Posts by Angus Robertson
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
It's, y'know, still a smelter. It still produces greenhouse gases and a pile of toxic waste. Just because it has a green power source doesn't make it green.
We will still need aluminium, if it is not smelted here it will be smelted somewhere in those 95% of smelters that are worse and most likely by powered by thermal generation. Here its greener.
The opportunity cost of Tiwai smelter is Huntly power station. If we didn't have the smelter, we could refocus our electricity priorities, take the hit in terms of transmission loss, and shut Huntly down. Which would be a massive improvement in our carbon footprint.
Every piece of aluminium the world ever buys will have an increased carbon footprint, because of New Zealand removing a carbon efficient producer of aluminium. In New Zealand we would have achieved "improvement in our carbon footprint", because our electrical supply will be greener. On balance the removal of Tiwai shall increase AGW, but our nimbyists do not care.
-
Don't they have dams in China too?
No, not so much.
And as Idiot points out, if we could use the dam power for our own electricity, we could effectively stop using coal (with some infrastructural changes along the way of course).
Transmission loss of about 7% means we can't quite actually make that work. And btw all the transmission lines would be made from aluminium, made in China by coal powered smelters.
The manufacture of aluminium at Tiwai Point is inherently clean and green; whilst the consumption of power in Auckland is inherently dirty and wasteful. The powering of a naked news reading, a pavement light scuplture, a 'buzzy bees' P lab, illuminating a 100 acres of motorway or heating up a soy-mocha-chino-latte should not be treatred preferentially to world leading green production of aluminium.
Shifting it is not going to help. Period. Not now, not never.
Just because it's cleaner than moving to China, should Comalco get special treatment not afforded to anyone else for whom moving is not an option?
Yes. We should definitely offer preferential treatment to aluminium that has the lowest carbon footprint.
China is a massive problem for the environment, and the world nations need to put pressure on them. Personally, I can't do a lot about it. Nor can our Government by itself. But eventually they have to see sense (don't they?) or feel pressure of sanctions or whatever it's going to take. And the only way we can get to that point is by making the first move.
Totally agree with those statements and that is why I say that these current Kyoto ETS proposals are facillitating the pollution of our planet. I suggest the Chinese will not see sense or suddenly engage in a group hug (at least not within 10 years), sanctions will be required. Meanwhile our government is placing sanctions on their cleaner & greener competition from Tiwai Point - 180 degrees completely wrong in every single way.
Contrary to what the Nats would have you believe, NZ is not 'going first' or 'leading the world' when it comes to lower its emissions.
Again totally agree, we're not.
And even if we were, is that such a bad thing? Because not every business will relocate to China - for economic, social or whatever reason, some will choose to stay and clean up their act. And when they do, it means a better global environment for the South Island, and China.
If we do this and tax only business to reduce their carbon emmissions we will drive all businesses that can move away to a developing country where they can pollute tax free. There will of course be some businesses that stay for "social" & "economic" reasons to service the unfettered consumer society of New Zealand. In 2012 every Jafa driving a 4x4 to the bach through the Orewa tunnel carting their Zorb, Blo-kart, a new 50" plasma & towing the jet-ski (all made in China) will feel proud that NZ is close to meeting its Kyoto targets - they will feel a little worried a new petrol tax (deferred by Labour in 2008 & again by National in 2010) is planned for 2015, but surely all we really need to tax is our dairy cows...
The fundamental flaw is thinking we can control AGW gases by limiting point production in the developed world alone (Kyoto), fundamentally this cannot be done. What we should be doing is limiting our consumption in the developed world, which we can do by taxing consumers' carbon footprints. We should pay a tax on the AGW gas emissions our consumption creates. This horrible ETS "externalises" to "big business" our obligations to reduce our carbon footprint - it is populist political sop that is accelerating the pollution of our planet.
-
Shep,
Does China have the same need for aluminium as it does for steel? If so this is a hollow threat.
Yes China does, but the threat is not hollow.
Bauxite is mined in Aussie, shipped to Tiwai, smelted and then aluminium shipped to China or wherever. Take Tiwai out of the loop and sell bauxite straight to China, production is quicker and transport less expensive. The only reason it comes here is because the smelting takes a lot of electricity and Tiwai gets cheap green hydro electricity.
-
I'm not sure where Tiwai will end up after the carbon trading scheme impacts upon electricity. Given that they already have their own special deal for electricity, I'd imagine they'll negotiate appropriately and end up staying here. Instead of the amount they pay all being 'cost', some will be tax, the rest cost. It'll balance in the end.
