ETS and carbon taxes

This thread is for discussion of Emission Trading Schemes and carbon taxes.

Views: 1159

121 Thoughts on “ETS and carbon taxes

  1. Mike Jowsey on 19/10/2010 at 6:13 am said:

    Christopher Monkton talking about world government (and taxation), communism and climate fraud. Very eloquent, informative and disturbing.

  2. Mike Jowsey on 21/10/2010 at 3:00 pm said:

    Speech by President of Czech Republic : Climate Control or Freedom?

    “The current debate is a public policy debate with enormous implications.[3] It is no longer about climate. It is about the government, the politicians, their scribes and the lobbyists who want to get more decision making and power for themselves. It seems to me that the widespread acceptance of the global warming dogma has become one of the main, most costly and most undemocratic public policy mistakes in generations. The previous one was communism.”

    (Have also posted this under Europe & Economics)

  3. THREAD on 23/10/2010 at 7:15 pm said:

    First carbon victim is the truth – smh

    See “Australia”

    “Cutting through the climate change rhetoric has been Elaine Prior, the senior environment, social and governance analyst at Citigroup.

    Last week, in the wake of a Greenpeace report on lending to the coal industry in Australia (covered previously here), Prior and her colleagues tried to quantify the exposure of our big four banks if a price on carbon were to wipe out the value of their loans to coal-fired power stations.

    This is not far-fetched. The banks are definitely worried – especially in the Latrobe Valley of Victoria, where the first plant shutdowns are expected.

    Bank shareholders are worried too. ”Investors, including super funds, have expressed concern about bank exposures to coal-fired power,” Prior says, ”more than about the banks’ internal carbon footprint.””

  4. THREAD on 25/10/2010 at 11:58 am said:

    Consultation begins on forest carbon measurement

    Friday, 15 October 2010, 2:18 pm
    Press Release: Ministry Of Agriculture And Forestry

    • THREAD on 26/10/2010 at 6:07 pm said:

      A Guide to Forestry in the Emissions Trading Scheme – MAF

    • Richard C (NZ) on 26/10/2010 at 9:41 pm said:

      Forestry and the carbon market response to stabilize climate

      Massimo Tavoni*, Brent Sohngen#, Valentina Bosetti*

      This paper investigates the potential contribution of forestry management in meeting a CO2 stabilization policy of 550 ppmv by 2100. In order to assess the optimal response of the carbon market to forest sequestration we couple two global models. An energy-economy-climate model for the study of climate policies is linked with a detailed forestry model through an iterative procedure to provide the optimal abatement strategy. Results show that forestry is a determinant abatement option and could lead to significantly lower policy costs if included. Linking forestry management to the carbon market has the potential to delay the policy burden, and is expected to reduce the price of carbon of 40% by 2050. Biological sequestration will mostly come from avoided deforestation in tropical forests rich countries. The inclusion of this mitigation option is demonstrated to crowd out some of the traditional abatement in the energy sector and to lessen induced technological change in clean technologies.

    • THREAD on 28/10/2010 at 10:55 am said:

      Govt commended for ETS stand

      Wednesday, 28 April 2010, 5:30 pm
      Press Release: NZ Forest Owners Association

      For more than two years forest owners have been bound by the emission trading scheme. Although this has caused difficulties for many of them, they say unwinding the scheme now would be hugely complex and costly. It would also undoubtedly reduce interest in new forest planting.

      “We commend the government for its resolve. The ETS charges that will apply to fossil fuels from 1 July are a necessary first step in the long journey New Zealand has to make to become a low-carbon economy,” says Forest Owners president Peter Berg.

      “Unwinding the ETS now would send powerful messages to affluent overseas consumers and potential tourists about New Zealand’s real commitment to its 100% Pure brand. Trade protectionist lobbies would not hesitate to use it to undermine our access to their markets.”

      He says it now appears that the majority of Kyoto forest owners are registering their forests with MAF so they can be part of the ETS.

      “MAF estimates that more than $1 billion worth of credits will be paid out to them in the next 12 months – much of which will be used to fund the planting of new Kyoto forests. It also places an obligation on forest owners to replant following harvest.”

  5. THREAD on 26/10/2010 at 6:13 pm said:

    Climate change science

  6. THREAD on 26/10/2010 at 6:37 pm said:

    The New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme






    Liquid fossil fuels

    Synthetic gases


    New Zealand Legislation – Act and amendments

    Climate change – Regulations

    • Richard C (NZ) on 21/12/2010 at 1:59 pm said:

      Free Allocation in the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme A Critical Analysis

      Christina Hood

      Policy Quarterly – Volume 6, Issue 2 – February 2010

      In November 2009 the government passed significant amendments to New Zealand’s emissions trading scheme (ETS), barely two months after the legislation was introduced. Submitters were given two weeks to make written submissions, and some were asked to appear for oral submissions with only a few hours notice. Very little economic analysis of the legislation was released by the government at the time or has been since.


      The value of free allocation
      Under the 2008 legislation, free allocation would have phased out quickly, leaving the government with surplus units after 2020. These could have been sold to fund tax changes, debt reduction or climate programmes. With the 2009 amendments, the government has instead chosen to allocate virtually all NZUs for free to industry and agriculture.

      The forgone revenue to the government resulting from the change has been estimated by the Treasury to be $110 billion to 2050, assuming a modest emissions price of NZ$50 per tonne (Treasury, 2009). With a more plausible (IPCC, 2007; OECD, 2009; Australian Treasury, 2008) emissions price rising to NZ$100 by 2050, the cost to the government approaches $200 billion.

      Christina Hood is an energy and climate change policy analyst. She worked as a policy adviser to the minister for energy and climate change issues during 2002–2005, and is the co-author (with Colin James) of Making Energy Work: a sustainable energy future for New Zealand (Institute of Policy Studies, 2007). She won the Prince of Wales Prize for the best science student at the University of Otago in 1993 and holds a PhD in physics from the California Institute of Technology.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 22/06/2011 at 12:32 am said:

      NZ to ease back on emissions trading scheme

      * Dennis Shanahan, Political Editor
      * From: The Australian
      * June 21, 2011

      AS Julia Gillard urged Australia to follow the “gutsy Kiwi” lead on carbon pricing, Prime Minister John Key has declared New Zealand will be slowing its expansion of emissions trading and doesn’t want to “lead the world”.

      Mr Key refused to offer advice to Australian politicians embroiled in the carbon tax debate and signed an agreement with the Australian Prime Minister for a joint working party on trans-Tasman carbon emissions trading.

      But he warned that New Zealand would be delaying the inclusion of agricultural emissions in its system for at least four years and was unlikely to double the carbon price from 2013, as previously planned, because of pressure on consumers.

    • Andy on 22/06/2011 at 8:09 am said:

      I sometimes wonder whether National’s introduction of the ETS was like giving the government a loaded gun to play with.

      Any opposition party just has to threaten to increase the scope of the ETS, and they automatically shoot themselves in the foot.

      BTW, Australian Climate Madness has some commentary on this. Some good comments:

    • Richard C (NZ) on 30/08/2011 at 2:47 pm said:

      Measuring carbon emissions from land-use change and forestry

      The New Zealand Land-use and Carbon Analysis System

      Bureaucratic nirvana and all at the behest of the UN IPCC. Hopefully some spin-offs of economically and environmentally useful information.

      The “Detecting change” section has this:-

      Once land-use maps are completed for 1990 and 2008, change can be identified. The images to the right show an area north of Taupo, New Zealand where deforestation has occurred. The pre-1990 planted forest area (dark green) has been converted to high-producing grassland (pale yellow). This is likely to be due to conversion to a dairy farming land use.

      And the (rushed) “conversion to a dairy farming land use” was “likely to be due” to the impending enactment of the ETS.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 23/12/2011 at 8:31 am said:

      NZ bans dodgy climate change units from ETS

      BusinessDesk, On Thursday 22 December 2011, 13:40 NZDT

      Dec. 22 (BusinessDesk) – The government is banning from tomorrow the use of carbon emissions reductions earned in Third World countries where subsidies to reduce emissions have prompted increased production of some of the most powerful greenhouse gases.

      Climate Change Minister Nick Smith confirmed the decision, recommended as an urgent necessity in a review of the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme, this morning.

      The Business New Zealand lobby group attacked the move as adding unnecessary cost to businesses seeking to comply with the ETS.

      The decision to ban Carbon Emissions Reduction Units (CERs) derived from the destruction of industrial gases, including hydro-fluorocarbons that also damage the ozone layer, follows similar decisions by the European Union and Australia.

      “Concern has been raised about the environmental integrity of CERs from HFC-23 and N2O industrial gas destruction projects,” say notes on the decision from the Ministry for the Environment. “Some sources have suggested the economics of these projects may create perverse incentives to increase production of these gases in non-Annex I Countries.

      “There is a further concern that profitability from HFC-23 destruction projects creates a perverse incentive to increase production of HCFC-22, a precursor of HFC-23. HCFC-22 is an ozone depleting gas which also has a high global warming potential, and is being phased out under the Montreal Protocol.”


    • Richard C (NZ) on 21/08/2012 at 3:03 pm said:

      New Zealand’s Energy Outlook

      Download the documents

      * Energy Outlook 2011 [902 KB PDF]
      * Energy Outlook 2011 Technical Guide [985 KB PDF]
      * Electricity generation and build [614 KB XLS]
      * Emissions [1.1 MB XLS]
      * Energy prices [399 KB XLS]
      * Energy supply and demand [1.2 MB XLS]

      From ‘Energy Outlook 2011’ pg 11:-

      Emissions Price Sensitivity Analysis

      The Reference Scenario assumes an emissions price of $25 per tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-e) emitted from 2013. Two alternative sensitivities are considered, a no emissions price sensitivity case and a sensitivity case where the emission price rises to reach $100 per tonne by 2020 and remains at that level out to 2030.

