Showing posts with label Climate Change. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Climate Change. Show all posts
Nov 13, 2008
Goff Comments ON EFA Welcome
But we hope that Goff will adopt a similar attitude to the Emissions Trading Scheme. Yes, we know several of our regular comments contributors - including Mr Anonymous will be quick to say we don't need an ETS, but we do need one (or a carbon tax) because we do need to introduce a price on carbon - somehow. We need to incentives behavioral change. If Goff can admit the EFA was a mistake and rushed, why not admit that the ETS was similarly rushed and that some of the last minute changes were done for political reasons as opposed to being good environmental or economic policy. If Goff were to signal a willingness to explore the possibility of a non-partisan approach to improving the policy, this would be a good step forward.
Nov 10, 2008
ETS Architect Jumps Ship
Dave Brash, David Parker's right hand man on the design of the Emissions Trading Scheme has resigned from MfE and has joined the New Zealand Transport Authority as Group Manager Partnerships and Planning.
What does this say about Dave's faith in the ETS?
The resignation was in well before the election by the way.
What does this say about Dave's faith in the ETS?
The resignation was in well before the election by the way.
Perceptive Comment from Australian Opposition
A little snippet from the Dominion Post
Australia's federal opposition says new Zealand's strong policy on climate change was a driving fcator behind Labour's loss. The coalition's infrastructure spokesman Andrew Robb said New Zealand had moved too far ahead of the rest of the world too quickly.
We agree
Australia's federal opposition says new Zealand's strong policy on climate change was a driving fcator behind Labour's loss. The coalition's infrastructure spokesman Andrew Robb said New Zealand had moved too far ahead of the rest of the world too quickly.
We agree
Nov 8, 2008
Well Done New Zealand
We needed a clean result.
Good luck National and ACT.
This is going to be a very tough 3 years.
Lets hope we can move to a true consensus on the response to the financial crisis and climate change. If it can work for foreign and trade policy why not other areas.
Good luck National and ACT.
This is going to be a very tough 3 years.
Lets hope we can move to a true consensus on the response to the financial crisis and climate change. If it can work for foreign and trade policy why not other areas.
Nov 5, 2008
We Join Some Dots
OK, the media don't want to go there so we will.
We think an enquiry needs to be launched into the effectiveness of our intelligence services and possible infiltration of New Zealand political parties by operatives of either foreign intelligence services or foreign environmental groups tasked with economic sabotage. This is, we believe the real story behind what is going on.
We think an enquiry needs to be launched into the effectiveness of our intelligence services and possible infiltration of New Zealand political parties by operatives of either foreign intelligence services or foreign environmental groups tasked with economic sabotage. This is, we believe the real story behind what is going on.
- First we have the very strange interception of theft of Don Brash's e-mails and their being given to Nicky Hager;
- We have well known links between Mr Hager and activists in Europe, activists who have been well infiltrated by European intelligence services;
- We have an employee of the European Commission move into Winston Peters' office and within months NZ First changes its position on the Emissions Trading Scheme;
- We have a Dutch citizen undertake a covert operation on the National Party Conference, ask leading questions, tape the answers, and leak these to the NZ media and Labour Party. The intent has clearly been to damage National's image;
- Have a look at this Dutch citizen's recent "holiday" and who he met with on that holiday.
- We have Greenpeace launch attach after attack on dairying in New Zealand and perpetrating the lie that unless we don't pass the ETS European consumers won't buy NZ product;
- The Green Party are running a similar mantra. Labour won't take them on, but thank goodness Jim Anderton does. Then what happens? News of a large donation to Jim Anderton from forestry interests gets leaked around town.
- We have huge funding from the Netherlands into Greenpeace;
- The Netherlands has a strong dairy trade interests.
What is this all about? Well with Europe it is usually about dairy.
Why would European Governments be so keen to keep Labour in power? Because the ETS is the key to their strategy to render the New Zealand dairy sector less competitive. National has signalled changes to the ETS and has mentioned dairy as one of the potential changes. If National win, the EU plan to neutralise the NZ dairy sector will be thwarted.
Why would the EU want to get rid of Don Brash? He was openly sceptical on climate change and very pro-US. There are forces in the EU that don't like the warming in relations between Washington and Wellington. The last thing they want is our dairy sector to get an FTA with the US.
Do Labour know this is going on? No, but they don't want to have these questions asked because the outcome of the election might be swayed by the Dutch citizen's taping operation. Likewise Labour needs people to believe that the ETS is important to secure our trade, otherwise Labour will have been seen to have committed an enormous stuff up.
Maybe TV3 should ask itself a question. Might the above be true, and might they have been manipulated?
Oct 31, 2008
Chances For Climate Deal Vanish
CHANCES FOR CLIMATE DEAL VANISH AS CHINA AND INDIA PRESENT THEIR DEMANDS
--------------------------------------------------------------------
China raised the price of its co-operation in the world's climate change talks yesterday by calling for developed countries to spend 1 per cent of their domestic product helping poorer nations cut greenhouse gas emissions. The funding - amounting to more than $300bn based on Group of Seven countries - would be spent largely on the transfer of "green" technologies, such as renewable energy, to poorer countries.
--Geoff Dyer and Fiona Harvey, Financial Times, 29 October 2008
The new U.S. president will be under pressure from industry not to jeopardise US finances. Under China's proposals, the US would have to give more than $130bn and the European Union more than $160bn to technology transfer.
