Continuing with the theme set this morning by Colin James (see Grant’s post) I’ve found another example of how governments get things wrong when they rush things through. Late last year the newly elected National government rushed through a repeal of Labour’s biofuels obligation under Urgency. The obligation would have meant that the fuel you purchased at the pump would have had to have a certain percentage of biofuels within it. It would have been a useful step in reducing our carbon emissions.
National decided to rush through a repeal, thus pulling the rug out from under the biofuel industry that had been scaling up to take advantage of the new obligation. Labour MPs presented examples during the debate of businesses that would suffer, we presented the cost to NZ in terms of higher carbon emissions, and we argued, as we have with the ETS, that ultimately it should be the polluter that pays.
Gerry Brownlee argued, as National have done with the ETS, that the taxpayer should pay. In this year’s Budget National introduced a Biodiesel Grants Scheme as a partial replacement for the sales obligation. It set aside $36 million in taxpayer subsidies to encourage the production of Biodiesel. So how has it panned out? Well so far they have spent less than $44,000 of that money. In other words, it’s been a total flop. Another example of a bad law rushed through. Another example of National not looking at the evidence of what actually works.
Originally this biofuel bill was introduced under the assumption that NZ fuel companies could produce sufficient sustainable bio-fuel to fulfill the percentages required right?
Except they couldn’t, and can’t, and would have been forced to import non-sustainable fuel from overseas to hit their targets. All of which, besides not doing much for the environment, would have been at significantly higher cost to the end user.
All this came out at the select committee at the beginning of this year as I remember it?
I’m sorry – Gerry’s a f*ckin’ idjit!
What is up with National Ltd®’s sneering disregard for the environment? Labour’s ETS, at least, was accompanied by a suite of measures that would have set New Zealand on the path to achieving something towards the Kyoto targets. But, in its first 12 months, National Ltd® has:
* removed a proposed ban on incandescent lightbulbs
* reversed a moratorium on building new oil and coal power stations
* gutted the initial home insulation scheme
* pulled $300 million out of public transport, walking and cycling options and handed over $1 billion for roads
* commenced the dismantling of the RMA
* cancelled Auckland’s fuel tax
* trashed the ‘carbon neutral’ initiative
* cancelled the public promotion of sustainability and energy efficiency
* pulled funding to help small towns with rubbish management and recycling
* left a big turd on the 100% Pure brand, and
* abused Parliamentary process to turn the ETS into a wealth-transfer device for polluters.
Do you reckon any of these measures rated a mention in his discussion on the environment with HRH QEII yesterday? Not bloody likely, eh?
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by Red Alert: New post, “Gerry’s biofuels shambles” – http://ow.ly/GkzX…
@Nathan Mills – the Biofuels legislation passed by Labour had sustainability criteria in it, thanks in part to the work of Janette Fitzsimons from the Greens who worked with David Parker to develop them. When National repealled the sales obligation, they also repealled the sustainability criteria. This is all set out in the First Reading speech of Janette’s Sustainable Biofuels Bill which is currently being considered by a Select Committee:
http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Debates/Debates/f/8/8/49HansD_20090729_00001064-Sustainable-Biofuel-Bill-First-Reading.htm
Do you have a source for the numbers given regarding the uptake of the Biodiesel Grants Scheme Chris?
Biofuels in New Zealand need policy certainty to allow growth of industry.
New Zealand is one of the few countries attempting to promote biofuels *without* the use of a mandated target (currently).
http://bleakoil.blogspot.com/2009/11/current-situation-regarding-biofuel-in.html
@mjanderson – the figures came from written parliamentary questions. The $ figure was contained in the answer to question 16587 (2009) which should be available on http://www.parliament.nz. They give us the answers a few days before they are published, so if it’s not there yet it will be early next week.
Inappropriate and personal. Clare
Another example of National not looking at the evidence of what actually works.
And when they get round to spending it, it’ll be ‘evidence of National looking at the evidence of what actually works, good on them!’?