      [Reference price is lower than the $50 per tonne assumed in Energy Outlook 2010, reflecting lower carbon prices worldwide (from pg 12)]


      >> In the high emissions price sensitivity case, wind generation increases by 80% while coal reduces by 36% relative to the Reference Scenario. The 250% (average) increase in the emissions price results in a 8% rise in the electricity price relative to the Reference Scenario.
      >> In the no emissions price sensitivity case, coal generation increases by 79% while wind falls by 25% relative to the Reference Scenario. A new 560 MW coal plant is built in 2028 and in the early 2020’s one of the Huntly units is refurbished and remains in operation until 2040 (in the Reference Scenario all the Huntly units are fully decommissioned by 2030).
      >> With no emissions price the electricity price is around 5% lower than in the Reference Scenario.

      So the ETS adds to a nominal no emissions electricity price as follows:

      $100 – no carbon charge

      $105 – $25 carbon charge ($5, 5% rise) [Reference Scenario]

      $113.40 – $100 carbon charge ($13.40, 13.4% rise)

      The ‘Electricity generation and build’ XLS spreadsheet makes it much easier to envisage what generation gets built and when using the emissions price Low/High tabs than do the LRMC graphs that are output from GEM.

      In the “Low” ($0/t) scenario, an 80 MW coal stn gets built in 2023 and a 560 MW coal stn gets built in 2028.

      In the “Ref” ($25/t) scenario, only an 80 MW coal stn gets built in 2021.

      In the “High” ($100/t) scenario, only an 80 MW coal stn gets built in 2020.

      In the “Low” (0$/t) scenario, no new wind plant gets built until 2023.

      In the “Ref” ($25/t) scenario, 284 MW of wind plant gets built before 2023.

      In the “High” ($100/t) scenario, 938 MW of wind plant gets built before 2023.

  7. THREAD on 26/10/2010 at 6:40 pm said:

    Getting My Head Around The Emissions Trading Scheme

    Wednesday, 18 November, 2009

    Chris Ford

  8. THREAD on 26/10/2010 at 7:29 pm said:

    Decarbonising Australia

  9. THREAD on 28/10/2010 at 9:44 am said:

    ETS Fuel Levy – Google Search

  10. THREAD on 28/10/2010 at 9:46 am said:

    New Zealand ETS Fuel Levy – Google Search

    • THREAD on 28/10/2010 at 10:05 am said:

      Pacifica Shipping

      Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) and Levy

      From 1 July, 2010, Pacifica Shipping added an ETS Levy to its freight rates to cover the cost of the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) imposed on domestic transport operators. It is important to note the Levy is applied in accordance with New Zealand statutory provisions of the ETS

      Using the capped $25 rate for example, Pacifica’s obligations would be calculated as follows:

      Fuel Type Carbon Credit Cost CO2 Emissions Obligation per MT
      _______________(Per MT)_________Factor__________(Less 50%)

      HFO Fuel Oil______$25.00__________3.015___________$37.69

      Pacifica has calculated its ETS Levy by multiplying actual fuel tonnage usage by the ETS obligations per tonne as above, then dividing by the number of TEUs moved.

      Currently the ETS Levy added by Pacifica is $6 per TEU (Twenty-foot Equivalent Unit), based on the $25 New Zealand unit price.

    • THREAD on 28/10/2010 at 10:13 am said:

      The Rising Costs of Driving – AA New Zealand

      Emissions Trading Scheme

      As of July 1 2010, New Zealand has joined the handful of nations that has imposed a charge for carbon emissions in its fuel costs. Although technically it is not a tax, it will effectively behave like one until 2013.

    • THREAD on 28/10/2010 at 10:33 am said:

      Introduction to the Vehicle Economy Standard – NZ MoT

      February 2009

      Why are we proposing a Vehicle Economy Standard?

      * Evidence indicates the climate is changing.
      * New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions are growing.
      * Transport is a significant contributor to New Zealand’s emissions footprint.
      * The New Zealand Government takes climate change and sustainability very seriously.
      * Reflected in the targets contained in the NZES and the NZEECS.
      * Reflected in the “Sustainable Transport” documaent.
      * Emissions Trading Scheme will help but…

      Evidence indicates the climate is changing: IPCC 2007.

  11. THREAD on 28/10/2010 at 10:58 am said:

    New Zealand ETS Dairy Costs – Google Search

    • Richard C (NZ) on 18/11/2010 at 10:26 am said:

      Farmers may win reprieve over ETS

      Nov 18, 2010 – NZ Herald

      New Zealand farmers are unlikely to be brought into the emissions trading scheme in 2015 unless scientific advances are made in reducing animal emissions and our trading partners make giant strides in putting a price on carbon, the Government says.

      Speaking at the Federated Farmers National Council yesterday, Climate Change Minister Nick Smith noted the Government had already said it would not proceed with the inclusion of agriculture and other sectors until it sees comparable progress from other countries.

      The entry of the agricultural sector into the emissions trading scheme (ETS) has been delayed once – from 2013 to 2015 – and the Government has also increased measures to shield the sector from the full impact of the scheme once it does enter.


    • Richard C (NZ) on 07/12/2010 at 8:56 pm said:


      environmental issues and options

      Rome, 2006

      [Note: enter Methane in the pdf search box and click Find Next]

      Screeds on emissions.

      “Globally, livestock are the most important source of methane emissions”

      “Livestock account for 35-40% of anthropogenic emissions”

      Page 80

      Anthropogenic climate change “well established fact”


      “A part of the heat flow is absorbed by so-called greenhouse gases, trapping it in the atmosphere”.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 08/12/2010 at 2:51 pm said:

      Back to NZ for the serious stuff

      By Fran O’Sullivan
      Dec 23, 2009 – NZ Herald

      New Zealand will be leading the way on tackling agriculture emission reduction, says Fran O’Sullivan.

      Trade Minister Tim Groser deserves special mention for the way in which he has married NZ’s objectives on the trade and climate change front.

      Groser’s brainchild – a global alliance to research ways of reducing agriculture emissions – has gained huge support from powerhouse countries like the US and India, supported by others like Denmark, Japan, Australia and Canada.

      The launch of the alliance in Copenhagen last week was a bright spot in an otherwise spectacularly disastrous conference. Groser – who is a very adroit and experienced negotiator having led the agriculture committee negotiations at the World Trade Organisation – described the atmosphere at the conference as “madness”.

      But irrespective of the flim-flam at Copenhagen, NZ is set to drive forward the global agenda to mitigate the effects of climate change.

      In March, representatives from up to 30 nations that are signing up for the global alliance will come to New Zealand for a summit on agriculture emissions.

      This is serious stuff.

      Each country is expected to field at least two representatives who are likely to be a policy wonk and a scientist.

      The alliance will develop new farming approaches and develop environmental technologies that reduce emissions from livestock, crops and rice production.

      What’s notable is the big NZ financial contribution – some $45 million of the $150 million so far committed.

      This might seem over the top. But with nearly 50 per cent of NZ’s greenhouse gas emissions coming from agriculture it is important that action is taken to protect a sector which drives more than 35 per cent of our exports.

      New Zealand’s leadership has been endorsed by other nations – like the US which has upped its agriculture emissions budget by US$90 ($128) million.

      But it’s important to note this foreign policy initiative has not been universally acclaimed.

      The US Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy is concerned that research agenda will “simply duplicate the pitfalls we’ve seen within the US agriculture research agenda, which for example spends billions of dollars on genetically engineered seeds that largely benefit transnational corporations and can take a decade to develop”, said its president Jim Harkness.

      “The loss of traditional knowledge and seed varieties in the Global South is a much more urgent crisis, and much more crippling to the world’s capacity to address climate change, than what has been the traditional US research model. Unfortunately, national research institutions have largely ignored the types of low-input, sustainable, small-scale systems that are needed for both food security and climate-friendly farming.”

      Back home, Labour is still making a great deal out of the fact that National canned the previous Government’s $700 million Fast Forward fund over 10-15 years. At issue is whether the $45 million the Government is now putting into agriculture emissions reduction will be enough to offset prior Budget cuts and bolster research funding for the sector which underpins one of our prime export industries.

      Putting that to one side, it’s fair to say NZ’s negotiators also survived the first hurdle at Copenhagen in their quest to get substantial changes to the rules relating to forestry, and the ability for New Zealand to offset greenhouse gas emissions outside our borders.

      In NZ, it is important to get the existing Kyoto Protocol rules changed so this country is not overly penalised when forests are felled and replaced by trees planted elsewhere or when trees are converted to wood products such as timber and fibre board.

      New Zealand is also seeking rule changes over land use and the international carbon market – which the Ministry for the Environment says are important because it will impact on New Zealand’s ability to meet its future target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

      The draft negotiating agreement contains clauses which give effect to the rules NZ wants. But they are not cast in concrete. The draft text has plenty of “square brackets” which indicate particular clauses are still disputed.

      Groser and his fellow Cabinet Minister Nick Smith seem to have made the best out of the hand that was dealt to them at Copenhagen.
      So that was COP15, what’s happened since re the $45 million.

      Now we’re at COP16 and the Kyoto Protocol is back in the frame – right now!

      Japan’s bailed, Canada and Russia are similarly unenthusiastic, so what’s New Zealand’s position?

    • Richard C (NZ) on 08/12/2010 at 3:07 pm said:



      Global Research Alliance Secretariat
      Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
      PO Box 2526
      Wellington 6140

      Research Groups
      Paddy rice

      Livestock Research Group

      The Livestock Research Group of the Alliance is focused on reducing greenhouse gas intensity and improving overall production efficiency of livestock systems.

      The Group will work together to find ways to limit emissions of methane (CH4), emissions of nitrous oxide (N2O) and to increase the quantity of carbon (C) stored in those soils managed as part of a livestock production system. The Group will work to better quantify emissions from livestock systems so that national inventories are improved and farmers, land managers and policy makers around the world have an improved knowledge of the source and extent of emissions from different components of livestock systems. A further key activity of the Livestock Research Group will be transferring knowledge, practices and technologies to stakeholders such that research and development outputs result in beneficial greenhouse gas outcomes.