--Geoff Dyer and Fiona Harvey, Financial Times, 29 October 2008
Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Saturday complained that the western nations have not lived up to their commitments for technology transfer and additional financing since the Rio Conference in 1992. "We should call upon our European partners to do more in this regard. The developing world is committed to doing its share," Singh said.
--The Times of India, 25 October 2008
As a result of promoting environmental alarmism, Western governments find themselves trapped in a perilous, yet largely self-constructed catch. As long as climate change is elevated as the principal liability of industrial countries, as long as Western CO2 emissions are blamed for exacerbating natural disasters, death and destruction around the globe, green pressure groups and officials from the developing world will continue to insist that the West is liable to recompense its exorbitant carbon debt by way of wealth transfer and financial compensation. Unless the industrial nations are prepared to sacrifice a substantial fraction of their wealth and economic stability, it is extremely unlikely that a new climate treaty will be agreed upon in the foreseeable future. While rich countries will put the blame squarely at the door of their Asian competitors, much of the rest of the world is likely to point the finger at Western greediness and intransigence. In this way, the global warming scare is creating a lose-lose situation for the West which is causing lasting damage to its standing, influence and economic strength.
--Benny Peiser, Financial Post, 8 April 2008
The Italian government on Tuesday said it would stick to its opposition to an EU climate plan to cut carbon dioxide emissions by a fifth by 2020, saying it would be too harmful for industry. "This would be untenable for our production, particularly in light of the current global economic crisis," it said.
--Reuters, 28 October 2008
I fear that the Climate Change Bill will end in political tears, when the targets are missed stratospherically, when the lights go out in the UK, when our economic competitiveness is undermined, and when the climate fails to behave as predicted by our politicians. If and when these outcomes occur, the electorate should not be generous. They must hold the sheep to account as lambs to the slaughter.
--Philip Stott, Global Warming Politics, 28 October 2008
Investors in renewable energy stocks have seen their sector hit hard in recent weeks on concerns that tightening credit and a weak global economy could arrest growth of the high-flying industry despite its long-term promise. Solar stocks, considered the darlings of alternative energy for their meteoric rise in 2007, have retreated so much this year that most have given back the triple-digit gains they logged last year.
--Reuters, 29 October 2008
European carbon prices collapsed to their lowest levels for 18-months on Monday as the market was flooded with industrial sellers from across Europe.
--Point Carbon, 27 October 2008
--------------------------------------------------------------------
China raised the price of its co-operation in the world's climate change talks yesterday by calling for developed countries to spend 1 per cent of their domestic product helping poorer nations cut greenhouse gas emissions. The funding - amounting to more than $300bn based on Group of Seven countries - would be spent largely on the transfer of "green" technologies, such as renewable energy, to poorer countries.
--Geoff Dyer and Fiona Harvey, Financial Times, 29 October 2008
The new U.S. president will be under pressure from industry not to jeopardise US finances. Under China's proposals, the US would have to give more than $130bn and the European Union more than $160bn to technology transfer.
--Geoff Dyer and Fiona Harvey, Financial Times, 29 October 2008
Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Saturday complained that the western nations have not lived up to their commitments for technology transfer and additional financing since the Rio Conference in 1992. "We should call upon our European partners to do more in this regard. The developing world is committed to doing its share," Singh said.
--The Times of India, 25 October 2008
As a result of promoting environmental alarmism, Western governments find themselves trapped in a perilous, yet largely self-constructed catch. As long as climate change is elevated as the principal liability of industrial countries, as long as Western CO2 emissions are blamed for exacerbating natural disasters, death and destruction around the globe, green pressure groups and officials from the developing world will continue to insist that the West is liable to recompense its exorbitant carbon debt by way of wealth transfer and financial compensation. Unless the industrial nations are prepared to sacrifice a substantial fraction of their wealth and economic stability, it is extremely unlikely that a new climate treaty will be agreed upon in the foreseeable future. While rich countries will put the blame squarely at the door of their Asian competitors, much of the rest of the world is likely to point the finger at Western greediness and intransigence. In this way, the global warming scare is creating a lose-lose situation for the West which is causing lasting damage to its standing, influence and economic strength.
--Benny Peiser, Financial Post, 8 April 2008
The Italian government on Tuesday said it would stick to its opposition to an EU climate plan to cut carbon dioxide emissions by a fifth by 2020, saying it would be too harmful for industry. "This would be untenable for our production, particularly in light of the current global economic crisis," it said.
--Reuters, 28 October 2008
I fear that the Climate Change Bill will end in political tears, when the targets are missed stratospherically, when the lights go out in the UK, when our economic competitiveness is undermined, and when the climate fails to behave as predicted by our politicians. If and when these outcomes occur, the electorate should not be generous. They must hold the sheep to account as lambs to the slaughter.
--Philip Stott, Global Warming Politics, 28 October 2008
Investors in renewable energy stocks have seen their sector hit hard in recent weeks on concerns that tightening credit and a weak global economy could arrest growth of the high-flying industry despite its long-term promise. Solar stocks, considered the darlings of alternative energy for their meteoric rise in 2007, have retreated so much this year that most have given back the triple-digit gains they logged last year.
--Reuters, 29 October 2008
European carbon prices collapsed to their lowest levels for 18-months on Monday as the market was flooded with industrial sellers from across Europe.
