Today, the ETS comes into effect for the transport and energy sectors. Labour supports pricing greenhouse gas emissions, but not giving polluters a first class free ride on the taxpayer, which is what National is doing.
Nick Smith claims their ETS will reduce emissions. No expert actually agrees. But more galling is his answer to the criticisms of kiwi families already struggling to get by that “it would have been worse under Labour”.
Nick Smith is being a stranger to the truth again. Here’s why:
- As John Key admitted on the front page of the Herald yesterday the Nats (with the Maori Party and Peter Dunne) amended the ETS last year to shift “a disproportionate amount” of cost from businesses to households. Under our scheme, businesses would have paid a much fairer share of the costs we all face for their emissions. Under theirs, as the Sustainability Council pointed out last week, ordinary kiwi households bear those costs.
- As Nick Smith keeps saying, they have halved the upfront cost of the ETS to businesses for the first two years of their scheme by capping the price of carbon and doubling the value of the carbon credits given to businesseses. This may help to keep some prices under control (although not if you’re a Contact or Mercury customer). But there is still a cost to doing this – it’s just that instead of being borne by businesses and their customers, every taxpayer pays for it instead.
- We would not have imposed additional ETS costs on the public in the same year as Treasury is predicting 6% inflation from a GST increase, an ECE grant cut, an ACC levy increase etc, and in the same year as nil wage growth. Nor would we have brought two sectors – transport and energy – into the ETS at the same time, as the Nats are doing, because this would expose households to the double-whammy of increased power and petrol price rises at the same time.?
- Our ETS would have funded energy efficiency measures, and a decent transition to the ETS. Theirs doesn’t do either. See David Parker’s press release dated 27 August 2008 announcing the billion dollar home insulation package and a one-off electricity rebate in 2010 to assist with power bills, and a targeted one-off cash payment for those receiving benefits, superannuation and Working for Families tax credits, broadly equivalent to the total amount of the increased electricity costs faced by the household sector in the first year of electricity’s introduction into our ETS.
A consensus on how to meet the costs of climate change would have been a good thing. Labour tried to achieve this last year, with no success. We will repeal National’s ETS and replace it with a scheme that actually reduces pollution, by making polluters pay.
So if you are elected will you reverse the Nats ETS & replace it with your own?
Waaah, the Nats’ ETS sucks!
I hope you mean a consensus on how to meet the costs of AVOIDING climate change would have been a good thing.
That is how I read it Rebecca. “We will repeal National’s ETS and replace it with a scheme that actually reduces pollution, by making polluters pay.”
Did NACT just shift the burden of costs from private sector businesses to household consumers…yet again? Colour me astonished.
Spot on Rebecca. Repackage the scheme, call it by another name and don’t actually do anything to reverse any of the increased costs past onto the public.
Simon, what is being done to reverse the increased costs passed onto the public now? It’s not quite repackaging, because isnt it Labour policy to have an ETS in the first place, which was then taken on by National, and repackaged to increase costs passed on to the public?
I’m sorry people, no matter how or who packages it, ETS is a crock of excretia. No amount of money will stop polluting emissions. Hitting the producers of emissions with penalties will just mean the consumer pays again and again.
Here’s a test for someone, go to your electricity supplier and tell them you only want electricity generated by Hydro or wind, don’t want any produced by thermal means. Also suggest that electricity from hydro or wind shouldn’t attract any ETS costs. Be prepared for a good belly laugh.
INteresting point Anasazi. I seem to recall James Haries had some problem with Asbestos back in the day, then Harditex, and yet, here they are, one of NZ’s largest companies largely immune from any kind of liability. Your point is a good one and why I usually chuckle when people suggest ours is a worker focused society…
For those looking for a fuller explanation of what Labour would do on emissions pricing, here is what Phil Goff said at Federated Farmer’s earlier this month (you can read the entire speech, and some similar elaboration in his speech to Forest and Bird last weekend, at http://www.labour.org.nz) -
“…I want to briefly turn to emissions pricing.
I know this is a matter of considerable concern to farmers at the moment.
Labour has always been upfront about the need for New Zealand to play its part in addressing what is a real economic and environmental problem by way of an instrument to price greenhouse gas emissions.
Among other things that is vital to protect our reputation and our trading interests.
National’s ETS is not the solution.
It provides for unaffordable ongoing subsidies to emitters at a cost, that in large part will be borne by Kiwi families and small businesses.
And it will be ineffective because it takes away both market incentives to reduce emissions and the complementary measures needed to help producers do so.
We will replace National’s legislation with measures that will do that, having regard to international developments.
And in the same spirit that we asked Federated Farmers to attend for the first time our Party Conference last year we will be seeking direct input from farmers on this issue of vital interest to you.
Stopping an ETS does not come free.
It comes at an enormous price – to farmers, and to the rest of the economy.
It’s true there are choices – but there are not easy choices.
All choices have costs.
An emissions trading scheme means producers of global warming gases pay.
We cannot effectively respond to climate change without sending clear market signals to those producing carbon or methane that they need to find ways to reduce those emissions.
And we need to put complementary measures in place to help people cut back those emissions.
Of course there has to be a transition period.
But continuing subsidies over a long period simply blunts the market signal.
Kyoto commits New Zealand to pay for emissions. If the polluter doesn’t pay, the burden will fall on the taxpayer.
There is one other alternative – and that would not be to have any climate change response at all.