      The partnership will address ruminants and non-ruminants livestock and the multiplicity of systems of production associated with these two principle livestock types.

      Gas emissions to be studied for quantification and management are:

      * CH4 emissions from waste management
      * CH4 from enteric fermentation
      * N2O emissions from fertilizers
      * N2O emissions from animal wastes
      * Increased soil C storage
      * Other emissions of specific national interest produced as a result of the management of livestock for food production

      The Livestock Research Group held its first meeting 8-9 October 2010 in Banff, Canada
      The meeting was attended by 27 countries involved in the Alliance and the open session was attended by other interested parties.
      For further information on this event see the Summary Meeting report, and presentations given during the Open Session.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 08/12/2010 at 3:23 pm said:

      See “Methane (CH4)” thread

  12. Andy on 02/11/2010 at 10:56 pm said:

    There was a piece on the new emissions tax on long haul flights leaving London, just on TVOne news.

    John Key was interviewed, and said “it is just a revenue gathering exercise”.

    Really? Who’d have thought?

  13. Andy on 09/11/2010 at 9:19 am said:

    Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) closes its doors.

    Carbon trading now dead in the US

  14. Andy on 22/11/2010 at 12:42 pm said:

    $1b bill feared for ambitious emission targets

    New Zealand could face a $1 billion bill after signing up to much more ambitious emissions targets than it will achieve, its environmental watchdog says.

    Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Jan Wright says the country is seriously off-course in meeting the emissions reduction targets signed up to under the Copenhagen accord.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 30/11/2010 at 7:11 pm said:

      Land Use and Carbon Analysis System (LUCAS)

      What is it?

      The Land Use and Carbon Analysis System is helping New Zealand meet its international reporting requirements under the Kyoto Protocol. It tracks and quantifies changes in New Zealand land use, particularly since 1990.

      LUCAS is a cross-government programme led by the Ministry for the Environment (MfE) in partnership with the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF). Several other government departments including Treasury and the Department of Conservation (DOC) provide input.

      This page provides an overview of the range of activities of LUCAS and the benefits it aims to deliver.

      Stakeholder Progress Report July 2009

      A NZ$378million variation in deforestation estimates

      Context with net position
      13. At a carbon price of NZ$25.00 / tonne carbon dioxide the variability measured by the range between the highest and lowest estimate for removals by Article 3.3 forests is NZ$378million ($NZ25 x (92.3 77.2)).
      Also, no mention of the relative significance of these recent land use changes compared to land use change since European colonization and effects on say, precipitation or CO2 levels.

      i.e. NZ has changed from afforestation to deforestation in European times so the minimal recent forest cover change is relatively inconsequential.

      Or, how may tonnes of carbon were released by NZ deforestation prior to say 1960 compared to the carbon emissions subsequent to 1960?

      Anyone seen a study?

    • Richard C (NZ) on 13/12/2010 at 12:13 pm said:

      Discussion of this in relation to Cancun Agreements at JoNova
      December 13th, 2010 at 7:23 am

      Richard — the fact you cannot find anything should tell us something. That is , there is alot of BS going around.
      Try finding the answer to this question –NZ has a very large part of its emissions coming from various land use activities. To satisfy the Kyoto data reporting systems the Min. of Environment set the LUCAS system in the early/mid 2000′s. If this data was not available then how can we compare today’s emissions against 1900 levels (ie. the benchmark date) ?
      I’m sure Australia would have a similar issue on data comparisons.
      My reply

      I made a similar observation re LUCAS at CCG

      (Then duplicated the above “Also, no mention of the relative significance of these recent land use changes compared to land use change since European colonization and effects on say, precipitation or CO2 levels.” ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,)

  15. Richard C (NZ) on 13/12/2010 at 11:43 am said:

    Smith hails breakthrough in global climate change talks

    By Adam Bennett and agencies – NZH

    5:30 AM Monday Dec 13, 2010

    Smith’s hell bent on a “legally binding treaty”

    Dr Smith conceded “a power of work” remained for officials to do between now and next year’s conference in Durban to turn Cancun’s “political agreement” into a ratifiable and legally binding treaty.

    Nevertheless, one of the most important achievements at Cancun was the re-establishment of good faith.

    Dr Smith said it was “a big call” for New Zealand to proceed with its emissions trading scheme (ETS) this year. “I strongly say that it was the right thing to do, and the progress that has been made in Cancun has reaffirmed that.”

    Something to watch for

    Dr Smith is to announce terms of reference for a review of New Zealand’s ETS before Christmas. He said comparing progress made by other countries, particularly our major trading partners, would be a major focus.


    Dr Smith said he was disappointed little progress was made in achieving recognition of some wood products as carbon sinks (reservoirs which store carbon), which would have reduced New Zealand’s international emissions liability.

    He said some progress had been made on this issue and also around land-use flexibility when pre-1990 forests were harvested.

    While wider agreement was not secured, the issues would be discussed at coming negotiations.

    The scribe swallowed the PR

    Cancun’s advances

    * 193 countries agreed to a plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

    * A fund is to be set up by rich nations to help poor countries adapt to floods and droughts.

    * $134 billion a year will be paid to the ‘green fund’ from 2020.

    * The money will also help developing countries like India and China switch to renewable energy.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 19/12/2010 at 3:21 pm said:

      Greenhouse effect and climate change: a resource document for New Zealand MPs

      Parliamentary support, Research papers

      2001/09 4 September 2001

      The Government has announced its intention to ratify the Kyoto Protocol by September 2002. This will require passage of appropriate legislation.

      To assist Members in familiarising themselves with the international and local background on this issue, the Parliamentary Library has prepared a detailed paper, available to all Members and support staff on request. This note provides the executive summary from the paper, and a summary of its contents.

      • The “greenhouse effect” is a natural phenomenon in which certain gases in the lower atmosphere prevent some of the heat energy radiated from the Earth from escaping. The human-caused emissions of greenhouse gases (CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, and some industrial gases) have over the last few centuries added to this effect, making global temperatures warmer than they would otherwise be and affecting global weather patterns.

      • The hole in the ozone layer is a separate phenomenon, but there are a few linkages with the greenhouse effect. For example, some gases which deplete ozone in the upper atmosphere (CFCs) also act as greenhouse gases in the lower atmosphere, and the trapping of heat in the lower atmosphere by the greenhouse effect leads to a cooler upper atmosphere and a slower recovery time for the ozone layer.

      • Average global surface temperature has already increased about 0.6°C since 1860.1 The freeze-free season has lengthened in many regions over 1950-1993. In New Zealand and Australia, temperatures have risen 0.5 to 0.9°C.

      • During the 20th century global sea level has already risen 0.1 to 0.2 metres and rainfall patterns have changed in many areas. In New Zealand and Australia, sea level has risen on average about 20 mm per decade over the last 50-100 years and rainfall trends have followed the cyclical El Niño events.

      • The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)2 has reported new and stronger evidence that most of the global warming observed over the last 150 years is attributable to human activities. If only human or natural influences on the climate are separately modelled they do not fully explain the historical changes, but there is a good match for both human and natural influences combined.

      • Before significant human influence, the climate of the Earth alternated between warm and cold periods over cycles of tens of thousands of years (e.g. the Cambrian and Cretaceous eras and a number of Ice Ages). However, since the Industrial Revolution human activity has led to concentrations of CO2 and methane higher than at any time during the past 420,000 years, and CO2the highest it has been for the last 20 million years.

      • The world is already committed to some climate change which cannot be avoided, due to the long life in the atmosphere of the greenhouse gases already emitted over the last few centuries and the inertia in aspects of the global climate system.

      • Over the next century, there is a 90-99% chance of higher maximum and minimum temperatures, more hot days, fewer cold and frost days, and reduced daytime temperature ranges over nearly all land areas.

      • If greenhouse gas emissions are not controlled, the result of 35 modelling scenarios predicts that global average temperature will increase by 1.4°C to 5.8°C over the period 1990 to 2100, a rate of warming without precedent over the last 10,000 years. Sea-ice, glaciers, snow cover and ice caps are predicted to decrease, contributing to a global mean sea level rise of 0.09 to 0.88 metres over 1990-2100, and intense precipitation events (drought and flood). Tropical cyclones are predicted to increase in some areas.

      • The impacts are expected to fall disproportionately on the poorest people. Those with the fewest resources have the least capacity to adapt and are the most vulnerable.

      • Rainfall predictions for New Zealand arise from the expectation that cyclical El Niño events will increase or be exacerbated by global climate change. During El Niño events in the summer there are stronger and more frequent winds from the west, causing more rain in western areas and more drought on the east coast. In the winter, the wind is more from the south causing colder conditions.


    • Richard C (NZ) on 23/12/2010 at 7:53 pm said:

      ETS review will check scheme’s goals, minister says

      6:21 PM Friday Dec 24, 2010 – NZH

      The Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) is to be reviewed next year and Climate Change Minister Nick Smith says he wants to make sure it is achieving its goals of reducing emissions with the least possible cost to consumers and businesses.

      The ETS makes industries pay for some of their emissions and it is being introduced in stages.

      Dr Smith announced today the review panel would be headed by former Labour cabinet minister David Caygill, and would consider future design settings for the ETS.

      Transport fuels, electricity production and industrial processes came under the regime in July this year. Agriculture is due to come under it in 2015.


      Dr Smith said the review panel would consider whether the ETS should continue to be scaled up to full obligation.

      “When we introduced it on July 1 we only provided for half obligation – that means they only have to pay for one in two tonnes of emissions that they put out,” he said.

      “That halved the cost to consumers, which is why we did it, but the current legislation moves to full obligation – meaning that 50 per cent discount comes off – in January 2013.”


      Other members of the panel are chartered accountant Julia Hoare who specialises in carbon markets; Chris Karamea Insley, a company director with forestry and Treaty of Waitangi knowledge; dairy farmer and chancellor of Lincoln University Tom Lambie, former Consumers’ Institute boss David Russell; lawyer Geoff Thompson, and former diplomat Dr John Wood who is Canterbury University’s pro-chancellor.

