This is Nick Smith’s response to a 50 billion dollar blunder, or put another way, a 100 billion dollar subsidy to big polluters.
That is roughly $92,000 per family each year…until (at least) 2050!
Ask one of those families if they had an annual $92,000 bill whether they would get away with the excuse that it’s “foregone revenue rather than debt” when the bank calls in.
The Minister is out of touch with the New Zealand public.
No one likes hidden costs, and a deliberative and unrushed process would mean that access to accurate data would improve the policy discussion. Just like the science, we are going to be better informed each day on the complexities of climate change and its economic impacts as a policy issue. So why rush it?
I have to agree with the Herald, National is redesigning an ETS the way you would when you do not want one.
Nick Smith just used the wrong words. He said the $100 billion was “foregone revenue” when what he meant to say was that it was “foregone hip operations, schools that won’t be built, families living in poverty, run-down hospitals and crumbling third-world infrastructure”.
I’m sure the country would be happy to “forego” $100 billion worth of investment if he’d put it like that. Maybe he should try a bit of honesty and see what reaction he gets.
“Maybe he should try a bit of honesty and see what reaction he gets.” – Ooh that’d be fun to watch
Charles .. are you telling us that the Labour answer is THE answer?
It seems to me that no-one in the world has the faintest idea how to sort this out .. ETS v Carbon Trading whatever.
Both the Nats and Labour (plus the others) are out to bankrupt the country and the arguing and exaggerating each others figures does none of us any good .. you are all crazy.
By the way, unlike Rodney H, ironically the only qualified person on the subject in the house, I am not a denier but a realist and this whole argument is giving me a headache.
I am amazed at how some parties want 1/ Rio Tinto to close Tiwai Point and 2/ increase costs to farmers by a massive amount, which they will pass onto “us Kiwis” by increasing the cost of milk/butter etc or shoot 1/2 of their cows.
So the Nat are rushing the leg process and lab did the same in their last days of power. There was Not 1 issue of what is best a for NZ just to look good within the world stage. Who is paying for Nats currently, and Lab previously to parade in the empirers clothes.
Thanks to all parties for attempting to make NZ bankrupt all for what slef interest.
I agree Hero .. they (all parties) are fighting for the moral high ground about who will pay .. it doesn’t really how they present their ideas, WE the taxpayer will pay one way or another whether directly or by increased taxes/levies.
Look at the fuss over ACC for goodness sake.
Jabba – of course Tiwai Point should close! As No Right Turn and other commentators have proven, it produces no net economic benefit to New Zealand. It was reported in the NBR that each job at the smelter was costing $225,000 a year in subsidies. Why on earth would NZ taxpayers want to prop up an Australian mining company that makes billions in profits?!
I am sure that would be great comfort for all those families who would loose tehir income if the smelter were to close Clarke. Of course the local community wouldn’t suffer either because I am sure those same emplyees spend their wages in Aus as well.
These decisions are about more than $ signs. There are real peoples lives involved. Of course the whole attitude of “it won’t effect me” is so prevalent in this country it is no wonder we have such apauling social statistics.
Fingers crossed that you and the Herald are right Charles, and that National don’t actually want an ETS. The real environmental issues are getting smothered by the AGW farce, and while we should all be working to reduce pollution and increase sustainability, we’re in fact being led down the garden path by a global campaign to reduce plant food emissions.
geek – So you’re happy to have higher electricity prices for the rest of New Zealand plus a multi-million dollar subsidy to a highly profitable multinational mining company for the privilege of creating a few jobs in Bluff – just like any other exploited Third World nation. Perhaps we should create a Free Trade Zone in Invercargill so Nike can come in and start a couple of sweatshops as well.
oh well, I expect Labour to publicly tell the people of the south that they will force the closure of the smelter which would leave a power station looking for customers which would create a massive drop in power prices .. ye ha, easy az
just had a quick check of Tiwai Point in Google.
1 of the 20 largest smelters in the world producing the highest quality product and even though a large (??) greenhouse gas emitter, it is is the top 5% in limiting emissions.
What a great effort .. but wait, there’s more.
It EMPLOYES 800 full time and about 130 contractors and the plant generates 3.65 billion DOLLARS worth of economic benefit to the NEW ZEALAND economy.
On top of that, I would suggest that hundreds, if not thousands of other NEW ZEALANDERS benefit from this facility.
Yep, shut it down. Now, its product will have to be supplied from a lesser quality facility which it seems will be a bigger polluter than it is.
@jabba – aw that sounds like a great place
Jabba, and Geek: Sorry to be boring, but here are some facts. No-one wants to close Tiwai Point. And in 3 rounds of hearings on the ETS since February last years, no-one has seriously suggested that it will close as a result of facing the sort of carbon price likely to come from an NZ ETS. Dr Suzi Kerr, currently a Stamford University visiting fellow, made the point in her expert evidence last week that the proposed subsidies are being mis-applied: they’re going to go to industries where there is very little practical risk of “leakage” – ie of us losing those industries, and the jobs they contain, offshore.
What every party other than National and the Maori Party objected to in the latest select committee round was the massive per job per annum subsidy that would be paid to Rio Tinto (and others) as a result of Nick Smith’s amendment. The LOWEST estimate we heard evidence about was $92,000 per job per annum of taxpayer subsidy to Rio. Cheaper to send everyone to Club Med. Permanently.
I’d rather be building schools and hospitals; funding complementary measures to move to a lower carbon economy; saving people from more debt; cutting taxes &c.
CC .. I remember Rio T suggesting the Labour/Green ideas would force them to consider shutting down and Jennette wanting to call their bluff (no pun intended).. mmm
If the $92,000 per job per annum is true then you must close the place ASAP .. do you agree or does keeping it open create other benefits you are not disclosing?
Spud .. I would love to tour the place. I have visited large Mills and they are awesum with the output and technologies etc.
Jabba, you miss the point. I’m not proposing that we subsidise each Rio job by $92k per year. Nick Smith is. And I don’t propose to shut them down. I just don’t want to pass an ETS that allows them to increase their emissions AND subsidise them to do so. If that ends up being the law, we’ll change it just as soon as we’re in a position to do so.