The effect of walking away from our international responsibilities under the Kyoto Protocol would be to put our international trade at risk.
Your access to European markets would be compromised.
Even if there were no regulatory response, we would face consumer boycotts.
Our branding and reputation would be severely damaged.
Our 100 per cent Pure brand would be derided as blatant hypocrisy.
So there are your choices:
A modern emissions trading scheme that overtime puts the cost of environmental pollution on the industries that produce it; giant taxpayer subsidies for emitters; or huge damage to our international trade.
There is always room for discussion around the way we apply a price to emissions; but there aren’t soft options.
I don’t want to see price rises – but I don’t want to see the cost pushed onto taxpayers either.
The real answer is that putting a price on climate changing emissions is meant to change behaviour.
Just as I believed farmers would adapt to the removal of subsidies in the eighties, I believe today farmers will adapt to a market-based emissions system.”
“The fund will be targeted according to energy needs and income….”
Charles why would you target this fund by needs & income. NZ middle class and the poor are merging into one super class. Another case of micor managing, pwerhaps you need to read a few books on NZ history and see wher Muldoon took the country with his micro management skills. I caanot see the current crop possessing any greater ability to manage NZ to success by always looking at the small picture or pandering to vested voting groups, that may get you into power but screws the country.
Labour intro a large no. of taxes to criple the workers (remember the $5b-$10b surpluses and still we were burdened with additional taxes) , Nats stood on the platform of reducing these both in quantum and $. But now we find out “be you red or blue lets just screw you!!!”
There is alot of hurt out here caused by both Lab and Nats and you sanitise it by referring to statistics (eg question time by David Cunliffe to an average worker on $50k). No we are not statistics we are real people , perhaps you and your colleagues should get out and talk to us, better still how about listening.
Hi
Does this mean that labour will return to a polluter pays tax used to finance real emissions reduction and research into lower emission industry. (Fart tax) or will they cave into Fed Farmers again.
Like it or not, the agriculture sector is our biggest overseas earner. ETS costs will be ongoing forever will have a disastrous effect on farmers competitiveness.
While we may be seen as clean & green by some of our trading partners, they must also be rolling on the floor laughing and clapping their hands with glee as a competitor (NZ) has finally screwed itself into true 3rd world status.
Herod. said
Hmmmmm I bet there are more than a few workers in the UK who now wished their Govt had run surpluses year on year like the last NZ Labour govt did.
Loota, these surplus were as a partial reault of additional taxes being incurred by many of us Mr & Mrs & Miss J Average, remember a household was spending 12% more than was being earnt, and that NZ govt gross debt decreased from about $39b to $30b. There was and still is a cost being endurred by households all around NZ. Our entire debt $200b is still one of the highest in the world as too our current account deficit so please do not go on promoting how well things were managed (I hope I am wrong yet there may be a greater storm around the corner). We may still fall and the UK remains standing.
That actually doesn’t tell us anything about what Goff and Labour would do in regards to Carbon Emissions and the price farmers would have to say.
Its just crap from Labour. The fact you will be dependent on a coalition with Greens means consumers and businesses would pay a hefty price to combat climate change. And your crap on what you would and wouldn’t do isn’t believable either.
Arrgh!
ETS sucks! 
But we’re already paying for this ETS which doesn’t do anything. I’ll take one that at least seeks to achieve something…
Why is everybody constantly referring to carbon as pollution. I’m all for punishing polluters, but our Co2 emission are not in sufficient ppm to qualify as pollution. It’s just false, and therefore the whole thing is a sham.
Gd post
Aha. Tried posting for 1st time before and didn’t make it (tech idiot). So what I wanted to say is that apart from Marie Mcnicholas few have bothered to try and understand. McNicholas was spot on today. So gd post Charles.
Herod said:
LOL you obviously didn’t listen to why Cameron released the Budget he just did.
You know, the one where he justified wage freezes for almost all public servants and cut the budgets on a large number of govt departments by 25%, invoking the fear of an imminent Greek type crisis.
As far as I can see Nick Smith only made three mistakes:
1. He did not totally rescind the ETS legislation.
2. He did not withdraw us from the fraud which is Kyoto.
3. He did not acknowledge that Global Warming is a natural occurence which has been ongoin since time began.
Had he done all of those things New Zealand would be a better place.
Yes a better place that no one else in the OECD would trade with.
Loota – {deleted, PDM, we try to avoid personal abuse, even if it is low-level, Grant}. Most members of the OECD are saying one thing and doing the opposite, which generally is nothing.
You missed the main point of what I said – Global warming is nothing more than nature doing what it has always done.
So Charles, if you are re-elected will you reverse the Nats ETS & replace it with your own?
Loota, Cameron/Clegg released the emergency budget they just did to start tackling the mess left by your comrades. It hasn’t gone unnoticed that Ireland has not only made huge cuts in public services, but imposed pay cuts on its public sector employees. Would you rather have a freeze or cut?
It becomes a cut with the VAT increase
Ah Ireland, that’s who the PM wants us to emulate?
KABOOM!
Yep, it’s a BOOMing economy there 
Visited Ireland when it WAS booming. Most expensive country I have been to, and VAT was at 21%!!!
Of course they will Rebecca, early rumours are it will be called CRAP: Carbon Release Act (of parliament)Proposal.
Just fishing.
LOL
Yep, we’re all paying for this climate con!
What whaling politics is for Japan, climate change politics could well be for NZ.