      The public will be able to make submissions to the panel.


      – NZPA

    • Andy on 23/12/2010 at 8:45 pm said:

      The non-discounted price for CO2 will be set by the market, as I am led to understand.
      To date, no one has explained to me how this market price is reached and how NZ businesses are supposed to plan for it.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 24/12/2010 at 9:02 am said:

      The “market” being lieu of any other, so the NZ price would be aligned to that I’m guessing.

      First problem being (for them), that the “market” price wont reach the threshold that makes any difference which seems to be in excess of $100. This because coal is so cheap relatively.

      Next problem being (for us), is what is known euphemistically as “carbon leakage”. This is the inevitable situation where commercial operators hightail it out of the country to somewhere (anywhere) that the tax is not imposed.

      “Carbon leakage” is not observed in economic modelling until emissions prices are well over AU$200/ tCO2, so we can breathe a sigh of relief because we can rely on models to substitute our common sense – apparently.

      I’m inclined to be more than a little sceptical given the situation we saw here in Mt Maunganui when NZ Controls moved their production to China where they could employ 19 Chinese instead of 1 Kiwi. F&P is similarly pragmatic and Seeka Kiwifruit trialled packing in China during the 2010 season. Then there’s Vietnam, Cambodia and India. An Indian corporate has just outlaid AU$850m for WA coal so I don’t think they’re worried too much about carbon prices – bring it on, they say.

      We have already seen the Redcar UK debacle. See “Corus Teeside, Tata and “ Green Credits”, a new form of asset stripping?”

      The last British steel-making enterprise shipped off to India. Economic modelling? Yeah right.

      Immediately after a NZ corporate financial controller inserts “Carbon Price $100” in his/her spreadsheet and hits “Enter”, the Planning Dept will receive a memo requesting options for off-shoring any part of the operation that incurs the cost irrespective of what “economic modelling” might say..

    • Richard C (NZ) on 29/01/2011 at 5:55 pm said:

      New Zealand spot carbon price rebounds as CERs rise

      Fri Jan 28, 2011 – Reuters

      WELLINGTON Jan 28 (Reuters) – New Zealand carbon prices ended a month-long slide to trade higher this week, tracking a recovery in European carbon prices.

      Spot permits under New Zealand’s emissions trading scheme were trading at NZ$19.30 ($14.85), according to calculations by Thomson Reuters subsidiary Point Carbon, up 20 cents on a week ago.


      Forwards also rallied in line with European prices, with the March 2012 contract valued at NZ$20.60, up from NZ$19.90 a week ago.

      December CERs closed on Thursday at 11.15 euros , according to Reuters Data. The contract gained as much as 3.4 percent this week, before retreating on profit-taking.


      Brokers say there is no reason for NZUs to trade at a premium given the large volume of CERs available in the international market. So CERs are setting the tone of pricing in the New Zealand market at present.


    • Andy on 29/01/2011 at 6:29 pm said:

      Interesting link, Richard.

      NZ is currently pricing units at $25, but at a 2/1 discount until the end of the transition period.
      It seems a reasonable deduction, therefore, that the government are overpricing the ETS units.

      I suspect that the Euro CER market is rebounding after the suspension due to fraud.

      How much of NZ’s money is tied up with this fraud?

    • Richard C (NZ) on 29/01/2011 at 7:10 pm said:

      I don’t think there’s any NZ money tied up but what will happen when/if they purge the market of fraudulent traders?

      Less traders means less demand and lower prices, so the distortion between the arbitrarily set NZ price and the EU market price will probably widen even more.

      The recent suspension of the EU market was for a relatively minor fraud (theft of units) compared to the larger tax scam that is still underpinning the market by possibly 90% of trades.


      Carbon trading fraudsters in Europe pocket €5bn

      10 December 2009 – GWPF

      The Daily Telegraph: Carbon trading fraudsters may have accounted for up to 90pc of all market activity in some European countries, with criminals pocketing an estimated €5bn (£4.5bn) mainly in Britain, France, Spain, Denmark and Holland, according to Europol, the European law enforcement agency..

      The Carbon Carousel: VAT Tax Fraud

      July 22nd 2010 – Corporate Watch

      VAT tax fraud – dubbed by the mainstream media as ‘carousel fraud’ or ‘missing-trader fraud’ – has been troubling the carbon trading industry for a few years. The scam involves setting up a trading account within one national carbon registry with which to buy and sell carbon credits within the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS). Carbon credits are purchased from another country, as cross-national trades do not face VAT tax. The credits are then sold on in the country where the account is registered, with VAT added. But instead of paying the VAT to the tax authorities, the traders keep it as profit made on the transaction before disappearing into the ether. Bloomberg New Energy Finance have estimated that the fraud affected 7 per cent of the $125bn carbon market in the EU throughout 2009, with Europol (the EU-wide law enforcement agency) announcing a loss of 5bn euros for European governments in the 18 months leading up to December 2009.

  16. Andy on 02/02/2011 at 1:17 pm said:

    MFE are seeking submissions on its target of 50% reduction in emissions by 2050

    Submissions can be made to the Ministry for the Environment at and close on 28 February 2011.

    Personally, I can’t see how this can be achieved without shutting down the economy. (Especially since 50% of our emissions are deemed to come from ruminant stock).
    Either that, or we could be faced with a very large bill for offsetting.

    The current target of 10% emissions reductions by 2020 won’t be achieved; even the government agree with that.

  17. Andy on 08/03/2011 at 9:01 pm said:

    Congressional Hearing on EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Regulations

    Full Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) and Rep. Whitfield have joined Democratic leaders in the U.S. House in authoring the Energy Tax Prevention Act (H.R. 910), a bill to block EPA’s controversial backdoor climate change agenda that would further drive up the price of energy for American consumers and job creators at a time when gas prices are already spiking and job creation remains weak.

  18. Andy on 08/04/2011 at 8:43 am said:

    Dr Jan Wright’s submission to the ETS review:

    I find this bit really grates on me:

    Agriculture is currently set to enter the ETS in 2015. The agricultural sector is
    responsible for 50% of New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions mainly in the form
    of methane and nitrous oxide.
    It is unusual for a developed nation to have such a high percentage of its emissions
    generated by agriculture. By comparison only 7% of Germany’s emissions are
    agricultural and even Australia’s agricultural sector is responsible for only 15% of
    their total emissions.9
    Because agriculture is such a key contributor to New Zealand’s emissions profile it
    must be included in the ETS. The emissions produced by agriculture will have to be
    paid for at a national level. If they are not met by emitters they will have to be met
    by the taxpayer.

    This seems odd logic. NZ is a country that has a low level of heavy industry and a high percentage of renewable energy. Therefore it follows that agricultural emissions will have a relatively high percentage in the emissions profile. It does seem rather perverse logic to then state that we need to include agriculture in the ETS, alone in the entire world.

    (Leaving aside the inconvenient truths about methane, that can save for another day).

    Dr Wright then opines:

    Backtracking on bringing agriculture into the ETS would also send a negative signal
    to the international community. It would bring into question our commitment to
    carbon reductions and be likely to affect our clean green image

    How many government apparatchiks in Wellington use this phrase clean green image and how many times a day?. Would they like to visit Christchurch perhaps, enjoy the earthy experience of the longdrop or the communal portaloo. Perhaps an evening stroll along the beach to wonder at the raw sewerage being pumped into the sea? Perhaps they’d like to come back in winter and enjoy lungfuls of our finest smog. Funny, isn’t it, how the country is choking at the thought of bailing out AMI to the tune of a billion, yet Dr Wright can seriously suggest that NZ will have a liability of $1 billion A YEAR based on their totally artificial construct, the ETS and global carbon taxation.

    • Bob D on 08/04/2011 at 10:49 am said:

      I feel it has nothing to do with emissions. Rather, they attack the wealth generation strengths of each country. So for a heavily industialised nation, they attack the CO2 emissions. New Zealand is theoretically ideal, in that it has low industry and mainly ‘green’ agricultural exports. So they come up with methane and nitrous oxide as our evils! We all have to play a part, you see, to reduce our wealth and give money to the global governance layer. Nothing to do with emissions, or a 0.0001°C potential reduction in temperatures in a hundred years.

      The idea that natural agriculture is contributing to ‘dangerous’ carbon levels is ludicrous to start with. The fact that everyone just accepts this nonsense is what gets to me.

    • Andy on 08/04/2011 at 11:42 am said:

      What really amazes me is that there are people who seriously believe we can reduce our emissions by 50% or even more by 2050. None of them can actually come up with any numbers to suggest how this might be achieved.

      Barking mad, all of them.

    • Andy on 08/04/2011 at 12:43 pm said:

      I’m starting to wonder about the mandate of this Parliamentary Commissioner to the Environment.

      These people are paid by the government to lobby the government?

      For example, when they make this statement:

      Climate change is the biggest environmental challenge of our time. As the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, much of my work relates to the need to make the transition to a low-carbon economy

      Anyone care to disagree? Oh tough, you are paying these people to make these statements on your behalf, to advise the government.

  19. Ron on 09/04/2011 at 12:53 pm said:

    It is interesting to browse through the submissions.

    Many of the big players make excellent points and are very critical – particularly regarding the lack of adequate consultation, no proper analysis of costs/benefits, the magnitude of the proposed target, intention to make these aspirational targets mandatory, no consideration of the wider international context etc.

    It is staggering to see how many submissions are urging even bigger target reductions! Do they not realize their cushy academic sinecures/activist lifestyles would be threatened for zero environmental gain?

  20. Richard C (NZ) on 07/05/2011 at 12:01 am said:

    Brian Fallow: Battle lines drawn over emissions review

    By Brian Fallow
    5:30 AM Thursday Apr 21, 2011
    ETS simply nonsense for tiny NZ

    By Garth George

    5:30 AM Thursday Mar 17, 2011
    Nigel Brunel: Climate inaction risks high costs
    By Nigel Brunel

    Nigel Brunel is head of carbon and energy futures at OMFinancial

    5:30 AM Thursday May 5, 2011

  21. Hemi Mck on 23/05/2011 at 1:10 pm said:

    With the political focus on agriculture it is timely to focus on the particularly bizarre form of ETS both parties are heading towards.

