Home > A Little Blue Marble Called Earth, The Body Politic > ETS – National continues to fart around

ETS – National continues to fart around

.

.

Beginning of the ETS

September 2008

Labour introduces and passes the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading) Amendment Act 2008.

As David Parker said, on 10 September 2008,

For the first time we will start factoring in the true cost of greenhouse gas emissions into our economy. This is in line with developments in the rest of the world.

The sooner we get on top of this challenge, the sooner we can reap the benefits of providing low carbon goods and services that are attractive to affluent overseas markets. There is much to be gained by grasping this opportunity.

While there will be extra costs for some sectors, I am confident that the support the government is providing both to households and to businesses will smooth the transition we absolutely must make, if we are to play our part in the global struggle against climate change.”

Source

National’s Track Record

13 May 2007

In particular I’m going to speak about the biggest environmental challenge of our time: global climate change.

The National Party will ensure that New Zealand acts decisively to confront this challenge.

The scientific consensus is clear: human-induced climate change is real and it’s threatening the planet. There are some armchair sceptics out there, but I’m not one of them…

… National is committed to growing our economy. Confronting climate change will be a vital part of the policy mix for fuelling that growth…

… In the decades ahead, peoples’ perceptions around climate change will affect the brand image of New Zealand and its exports. New Zealand must take credible steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or risk becoming a trading pariah…

… National will have policies that reflect the fact that living on a diet of carbon will be increasingly bad – bad for the world and bad for our economy. We will have policy that encourages ‘climate friendly’ choices like windmills, hydro power and tree planting, and reduces the desire for ‘climate unfriendly’ behaviours, like burning coal…

… National will bring all Kiwis – industry, energy producers, farmers, mums and dads – closer to a shared and well-understood goal. We need to be united in our pursuit of a ’50 by 50′ target.

Source

6 May 2008

Mr Key says,

National supports the principle of the ETS and is following the select committee process closely. National has had reservations about the timing of new taxes on motorists and households when there has been no personal tax relief for so long.”

Source

8 April 2010

Prime Minister John Key rejects demands  to amend the  Emissions Trading Scheme before it takes effect on the energy and transport sectors in July despite calls from business groups, farmers, and ACT.

Key tells reporters at the launch of the Global Research Alliance’s inaugural meeting on agricultural greenhouse gas emissions,

I’d say it’s unlikely it would be amended.”

Source

24 May 2010

John Key states that  there is “no chance” New Zealand will follow Australia and cancel the Emissions Trading Scheme and rejects assertions it will impact on New Zealanders’ pockets,

The question is for a household, are they prepared to pay $3 a week for the insurance premium of our environment? I think the answer to that is ‘yes’.”

He adds,

Of the 38 countries that signed the Kyoto protocol, 29 of them have an ETS. All 29 have almost double the cost that we have.”

Source

6 June 2010

Climate Change Minister Nick Smith announces that whether or not agriculture comes into the emissions trading scheme  in 2015  will depend on technological advances and what other countries do.

Source

9 November 2011

Environment Minister Nick Smith announces,

The scheme currently steps up on 1 January 2013 to a full obligation for the transport, electricity and industrial sectors. National’s intention is to phase this in three equal steps on 1 January 2013, 1 January 2014 and 1 January 2015 as recommended by the ETS Review Panel…

… It is not in New Zealand’s interests to include agricultural emissions in the ETS yet. The lack of any practical and real technologies to reduce agricultural emissions means it would only impose a cost or tax on our most important export industry. It would also have New Zealand too far ahead of our trading partners on climate change mitigation measures. National will review the position in 2014 and only include agriculture if new technologies are available and more progress is made internationally on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. “

Source

19 November 2011

National plans to  delay  implementation of the ETS until after a Select Committee review is completed, according to National-ACT coalition deal.

Key states that  he believes human-induced climate change is real and it’s still possible National will pass an amended ETS into law before next October.”

Source

2 July 2012

National announces that farmers will not have to buy carbon credits to offset livestock and pasture emissions until at least 2015.

Source

3 July 2012

National announces that  the two-for-one carbon credit scheme for emitters such as the  oil and electricity industry  will remain in place instead of ending  this year (2012).

Source

John Key says the Government will wait for other countries to follow suit before introducing agriculture into the Emissions Trading Scheme…

…The Government says it will leave agriculture out of the ETS until at least 2015, despite 47% of the country’s emissions coming from that sector

Climate Change Minister Tim Groser told Tadio NZ’s  Morning Report on Tuesday there is no point in New Zealand leading the way if other countries such as the United States and China are doing nothing.” – Radio NZ

Source

6 July 2012

John Key announces four amendments to Emissions Trading Scheme saying that,

New Zealand is still the only country outside Europe [see comment 24 May] to have a comprehensive ETS in place, and we’re on track to meet our Kyoto obligations for 2008-12. “

Source

The four changes are,

  • Keeping the ‘one-for-two’ obligation in place until after this year. This means participants in the scheme will continue to surrender units for half the carbon they emit;
  • Maintaining the $25 ‘fixed-price option’ until at least 2015, which caps the price firms will face if carbon prices begin to rise internationally;
  • Introducing off-setting for pre-1990 forest land owners, and allocating the full second tranche of compensation where off-setting is not taken; and
  • Leaving agricultural emissions out of the ETS until at least 2015.

Source

So much for Key’s statement on 8 April.

20 August 2012

National introduces  “Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading and Other Matters) Amendment Bill 2012″, which will remove agricultural emmissions indefinitely, and will,

remove a specified entry date for surrender obligations on biological emissions from agriculture”.

Source

27 October 2012

National’s  “Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading and Other Matters) Amendment Bill 2012″ passes second reading by 1-vote majority, supported by National, ACT, and United Future.

Source

Conclusions

National’s rejection of the ETS for the farming industry and removing egg producers from the ETS is now complete.

It must be clear to practically everyone by now that despite National’s ongoing  “firm assurances” from May 2007 to May 2010, that they would support and maintain  an Emissions Trading Scheme, that their real agenda all along was entirely the opposite.

The entry of agriculture into the ETS  was accepted;  “reviewed”; postponed; and then cancelled altogether. Only a procedural law change now remains to make it fully legal.

It has taken four years to achieve it, but National’s pledges to commit to an ETS are now shown to be the lies that they are.

During National’s four years in office, they have broken several promises and the weakening of the ETS is simply one more on the list. It also further highlights  John Key’s ability to say one thing – whilst knowing full well that he has no intention of fulfilling committments, or will do completely the opposite.

Remember what Key told reporters at the launch of the Global Research Alliance’s inaugural meeting on the ETS, on 8 April 2010,

I’d say it’s unlikely it would be amended.”

Key’s pledge that agriculture would enter the ETS in 2015 has been broken, and our Prime Minister further shown up as the untrustworthy, lying,  manipulator that a growing number of critics are labelling him.

If there is one lesson that National has learnt from our recent history is that if you’re going to break promises – do it slowly so no one notices.

Unfortunately for John Key and his cronies, New Zealanders have noticed.

Update

.

Full story

Acknowledgement: Kay

.

Unsurprising and inevitable, I guess.  This was National’s agenda from Day One.

.

.

Sources

National Party: 50 by 50 – New Zealand’s Climate Change Target (13 May 2007)

Beehive Press Prelease: Historic climate change legislation passes (10 September 2008)

Parliament: Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading) Amendment Act 2008 (25 September 2008)

NZ Energy & Environment Business Week: National-Act Coalition Deal Puts Emissions Trading Legislation On Hold (19 November 2008)

NBR:  Govt keeping open mind on agriculture ETS inclusion (26 May 2010)

NBR: ETS may exclude agriculture – Climate Change Minister (6 June 2010)

National Party: Policy 2011 – Environment & Climate Change (2011)

Fairfax Media: PM accused of taking sides on mining (22 March 2012)

National Party: Government announces ETS amendments (2 July 2012)

National Party: Doing our fair share on climate change (6 July 2012)

NZ Herald: Carbon credit price crash could force sales (25 October 2012)

Radio NZ: Farmers’ ETS exemption progresses (26 October 2012)

Additional

Wikipedia: New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme

Other blogs

The Worlds Worst Emissions Trading Scheme

Abdicating our global responsibility

.

.

= fs =

  1. Alison W
    28 October 2012 at 3:41 pm

    Key IS on a time limit, his current term of PM, IF he’s lucky enough to see it through, his aim is to cause maximum damage in as short a time frame as possible, I wouldn’t be surprised if he pisses off to live in America with all of his banking buddies, once his term is up.

  2. Aghora
    28 October 2012 at 3:57 pm

    ETS is a mechanism to transfer wealth away from the middle classes and to seed sovereignty into the hands of an international unelected world government that exist under the guise of being a body for the oversight of climate change. Humans would do much better if the temperature were to rise by 2 degrees, this has been the case with all societies that flourished in the past. Considering the scam it will be difficult for National to enforce ETS although they will do it regardless and NZ will settle for it as we settle for everything we are told is good for mother nature and personal health and safety.

  3. 28 October 2012 at 4:05 pm

    “Humans would do much better if the temperature were to rise by 2 degrees, this has been the case with all societies that flourished in the past.”

    Can’t agree, Aghora. Raising the temperature would cause incalculable destruction as polar caps melted; lowlands flooded; arable land was lost; and millions made to migrate.

    Bangla-Desh, for example, would be flooded, and millions displaced.

    Storms would become more energy-laden and ferocious.

    Disease-causing insects would migrate to regions further north and south.

    Our entire eco-system would change radically, causing mass-extinctions as many species failed to adapt.

    The notion that climate change is a scam is something perpetuated by vested interests; oil companies; coal industry; farming interests; etc. Anti-climate change groups have been funded by the petro-chemical industry.

    And whilst these corporations continue to make vast profits, it is the tax-payer (you and me) that pays to make futile attempts to stem ongoing damage caused by increasing limate change effects.

  4. Aghora
    28 October 2012 at 4:13 pm

    Temps were much warmer in the past and it was good. Who says all that bad stuff would happen?

  5. Aghora
    28 October 2012 at 4:20 pm

    Also, the idea that there is a two sided debate about the environment between oil companies and governments is the most ridiculous idea I’ve heard. The two sides are presented so that we argue, they do not exist in real life as the same families that run the climate scam are the same families that own the natural resources. They have simply framed the debate for the public in the hope that we will stay within that presented discourse and not look at the actual consequences of what is being proposed.

    • 28 October 2012 at 4:30 pm

      “Temps were much warmer in the past and it was good. Who says all that bad stuff would happen?”

      True. There were much greater temperature variations. The difference though is that (with some exceptions), those temperature changes happened gradually, over long periods of time, giving life forms time to adapt…

  6. 28 October 2012 at 4:53 pm

    If the Nats pull out of Kyoto that will be one less thing for them to worry about (unless overseas markets drop us too for being environmentally unfriendly). http://www.stuff.co.nz/sunday-star-times/latest-edition/7873305/New-Zealand-may-quit-Kyoto

  7. Sassi
    28 October 2012 at 6:36 pm

    What really p’s me off is that the rest of us are effectively subsidisng big polluters. More “corporate welfare”.

  8. 28 October 2012 at 7:35 pm

    Acidfication of the Ocean water is happening now, no more Bluff Oysters for Bellamies in parliament, then the crayfish will be a thing of the past cos the acid will dissolve the shells which is already happening in the shellfish farms of America! But then this Govt just fluffs around!

  9. Janya L
    28 October 2012 at 9:20 pm

    So if they take us out of Kyoto what will they do with the 10% we pay on petrol and energy bills? take it off? Yeah right!.

    • 28 October 2012 at 9:45 pm

      ” So if they take us out of Kyoto what will they do with the 10% we pay on petrol and energy bills? take it off? Yeah right!.”

      Interesting point.

      I hadn’t considered that aspect of things…

  10. Theodore
    28 October 2012 at 9:50 pm

    Aghora :

    Also, the idea that there is a two sided debate about the environment between oil companies and governments is the most ridiculous idea I’ve heard. The two sides are presented so that we argue, they do not exist in real life as the same families that run the climate scam are the same families that own the natural resources. They have simply framed the debate for the public in the hope that we will stay within that presented discourse and not look at the actual consequences of what is being proposed.

    None of that makes any sense. What are you trying to say?

  11. 29 October 2012 at 8:00 pm

    Scientist says oysters are the canaries in the mine for ocean acidification, and US oysters can’t grow in many local waters. Yes another consequence of GHG emissions. Oceans absorb 30% of the worlds CO2 emissions. How much is too much?

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57531002/changing-climate-hurting-shellfish-market/?tag=showDoorFlexGridRight%3BflexGridModule

    • 29 October 2012 at 9:06 pm

      Fluffing around means look as though you are doing something and don’t!

  12. Noel F
    29 October 2012 at 10:04 pm

    The frog-in-a-beaker- strategy…

  1. 1 November 2012 at 12:16 pm
  2. 2 November 2012 at 7:00 pm
  3. 4 November 2012 at 10:54 pm
  4. 13 November 2012 at 1:21 pm
  5. 9 January 2013 at 5:35 pm
  6. 10 January 2013 at 10:18 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 710 other followers

%d bloggers like this: