-
Source: Reuters -
Related
New Zealand contributes about 0.2% to the world's greenhouse gas emissions. I think, if we're honest with ourselves, about a similar proportion of us truly understand what an emissions trading scheme is.
I know that a few inside the beltway can excite themselves over the merits of an intensity-based scheme, the practicalities of carbon capture and sequestration and the pros and cons of allocating free carbon credits, but to the average person it's an eye-glazing experience to even contemplate that you can somehow trade in pollution.
So, given that, my sad task in life is to grapple with these issues. Here's my take on it.
Except for a few on the fringes - such as Act leader Rodney Hide - most scientists and politicians in New Zealand, and the rest of the world, accept that man made climate change is occurring and we have to reduce our emissions from greenhouse gases such as carbon and methane.
The question is, how do you force people and businesses to do that? A simple solution would have been a carbon tax. You tax something you don't want people to do, as we do with tobacco and alcohol.
Labour looked at a carbon tax but it was howled down.
Because more than half of New Zealand's greenhouse gas emissions come from methane produced by livestock it became known as the 'fart tax' and farmers - a group politicians meddle with at their peril - revolted, culminating in National MP Shane Ardern driving a tractor up parliament's steps in protest. The 'fart tax' dissipated and is now just a lingering odour.
So New Zealand, and much of the rest of the world, is trying to design a more sophisticated approach to reducing pollution.
An Emission Trading Scheme is an economic answer to an environmental problem: You pay to produce pollution and are rewarded for not polluting.
Essentially, a business emitting pollution will have to buy, or be allocated, carbon credits.
Think of them as pollution tokens.
If you have 100 pollution tokens and use those producing 100 metal bars - then fine. But if you want to produce 110 metal bars, you'd have to buy ten extra tokens. You could buy those from the business down the road, which has been a bit more environmentally friendly and has only used 90 of its 100 credits.
The model includes things which absorb carbon - trees. So, if you plant trees you can earn carbon credits, sell them and make money. The idea being that punishing the creation of pollution and rewarding the reduction of pollution will preserve the planet.
Now the really hard bit.
How do you design a working Emissions Trading Scheme which is fair? How do you design one which doesn't destroy the economy and hammer consumers with massive power and petrol bills? Which sectors are going to be involved and when?
When the government solves all that, it has the fiendishly difficult task of actually getting enough of parliament's disparate parties to sign up to the scheme.
The political positions on this could hardly be more divergent.
The Greens believe global warming is the most serious problem facing the planet. Act doesn't believe man-made global warming is occurring at all. The Maori Party does believe in climate change but backs a carbon tax rather than an Emissions Trading Scheme.
Now, you probably haven't noticed yet, but we actually already have an Emissions Trading Scheme. Labour introduced it late last year.
The scheme really kicks in when January 1 rolls around next year. That's when the energy sector comes into the scheme and that could mean your power bills goes up.
So, the argument right now is about whether National can get the
numbers in parliament to soften Labour's scheme and to
introduce a new Emissions Trading Scheme which
doesn't put as much cost on business or consumers.
My pick is that ultimately - and ironically - it will be Labour
which rescues National and allows the government to change Labour's
original scheme.
The big sticking point is agriculture. Labour wanted agriculture included by 2013. National wants to push that out a few years.
I think they can compromise on this and that will be in the interests of both major parties - National gets to pass its new Emissions Trading Scheme and Labour gets to get back in the political game.
Phil Goff wants the television pictures of him sharing a platform with Key, announcing a compromise on climate change the way Key shared the podium with Helen Clark on the anti-smacking bill deal.
Politically there is far more in it for Labour to be seen as
part of the solution to global warming, than there is in haggling
over the technicalities of an Emissions Trading Scheme - especially
one that very few of us seem to actually understand.
What do you think about the ETS? Do you understand what it
is all about? Share your thoughts on the messageboard
below.
Add a Comment:
Post new commentGeoff Keey said on 2009-08-14 @ 01:47 NZDT: Report abusive post
Guyon, I was surprised to see you citing the Government's climate change cost estimates so uncritically given the extent to which they have been discredited.
stephen6565 said on 2009-08-13 @ 22:15 NZDT: Report abusive post
Another very poor article. You are part of the fourth estate and should be asking the hard questions of the govt. Making the govt accountable is not just the oppositions job. This whole article is just rubbish 'feelings' centred around your personal political views. Stick to policy and 'news' items.
geekypolitics said on 2009-08-11 @ 19:34 NZDT: Report abusive post
Mr. Espiner has some good advice for Labour especially on the environment, but the idea that Goff should "cuddle" up to Key is appalling. It is always difficult for the opposition to take a stance on matters that are of an international nature, as the reputation of the country as a united entity is at stake. Democrats in the U.S. had the same problem with regards to the Iraq War. I'd hate to see Labour make the same mistake in the name of "solidarity behind the troops."
Andrew Nichols said on 2009-08-11 @ 14:17 NZDT: Report abusive post
"Polls in Britain showed, counter-intuitively, that support for their troop deployment increased even as casualties mounted. " You're flat wrong! Current polling in the UKs major dailies actually shows majority and growing option to Britains involvement in Obams purposeless war. Not that that's ever bothered the govt there, who in time honoured fashion enjoy perpetuating "Britains post WW2 role as the Greeks to the US Empire" (Harold McMillan 1943)
Kereama said on 2009-08-11 @ 13:39 NZDT: Report abusive post
Of course Labour need to find their direction! They lost the election and they lost touch with grassroots NZ - National did too once, and it took them years to get back on track - but they did. The point is, the "road to nowhere" isn't permanent (unless you're Winston Peters... let's hope anyway). While it may be the opposition's role to critique the Government, the media has an obligation to do so also. Let the opposition "find" themselves and focus instead on the ones that count.