    The science behind inclusion of methane CH4 and laughing gas N2O is even more dubious than the science around AGW. The IPCC factors the two gases are 23 times and 933 times as bad as CO2 which elevates them to half NZ’s target numbers.

    Methane however has a half life of only 8 years in the atmosphere before breaking down into CO2 and despite being insoluble in water its atmospheric concentration has been stable or falling for 10 years.

    N2O is measure in parts per billion. It happens to have a similar solubility in water to CO2 each having 40,000 times more dissolved in oceans than free in the atmosphere. It is technically impossible for N2O to ever be a significant greenhouse gas. It’s atmospheric concentration mimics CO2 (both sea temperature driven) albeit at 0.001 the level.

    The nitrogen cycle is of course independent of the carbon cycle which means that Godzone is the only country planning on taxing Nitrogen as well as Carbon. It can’t be long before they want to tax Oxygen.

  22. Andy on 24/05/2011 at 10:58 pm said:

    PM’s ETS talk ‘dishonest’ – Goff

    Fonterra today announced the biggest ever payout, over $8 a kilo for milk fat solids. It’s not right that the taxpayer is subsidising the cost of the ETS when agriculture, like every other sector, should be carrying its share.”


    ‘The challenge will be to identify systems and production methods to reduce emissions two years earlier than planned,” he said.

    ”The innovation and vision of farmers will inevitably drive the changes needed to remain profitable.”


    The additional funding for research and development will enable agricultural scientists and research organisations to access more money for the ideas that need further investigation and commercialisation,

    The gravy train rolls on…

  23. Richard C (NZ) on 05/07/2011 at 3:09 pm said:

    The global collapse of the cap-and-trade market
    Canada dodges carbon bullet
    Collapse of global cap-and-trade market vindicates Stephen Harper


    What if they created a global cap-and-trade market in carbon dioxide emissions and nobody came?

    That’s almost what’s happening now.

    It underscores the wisdom of Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s refusal to be railroaded into carbon trading by the opposition parties and all the usual “green” suspects.

    The international trade in carbon credits, having proven ineffective at lowering carbon dioxide emissions, while raising consumer prices and riddled with the same kind of fraud, profiteering and reckless trading practices that led to the 2008 global recession, is now suffering its final indignity.

    Almost no one wants to buy carbon credits, which are the stock of carbon trading markets, with each credit permitting the bearer to emit one tonne of carbon dioxide through the burning of fossil fuels.

    The signs of a looming collapse in carbon markets are everywhere.

    Recently, the World Bank warned the international carbon market was on life support outside Europe, valued at a mere $1.5 billion annually, a fraction of its anticipated value.

    Last month, HSBC Global Asset Management (Canada) Ltd. announced it was winding up its global climate change fund, due to “the small fund size and relatively small number of unitholders.”

    In November 2010 the Chicago Climate Exchange shut down North American trading, although it continues to trade in Europe.

    The reason Europe has been the lone exception is due to the European Union’s Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), created in 2005 and today the world’s largest cap-and-trade market, valued at about $140 billion last year.

    But recently, even the ETS has taken major hits, with the price of a carbon credit falling by as much as 15% in one week, down to its lowest level in more than two years, at approximately 13.65 Euros or $19.11 Cdn………….

  24. Andy on 13/07/2011 at 10:00 am said:

    Federated Farmers former chief Don Nicholson has announced he is standing for the Act party at the next election,

    I would imagine that Don would be very interested in our discussions on ruminant methane, as he is a strong opponent to the ETS.

  25. Andy on 02/08/2011 at 2:08 pm said:

    Govt sends ETS report back for updating

    Less than 2 per cent of surrendered units were imported from international Kyoto markets.

    That ought to silence critics who saw the scheme as a large transfer of money out of the New Zealand economy, Smith said. The ETS was working well, he said, pointing to declines in national emissions last year and 2009, after they had risen an average of 3 per cent a year between 2000 and 2008.

    The decline had been aided by recession and a “wet” year for electricity in 2010, which saw renewable sources meet 79 per cent of electricity demand – a 12-year high.

    But industrial emissions were also lower than forecast (25 per cent) and overall emissions from the energy, transport and industrial sectors were 13 per cent lower than forecast.

    The real success of the ETS lay in how it was influencing investment decisions, Smith said.

  26. Andy on 05/08/2011 at 5:05 pm said:

    Aucklander Will Ryan quizzes Nick Smith over the ETS

    I met Will at the Monckton talk in Auckland. This is one guy to watch, I reckon.

  27. Andy on 10/08/2011 at 5:57 pm said:

    Murial Newman : Time to scrap the ETS

    This year’s budget appropriation for the ETS is almost $1 billion. The scheme is so complex and bureaucratic that $23 million will be spent on a carbon accounting system, $11 million on policy advice, and $654,000 on administering the scheme

    This week’s NZCPR Guest Commentator, Robin Grieve, an agricultural consultant and climate researcher, puts it this way: “The only reason New Zealand’s Kyoto balance is in credit is because of carbon accounting that is fraudulent at worst and smoke and mirror trickery at best.”

  28. Andy on 10/08/2011 at 7:00 pm said:

    Robin Grieve completely skewers the NZ ETS

    Lot’s of numbers here to back up his case, well worth the read

    • Ron on 10/08/2011 at 9:58 pm said:

      Wow. Let’s hope these facts get proper traction in the media and our politicians are adequately challenged when they spout misinformation.

    • Mike Jowsey on 11/08/2011 at 11:29 am said:

      Good article alright.

      However, I am still unclear on where the money goes. Grieve seems to be saying that it all goes to foresters, but if that is true I would be silly if I didn’t immediately sell my livestock and buy Pinus Radiata clones in bulk. This would also save me the costs of fertiliser, diesel, drench, eartags and vet bills, not to mention carbon credits. The entire country will, in the blink of an eye, be turned into forests from Reinga to Bluff. Is there evidence that this is happening, or will happen? Or are the hundreds of millions generated by the scheme going somewhere else not mentioned?

    • Bob D on 11/08/2011 at 11:51 am said:

      As I understand it, trees planted after 1990 are eligible under the ETS. After 2008 trees lose ETS credits when they are harvested, but new trees gain ETS credits when planted.
      In early 2008, I did a few road trips around the North Island for various reasons, and noted the widespread removal of forests. Huge areas of land were being converted to pasture.
      I spoke to a few people, and they said it was better to harvest the forests before the ETS rules came in (otherwise they would have to pay under the ETS), and to convert to dairy, since the milk product prices were higher. Many of the farmers were thinking of converting anyway, but the ETS prompted them to actually do it.
      I concluded from this that the ETS has in fact contributed to deforestation in NZ.
      Please note that this was not a rigorous analysis, it came from chatting to farmers I knew, as well as some folk in the transport business, who were going to be affected by the reduction in logging freight.

    • Andy on 11/08/2011 at 12:26 pm said:

      I have heard this tale too, that deforestation was an unintended consequence of the ETS. I don’t have any data on this either.

      The bigger issue, in my view, is that crown forests, I.e. doc land, is not included in our Kyoto obligations, to my knowledge.

      this is the biggest scam of them all

    • Mike Jowsey on 11/08/2011 at 1:13 pm said:

      Bloody crazy – what a way to ruin a country. After 2015, of course, those pasturelands (formerly forests) will be wiping 10% off the bottom line by way of the fart tax.

  29. Andy on 17/08/2011 at 8:38 pm said:

    Greenhouse gas emissions from electricity generation are the lowest in a decade thanks to an increase in renewable energy and reduction in coal generation, the Minister for Climate Change Issues, Nick Smith, and the Acting Minister of Energy and Resources, Hekia Parata, announced today.

    The Energy Greenhouse Gas Emissions report, released by the Ministry of Economic Development, shows that renewable energy is not only providing New Zealand with a range of energy options but is also having a positive effect on the environment.

    “We are already one of the world’s leading countries in renewable energy. Last year 74% of New Zealand’s electricity came from renewable sources,’’ says Ms Parata.

    “New wind and geothermal generation, along with a strong year for hydro generation, saw greenhouse gas emissions from electricity generation decline 11% from 2009 – to the lowest level since 2000.

    “Reduced emissions from electricity generation also contributed to an overall decrease in energy sector emissions of 1.4% in 2010.”

    The Minister for Climate Issues Dr Nick Smith says a year into the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), emissions in the energy and industrialised sectors are significantly less than projected.

    “The most encouraging feature of the ETS for Government is in the way it is successfully changing behaviour and reducing emissions. While 2010 had good rainfall, the higher proportion of renewables was significantly better than in years with similar weather conditions,’’ says Dr Smith.

    “In 2010 coal supplied only 4% of our total generation – down from a high of 13% in 2005. Geothermal generation has almost doubled from 7% in 2001 to 13% in 2010, and in the same period, wind generation increased 10 times from 0.36% to 3.73%. Hydro has remained constant at 56%.

    “Since the introduction of the ETS, we are now seeing evidence of power companies better managing their resources to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”

    The Energy Greenhouse Gas Emissions report is an annual report which looks at the energy sector’s greenhouse gas emissions. The data collected is part of New Zealand’s reporting obligations to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

    The publication and detailed data tables are available at

    Media contacts:
    Simon Beattie (Nick Smith) 021 243 8271
    Julie Ash (Hekia Parata) 04 817 9825 or 021 940 357

  30. Ron on 30/08/2011 at 5:04 pm said:

    The absurdity of our ETS gets a mention from Roger Pielke Jr

    “If you have 15 minutes and are interested in the debacle that is New Zealand’s carbon policy, have a look” – referring to Lindsay Horner’s video “Coming Clean – New Zealand’s Emissions Trading Scheme Explained”

    • Mike Jowsey on 30/08/2011 at 7:16 pm said:

      Pretty good video – thanks for the link Ron. I suspect the author is a lukewarmer, which I won’t hold against him. The article is well balanced, with interviews of politicians, industrialists and farmers. And the animations are pretty sophisticated, and sometimes bloody funny. The overall impression given is, “OK, so we all know carbon dioxide is a problem, but the ETS sucks”. At about 24:30 – “Not doing enough to reduce greenhouse gas emissions may, as we all know, have devastating consequences. But are we in effect pouring billions of dollars into a scheme which does nothing?” . While I agree with the latter assertion, the former is a stretch, to put it mildly.

      It certainly clarifies some of the mystery around the ETS, the “hideously complex” (in the words of our PM) monster created by our beloved bureaucrats.

  31. Ron on 07/09/2011 at 12:03 pm said:

    Another attempt to frame the debate in the Herald
    “EU will re-sign Kyoto if others act”
    while it might be more accurate to say
    “EU won’t re-sign Kyoto unless others act”

    EU Climate Action Commissioner Connie Hedegaard:
    “But it only makes sense to keep the architecture alive if some of the other big emitters tell us when they intend to follow. What is the point of keeping something alive if forever it is only limited to 12 or 14 per cent of global emissions? That makes no sense.”

    Comment from Tim Groser:

    “Tim Groser, the minister responsible for international climate change negotiations, also dismisses as “soft-headed” the entrenched idea that developed countries have to lead and then miraculously developing countries will follow.”

    Groser said it was now certain there would be a gap between the end of Kyoto’s first commitment period and any future international deal.

    “But the significance of that can easily be overstated,” he said.

    “Neither Europe nor New Zealand is going to dismantle its emissions trading scheme because of a gap. A gap in commitments does not mean countries are washing their hands of climate change … and saying ‘Ah well, that didn’t work’.”

    It was important to preserve the elements of the Kyoto system like carbon trading and the Clean Development Mechanism under which developing countries can earn credits for climate friendly projects that would not otherwise occur, and emitters in the rich world can lower the cost of meeting their obligations by buying them.”

    = Licence to scam

  32. Ron on 16/09/2011 at 4:30 pm said:

    David Farrar comments on the just published ETS review and provokes some animated reactions !

    • Andy on 16/09/2011 at 5:19 pm said:

      Ron, the comments come with a “government health warning”.

      “Adult Anglo-Saxon profanities may offend”

  33. Richard C (NZ) on 03/10/2011 at 1:28 pm said:

    Free Carbon Offsets

    How can I get my carbon offsets?

    Just click on the certificate link, fill out the form, click go, and within seconds you will have a beautiful personalized certificate downloaded right to your computer.

    For a guilt-free carbon footprint.

  34. Andy on 07/11/2011 at 1:01 pm said:

    Scheme just ‘a big con’

    National Party Rangitikei candidate Ian McKelvie has been accused of calling one of his own party’s policies a “con”.

    Mr McKelvie told the crowd at a National Council of Women-organised debate that the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) was “the biggest con that ever struck this world”

    Nice one Ian..

  35. Andy on 11/11/2011 at 9:49 am said:

    National’s moderate approach to emissions scheme

    National would slow down the implementation of the contentious emissions trading scheme, leader John Key says.

    Key announced the party’s environment policy this morning during a day on the hustings in Nelson.

    National would introduce legislation next year slowing the phase in of the ETS and for managing activities in the exclusive economic zone.

    The ETS would be phased in three equal steps on January 1 2013, 2014 and 2015, as recommended in a recent review of the scheme.

    There would be a further review in 2014 and agriculture would only be included if new technologies were available and more progress was made internationally on reducing emissions.

    • Clarence on 20/11/2011 at 1:20 am said:

      The National Party’s “moderate” approach is to to take the existing ETS – inarguably the most comprehensive and expensive scheme anywhere – and double its economic impact over the next three years.

      Business New Zealand is appalled: “On a conservative estimate, the proposals could see business face $1 billion in costs for the transport, energy and industrial sectors from 2015.” It says “we should not punish ourselves unneccesarily”.

      In “What Business Leaders Want”, the NZ Herald reports the CEO of our second-largest listed company, saying “let’s focus on what matters” and choosing three major concerns.

      One is the plan to double the ETS – “the transition arrangement should stay” says Jonathan Ling, stating that the economic outlook is much worse than 2009, and industry cannot afford the cost rises and profit squeeze caused by the planned expansion.

  36. Mike Jowsey on 18/11/2011 at 8:40 am said:

    ETS an election decider for farmers

    English doesn’t believe concerns about the climate stack up, saying New Zealand farmers are the most efficient in the world. “If you’re concerned about the climate why would you make it difficult for the most efficient farmers, the most productive on the planet, so they stop producing and then that food gets produced in less efficient countries overseas.”

  37. Andy on 04/12/2011 at 8:02 pm said:

    Carbon credits pricing crashes and burns

    The price of New Zealand units (NZUs) has crashed from $22 in May to about $11 last week, stifling interest in developing carbon offsetting initiatives here, according to carbon market participants.

    The price crash has been so steep that by one calculation, if the price trend continued for another 100 days, the value of NZU credits would be zero.

    The reasons for the crash appear to be the unfettered ability of New Zealand emitters to import credits of dubious quality from overseas, coupled with the recent dumping of international credits by cash-strapped European industrial and utilities companies selling down their stockpiles of carbon to realise cash as the debt crisis worsens, participants in the fledgling carbon trading market say.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 07/12/2011 at 7:36 am said:

      Still crashing:-

      NZ carbon price collapses below $10 a tonne

      The price of a tonne of emitted carbon has fallen below $10 for the first time today, with Westpac quoting a buy price for a New Zealand Unit falling to $9.90 as European carbon prices collapse.


      The European price for Carbon Emission Reduction units, which are tradeable in New Zealand, fell to an all-time low of 4.99 Euros overnight, brought on by an over-supply of CERs and declining industrial output as the Eurozone crisis saps global growth.

      However, the quoted NZU price was still higher than the price implied by the closing price in Europe of around NZ$8.80, said Daniel Crawford at OM Financial, reflecting the fact New Zealand foresters are seeking a premium on European CER prices.


    • Andy on 07/12/2011 at 8:17 am said:

      Climate Change Negotiations Minister Tim Groser and his Australian equivalent Greg Combet announced that an officials group would provide advice on “specific options for direct linking” of the two countries’ ETS’s, including “the possible timing for any linking arrangement to come into force and practical steps needed in each country to enact it.”

      The EU has been such a spectacular suicide pact that now Aus/NZ wants to emulate it.

    • Anthropogenic Globale Cooling on 23/12/2011 at 9:15 am said:

      I wonder what will happen to that arrangement when Gillard & her govt are promptly kicked of office next election.

  38. Richard C (NZ) on 11/01/2012 at 7:14 pm said:

    China to introduce carbon tax by 2015

    China is reportedly set to introduce a carbon tax by 2015.

    State run television claims proposals for a new environmental tax system have been submitted to the country’s Ministry of Finance.

    It’s believed the starting price would be 10 yuan – that’s about $1.55 – far less than our [Australian] government’s $23 a tonne price tag.

  39. Richard C (NZ) on 17/04/2012 at 9:51 pm said:

    Carbon cash crop for NZ

    The retooling of the Emissions Trading Scheme looks capable of swelling government coffers by hundreds of millions of dollars a year.

    The Government revealed the blueprint for altering the ETS including provisions to allow it to issue and auction New Zealand carbon credits (known as NZUs), as was revealed first by the Sunday Star-Times in reports in February and March.

    The plan is intended to end what is projected to become a politically untenable flood of cash being exported each year by the likes of petrol retailers and power companies to buy foreign carbon credits to cover a gap in supply here in New Zealand.


    EU units on the way to zero each and our businesses forced to buy local at $25 a tonne – what a despicable action.

  40. Anthropogenic Global Cooling on 19/04/2012 at 8:29 pm said:

    IMPORTANT email received from Dr Muriel Newman. Spread the word guys:

    ‘Hi there,

    You are receiving this email because your name is on the New Zealand Centre for Political Research petition to suspend the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). You can see the petition form here:

    A major government review of the ETS is currently underway, and since I provided some details about it in my latest NZCPR Weekly newsletter, I thought I would send you the newsletter to ensure you are aware that the review is taking place.

    Submissions to the review close on May 11th.

    If you are seriously concerned about the damage the ETS is doing to the economy, then please do all you can to oppose the government’s plan to double ETS charges and convert the ETS into a permanent carbon tax.

    As you will be aware, politics is a numbers game, so unless the government receives large numbers of submissions opposing their planned changes, they will think the public are in favour of them.

    If you are not on the NZCPR mailing list to receive these free weekly public policy newsletters, I would urge you to register here: Also, please feel free to pass this email on to others who may be interested – and urge them to register too… and send in a submission!

    Kindest regards,

  41. Andy on 30/05/2012 at 4:34 pm said:

    It’s All Over: EU Carbon Trading “Plunges To Practically Zero”

    Tuesday, 22 May 2012 21:20 Reuters

    • Richard C (NZ) on 30/05/2012 at 5:34 pm said:

      “Emissions trading will never find its feet again without radical political action,” said Christine Bortenlaenger, the head of the exchange, in a statement.

      I thought emissions trading was “radical political action” in the first place.

      “To actually achieve the original goal of reducing carbon emissions, trading prices must be boosted by drastically reducing the number of certificates. Only then will companies perceive investment in carbon reduction technologies as worthwhile,”

      Yeees. Warren Buffet employs that structure with Berkshire Hathaway (current share price US$120,133.00

      Except that BRK.A shares are an actual “investment”.

  42. Andy on 12/06/2012 at 5:18 pm said:

    Manure could prove farmers’ carbon cash cow

    It is a far cry from traditional farming techniques, but dairy farmers are being encouraged to earn carbon credits from the Federal Government by destroying cow manure.

