The ETS has consumed a lot of time over the past twelve months. The final passage of Nick Smith’s bill is a disappointment, particularly when one considers that the costs to Kiwis is so tremendous. So much for a brighter future.
I still think that an Emissions Trading scheme, when well thought out, calibrated correctly and established within a construct of bipartisan support is the best way forward for create incentives and jobs, provide a clear path to reducing CHG emissions and demonstrates to the world that although we are small, Kiwis do what they say, and lead by example.
I believe that it was wrong to trust National in our attempts to get to that position. We were betrayed by a Government that stopped cross party talks on a grand coalition. We were promised that urgency was only going to be used sparingly (when in fact it was used on each and every occasion). We were denied all the relevant documentation. We were forced to read expert advice at break neck speed (or not at all).
I don’t know a single person outside of Parliament who would consider that type of behaviour acceptable within their workplace. If I ever get the chance, I’d like to make it procedurally impossible to behave that way. Someone needs to complete Geoffrey Palmer’s work in reform of parliamentary procedure so there are robust guarantees against ministerial abuse, whichever party leads the Government.
Some unanswered questions:
- Will Maori forgive the Maori party?
- What kind of future could New Zealand have by not funding polluters, what kind of health and education system could we have by not wasting 160 billion dollars?
- Will New Zealand be able to avoid an aggressive backlash from consumers overseas?
- What exactly is a blue-green and what credibility do they now have?
- How confident can kiwis be overseas of our reputation for independence and leadership when we are led at home by the present Cabinet?
- If National can get away with a rushed through and watered down ETS, what else will they try to get away with?
*All but Hone Harawira
Best line of the debate award goes to David Cunliffe with his ‘carbon credit card’, issued to all the Tories’ farmer and big business donors to send the bill for their pollution to our kids, and their kids. Brilliant.
The Maori Party parliamentarians who voted for this dreadful legislation should be hanging their heads in shame…instead though they will be proudly showing a public display of so called ‘credibility’ – as if keeping your word to a bunch of shysters is somehow honourable. I agree with you Charles that parliamentry procedure has let all New Zealanders down, and when Labour becomes Government again you must NEVER behave in such an abusive fashion, no matter what the issue is. The more this sort of power is used and abused, the more I am starting to wish I lived somewhere else…
Best question has to go to russel Norman asking tony Ryall if $110 billion would help improve the health system… Is it true that the ETS will probably cause emmission to increase before they decrease?? That defeats the entire purpose of it doesn’t it?
I’m not sure that we New Zealanders are quite as short-sighted as National thinks we are. Lower power prices produced with a high level of fossil fuels may not be enough of a bribe to blind us to the sickly future National’s planning for our children and our grandchildren. I’m ready to march when anyone else is!
A lot of farmers pay David’s salary?
Charles, great to see you focus here on a selection of the issues here. While the media and some commentators are obsessed with painting the ETS as the un-doing of the Maori Party (and maybe it is) as you show, that is only part of the story.
The point you make that I’m most interested in watching is the blue-green one. Key’s remarks at the marina opening last weekend would have shut the lid on the blue-green coffin. Today I suspect we saw the final nail hammered in to that coffin.
Although, perhaps the blue-green concept was DOA. Those ‘blue-green’ MPs (never quite figured out which ones they were but Kaye appeared to win Auckland Central on that line) have been shy about pushing their agenda in public, meaning it never felt much more than greenwash. The blue-green concept is practically oxymoronic anyway – the green was always destined to give way to the blue when money was at stake.
Time for National to mothball this sub-group. It clearly gave them some ‘hug a tree’ credentials in 2008 but looking towards 2011 it will only serve to remind voters that the blues aren’t at all green.
the ONLY reason the Blue/greens were formed was to take 1 or 2% off the Greens to try to get them under 5%.
No other reason whatsoever
They’re drunk on power, but it will be the rest of the country who will have to deal with the hangover.
I like your comment about who voted this legislation in.
P Dunne! well what can one say.
Beige just like JK
I guess the argument for number 2 is a much worse Health and Education system…
They are paid for by taxes and if a really high carbon cost was placed on business that wasn’t overseas, those businesses would relocate overseas taking business tax revenue, jobs (and by extension PAYE tax) with them…
Except, Jeremy, the expert independent advisor to the select committee, and the Treasury, and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, and the Sustainability Council all say that there is no evidence that we are targeting subisidies at the industries actually at risk of relocating off-shore. Unless that evidence is in one of the many papers with-held by Nick Smith, it probably doesn’t exist.
Some who moans about ETS today are National supporters. I hope that come the next election, they will abandon National and vote for ACT. If they keep voting for National, then they must be a bunch of useful idiots.
@Charles, I’m generally more supportive of Labour’s ETS than National’s (I support a carbon tax) so playing devil’s advocate a bit…
But Labour’s ETS would definitely have put pressure on Rio Tinto, that’s 1,000 jobs in Invercargill and $2 billion to our economy, ditto NZ Steel, not sure about Solid Energy is it okay under an ETS to dig up coal and send it overseas..?
Obviously things like agriculture and power generation can’t go overseas…
Jeremy, thanks. The rules around mining and extraction are that it is the country of destination that bears the liability, not the country of origin Problem for the planet is that we export most of our coal to the developing world, which has no Kyoto liability. But not an issue for Solid Energy under the current rules.
As to Rio, NZ Steel, Methanex, Holcim and the small number of other on-shore big industrial processors – sure, some of them have said that they might not expand activity here under an ETS, if other countries where they operate don’t put one in place. My point is that these claims are untested – and there’s certainly no credible evidence that they’ll shut down and leave NZ.
Thank you for the response Charles…
[...] a rushed law making process- the Emissions Trading Scheme and National Standards. The ETS has been discussed at length this week, but the concerns raised by our leading, and indeed world leading, educational [...]
1 word-CLIMATEGATE!!.