Be clear we are talking about emmissions from the processing of bauxite to aluminium, not the electricty production which in this case does not emit carbon.
Those threatening "carbon leakage" are also displaying an attitude of deep denial on political action against climate change as well. Sure, you can move elsewhere. But it will do you no good, as one way or another, you will be paying for that carbon in ten years' time.
That is bullshit, followed by a non-credible prediction.
I/S refers of course to Kyoto which imposes no penalty on carbon migration, as long as migration is to a developing nation. Kyoto signatories have in the last decade increased their AGW gas emissions by 21%. Non-Kyoto signatories have increased AGW gas emissions by 10%. Observing Kyoto protocols doubling the rate we accelerate the poisoning of our world causes me to "deny" that this "political action" is actually "against climate change". Kyoto is bullshit, it does not work and no matter of "attitude" adjustment will change that.
For example Kyoto enforces the taxation of low emission, hydro fuelled aluminium produced in NZ, Canada or Norway and exempts from taxation high emmission, carbon fuelled aluminium produced in China or India. Naturally this will increase the rate at which we pollute our world.
I/S predicts that the Bali conference and onwards will result in a worldwide, enforceable agreement on carbon costs within 10 years. On what basis does I/S make this prediction? Tea leaves, crop circles, astrology, Al Gore said so?
-
Warning - rant follows.
I'm one of those freaky people who think the whole planet needs saving, not just my own back yard.
...And if they end up going to China, well so be it. We should no more be trying to undercut China in environmental terms than we should offer cheaper labour.
It might surprise, but our industrial enviromental standards massively exceed China's and a coal burning power station in China will produce more carbon dioxide than a hydroelectric dam in the South Island. And China and the South Island are on the same planet as Auckland - I know I was really scared when I found that out.
If the smelter goes to China the planet (remember - the same planet Auckland is on) is that much more screwed.
Big manufacturing plants in the developed world are clean & efficient compared to those in the developing world. Big business especially like the Tiwai smelter (which uses the best possible method of producing Aluminium) are positively kind to the planet.
Consumers in the developed world are (on the other hand) polluting, fat, latte drinking, plasma screen buying slobs compared to them energy efficient consumers of the developing world. Choosing between a solar water heater and a plasma TV Jafas always get the HDTV for proper Sky watching. Insulation or a balcony, a balcony offers so much more. Or buy a bach, screw the fact that will mean running over capacity powerlines miles into the middle of nowhere, it'll be worth it to cruise out there for 2 days in "nature".
So what does the government promise to do - tax a world leading carbon efficient, hydro powered smelter at Tiwai and minimise the fuel costs for Aucklanders whilst building more roads. Nimbyistic, stupid, populist policies, that deny the cause of global warming.
We should leave the smelter alone and stop kowtowing to those Jafa pricks.
Yours sincerely,
a "jafa" -
Poo, laser -- who'd have sonic?
Who can't master the isomorphic controls.
-
To paraphrase substituting one high cost purchase (a house) for another:
i.e. Because the average Ferrari price of the HES* sample was only 50c, clearly, they are not the same people as the ones which pay $500k for a Ferrari. Therefore, you shouldn't match the income of everybody with Ferrari buyers.
* this is a guess, the HES unaccountably does not cover this data.
-
Reducing inflationary pressures by reducing government spending - i.e. running a surplus? 8-)
Except that a "credit crunch" ala America is reproduceable here. 8-(
Inflation is partly driven by international factors (oil peaking - Chinese labour costs) and if sufficient these maintain inflation higher than 3% band. If so then that government action (reducing spending, running a surplus and not reducing taxation) will not reduce inflation below 3% and the mortgaged get hit by all negatives (high inflation, less government investment in economy, high taxes, high mortgage rates) which severely restricts their ability to repay the mortgage. If they do not repay their mortgage and the bank is left holding a bad debt for a negatively geared property - which (if a lot of these occur) makes it more difficult for our banks to borrow money on the international market, so they have to charge higher interest rates.
Perhaps it would be better to increase the band of acceptable inflation?
-
Damn it. Work got between starting to write comment and posting. What Kyle said: "What good is that?"
-
Those figures can't be right.
The beauty of statistics means the figures might well be right, irrelevent, but right.
The average weekly household expenditure on a mortgage could be read as the cost of all mortgages divided by the total number of households, same with rents. That would include all households, irrespective of if they actually are mortgaged, rented or freehold. A very big denominator means a unrealistically small figure compared to the average mortgage, which is the average of all households that actually have a mortgage.
It is like comparing chalk to that-which-cannot-be-named.