Emissions Trading a minor change

New Zealand's proposed ETS, which is going through select committee consideration at the moment, is world-leading in several respects.

It includes all six greenhouse gases, rather than fixating simply on carbon dioxide.

And, even more importantly, it includes the whole economy. Every single sector will be part of the scheme by 2013.

So it is with some astonishment that I am seeing political commentators pretend that yesterday's announcement of a deferral of the inclusion of the transport system by two years is somehow a fatal reveral of the scheme.

It is nothing of the sort. Given the revised Kyoto liability figures the PM discussed, there is space to do something that is very important for a Labour government:  to recognise and deal with the fact that household incomes are under serious pressure.

Sure, there's a political imperative in doing that, but there is a principled one too. Labour is the party that stands up for the interests of ordinary hardworking Kiwi families. It is why we exist as a party and a movement. There is extraordinay pressure on household budgets at the moment. We have the room to move on the ETS. There is no reason why we would even consider not doing so.

A reversal of the ETS would be to leave transport out, or somehow otherwise reduce the effectiveness of it.

We aren't going to do that, and nor should we. The future of the planet is of some casual interest to most human beings, and what we know is that human-induced climate change is a real and growing danger to our survival. Every country, every person, needs to make fundamental changes to how they live and work to help deal with it.

Capping emissions of CO2 equivalents and using the market to ensure the most efficient use is made of what emissions we are allowed to make is just common sense. We have to have a scheme that reduces our emissions over time, without just transferring them to non-included countries.

I might finish by noting how proud I am to be part of a political party that sees that this is vital to our future, and is prepared to lead on it and take the hits for changing things - unlike some other political parties I could name...

Comments

[George Darroch]

I almost lost my coffee when I read this.

The ETS is extremely weak, extremely late, and offers more years of inaction. It will cost us significantly, by dithering while our emissions to continue to balloon.

To quote from Jeanette's recent release.

"In summary:
- agriculture will be protected from paying anything for the whole five years of the Kyoto period
- transport will be protected for three of the five years
- energy users will still be protected for two years, but highly polluting big industry will be protected for 10 years, and for some of their emissions for another 12 years after that.
- almost all the carbon savings claimed for the ETS will come from preventing deforestation of pre-1990 forests. This means the forestry sector is being left to compensate for everyone else."

Labour has consistently refused to enacting measures that would shield the poor from the cost of potential emissions reductions. Just some examples include insulation for New Zealand's housing stock (which by the way is a serious health issue, and an inditement on Labour) or efficiency standards for vehicles, and building revenue neutrality into an ETS or carbon charge.
So we now see a situation where the Government backs down from a painful situation it didn't have to have.

Listening to the self-congratulatory rhetoric of the Labour Party over the environment makes me feel many things, and none of them good.

[sean14]

Good thing the future of the planet can wait until after the election.

[dave]

Jordan, you're standing for election. This is not a good advertisement for your chances. Watch the Green vote go up.

[Idiot/Savant]

As much as you might want to spin it otherwise, delaying the entry of our second biggest source of emissions significantly undermines the ETS's integrity. The ETS has two purposes: to reduce emissions, and to shift the cost of paying for Kyoto onto those responsible for emissions (the latter is part of doing the former, but its also an objective in itself). Reducing emissions was always going to be a long-term goal of getting the scheme in place and then lowering the caps to push reductions. But paying for Kyoto is a more immediate goal, and its pretty much buggered. This delay just cost us $600 million; that's $600 million which will now be paid by the taxpayer rather than polluters, and $600 million that could better be spent on social programmes. How is that in the interests of "ordinary hardworking Kiwi families"?

it has become crystal clear that all Labour's talk on sustainability was just hot air, and that they cannot be trusted to implement environmental policy. That will only happen if a coalition partner holds a gun to their head. And those of us who care about the environment should work to make that situation happen.

[Clint Heine]

Smashed from every side Jordan... and yet no rebuttal. Quite breathtaking arrogance.

You used to have a mind of your own. Where has it gone?