it has to do the numbers first
which is the sort of thing I would have expected them to say.
not likely to change the world
that nuclear-free thing will never catch on ..
Trying to get my head around this – $25 per tonne is just 2.5c per kg. A litre of petrol contains about 650 gms of carbon, which is less than 2c per litre. But I *think* the price is per tonne of CO2 emitted, which is approx 2.3 kg per litre of petrol. That’d mean a price rise of 6-7c per litre.
Still doesn’t look likely to change behaviour much. Petrol prices already fluctuate far more than that. It also makes screams about how this will wreck our competitiveness/industries wholesale look pathetic. According to AA, we already pay
53.524 cents – National Land Transport Fund
9.90 cents – ACC Motor Vehicle Account
0.66 cents – Local Authorities Fuel Tax
0.045 cents – Petroleum or Engine Fuels Monitoring Levy
In addition, GST is collected on the overall price of fuel including excise. The GST on excise amounts to a 8 cents per litre “tax on taxes”.
There are no taxes on diesel other than GST. Instead, diesel vehicles pay Road User Charges. All fuels also pay an Emissions Trading Scheme charge (approximately 1 cent per litre).
That is, we already pay more GST on the tax portion of a litre of petrol (a tax on a tax, like the GST on rates) than this (new, unaffordable, crazy) carbon tax would add.*
*Unless, as is highly likely, I’ve made some simple blunder :)
which is approx 2.3 kg per litre of petrol.
I found that hard to believe until I did some basic maths/physics. Every carbon atom ends up bound with 2 oxygen ones. Atomic weight of carbon around 12, oxygen around 16, so the ratio of weight is 4/3. Total weight of C02 per liter thus ends up as 650g+4/3*(650g)*2 = 2383g =2.38kg. Presumably the difference ends up as other things, like carbon monoxide etc.
Quite amazed by that, I'd never appreciated that the weight of the gas created was more than 2 times as much as the fuel used.
You know, that makes a lot of sense. It’s those strategy games you play on the computer, innit?
I'm always hoping to make that pay. Only a few thousand wasted hours left!
But I'd say it's more informed by sport. When you drill as a team you can expect coordination without having to micromanage the movements of the other players. I didn't really write what I exactly meant, though. I should have said that you don't keep pointing your gun at your fellow players. You certainly should look at where your team is at all times to see where your own energies would be best applied. But most of your focus and attention should be on the opposition, and particularly your mark. In a good team, they know where the other players are and trust them to do their jobs. Your communication to them should not really be open, but in secret. You drill together, learn call codes, plan strategy and tactics. People don't need to hear you yelling at each other, or about each other, when they can clearly see from your movements that you're acting in concert.
People don't need to hear you yelling at each other, or about each other, when they can clearly see from your movements that you're acting in concert
I refer you again to recent evidence to the contrary. When nobody is visibly disciplined for stepping out of line, we have to assume they're sanctioned by their team, really.
Quite a few Labourites clearly feel strongly that IP/Mana actually is the enemy. My comments about teamwork refer to the Green/Labour synergy. Labour definitely don't need IP/Mana anywhere near so much, indeed they would be best placed by playing them off with the Maori Party.
The general left wing feeling that they should naturally ally with Mana is probably wishful thinking. I'd like it if they did, personally, but I can see that the seats held by the Maori Party hold just as much power, and in far more compromising and malleable hands. And I'd still say that the Maori party are of the left, in general.*
Best would be if they all got together, of course. Which is hardly out of the question. I think they'd only be fighting if the left bloc had enough seats that Labour could get away with playing them off against each other.
*ETA: They're in a National led government, but only because that's what it takes to get power. They weren't actually required - National has a bare majority with ACT and UF.
Compete or cooperate? Bryce Edwards rounds up coverage.
Thanks Sacha , a good round up indeed. Interesting speculation that Labour will be doing some electorate deals but not publicly.
In the NBR story Chris Keall asks Cunliffe if they will back off in Te Tai Tokerau, Cunliffe's measured response, " Kelvin Davis has been in the media all day today making it very clear he’ll be campaigning hard for Te Tai Tokerau and that’s appropriate" .
As one of the comments finely observed "I notice Mr Cunliffe is saying Mr Davis will be campaigning hard to win the seat but avoids saying the Labour Party will be doing likewise."
We have another 3 months of intensive speculation on who is backrooming with whom and why.
Its going to be a very interesting election but I fear my day job may suffer.
Yes, elections are bad for business. I'm glad exams are after that.