    Under the Carbon Farming Initiative, the Government says dairy producers will be able to earn carbon credits if they capture and destroy methane and other greenhouse gasses emitted by manure.

    Farmers who participate in the program will cover manure ponds, then have the choice of burning and destroying the captured gas, or using it to fuel internal combustion engines to produce electricity.

    Meanwhile in NZ, we propose to fine farmers for creating methane

    • Mike Jowsey on 14/06/2012 at 11:41 pm said:

      Sounds good! Until you read that last awful sentence:
      “The ETS remains on the country’s other emissions, and the government expects to gather $583 million this year in climate change related imposts.”

    • Richard C (NZ) on 15/06/2012 at 12:36 am said:

      If your cherries are exported Mike, the govt clips the ticket by ETS shipping levy (sea certainly and air I think) plus fuel levies to the port.

      Just thought you would like to know that if you already didn’t.

  43. Richard C (NZ) on 04/09/2012 at 3:56 pm said:

    Am I reading this right?

    California has already disallowed UN issued CER’s and Australia will ban them when Australia launches its emissions trading scheme on July 1, 2015

    Read more:

    Not a good look for the UN.

  44. Andy on 11/09/2012 at 8:45 pm said:

    Global carbon trading system has ‘essentially collapsed’

    The world’s only global system of carbon trading, designed to give poor countries access to new green technologies, has “essentially collapsed”, jeopardising future flows of finance to the developing world.

    Billions of dollars have been raised in the past seven years through the United Nations’ system to set up greenhouse gas-cutting projects, such as windfarms and solar panels, in poor nations. But the failure of governments to provide firm guarantees to continue with the system beyond this year has raised serious concerns over whether it can survive.

    A panel convened by the UN reported on Monday at a meeting in Bangkok that the system, known as the clean development mechanism (CDM), was in dire need of rescue. The panel warned that allowing the CDM to collapse would make it harder in future to raise finance to help developing countries cut carbon.

    Joan MacNaughton, a former top UK civil servant and vice chair of the high level panel, told the Guardian: “The carbon market is profoundly weak, and the CDM has essentially collapsed. It’s extremely worrying that governments are not taking this seriously.”

  45. Richard C (NZ) on 12/09/2012 at 10:35 am said:

    Grant Robertson’s (Labour Environment Spokesperson) reference to “polluters” in this Voxy report is reprehensible

    “The Bill before Parliament fundamentally undermines the Emissions Trading Scheme by continuing to subsidise polluters at the expense of taxpayers”

    • Andy on 12/09/2012 at 10:49 am said:

      “Jan Wright is to be congratulated for telling the Government exactly what is wrong with its approach to climate change.”

      I saw Jan Wright on the telly last night, babbling on about “polluters” with pictures of cows in the background.

      I actually had a discussion on the Green party’s “frogblog” about the ruminant methane issue, and some of them actually agreed with me (that it is a closed cycle, and largely a non-problem) but they always get distracted by some other issue of dairy that they don’t like – like waterways, nitrogen-based fertilizer etc.

  46. Andy on 17/09/2012 at 8:53 pm said:

    Jo Nova does a pretty good demo job on those so-called fossil fuel subsidies we keep hearing about.

  47. Richard C (NZ) on 18/09/2012 at 8:41 pm said:

    Fears for emissions trading scheme

    The controversial emissions trading scheme (ETS) is going pear-shaped, with carbon credits plunging from $20 per tonne of emissions to $4.20 per unit last week. Senior business reporter Simon Hartley talks to ETS supporters who are highlighting the emerging anomalies and are alarmed over the Government’s proposed changes to the ETS legislation.

    The carbon price plunge is contributing to deforestation, lack of incentive for new plantings and making it more attractive to convert forests to dairying, tourism or lifestyle blocks – all boding ill for New Zealand to meet its 2050 target of reducing carbon emissions by 50%.


    “However, the low carbon price is seen by some as providing a boon for pre-1990 forest owners, who can now buy cheap credits to pay for conversion liabilities and fell forests for conversion to other uses, such as dairying or tourism.

    Mr Rhodes sees that scenario as counterproductive to the forestry sector and overall ETS scheme and its aims, saying for carbon forestry “to stack up as investment”, a minimum carbon price of between $15 to $20 tonne was needed.

    Mr Fahey calculated that a pre-1990s forest had faced penalties of $14,000 or more per hectare (when credits were $20) if forests were cleared and not replanted within four years, but last week’s prices dragged that penalty charge to below $2000 per hectare.

    On the other hand, the low carbon prices were painful for owners of forests planted since 1989 as they were eligible to receive and sell carbon credits for carbon stored by their trees as they grew, but at this week’s prices it was not attractive for forestry investors.”
    ETS supporters who are “highlighting the emerging anomalies and are alarmed” – Ha!

  48. Richard C (NZ) on 26/10/2012 at 8:28 am said:

    Some incredible hyperbole in Parliament:-

    ‘Bill halting ETS expansion sparks heated debate’

    The Climate Change Response Bill narrowly passed its second reading yesterday, despite claims from Cunliffe the bill would “sell out the future of your children and my children”.

    “Small point. Extinction for us. And it just happens to be in the lifetime of my two little boys or their children,” Cunliffe said.


    In a speech to Parliament on the bill yesterday, Labour’s economic development spokesman David Cunliffe pointed to the Government benches and said they “should be ashamed”.

    There was debate about whether there would be anywhere between one degree and six degrees of warming in the next century.

    “That may make the difference between the continuation of the human species or not,” he said.

    “We have the bizarre and frankly disgusting picture of a Government so craven to its traditional agricultural and big business backers that it’s selling out the future of my children and your children … because they are confused about science that puts a 95 per cent-plus confidence on this change.”


    People overseas would “die in their millions” from mass famine as a result of climate change.

    “Here, we will just put up with tornadoes, thunder storms, droughts, floods and reduced agricultural production. … People are going to die around the rest of the world and we are going to face refugee flows into New Zealand as a result.”

  49. Richard C (NZ) on 26/10/2012 at 8:34 am said:

    ‘Emissions scheme on a stretcher’

    The Climate Change Iwi Leadership Group points out that the NZUs allocated to iwi – around 30 per cent of the total so far – have dropped in value by more that $500 million compared with what they were worth in the first year of the scheme, up to mid-2011, when NZUs were trading at around $20.

    They are not happy.


    Not everyone is impressed by the Climate Change Iwi Leadership Group’s complaints about massive value destruction arising from the collapse of carbon prices, however.

    Its critics argue the units allocated to owners of land under commercial forests planted before 1990 are compensation for being locked into forestry when that might not be the highest and best use of the land.

    The lock-in arises from deforestation liabilities under Kyoto. When a pre-1990 forest is harvested and not replanted (or replaced by planting an equivalent forest somewhere else) the carbon stored in the trees is deemed to be emitted.

    But a low carbon price lowers that barrier to exit and may make it commercially viable to switch the land use to dairying or dry stock farming – a switch encouraged, as the legislation stands, because agricultural emissions will remain outside the scheme indefinitely. The value of that land should rise accordingly, reducing the harm for which the allocation of units was intended to compensate them.

    The units are worth less but the land is worth more, so where is the grievance?

    It is not that simple, however.

    First, the market value of land is irrelevant if you never plan to sell it.

    Second, the allocation of free NZUs with respect to pre-1990 forests was rough justice, providing a windfall for owners of land for which a change of use is not a viable option regardless of the carbon price, while providing only a small offset for the expected cost of exit when land use change is an option.

    There is also a Treaty dimension.

    A letter from Apirana Mahuika, chairman of the Climate Change Iwi Leadership Group, to Prime Minister John Key and other political leaders, says the import cap issue also significantly impacts recent Treaty settlements, the Central North Island settlement for example, completed on the basis that ETS policy would remain stable, such that the value of credits transferred as part of that settlement would retain their value.

    • Andy on 26/10/2012 at 8:47 am said:

      Lots of sceptic comments on the Herald article, some quite well referenced

  50. Mike Jowsey on 01/02/2013 at 12:44 pm said:

    NZ carbon finds new record lows amid stable supply

    31 Jan 2013 09:59

    BEIJING, Jan 31 (Reuters Point Carbon) – Spot permits in the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) fell 6.5 percent week-on-week to close Thursday at NZ$2.45 ($2.05), the lowest weekly closing price ever recorded as fresh supply continued to find its way to the market.


  51. Richard C (NZ) on 17/04/2013 at 7:02 pm said:

    European carbon price tumbles

    European Union politicians rejected a plan to prop up the world’s biggest carbon market on Tuesday, sending it plunging to a new record low and raising questions about its survival.

    Read more:

    Traders took the lack of political support as a signal to sell, driving the market down to its lowest yet. Immediately after the vote, carbon prices dropped by around 40 percent to 2.63 euros (A$3.20) a tonne. They were later trading at 3.15 euros (A$4.00), down 33.4 percent.

    “The carbon market is now in a coma, until a clear intervention takes place,” an emissions trader said.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 17/04/2013 at 7:06 pm said:

      Carbon price collapse could hit Australian budget

      Bloomberg New Energy Finance analyst Konrad Hanschmidt said the low carbon price in Europe could enable Australian companies covered by the domestic carbon price scheme to cut their carbon bill due to the high levels of European emissions allowances they will be able to purchase as of 2015.

      The government says Australian companies will be able to cover half their carbon liability with international carbon permits from 2015.

      Mr Hanschmidt said it would be an extremely tough to convince the European Parliament to change its mind.

      ”If it does not happen we could see prices move towards €1 a tonne over the next few months,” he said.

      ”Until there are clear indications of the parliament reconsidering its position… we do not foresee a recovery in prices.”

      The European decision could have revenue implications for the Australia’s federal budget.

      The government currently predicts carbon prices in the forward estimates will be $29 a tonne in 2015, and has based its expected revenue from the carbon scheme at that price.

      In recent modelling, the government’s Climate Change Authority instead indicated it expected the Australia carbon price to fall to $10.72 a tonne in 2015, which would blow a multi-billion dollar hole in the government’s revenue forecasts.