--Point Carbon, 27 October 2008
Oct 20, 2008
Has Labour Rejected a Bipartisan Approach To the Financial Crisis
John Armstrong says yes, Labour has rejected Key's offer of a bipartisan approach to the biggest economic challenge we have faced since the 1930s. We guess that this is not surprising, Labour rejected Nick Smith's offer of a bipartisan approach to climate change also. No wonder we have a mess there also.
Oct 16, 2008
Catherine Beard Savages Parker
This just in
PARKER’S VIEW AT ODDS WITH ECONOMISTS
Climate Change Minister David Parker’s claims that making the productive sectors pay for emissions via the emissions trading scheme is cheaper than if the taxpayer (government) paid for the Kyoto shortfall is completely at odds with analysis undertaken by leading economists, NZIER.
Catherine Beard, executive director of the Greenhouse Policy Coalition, says the NZIER analysis showed that it was eight times more expensive in the near term to put all the costs onto producers and exporters, than if the government just paid the bill.
“The reason it is so expensive to put all the cost on to producers is because in the absence of all your trading partners pricing carbon, all you achieve is a loss of competitiveness of local industry and relocation to other countries where those costs will not be faced.”
“Making your local producers internationally uncompetitive and causing plant closure and business re-location is a high cost strategy.”
“This is a risk that is recognized by most governments internationally, which is why many governments with Kyoto Protocol obligations have been actively purchasing credits on behalf of their country in the international carbon markets for some years now.”
Catherine Beard said at a time of economic crisis when European countries are in full retreat from expensive climate change policies, it is foolhardy to be pursing policies that will cost New Zealanders jobs and increase global emissions.
PARKER’S VIEW AT ODDS WITH ECONOMISTS
Climate Change Minister David Parker’s claims that making the productive sectors pay for emissions via the emissions trading scheme is cheaper than if the taxpayer (government) paid for the Kyoto shortfall is completely at odds with analysis undertaken by leading economists, NZIER.
Catherine Beard, executive director of the Greenhouse Policy Coalition, says the NZIER analysis showed that it was eight times more expensive in the near term to put all the costs onto producers and exporters, than if the government just paid the bill.
“The reason it is so expensive to put all the cost on to producers is because in the absence of all your trading partners pricing carbon, all you achieve is a loss of competitiveness of local industry and relocation to other countries where those costs will not be faced.”
“Making your local producers internationally uncompetitive and causing plant closure and business re-location is a high cost strategy.”
“This is a risk that is recognized by most governments internationally, which is why many governments with Kyoto Protocol obligations have been actively purchasing credits on behalf of their country in the international carbon markets for some years now.”
Catherine Beard said at a time of economic crisis when European countries are in full retreat from expensive climate change policies, it is foolhardy to be pursing policies that will cost New Zealanders jobs and increase global emissions.
Oct 14, 2008
Nick Smith Shows Good Leadership
Well done Nick Smith for taking Labour and The Greens on over the unaffordable $1 billion insulation fund. Did you hear Jeanette scream this morning when she heard this. Down go the value of her Fletcher Building shares.
Oct 13, 2008
Jeffrey Sachs Slams Emissions Trading
This from Reuters
Climate taxes, not cap and trade markets alone, will lead to the vast technological changes the world's energy system needs to fight global warming, a top US economist said on Thursday.
Cap and trade has emerged as the dominant attempt to slow global warming. Global deals in permits to emit greenhouse gas emissions have hit nearly US$65 billion a year. The European Union, under the Kyoto Protocol, has embraced cap and trade since 2005 and voluntary markets have developed in the United States, the developed world's top carbon polluter.
But a straight carbon tax on energy production -- at an oil wellhead or refinery for instance -- would be simpler and cheaper than putting a cap on tens of thousands of polluters, Jeffrey Sachs, a special advisor to the UN secretary general and director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University told a panel on Thursday.
As the world prepares to form a successor agreement to the Kyoto Protocol by the end of next year, focus is sharpening on how well cap and trade markets are fighting emissions.
Carbon taxes would quickly cut emissions across all sectors of the economy, including vehicles and manufacturing, said Sachs. It could also be more efficient than spreading the trade of permits across the financial system.
"Having a lot of people engineer financial instruments for carbon when there are much more direct ways to do this strikes me as not really a great investment," Sachs said.
"I'm also not so keen on sending our best and brightest off to do more financial engineering," he said. "I think the kind of (financial) meltdown we have right is a little bit of an example of how we've taken a generation of young people and put them in tasks that don't really solve social problems."
Yvo de Boer, the UN climate chief, told the panel he doubted voters in the United States and other countries would accept new taxes.
Sachs admitted that the United States is "neurotic" about new taxes, but said they would be the best way to fund research and development and subsidies for big low-carbon energy projects such as nuclear plants and transmission systems to bring solar power from the Southwest and wind power from the Great Plains states to cities on the coasts.
Sachs criticized one of the mainstays of climate trade that has developed in the European Union. Under the Kyoto Protocol the Clean Development Mechanism allows rich countries to offset their carbon footprints by investing in clean energy projects like small wind farms or hydroelectric dams in developing countries.
"Things like the CDM are just unfortunately very marginal small tools that aren't going to change the broad framework of how energy is produced and how technology is developed and distributed," said Sachs.
De Boer said the CDM has met its goals but that a range of tools could be developed to improve it. Investments could be widened, for instance, to improve whole sectors of developing countries, such as mass transit systems in large cities. (Reporting by Timothy Gardner, editing by Marguerita Choy)
Climate taxes, not cap and trade markets alone, will lead to the vast technological changes the world's energy system needs to fight global warming, a top US economist said on Thursday.
Cap and trade has emerged as the dominant attempt to slow global warming. Global deals in permits to emit greenhouse gas emissions have hit nearly US$65 billion a year. The European Union, under the Kyoto Protocol, has embraced cap and trade since 2005 and voluntary markets have developed in the United States, the developed world's top carbon polluter.
But a straight carbon tax on energy production -- at an oil wellhead or refinery for instance -- would be simpler and cheaper than putting a cap on tens of thousands of polluters, Jeffrey Sachs, a special advisor to the UN secretary general and director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University told a panel on Thursday.
As the world prepares to form a successor agreement to the Kyoto Protocol by the end of next year, focus is sharpening on how well cap and trade markets are fighting emissions.
Carbon taxes would quickly cut emissions across all sectors of the economy, including vehicles and manufacturing, said Sachs. It could also be more efficient than spreading the trade of permits across the financial system.
"Having a lot of people engineer financial instruments for carbon when there are much more direct ways to do this strikes me as not really a great investment," Sachs said.
"I'm also not so keen on sending our best and brightest off to do more financial engineering," he said. "I think the kind of (financial) meltdown we have right is a little bit of an example of how we've taken a generation of young people and put them in tasks that don't really solve social problems."
Yvo de Boer, the UN climate chief, told the panel he doubted voters in the United States and other countries would accept new taxes.
Sachs admitted that the United States is "neurotic" about new taxes, but said they would be the best way to fund research and development and subsidies for big low-carbon energy projects such as nuclear plants and transmission systems to bring solar power from the Southwest and wind power from the Great Plains states to cities on the coasts.
Sachs criticized one of the mainstays of climate trade that has developed in the European Union. Under the Kyoto Protocol the Clean Development Mechanism allows rich countries to offset their carbon footprints by investing in clean energy projects like small wind farms or hydroelectric dams in developing countries.
"Things like the CDM are just unfortunately very marginal small tools that aren't going to change the broad framework of how energy is produced and how technology is developed and distributed," said Sachs.
De Boer said the CDM has met its goals but that a range of tools could be developed to improve it. Investments could be widened, for instance, to improve whole sectors of developing countries, such as mass transit systems in large cities. (Reporting by Timothy Gardner, editing by Marguerita Choy)
Emissions Trading Scheme: Victim Of Meltdown?
Business New Zealand has raised the need for an incoming Government to make radical changes to the Emissions Trading Scheme given the financial crisis. We agree, indeed we wonder if the scheme will be able to survive the economic downturn. Already Greenpeace is getting upset at this notion, but lets remember that the ETS in itself is not going to have much impact at all on our emissions over the next few years. The sector that produces 50% of our emissions isn't coming into the scheme until 2013. But the economic downturn is likely to cut the growth in our emissions. Some reports suggest that vehicle use in Auckland is down 11%. Emissions from transport were some of the fastest growing in our economy. So lets use this slowing in emissions growth to buy us the time to get the scheme right. All would be OK if the Government had designed the scheme to be fiscally neutral and ensured that our international competitiveness was not under threat. It is not fiscally neutral, indeed it is going to such hundreds of millions and eventually billions from the productive sector to Government. And it makes New Zealand exporters less competitive than key competitors. With the productive sector under enormous strain from domestic and international recession, it will be nuts to continue with plans to put the sector under more strain, simply so that New Zealand can trumpet the fact that we are the only country in the world with a scheme that covers all sectors and all gases.
We also wonder whether, internationally, the global climate response process is going to survive this downturn. The European scheme is under enormous pressure, with governments seeking exemption after exemption. And the UN negotiations seem deeply troubled.
We also wonder whether, internationally, the global climate response process is going to survive this downturn. The European scheme is under enormous pressure, with governments seeking exemption after exemption. And the UN negotiations seem deeply troubled.
Oct 8, 2008
Was The Airforce The Right Call?
Putting the cost to one side lets look at the logistics.
The PM was at Wellington airport at around 0840. We spoke to her. On arrival at the Koru Lounge she discovered that all flights were cancelled. Her staff phone up the Airforce and a plane at Ohakea was made available. That will take at least 20 minutes or so. The PM then drives north from Wellington in dreadful conditions to Ohakea. That would take a minimum two hours given traffic conditions. So the earliest she could take off would be 1100. She would not have been in Invercargill much before 1pm. This is a best case scenario. The media reports are suggesting that the PM "took a lunchtime flight". Our guess is she got in around 2pm.
Wellington Airport was operational around 1130 and flights were landing and taking off from then, including a flight to Christchurch. Did she really get to Invercargill any quicker than she could have by commercial means?
And what was the carbon footprint of this exercise. What does Jeanette think about this?
Update The Grey Power website says the event was scheduled for 1.30pm. Newspaper accounts say that the PM did not arrive until 3pm. It would have been quicker to go commercial.
The PM was at Wellington airport at around 0840. We spoke to her. On arrival at the Koru Lounge she discovered that all flights were cancelled. Her staff phone up the Airforce and a plane at Ohakea was made available. That will take at least 20 minutes or so. The PM then drives north from Wellington in dreadful conditions to Ohakea. That would take a minimum two hours given traffic conditions. So the earliest she could take off would be 1100. She would not have been in Invercargill much before 1pm. This is a best case scenario. The media reports are suggesting that the PM "took a lunchtime flight". Our guess is she got in around 2pm.
Wellington Airport was operational around 1130 and flights were landing and taking off from then, including a flight to Christchurch. Did she really get to Invercargill any quicker than she could have by commercial means?
And what was the carbon footprint of this exercise. What does Jeanette think about this?
Update The Grey Power website says the event was scheduled for 1.30pm. Newspaper accounts say that the PM did not arrive until 3pm. It would have been quicker to go commercial.
Oct 1, 2008
Tax Cuts Eaten By ETS
News Release
1 October 2008
TAX CUTS EATEN INTO BY EMISSIONS TRADING COSTS
The executive director of the Greenhouse Policy Coalition, Catherine Beard, says the much needed tax cuts will unfortunately be eaten into significantly by the increased costs households will face from the emissions trading scheme.
“If the full impact of the ETS is costed against the tax cuts that start today, then up to $30% of the tax cut householders receive will be needed to meet higher costs arising from the emissions trading scheme. As tax cuts increase by 2011, the fraction gets lower, but as much as 15% of the tax cuts could still be going towards higher costs associated with the ETS if carbon is priced at $50/tonne of CO2, which is very likely since we are close to that price today.”
Catherine Beard says the price of carbon in the next four years is a big unknown, but carbon market analysts are predicting it could get very high, which will have a big impact on energy prices throughout the economy.
“By exposing 100% of our economy to the international carbon market, which is driven by political decisions made in Europe and what is happening with the oil and gas prices, New Zealand is taking a big economic gamble.”
“At a time when European countries are looking hard at ways to lessen the impact of emissions trading on their economies (EU lawmakers plan to make climate goals cheaper; EU panel urges more CO2 offsets, no east-west deal; EU eastern states fear carbon plan empowers Russia) New Zealand is trying to lead the world.”
Ends
For Further information contact;
Catherine Beard, Executive Director, Greenhouse Policy Coalition,www.greenhousepolicy.org.nz
1 October 2008
TAX CUTS EATEN INTO BY EMISSIONS TRADING COSTS
The executive director of the Greenhouse Policy Coalition, Catherine Beard, says the much needed tax cuts will unfortunately be eaten into significantly by the increased costs households will face from the emissions trading scheme.
“If the full impact of the ETS is costed against the tax cuts that start today, then up to $30% of the tax cut householders receive will be needed to meet higher costs arising from the emissions trading scheme. As tax cuts increase by 2011, the fraction gets lower, but as much as 15% of the tax cuts could still be going towards higher costs associated with the ETS if carbon is priced at $50/tonne of CO2, which is very likely since we are close to that price today.”
Catherine Beard says the price of carbon in the next four years is a big unknown, but carbon market analysts are predicting it could get very high, which will have a big impact on energy prices throughout the economy.
“By exposing 100% of our economy to the international carbon market, which is driven by political decisions made in Europe and what is happening with the oil and gas prices, New Zealand is taking a big economic gamble.”
“At a time when European countries are looking hard at ways to lessen the impact of emissions trading on their economies (EU lawmakers plan to make climate goals cheaper; EU panel urges more CO2 offsets, no east-west deal; EU eastern states fear carbon plan empowers Russia) New Zealand is trying to lead the world.”
Ends
For Further information contact;
Catherine Beard, Executive Director, Greenhouse Policy Coalition,www.greenhousepolicy.org.nz
Australians Put Jobs Before Climate Change
September 29, 2008 03:30am
Article from: AAP
Australians are putting their jobs before climate change, a new poll shows.
The 2008 Lowy Institute Poll revealed that Australians want action on climate change, but not if it costs jobs or hits them in the back pocket.
A telephone poll of 1001 people conducted between July 12 and 28, 21 per cent were not prepared to pay anything extra on their electricity bill to help solve climate change.
Another 32 per cent favoured paying only $10 per month extra on their electricity bill to help solve climate change.
Lowy Institute executive director Allan Gyngell today said concern over economic issues had increased at the expense of the environment.
"This is one of a number of shifts in public opinion over the past year which the poll has revealed,'' Mr Gyngell said.
Last year, the issue of tackling climate change tied for first place with protecting Australian jobs as the most important foreign policy issue.
But this year, climate change dropped down the ladder of priorities to fifth place.
However, 83 per cent of those polled this year said the increasing scarcity of water would be a critical threat to Australia in the next 10 years.
Article from: AAP
Australians are putting their jobs before climate change, a new poll shows.
The 2008 Lowy Institute Poll revealed that Australians want action on climate change, but not if it costs jobs or hits them in the back pocket.
A telephone poll of 1001 people conducted between July 12 and 28, 21 per cent were not prepared to pay anything extra on their electricity bill to help solve climate change.
Another 32 per cent favoured paying only $10 per month extra on their electricity bill to help solve climate change.
Lowy Institute executive director Allan Gyngell today said concern over economic issues had increased at the expense of the environment.
"This is one of a number of shifts in public opinion over the past year which the poll has revealed,'' Mr Gyngell said.
Last year, the issue of tackling climate change tied for first place with protecting Australian jobs as the most important foreign policy issue.
But this year, climate change dropped down the ladder of priorities to fifth place.
However, 83 per cent of those polled this year said the increasing scarcity of water would be a critical threat to Australia in the next 10 years.
Sep 26, 2008
DHB Faces Huge Cost Increase
This just in from the Greenhouse Policy Coalition
OTAGO DHB FACING OVER $1 MILLION IN INCREASED ENERGY COSTS
Energy Minister David Parker announced a $1.595 million loan to the Otago District Health Board for energy efficiency improvements on 24 September which is predicted to save them $300,000 per year on energy bills, but according to analysis done for the Greenhouse Policy Coalition, the emissions trading legislation will result in a conservative cost increase for the DHB of $1,299,000 for energy.
Catherine Beard, executive director of the Greenhouse Policy Coalition says while it is excellent that the DHB is investing in energy efficiency, the cost savings will be more than wiped out by the higher prices coming the way of all energy users as a result of the emissions trading legislation.
“According to publicly available information the Otago District Health Board has a 30 MW coal fired boiler which uses around 18kt of coal p/a. Assuming efficiencies achieved as a result of the new investment in energy efficiency reduce that consumption to 16,810kt of coal per annum. At today’s carbon price of $40/tonne of carbon you are looking at needing to find an additional $1.3 million per annum.”
Catherine Beard says the increased costs are conservative as they don’t include the increase in electricity costs the DHB will face as a result of the carbon charges.
Catherine Beard said the Greenhouse Policy Coalition, which represents industrials in the energy intensive sector, believes that the emissions trading legislation is high risk for the economy because there are no limits to how high the carbon price can go.
“In the absence of a deep and liquid global carbon market, carbon prices are currently being determined by political decisions in Europe, rather than reflecting least cost emissions abatement.”
“There are many problems with the legislation that will need to be fixed if we don’t want to cause unnecessary economic pain. One such problem is the lack of any mechanism to ensure a low and stable price. Australia is contemplating achieving this via a price cap.”
Ends
OTAGO DHB FACING OVER $1 MILLION IN INCREASED ENERGY COSTS
Energy Minister David Parker announced a $1.595 million loan to the Otago District Health Board for energy efficiency improvements on 24 September which is predicted to save them $300,000 per year on energy bills, but according to analysis done for the Greenhouse Policy Coalition, the emissions trading legislation will result in a conservative cost increase for the DHB of $1,299,000 for energy.
Catherine Beard, executive director of the Greenhouse Policy Coalition says while it is excellent that the DHB is investing in energy efficiency, the cost savings will be more than wiped out by the higher prices coming the way of all energy users as a result of the emissions trading legislation.
“According to publicly available information the Otago District Health Board has a 30 MW coal fired boiler which uses around 18kt of coal p/a. Assuming efficiencies achieved as a result of the new investment in energy efficiency reduce that consumption to 16,810kt of coal per annum. At today’s carbon price of $40/tonne of carbon you are looking at needing to find an additional $1.3 million per annum.”
Catherine Beard says the increased costs are conservative as they don’t include the increase in electricity costs the DHB will face as a result of the carbon charges.
Catherine Beard said the Greenhouse Policy Coalition, which represents industrials in the energy intensive sector, believes that the emissions trading legislation is high risk for the economy because there are no limits to how high the carbon price can go.
“In the absence of a deep and liquid global carbon market, carbon prices are currently being determined by political decisions in Europe, rather than reflecting least cost emissions abatement.”
“There are many problems with the legislation that will need to be fixed if we don’t want to cause unnecessary economic pain. One such problem is the lack of any mechanism to ensure a low and stable price. Australia is contemplating achieving this via a price cap.”
Ends
Sep 24, 2008
Wednesday Riddle
Remember the $1 billion in funding, in part to subsidise home insulation, negotiated by the Green Party as part of the agreement to vote for the ETS?
Guess who owns shares in the company that makes this product????
This really stinks. Of course it would be too much to hope for One News to pick this up.
Hat tip: Labour Party Research Unit
Guess who owns shares in the company that makes this product????
This really stinks. Of course it would be too much to hope for One News to pick this up.
Hat tip: Labour Party Research Unit
Sep 23, 2008
EU Backtrack On Emissions Trading
Remember how we had to rush our legislation through Parliament and throw bi-partisanship to one side so that we would keep those German consumers buying our goods and tourists visiting NZ?
Well read this
Climate change fears after German opt-out
By Chris Bryant in Berlin, Fiona Harvey in London and Tony Barber in Brussels
Published: September 22 2008 16:43 Last updated: September 22 2008 16:43
A German government decision to back an almost total exemption for industry from new rules that would force companies to pay for the carbon dioxide they emit threatens to undermine a key tenet of European Union climate policy, climate campaigners warn.
The decision is a victory for German industry, which feared European Commission proposals for an auction of carbon emission permits would cost billions of euros and restrict its ability to compete internationally.
Angela Merkel, chancellor, warned recently that although she supported the need to tackle climate change, she “could not support the destruction of German jobs through an ill-advised climate policy”.
Climate campaigners said the move would open the door to a slew of objections from other states seeking to protect their own key industries during the next phase of the EU emissions trading scheme (ETS).
“There are a lot of countries that want to protect their own industries without the economic arguments to back this up,” said Joris den Blanken, senior policy advisor at Greenpeace.
The European parliament’s industry committee last week voted to replace the current free distribution of carbon-dioxide permits with a mandatory auction between 2013 and 2020 in a bid to help cut European greenhouse gas emissions by 20 per cent from 1990 levels.
The proposals are likely to face a vote at a plenary session of the parliament later this year but must then be ratified by the heads of member states.
The German government is not alone in seeking opt- outs. Poland is anxious that auctioning could severely affect its power companies while Italy is pushing for free carbon permits for specific sectors.
After months of internal wrangling, Germany has accepted that from 2013, power companies, including those that construct new power plants, should take part in the auction process.
However, because this is expected to lead to higher electricity costs, the government is to insist that energy-intensive industries like aluminium producers should be compensated with free carbon permits.
Germany will also push for an exemption for large emitters like the steel industry, subject to these companies using the best available emission control technology.
Remaining companies would have their purchase of certificates capped at 20 per cent of total emissions.
The German government defends its stance by claiming there is a risk of carbon-emitting industries relocating to countries where they would be free to pollute.
“As long as European companies are governed by stricter climate protection regulations than their competitors in countries like China, we have to seek to establish special rules,” said Sigmar Gabriel, environment minister.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008
Also see
Steel, aluminium at risk under EU ETS -draft
UPDATE 1- BRUSSELS, Sept 16 (Reuters) - Parts of Europe's steel and aluminium industries are highly exposed to international competition and may need free allowances to emit carbon dioxide (CO2) after 2013, according to a preliminary EU analysis. http://communities.thomsonreuters.com/Carbon/106228?utm_source=20080922&utm_medium=email
Well read this
Climate change fears after German opt-out
By Chris Bryant in Berlin, Fiona Harvey in London and Tony Barber in Brussels
Published: September 22 2008 16:43 Last updated: September 22 2008 16:43
A German government decision to back an almost total exemption for industry from new rules that would force companies to pay for the carbon dioxide they emit threatens to undermine a key tenet of European Union climate policy, climate campaigners warn.
The decision is a victory for German industry, which feared European Commission proposals for an auction of carbon emission permits would cost billions of euros and restrict its ability to compete internationally.
Angela Merkel, chancellor, warned recently that although she supported the need to tackle climate change, she “could not support the destruction of German jobs through an ill-advised climate policy”.
Climate campaigners said the move would open the door to a slew of objections from other states seeking to protect their own key industries during the next phase of the EU emissions trading scheme (ETS).
“There are a lot of countries that want to protect their own industries without the economic arguments to back this up,” said Joris den Blanken, senior policy advisor at Greenpeace.
The European parliament’s industry committee last week voted to replace the current free distribution of carbon-dioxide permits with a mandatory auction between 2013 and 2020 in a bid to help cut European greenhouse gas emissions by 20 per cent from 1990 levels.
The proposals are likely to face a vote at a plenary session of the parliament later this year but must then be ratified by the heads of member states.
The German government is not alone in seeking opt- outs. Poland is anxious that auctioning could severely affect its power companies while Italy is pushing for free carbon permits for specific sectors.
After months of internal wrangling, Germany has accepted that from 2013, power companies, including those that construct new power plants, should take part in the auction process.
However, because this is expected to lead to higher electricity costs, the government is to insist that energy-intensive industries like aluminium producers should be compensated with free carbon permits.
Germany will also push for an exemption for large emitters like the steel industry, subject to these companies using the best available emission control technology.
Remaining companies would have their purchase of certificates capped at 20 per cent of total emissions.
The German government defends its stance by claiming there is a risk of carbon-emitting industries relocating to countries where they would be free to pollute.
“As long as European companies are governed by stricter climate protection regulations than their competitors in countries like China, we have to seek to establish special rules,” said Sigmar Gabriel, environment minister.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008
Also see
Steel, aluminium at risk under EU ETS -draft
UPDATE 1- BRUSSELS, Sept 16 (Reuters) - Parts of Europe's steel and aluminium industries are highly exposed to international competition and may need free allowances to emit carbon dioxide (CO2) after 2013, according to a preliminary EU analysis. http://communities.thomsonreuters.com/Carbon/106228?utm_source=20080922&utm_medium=email
Sep 20, 2008
What Is The Real Cost Of The ETS Going To Be
The Government propaganda says the cost of the NZ unit will be around $25. All the experts are saying to business plan on a minimum of $50. But in yesterday's NBR Hugh de Lacy is quoting Lester Sherman, a technical director at Beca as saying the price could be as high as $90. That is almost 4 times the cost to business that the Labour First Government is admitting to. Why is this not front page news??
Good on NBR for running the story.
Good on NBR for running the story.
Sep 11, 2008
Effects Of The ETS
News Release
11 September 2008
EMISSIONS TRADING SCHEME IS FLAWED DESIGN
The passage of the most ambitious emissions trading scheme in the world will come at a high cost to the New Zealand economy, according to the Greenhouse Policy Coalition, representing the energy intensive sector.
Executive director of Greenhouse Policy Coalition, Catherine Beard says the scheme has been rushed through under urgency for political expediency and there will be a huge number of problems that will emerge from the most complex legislation ever attempted in New Zealand.
“As people in business know better than politicians, there are high costs and risks in being a first mover and you need to have deep pockets. Unfortunately the deep pockets that will be called on to fund this ambitious scheme will be all businesses and householders.”
Catherine Beard said the major scheme risks were the loss of international competitiveness, the disincentive for economic growth and the high and volatile price of carbon.
“Any new investment will face the full international price of carbon – with no allocation of units to offset the cost – unless those units are taken off other trade exposed companies thereby reducing their competitiveness in a global market.”
Catherine Beard said the price of carbon on international carbon markets has increased by over 200% in the last year and the government should have provided for a price safety valve as is being contemplated in Australia.
“While at current carbon prices a household could expect to be paying an extra $600 in energy costs a year; if carbon prices continue on the same upward trend that cost could be considerably higher when electricity generation enters the scheme in 2010”.
Catherine Beard says a better scheme design would be one that involved international benchmarking of industry and agriculture on a “worlds best practice” basis. “Those that are operating at world’s best practice in energy intensity should be able to grow, while those that are not at world’s best practice would face a price of carbon.”
“Capping emissions at a historical point in time will mean that future production will shift to countries where there is no price on carbon, thereby exporting our industry and employment opportunities to other countries where the environmental performance is likely to be more carbon intensive than in New Zealand.”
“This is a scheme that needs to be fixed and fixed soon - before new investment goes to other countries.”
Ends
Catherine BeardExecutive DirectorGreenhouse Policy Coalition
11 September 2008
EMISSIONS TRADING SCHEME IS FLAWED DESIGN
The passage of the most ambitious emissions trading scheme in the world will come at a high cost to the New Zealand economy, according to the Greenhouse Policy Coalition, representing the energy intensive sector.
Executive director of Greenhouse Policy Coalition, Catherine Beard says the scheme has been rushed through under urgency for political expediency and there will be a huge number of problems that will emerge from the most complex legislation ever attempted in New Zealand.
“As people in business know better than politicians, there are high costs and risks in being a first mover and you need to have deep pockets. Unfortunately the deep pockets that will be called on to fund this ambitious scheme will be all businesses and householders.”
Catherine Beard said the major scheme risks were the loss of international competitiveness, the disincentive for economic growth and the high and volatile price of carbon.
“Any new investment will face the full international price of carbon – with no allocation of units to offset the cost – unless those units are taken off other trade exposed companies thereby reducing their competitiveness in a global market.”
Catherine Beard said the price of carbon on international carbon markets has increased by over 200% in the last year and the government should have provided for a price safety valve as is being contemplated in Australia.
“While at current carbon prices a household could expect to be paying an extra $600 in energy costs a year; if carbon prices continue on the same upward trend that cost could be considerably higher when electricity generation enters the scheme in 2010”.
Catherine Beard says a better scheme design would be one that involved international benchmarking of industry and agriculture on a “worlds best practice” basis. “Those that are operating at world’s best practice in energy intensity should be able to grow, while those that are not at world’s best practice would face a price of carbon.”
“Capping emissions at a historical point in time will mean that future production will shift to countries where there is no price on carbon, thereby exporting our industry and employment opportunities to other countries where the environmental performance is likely to be more carbon intensive than in New Zealand.”
“This is a scheme that needs to be fixed and fixed soon - before new investment goes to other countries.”
Ends
Catherine BeardExecutive DirectorGreenhouse Policy Coalition
NZ First Voted For Policy That Will Increase Petrol By 7c Per Litre
That will be the impact of the Emissions Trading Scheme in 2011 according to the NZ Herald. And will this help reduce emissions - not one bit. This is a fraud designed to make you the consumer pay for the liability the Government negotiated in the flawed Kyoto Treaty.
Motorists face a probable 7c-a-litre price rise at the pump from 2011 when costs of the Emissions Trading Scheme are passed on, according to Government estimates based on projected carbon prices.
The Government's flagship climate change legislation passed into law last night by 63 votes to 57.
The trucking industry estimates fuel bills will climb close to $100 million a year, while airlines' voluntary carbon offset charges, now around $2.30 for a main trunk one-way domestic flight, are a clue to what will become compulsory.
Backers of the scheme point out this is relatively modest compared with the price swings which saw the pump price of 91-octane petrol leap from around $1.60 a litre in September last year to more than $2.10 in July, to less than $2 now.
Economic uncertainty and soaring world prices for oil driven by supply fears and market traders led the Government to put off for two years the inclusion of fuel in the scheme, in spite of Green Party objections.
Motorists face a probable 7c-a-litre price rise at the pump from 2011 when costs of the Emissions Trading Scheme are passed on, according to Government estimates based on projected carbon prices.
The Government's flagship climate change legislation passed into law last night by 63 votes to 57.
The trucking industry estimates fuel bills will climb close to $100 million a year, while airlines' voluntary carbon offset charges, now around $2.30 for a main trunk one-way domestic flight, are a clue to what will become compulsory.
Backers of the scheme point out this is relatively modest compared with the price swings which saw the pump price of 91-octane petrol leap from around $1.60 a litre in September last year to more than $2.10 in July, to less than $2 now.
Economic uncertainty and soaring world prices for oil driven by supply fears and market traders led the Government to put off for two years the inclusion of fuel in the scheme, in spite of Green Party objections.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)