While the government tries to get the ETS legislation completed in time for Copenhagen the spin cycle has been working overtime, trying to get the lipstick to stay on this pig.
The Greenhouse Policy Coalition and Business NZ have both managed to make crucial errors in their attempts to play down the massive subsidy from taxpayers to large emitters that is embodied in the National/Maori version of the ETS. And the NZ Business Council for Sustainable Development has said nothing since reporting on 2 November that most Kiwis oppose the plan.
Fortunately, there are a few sane voices out there. Here are four:
Labour members of the Select Committee Considering the Bill:
The process adopted in respect of this bill is the worst that any of us have experienced in our time in Parliament.
…
The Treasury, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, our independent expert adviser, and the vast majority of submitters are critical of the bill. We uphold their criticisms. The bill significantly dilutes the effectiveness of the ETS, and will have a significant negative impact on the New Zealand economy and environment for many years to come. The bill ought not to proceed.
Simon Terry & Geoff Bertram: Taxpayers 84% Emitters 16%
Rod Oram: A costly exercise in hypocrisy
Brian Fallow: the ETS will cost our children
There has been a view that NZ should not seek to lead on climate change policy, but instead aim at being a “fast follower” so we don’t compromise our economy. I think this is poor economics. Apart from the deniers, we all expect relative prices to change in ways that reflect carbon (and other emission) constraints. The opportunity is to react now, so we have more time to get good at operating in that world.
Given that
a) Europe doesn’t look likely to ever stop subsidising its agricultural sector,
b) Europe is likely to remain the leader on climate change for the forseeable future
Do you really think that ‘…that world…’ is likely to include agricultural emmisions?
Yes I do expect that agricultural exports will face market signals that discriminate against emission-intensive activity at some future time. We already see some quantity signals (certain groups of people prefering locally produced food) and labelling decisions by eg Tesco that will encourage (and possibly) suppliers to put a carbon-sized footprint on their pacakaging to support informed consumer choice.
So I guess the point is that consumers and firms can and are doing things, even if governments are/do not.
However I also wonder whether, even if your (a) and (b) remain true, Europe might still price agricultural emissions. I was intrigued to learn recently that although the Swiss pay their farmers handsomely, they think of it as buying “public goods” from farmers. In that category they include nice landscapes, good animal welfare practices, soil conservation etc. Since they have this pricing view of what some might call farmer subsidies, its not beyond imagination that they might also decide to price agricultural emissions.
It seems likely that more consumers will want lower emission products. Is commercial opportunity a reason to regulate though? Plus, even if an ETS lowers ag emissions, how well would that be recorded or reflected in consumer labelling. Just curious.
Beyond that, it is hard to disagree. The ETS as now written seems a waste of time. Or, is something better than nothing?