 2025, more seed money for oil and gas exploration, reform of the RMA, and a $1,000 grant for domestic solar hot water installations. Also released yesterday: the government’s proposed National Policy Statement on Renewable Energy Generation, designed to smooth the consent process for new renewable schemes. As you might expect, No Right Turn and Frogblog (one, two) are unimpressed, while David Farrar seems to think more hydro’s the answer (though his commenters are rabidly pro-nuclear).

There’s been plenty of attention paid to the end of thermal moratorium, but I’m particularly interested in how National plans to get a revised ETS ready within nine months of forming the next government. In the absence of any legislation before the election – which is looking more and more likely – the announcement suggests that National will take the framework of the existing scheme, tinker with the details, and then reintroduce it to parliament. The “tinkering” is reasonably predictable. There will be some sort of cave-in to the big emitters on “economic” grounds. This could involve bigger allocations of free credits and a longer phase out period – and there will be some sort of attempt to make the scheme line up with Australia’s. Agriculture might even be able to push for its entry to the scheme to be delayed even longer, once again on “economic” grounds.

In the absence of an ETS before the election, it is clearly good news that National has publicly committed to introducing some form of trading scheme early in its first term. Any ETS is better than none – any carbon pricing is better than none. The bad news is that the whole economy is left in limbo in the interim. What advice does National have have for the forestry sector, who are – at least theoretically – already in an existing scheme? I hope that before the election National will provide more detail on its ETS plans. This is a hugely important piece of policy with wide-reaching effects, and the electorate deserves to know more – much more – about Key & Co’s plans before deciding whether to support them.