Last week’s release of the Government’s Energy and Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy contained a lot about fossils, and very little else. Reading their document, you get the sense that they have no new ideas on how to reduce New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions, or to move to a lower-pollution economy.
I think Gerry needs a bit of help, so here is an idea.
Labor in Australia is mooting a cleaner car rebate, offering a $2000 boost to new car buyers trading in pre-1995 cars. The scheme is aimed to get 200,000 older vehicles off the road, cut transport sector emissions by nearly 3 million tonnes, and allow for tough new mandatory vehicle emissions regulations to enter into force in 2015. Their rebate would take effect from 1 January 2011.
It is the kind of measure envisaged by the New Zealand Transport Strategy in the last Labour-led Government back in 2008. One of the goals of the Transport Strategy then was to get New Zealand’s transport sector emissions down by 50% by 2040
A ‘cash for clunkers’ scheme is just one of the complementary measures, which could have been funded via Labour’s ETS. Before it was amended by National last year to subsidise emitters at the expense of households, the ETS would have made revenues available from the sale of emissions permits to pay for exactly this sort of measure.
New Zealand’s car fleet has an average age of 12 years. A ‘cash for clunkers’ scheme would help kiwi households struggling with higher living costs to modernise their cars. It would help them more easily choose safer, modern, lower-emission, cheaper to run vehicles that would be better for the environment.
Instead of rolling back proposals to lower pollution, like the biofuels obligation; hiding behind the recession to produce a temporary drop in emissions; or pretending that its watered-down ETS will make a difference, the Government should look seriously at schemes like the cleaner car rebate as a practical way to reduce emissions and give families a helping hand.
Wow, that sounds like a great idea
This Government needs help. Big time.
“the Government should look seriously at schemes like the cleaner car rebate as a practical way to reduce emissions and give families a helping hand”
I hope Labour do and provide a solid cost analysis for this in NZ terms…taking into consideration that Australia limited or made it difficult to bring in Japanese imports to bolster their fleet unlike NZ.
Have you done your research on this? It can’t be too hard, where are the figures from when they did it in the US that show the net reduction in emissions? How much did they spend to implement it?
I think we’d achieve more reductions by limiting air travel by public servants. Prove you believe Charles, stop flying around the country. It’s hard for us plebs to take this seriously when we see debacles like Copenhagen where extra limos had to be imported to cater for all the concerned delegates who flew their private or chartered jets to the conference. It’s hard to believe you take it seriously when you’re reportedly flying to debates in Auckland. It’s hard to think this is anything but a big scam when those who are trying to sell us the story aren’t doing anything to cut down their own GHG’s.
Save the taxpayer, video conference.
According to study by the University of Delaware the total costs of the American “Cash for Clunkers” scheme outweighed the total benefits by $1.4 billion.
Australia , like UK, Europe US has a car industry, while all ours are imports.
I dont agree with these cash for clunkers programs as in NZ it will lead the low paid and beneficiaries get lured into overpriced cars ( most used Jap cars are overpriced on the lot) with expensive repayments in order for the dealer to give them a ‘cash in the hand’ bonus.
This is how the market works for clunkers already. The more stringent checks at WOF time for exhausts should deal to the really bad polluters.
Good point GWW, it is likely to lead many into a HP contract that they may not be able to afford.
wow sounds like Labour still believe money grows on trees. Are we not raking up too much debt already each week (thanks to Cullen’s mismangement of the economy) so let us think about this for a minute – the policy also states that a new(er) car must be bought – so people driving around in an old banger worth $100 is suddenly worth $2000? what is the impact of that? -also private debt is getting out of control – and there is an expectation to buy a much newer car- so the punter gets him/herslf into debt of say another $15-20,000 of money they may not be able to afford.
Again I have to highlight how weak and silly any idea coming out of Labour really is.
Monty , some mis management?, when the government debt was reduced enormously under the 9 years of labour.
Have you got your numbers all mixed up again?
Once the worst recession since the 1930s started to bite , spending jumped a bit for some areas as a stimulus, and it worked but now is drooping away as National cuts the programs started by Labour, but spends more on aid for wealthy private schools, party central, and money for elite sports training centres in East Coast bays and Takapuna.
