Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: Be the party of good science

239 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 5 6 7 8 9 10 Newer→ Last

  • Sacha,

    Goff can "stand for something" as Fitzsimons challenges without Labour sounding like a clone of either the Greens or the Nats. MMP means they do not have to cover off the entire spectrum.

    However, as Scott says it's pretty clear where most of the voters are from any 'side'. Perhaps Craig's "mindless populism" is a half-arsed attempt to connect with them, though I'm not convinced it implies contempt. Fearful lack of understanding, perhaps, but that's not the preserve of any partiicular party or even of politics.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19745 posts Report Reply

  • Idiot Savant,

    And Idiot/Savant has a graph.

    Which doesn't show what I think it does. Its not millions of tons of CO2, but percentage of 2005 emissions.

    it would be nice if supposedly professional government departments remembered the first rule fo graphs: always label your axes.

    Palmerston North • Since Nov 2006 • 1717 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    Um, did the Maori Party just throw the rest of us under the bus there?

    That's my reading of Patrick Smellie.

    Sadly, it does seem to leave a fairly obvious avenue for populist attack:

    The Maori Party put a similar deal to Labour before the last election, which declined because it feared not only creating a special class of Treaty settlement forestry assets with special property rights, but also that it would set a precedent for future renegotiation of Treaty settlements following major government policy changes which affect the value of settlement assets.

    I'm thinking DPF ain't gonna flag that one for his readers ...

    Hot-Topic has some more.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22850 posts Report Reply

  • Hilary Stace,

    Charles Chauvel is scathing

    Wgtn • Since Jun 2008 • 3229 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha,

    I can see how soft-pedalling on forestry and fisheries helps iwi with big investments in those industries, but what do Urban Maori representatives think?

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19745 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    Sure it's not a feature of MMP?

    I think it's a feature of the bell curve, which pre-dates MMP by some time.

    Though I do wish that politicians would spend more time trying to move the curve in their direction, rather than letting it rule their lives.

    Since Nov 2006 • 6243 posts Report Reply

  • Idiot Savant,

    Um, did the Maori Party just throw the rest of us under the bus there?

    Yes - to the tune of $430 million a year, excluding agriculture.

    That's serious money, which could be used for serious policy (alternatively, it could just not be borrowed). Instead, it is going straight from our pockets into the pockets of large polluters' (mostly foreign) shareholders. And we have the Maori Party to thank for it.

    Palmerston North • Since Nov 2006 • 1717 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha,

    I think it's a feature of the bell curve, which pre-dates MMP by some time. Though I do wish that politicians would spend more time trying to move the curve in their direction, rather than letting it rule their lives.

    And I want decision-makers to get that all points on the curve are "normal" in the way most of us use the term, not just the lump in the middle.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19745 posts Report Reply

  • Gareth Ward,

    The way this story goes will be intriguing to follow. Does the media take the "electricity is cheaper for a bit, business is saved" line, or the "it costs taxpayers $430m a year and emissions won't come down as much" line.

    I/S - is the $430m fiscal cost they reference above and beyond projections for the Labour ETS? Or inclusive of that?

    Auckland, NZ • Since Mar 2007 • 1727 posts Report Reply

  • Lyndon Hood,

    One is forced to conclude the the Maori Part DID want to withdraw their minority report after the deadline. They don't seem to have stood by it.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 1115 posts Report Reply

  • Gareth Ward,

    So far, based on Herald and Stuff frontpages it's the latter.

    Auckland, NZ • Since Mar 2007 • 1727 posts Report Reply

  • George Darroch,

    Yes - to the tune of $430 million a year, excluding agriculture.

    If we include agriculture, then it's over a billion dollars a year in ongoing direct subsidies.

    That's around $230 dollars in subsidies from every single New Zealander.

    WLG • Since Nov 2006 • 2264 posts Report Reply

  • Gareth Ward,

    George could you explain the workings behind that $1b number?

    Auckland, NZ • Since Mar 2007 • 1727 posts Report Reply

  • Idiot Savant,

    The way this story goes will be intriguing to follow. Does the media take the "electricity is cheaper for a bit, business is saved" line, or the "it costs taxpayers $430m a year and emissions won't come down as much" line.

    The Dom-Post seems to be taking the latter line: Public to pay tab for polluters

    I/S - is the $430m fiscal cost they reference above and beyond projections for the Labour ETS? Or inclusive of that?

    Additional to. Its the cost of subsidising industrial, energy, and transport-sector emissions (petrol!) by 50% a year, based on 2006 emission levels.

    Palmerston North • Since Nov 2006 • 1717 posts Report Reply

  • Gareth Ward,

    Thanks I/S - one other thing, they reference ~$400m over the four year period, not p.a. Agree with that?

    Auckland, NZ • Since Mar 2007 • 1727 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson,

    The people crusading for their light-bulb liberty were, in effect, declaring their wish for the government to spend more tax dollars on one or two new electric power stations.

    Well, I have to say I'd definitely like some more power stations much more than I'd like light bulb restrictions. But I also use efficient bulbs anyway cause it just makes sense . Except in some cases - I want my outside lights to be super bright, for instance.

    As was the case for the light blub standards, the bottom-line impact for government finances was overwhelmingly positive. The Australian government's folate requirement came into force last week.

    This one's quite different really. It's a public health issue, not an environmental one. It's a bit like fluoridated water, and the obvious impact that has on dental health.

    Personally, I find the idea that no idea should be discussed if there is a possibility it might whip up well-organised moral hysteria pretty depressing.

    Hell, yes. Although I'd hardly call Kiwiblog frothers well-organized.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10657 posts Report Reply

  • Idiot Savant,

    George could you explain the workings behind that $1b number?

    In 2007 (the latest year we have figures for), agriculture was responsible for 36.4 million tons. With the ongoing expansion of the dairy industry and resistance by farmers to any improvement in practices which could reduce emissions (even when it is profitable to them!), that figure is likely to grow.

    Carbon costs around $25 a ton, give or take the exchange rate (currently due to the high dollar Treasury has it at $22.36 a ton). That number too is only likely to grow, as more countries sign up for emissions trading and caps are lowered.

    National has committed to a 90% subsidy of whatever agriculture is emitting in 2015. Assuming that's the same as in 2007 (a conservative assumption), that means 32.8 million tons. Multiply that by $25 a ton and you get $820 million a year.

    The number of credits will reportedly decline by 1.3% a year. But agricultural sector emissions are growing at a faster rate, while prices are likely to increase. The upshot: that cost is never going to go down. National has signed up to give farmers close to a billion a year in straight-out subsidies in perpetuity.

    So, next time you see some farmer, ask him for your $200 back.

    Palmerston North • Since Nov 2006 • 1717 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    That's around $230 dollars in subsidies from every single New Zealander.

    John Key was on Sunrise this morning saying that it would cost us $3 each / week, less than the $6-7 each that the Labour scheme would cost.

    Does that include the $230 above? Is the saving by just doing less, or have the transferred the money from personal cost to government cost?

    Since Nov 2006 • 6243 posts Report Reply

  • George Darroch,

    George could you explain the workings behind that $1b number?

    This is very back of the envelop stuff, but;

    Assuming a $20 carbon price (conservative, compared to international prices, and the Government is offering a $25 locked in subsidy price from 2013 for transport, energy and industry) and 35MtCO2e emissions for agriculture (see MfE's figures), that works out to $700m per year in subsidies to agriculture, every year for the next six years.

    That's on top of the $430m that is being offered to transport, energy and industry.

    WLG • Since Nov 2006 • 2264 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Reeves,

    Whatever happened to the sacrosanct "user pays" "principle" when you need it (speaking as a cycling, non-dairy-consuming, non-meat-consuming, heatpump-owning, about-to-get-double-glazing (and therefore plotting the undermining of our state) nerd)????

    Near Donny Park, Hamilton… • Since Apr 2007 • 94 posts Report Reply

  • George Darroch,

    I/S, snap.

    WLG • Since Nov 2006 • 2264 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    So, next time you see some farmer, ask him for your $200 back.

    I might be a simple person, but it seems to me that what you've just described provides virtually no incentives for changing behaviour etc.

    If it cost more to produce the goods, then farmers might change their methods, consumers will change their purchases. If the government subsidises 90% of it, we're just delaying the system having any impact upon behaviour and therefore our environment for most of a decade.

    Since Nov 2006 • 6243 posts Report Reply

  • Idiot Savant,

    Thanks I/S - one other thing, they reference ~$400m over the four year period, not p.a. Agree with that?

    Nope. Those sectors were responsible for 37.8 millions tons of emissions in 2007. A 50% subsidy means we pick up the tab for 18.9 million tons a year. At current carbon prices of $22.36 a year, that's $422.6 million a year (or $472.5 at the nominal $25 a ton price), or about $100 per kiwi.

    Palmerston North • Since Nov 2006 • 1717 posts Report Reply

  • Idiot Savant,

    Kyle: different costs to different people. Key is looking at the overall cost to the economy, based on macroeconomic models, or at the expected effect on power and petrol prices. George and I are looking at how much these direct subsidies cost the government.

    The key idea underlying an ETS or any market mechanism is "polluter pays". National and the Maori Party have reversed that to "pay polluters".

    Palmerston North • Since Nov 2006 • 1717 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    Kyle: different costs to different people.

    Yeah I get that. But the average of $3/person/week. Does that include the vast taxpayer subsidies, or is that just increased prices for power, transport etc, the taxpayer subsidies are on top of that?

    Since Nov 2006 • 6243 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 5 6 7 8 9 10 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.