      Read more:

    • Richard C (NZ) on 17/04/2013 at 7:12 pm said:

      Shell and Greenpeace – bedfellows (from ‘European carbon price tumbles’ article):-

      The power sector and other energy companies, such as Royal Dutch Shell, keen to promote natural gas rather than more carbon-intensive coal, have been strong supporters of the Commission plan.

      Together with more than 40 firms, representing more than 875 billion euros (A$1111 billion) in turnover, Shell placed a full-page advertisement in the Financial Times newspaper on Monday, saying backloading was needed as a stop-gap measure.

      “Without agreement on the backloading proposal the price will fall further threatening the long-term survival of the EU ETS and lead to fragmentation of the single energy market through a patchwork of national regulations,” it said.


      Environmental campaign groups voiced dismay at Tuesday’s vote, which Greenpeace called “a historic failure”.

      “In its present form, the carbon market will not stop a single coal plant from being built,” Greenpeace EU climate policy director Joris den Blanken said.

      Read more:

  52. Andy on 13/06/2013 at 4:59 pm said:

    Draft members bill from NZ Greens to set emissions targets to 33% reduction over 1990 levels by 2020 and 88% reduction by 2050

    • Richard C (NZ) on 13/06/2013 at 5:42 pm said:

      Seems to be a prescription for Warmer World – a planet far far away:

      “New Zealand’s weak targets form a proportionate part of the global emissions gap—the
      collective pledges that amount to only 50% of what is required to remain within the 2°C limit. Those current pledges are estimated to result in a temperature rise of 4°C by 2100, on the cusp of catastrophic climate change.”

      An estimate that isn’t being translated into reality. Well, not in this world anyway.

    • Andy on 13/06/2013 at 5:45 pm said:

      Let’s hope they don’t sneak this one through while our pollies are asleep at the wheel again

  53. Richard C (NZ) on 05/07/2013 at 7:20 pm said:


    Ross McKitrick

    I propose ……… that the best way to proceed would be to put a small tax on CO2
    emissions, and tie its subsequent evolution to a suitable measure of atmospheric
    temperatures. If temperatures go up, so does the tax. If they do not, the tax does
    not change. In this way everybody will expect to get the policy they think best, and
    whoever turns out to be right deserves to be so. Sceptics who do not believe in global
    warming will not expect the tax to go up, and might even expect it to go down. Those
    convinced we are in for rapid warming will expect the tax to rise quickly in the years
    ahead. Companies managing factories and power plants will have to figure out who is
    more likely to be right, because billions of dollars of potential tax liabilities will depend
    on what is going to happen. Nobody will benefit from using false or exaggerated
    science: instead the market will identify those who can prove they understand the
    climate well enough to make accurate forecasts. And policy-makers will be guaranteed
    that, whatever the tax does in the future, the policy will turn out to have been the right

  54. Richard C (NZ) on 30/08/2013 at 4:12 pm said:

    ‘Carbon tax crippled Qantas: coalition’

    David Beniuk, AAP

    Qantas’s modest profit shows the carbon tax’s hit on aviation and tourism, opposition environment spokesman Greg Hunt says.

    Mr Hunt says the airline’s net profit of $5 million for 2012/13 would have been far greater had it not had to pay its carbon tax bill of $106 million.

    He says the company’s bill for income tax was 10 times less at $11 million.

    “It is a real impost on one of Australia’s great companies,” he told reporters at Hobart airport.

    “The numbers are evident for everybody.”

    The coalition has pledged to abolish the tax in the first sitting of parliament after the election if it wins government.

    Mr Hunt said the tax was hitting tourism hard and not reducing Australia’s emissions.
    Qantas’s profit was up from a $245 million loss in the previous year.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 31/08/2013 at 1:14 pm said:

      ‘Billions wiped from blue-chips as carbon tax hits Australia’s top companies’

      * by: Steve Lewis and Stephen McMahon
      * From: News Limited Network

      VIRGIN Airlines has blamed the carbon tax for contributing to a $98 million full-year loss, adding to corporate concerns that Labor’s climate change scheme is wiping billions of dollars off blue-chip profits.

      Australia’s second biggest airline on Friday morning announced the carbon tax had added nearly $50 million to its 2012/13 expenses – around half the amount booked by Qantas, which said the green impost added $106 million.

      Chief executive officer John Borghetti explained the $47.9 million cost could not be recovered by Virgin, “due to strong competition in the market” – a common complaint from businesses facing a carbon squeeze.

      A week from polling day, the impact of Labor’s greenhouse scheme on corporate balance sheets can be revealed – with the carbon tax costing the country’s four biggest energy companies close to $1.7 billion.

      And while Kevin Rudd is pitching his campaign message on creating jobs, coal miner Glencore Xstrata claims the carbon tax will cost it $200 million and is undermining investor confidence in new projects.

      Soon to be privatised Macquarie Generation, owned by the NSW government, was whacked with a $469 million carbon tax bill, for the year to June 30.

      Regional airline Rex on Thursday blamed the carbon tax for a 45 per cent nosedive in profits – from $25 million to $14 million in 2012/13 – with executive chairman, Lim Kim Hai, claiming that sales plunged “almost immediately” after its introduction just over a year ago.

      “(Transport) Minister (Anthony) Albanese’s claim that the impact of the carbon tax would be little more than the cost of a cup of coffee became the understatement of the aviation year,” Mr Lim said.

      AMP Capital Investors chief economist Shane Oliver said Australian companies are paying a “high price in terms of their international competitors” because of the carbon tax.

      “It has certainly cost jobs over the past 18 months,” Dr Oliver said.

      But the Rudd Government – which sought to neutralise the issue by announcing plans to bring forward a floating emissions trading scheme, by 12 months – maintains the carbon tax is a modest cost for business.

      Speaking about the impost on the flying kangaroo, Climate Change Minister Mark Butler said: QANTAS’ annual fuel bill is around $4.2 billion, which means the price they pay for their carbon pollution is just over 2 per cent of their fuel costs – a minuscule impact for a $16 billion company with a massive operating budget.

      “That’s why QANTAS CEO Alan Joyce has said he’s more worried about the fuel price than the carbon price,” Mr Butler said.

      While millions of households have received compensation, many businesses are being hit by higher energy costs and other expenses due to the carbon tax. Major polluters – particularly those in trade-exposed industries – received partial compensation in the form of free permits, but these are not enough to offset the entire cost.

      Energy giant AGL admitted that its carbon costs “in 2012-13 were approximately $580
      million” with the company receiving compensation of $240 million for its Loy Yang generators in Victoria.

      Mining giants BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto are yet to disclose the impact of the carbon tax on their full year profits. But the scheme is expected to add hundreds of millions of dollars to expenses.

      Likewise, energy companies – Origin and Energy Australia – will each incur carbon tax bills of hundreds of millions of dollars.

      Glencore Xstrata – which has extensive mining operations in the battleground election states of NSW and Queensland – says the carbon scheme imposes “significant costs on Australia’s economy for no environmental benefit”.

      “Under the existing fixed price period, the cost to our business is around $200 million per annum,” a company spokesman said.

      Opposition leader Tony Abbott seized on the comments from business about the carbon tax, describing it as “an act of economic self harm”.

      “Not only will scrapping the carbon tax help Australian families get ahead, it will also help to secure more Australian jobs, boost exports and make Australia’s businesses more competitive and productive,” Mr Abbott said.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 02/09/2013 at 9:19 pm said:

      ‘Business blames carbon tax for local job losses’

      * Kieran Banks

      A FERNVALE [Australia] businessman claims the spiralling cost of the carbon tax is hitting his business hard – triggering redundancies and putting potential private sector contracts on hold.

      Zanows’ Sand and Gravel manager Brad Zanow said the business has shed five of its 48 staff to cope with a rise of $15,000 a month in the firm’s overheads

      The company does not pay the carbon tax itself, but Mr Zanow claimed the tax had led to increases in electricity bills, as well as the cost of oil, cement powder and air-conditioning gas.

      Mr Zanow said he believed confidence will only return to the economy if there is a change of government on September 7.

      He said private firms within Ipswich were inquiring about contracts with Zanows’ – but will only go ahead with future projects if the carbon tax is scrapped and bills are lowered.

      “We have been involved in quoting jobs where if the carbon tax goes the job will go ahead, but if not they will sit on the job,” he said.

      “Since the election has been on the cards business has not gone up but there has been a lot more quoting.”

      But sitting Labor MP for Blair Shayne Neumann said Mr Zanow’s business was not paying the carbon tax directly and he was leading an anti-Labor campaign.


  55. “Climate policy is already doing harm. Building wind turbines, growing biofuels and substituting wood for coal in power stations — all policies designed explicitly to fight climate change — have had negligible effects on carbon dioxide emissions. But they have driven people into fuel poverty, made industries uncompetitive, driven up food prices, accelerated the destruction of forests, killed rare birds of prey, and divided communities. Globally nearly 200,000 people are dying every year, because we are turning 5 per cent of the world’s grain crop into motor fuel instead of food: that pushes people into malnutrition and death.”

    h/t Muriel Newman:

    • Andy on 06/11/2013 at 5:31 pm said:

      As Richard North asks, in response, why can’t we be more European in our response to these obvious scams?

    • Magoo on 06/11/2013 at 5:51 pm said:

      CO2 levels keep rising regardless of the failed climate policies designed to reduce them, and at the same time the temperature still stubbornly refuses to rise for the last 16-23 years. I raised the point elsewhere the other day that to my the best of my knowledge I can’t think of any of the IPCC’s predictions that have been correct. Can anyone honestly name anything that they’ve gotten right?

    • Andy on 06/11/2013 at 6:13 pm said:

      I think the Jewel of IPCC knowledge is the Arctic Sea Ice.
      They probably got that right, although a stopped clock is right twice a day as well.

    • Magoo on 06/11/2013 at 11:14 pm said:

      But wasn’t that supposed to occur at both poles?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *