Two recent separate reports from two separate groups who are polls apart in their views towards dealing with climate change, the New Zealand Institute for Economic Research (NZIER) and the NZ Sustainability Council have both bagged Labours ETS as a Lemon.
First off here’s some links in regard to Labours Emissions scheme:
In summary the NZIER makes the logical argument that the ETS scheme, if carried through in its present form would make New Zealand firms less competitive than firms in countries that have not imposed the cost of greenhouse gas emissions. In the agricultural sector which makes up a third of the countries export earnings, reducing emissions can only really be achieved by reducing production.
This would not mean however that farmers could then raise their prices overseas because another overseas producer who isn’t affected by an emissions scheme could step in and take advantage of the gap with a cheaper price compared to NZ. In the face of continuing food price rises it is very unlikely any consumers will be prepared to pay a ‘carbon neutral’ premium on NZ goods that Helen Clark fantasies about. NZ is the only country planning to include agriculture in its ETS.
Not just farming will be hit however. Most other sectors that have an emissions problem would be hit in some way. These include refining and metal production, transport, tourism, manufacturing and energy producers.
There is also the downstream affect on every other sector of the economy to consider as overseas earnings reduce and domestic profitability falls. Less profits will also mean less tax revenue for the government which will mean either putting up taxes or government spending cut backs.
The ETS, if unchanged, will by 2025 have caused:
GDP to fall by $6 billion.
Household spending to be down by $3000 per household
Hourly wage rates to be down by $2.30 in today’s prices
Dairying land value to drop by 40%
Sheep and beef farms land value to drop by 23%
20,000 jobs lost.
The NZIER also mentions that by 2012 the cost to the economy of trying to reduce emissions would be more than eight times what the Government could pay for credits from overseas projects and schemes that have succeeded in reducing global emissions instead of the ETS. Interesting idea worth considering.
The second blow to Labours ETS was delivered by the NZ Sustainability Council which claims that big business is actually not having to pay for its emissions because ordinary motorists, householders and small businesses will since they will be the first to be hit by the Emissions scheme and will receive no carbon credit allocations. The NZSC like the NZIER also believes the Emissions scheme will cost billions, but for no real reduction in carbon emissions.
So there you have it, Labours Emissions scheme is a lemon no matter what side of the emissions scheme debate one comes.
If Labour actually stick to this policy unchanged or refuse to consider alternatives when there is so much so obliviously wrong with it then they will find themselves sucking on a very sour lemon indeed come election day.
Posts
4 comments:
NZIER SCAREMONGERING REPORT PAID FOR BY BIG BUSINESS NZ
WHO U GONA BELIEVE?
-------------------------------------
$400,000+ price-tag for NZIER report?
Wednesday 11 Jun 08 9:00am
"NZIER.. documents talk of $400,000 for model adaptation Photo Credit: Thenandagain
Photo Credit: Thenandagain
NZIER.. documents talk of $400,000 for model adaptation
The secretly funded NZIER report on the potential impacts of the emissions trading scheme may have cost at least $400,000.
Reliable sources have told Carbon News that the institute was looking for contributions towards the cost of adapting an Australian computer model to New Zealand conditions, and that the protected cost for this of $400,000 was contained in documents circulated by NZIER.
The NZIER has said that it met some of the cost of the work itself and has refused to say, even when asked by the select committee hearing the bill, who paid the rest."
Anonymous- all reports cost money to produce and the NZIER reports findings are logical, I couldn't care less who paid for it. The ETS will have a major economic cost that is beyond doubt. The real issue is: do we want to deal with climate change by reducing our standard of living and shrinking our economy?
Yes it is very logical that a company which can get away with not taking any responsibility for the mess it makes will attempt to do so. It is a company... thats what companies do isn't it? Very simple really.
Of course the ETS will have a major cost but we know that global gross domestic product (GDP) per annum is required to be invested in order to avoid the worst effects of climate change, and that failure to do so could risk global GDP being up to twenty percent lower than if we don't. (Stern Review).
NZ has a huge Kyoto bill due to its pathetic greenhouse gas reducing performance (please look it up yourself) and someone has to pay it. Shouldn't the companies who made the mess and benefit from it pay it? If not; the bill will be picked up by the taxpayer -simple as that.
I actually don't agree with carbon trading, I think its an extremely unjust solution open from all angles to corruption by big polluters, but to say that the reports you quote from in your post are in any way objective is absolute nonsense.
So neither the NZ Sustainability Council nor the NZEI are objective? No dear ,someone better tell them quick! They do come from different points of view however as I pointed out in my post but I suspect you have not actually read either of those reports have you? Thought not.
“NZ has a huge Kyoto bill” Yet it has a pathetically small emissions contribution of 0.2 percent- so why are we doing this?
Next point: In case it has escaped your attention: guess what…companies are taxpayers too! It is absolute nonsense to suggest any business will escape paying for emissions if the present ETS is dumped and central govt funding is used instead.
The best way to avoid the worst affects of climate change is not to create a Green money machine for the state and send large amounts of NZ’s wealth off to an ethereal carbon market. The best way is to begin storing water (Central Plains Water scheme) and build renewal energy generation (Project Hayes). Projects which will secure the NZ economy and help to reduce emissions. This is real investment in order to reduce the worst effects of climate change- not simply shutting down as people such as yourself propose.
P.S: You think carbon trading is an extremely unjust solution supposedly open to corruption- so why the hell do you support an unjust, potentially corrupt scheme? Are you mad?
Post a Comment