Yes thats right $40 mill for a 2nd 50m pool so pampered athletes dont have to share with public
Why not just regulate progressively higher emissions standards and not cost the taxpayer a cent..?
Hate to say it but I reckon everyone is so far missing the point. We need to have fewer passenger cars on the road full stop.
It doesn’t matter if its a smoking MY1985 car, or a MY2011 diesel Beamer, we don’t want the bloody thing. Repeat after me: public transport as far as is possible thanks.
It takes literally years for a newer car which gets 5-10% more mileage out of a tank of gas to pay for itself in terms of emissions savings.
Why? Because the production of one tonne of new steel to go into a new car generates, in itself, roughly 1.8 tonnes of CO2.
Put it another way, encouraging people to get rid of old **** to replace it with new “more efficient” **** is still encouraging resource draining, energy using consumption.
Labour needs to make sure it considers the entire product life cycle in terms of energy use and emissions before continuing on this front.
OK I admit it the steel for the new car might come from China, smelted using power from one of China’s dirty coal plants, so ‘they’ take the hit in terms of emissions while we ‘benefit’ from having a cleaner car on our roads. However from a global perspective the planet has not come out ahead.
Loota’s last comment, final sentence says it all.
My comment about ETS is that it is a croc dumped on a long suffering, ever paying populace !!!
Further recommended reading: the Dog & Lemon Guide. And before anyone writes off the author as some kind of pothead hippie, he’s a trained mechanic and classic car restorer.
Well said Loota, and that is the problem with many of the bumper sticker approaches to environmentail policy. There needs to be a ‘whole of life’ understanding, long-term policy and we have to get started. We can benefit economically from being at the forefront of technological and environmental innovation.
If you were going to choose to give $2k away, I would have thought that reducing vehicle emissions is one of the lowest priority issues you could want to fix.
But hey Charles, it’s other people’s money you are giving away so what the hell? Just spend it
Very true Loota, as I pointed out in another thread over 50% of the emissions released during the life of vehicle are during it’s construction and disposal… Despite the environment problems of roads, tyres, etc – electric cars aren’t saving us…
I’d also hasten to add that with the IEA prediction of oil peaking within 20 years, why would we waste hundreds of millions of dollars on cars..?
Prioritising PT spending over roads goes without saying as far as I’m concerned at this point, to everyone except economic illiterates – like Stephen Joyce and sadly the transport policies of the last government…
the Australian cash for clunkers scheme – read what one commentator in Oz says about it –
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_the_real_car_wreck_is_gillards_bucks_for_bombs/
try not to be deterred because of the author’s name.
JMH you’re completely right to bring up all those other problem issues to do with private passenger cars.
And we haven’t even started to talk about the further downsides of MVA’s and drink driving in this context yet…
Yes I did read the dog and lemon guide. To anyone trained to do real research it is the most opinion and anecdotes dressed up as facts I have ever read outside a political meeting.
Whenever I hear “anecdotal evidence says” I have an overwhelming desire to give the person using the term a brain transplant.
Tom and Gerry
Charles , you dont have to come up with ideas for the sake of it.
just wait until you have an idea that you have thought about.
if you are suggesting NZ copy the Aus scheme , then based on approx population , we would have 40000 cars to trade.
What then of the ecological damage caused by the manufacture of around 60000 tonnes of metals and plastics, toxic fluids in brakes and radiator systems , air con , battery acids and toxic metals , etc.
not to mention the 200000 tyres that will be off to the dump when the old clunkers are junked.
Can you let us know based on your research Charles how long it will take for the new cars to save more carbon through possibly lower fuel consumption ( not all new cars use less fuel than older ones due to rapidly expanding weights of modern cars ) than used to manufacture the 40000 new cars.
also a further $1.2 billion of overseas debt is good for our country in what way?
the despairing thing i find about this sites posters and politicians in our country, is the regularity of unthought out ideas which seem to come as regularly as vomit from a drunk and with as much thought