Hard News: The smart thing to do
125 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 Newer→ Last
-
Great news on the same day that we learn there will be no bikes and walks across the bridge.
Was I first ?
-
"...to urge John Key to ignore the party whose charms appear to be rapidly fading,..."
Given the powerful right wing faction in his own party, does anyone really believe Key will face down Rodney and the rest of the denialist loons in ACT over their chief policy scalp? How could he when the result (given The ACToid's massive sense of entitlement on the back of 3.7% of the vote) would be either relying on the Maori Party to retain confidence and supply, a new election, or a new leader of the National Party?
-
But surely that would depend on how much they want further terms in power ?
-
Great news on the same day that we learn there will be no bikes and walks across the bridge.
Well if it's any consolation, bikers & walkers don't count in Dunedin either. We might get a replacement for the 'brook, but the council can't find a couple of hundred thou to build a track through 2 disused railway tunnels. Or finish the cycleway round the harbour (probably a bit more expensive).
-
The history of previous Ministers outside Cabinet seems to be, according to opinions last night on Maori TV, a long list of ideas that foundered on the way through the system to cabinet and were neutred.
However the jubilance of Act and Maori now seems to be over the belief that they have been given the power to "make a real difference." Has Rodney been given real power to do more than float a Bill or two? -
I wonder who's pushing ACT's buttons on the review? I don't recall any significant business lobby arguing for delays or major reform, rather they appeared to be looking for concessions or subsidies. Perhaps I've missed something from this distance.
However, even if reform was needed, I agree with you that the review creates way too much uncertainty. Cap and trade schemes lock all other initiatives together, absent a carbon price, all other initiatives generally underperform.
It's interesting to note that even the Australian Treasury has recently argued (full report here) in favour of early adoption cap and trade measures stating:
The Treasury’s modelling demonstrates that early global action is less expensive than later action; that a market-based approach allows robust economic growth into the future even as emissions fall; and that many of Australia’s industries will maintain or improve their competitiveness under an international agreement to combat climate change.
And
There are advantages to Australia acting early if emission pricing expands gradually across the world: economies that defer action face higher long-term costs, as global investment is redirected to early movers.
I thought Key wanted NZ to catch up to Australia?
-
"Laughable" doesn't really do it justice. Rodney is pursuing a small slice of the popular vote in a way that is not only damaging our credibility, but will cost us dearly financially and hurt the environment - three blows against the nation from just one incredibly stupid, ill-informed ACT policy.
A recent report in New Scientist pointed out that the world is more than meeting its Kyoto commitnments, so the line that, "nobody is meeting their commitments and so it will all be scrapped" is just ignorant bullshit. If we fail to meet our Kyoto commitments we will have to pay - billions of dollars most likely.
The "review" has undermined potential investments in new forests that reportedly run into 100s of millions of dollars, i.e.: 10s of thousands of new hectares that could be soaking up CO2. If we don't plant more forests now, then during the 2020s when the 1990s plantings are harvested will see a huge hole in our national carbon accounts.
The idea that ACT, in cahoots with the "Climate Change Coalition" - Owen McShane et al. - have the inside story on climate change in the face of years of careful research by responsible scientists is manifestly stupid, and that a responsible government would allow such a small dog tail to influence policy in such an expensive, damaging way, implies a whole extra layer of stupidity.
-
I don't mind there being further public debate on 'the best way to deal with climate change'. Carbon tax? ETS? Both? Something else? As long as we're doing something and making an effort, that's a good start.
But if a bunch of politicians are going to spend weeks sitting in a room listening to every head-in-the-sand, scientific conspiracy, 'but it snowed last year in my backyard' theory, with Rodney Hide as 'I know fucking everything' Chair, I'm going to start throwing things at the TV.
Classic case of "I'd much rather you sat on your arses and got paid for doing nothing rather than wasting your time fucking things up some more".
-
Heya - thanks for the linky love, Russell.
@Tom Semmens - your concerns aren't stupid, and I sure don't pretend to have any special knowledge. And the review has to happen - Nats have signed up to it.
What we're hoping people ask for in their letters is that Key is pretty ruthless as he negotiates the terms of reference for the committee. There's plenty of room to move there, and every rubbish item that gets stripped out saves us a bunch of time.
@Paul Williams - those questions have puzzled me too. Maybe Rodney is just a true believer, and that's all there is to it?
Finally, to linkwhore just a wee bit more, Don't Be A Rodney also lives on the dreaded Facebook...
-
"ACT - a whole extra layer of stupidity". 2011's election slogan perhaps?
-
Are Rodney & Roger happy now? The British airline surtax sounds like an ominous portent. If North America, Japan, Australia and the rest of the EU follow suit, it'll likely have a bigger impact than Britain joining the EEC in 1973. "Carbon pariah", anybody?
-
The climate change denial stuff is just a sideshow anyway (in all senses of the word).
We HAVE signed up to Kyoto
We ARE a year into the emissions recording period
We WILL have to pay for each every and every ton of carbon we are emitting right now.So exactly why we're still letting those businesses that cause that liability to emit without any exposure to it's cost to the country completely fails me. The ETS doesn't impose cost to the country, it minimises it. Treasury's analysis made it clear that it was the least-cost approach to delivering on a legal, signed-up, in-play liability
-
There are advantages to Australia acting early if emission pricing expands gradually across the world: economies that defer action face higher long-term costs, as global investment is redirected to early movers.
Rod Oram has been making precisely this point for a while now. There is nothing to be gained by being a laggard. Quite the reverse.
-
The ditching of the ETS has undermined New Zealand's carbon credibility, and made difficult for us to argue our own virtue in the face of Britain's proposed new departure taxes.
This was nicely worded by the way Russell - we could have been as effective in emission reduction in Sweden, and the tax would have still been the same. It's about the emissions to get here, not how green we are.
But our absurd delays and denials remove any credibility about changing the nature of that tax (their initial plan to move the APD to an "emissions per plane" basis would have been great for AirNZs biofuel program for example) -
When it comes to the ACT party it pays to remember we are not dealing with rational people. Rodney, Roger and co are zealots committed to implementing their own economic sharia law. As soon as clever clogs Key signed up his broad church I thought if a) the baubles of power do not sedate the zealotry of ACT's parliamentary imams then b) it would be in ACT's interests to provoke a crisis that forced National to choose between them and the Maori Party as their support partner.
-
Who is making money from this???
Serious question and I don't have the skills to track it down. But someone is making enough money from this piece of politics to make funding ACT worthwhile.
I simply don't believe this is politics. To me it looks like corruption. New Zealand will lose money over this delay but someone in NZ will make money from it and my bet is that person has wound up the Rodney doll and sent it on its merry way.
-
Bart, I'd suggest the question is who is saving by getting us all to pay for their share of polluting.
-
"Carbon pariah" - love it.
-
who is saving by getting us all to pay for their share of polluting
It could be that Sacha, but my gut feeling is that it's probably more direct than that. Avoiding having to pay for pollution will prevent someone losing money but it won't make someone a quick billion. Someone is planning to make a lot of money from this and they'll be thinking short term because this really will only be a delay.
The committee will eventually conclude that the scientific consensus was indeed correct and anthropogenic global warming is real and we will have to honour Kyoto. And because we will have delayed the penalties/taxes will be higher. So someone who was going to have to pay for pollution will just get a couple of years before they have to pay, and there will be backdated costs.
-
I wonder will a carbon tax work both ways - if I start my own carbon sequestration program will I get money from the govt?
(I'm going to stop recycling newspapers and send them to the tip)
-
Welcome to the next three years. The governance of New Zealand has been hi-jacked by a nasty, brutish and short man in a yellow jacket. He and a chum could have been in Cabinet, but chose instead to run the Government from outside. Meanwhile, the cardboard Prime Minister has gone off to meet the Queen.
I need a drink.
-
When people ask him how we could possibly get away with withdrawing from Kyoto or whatever he says something about
[about 14] European countries have announced that they are [withdrawing/defaulting/not going to meet their commitments or something]
Does anyone have any idea if there is a piece of information he is distorting here?
-
a nasty, brutish and short man in a yellow jacket
though not poor. or solitary, more's the pity.
-
Rodney, Roger and co are zealots committed to implementing their own economic sharia law.
Nicely put Tom.
Rod Oram has been making precisely this point for a while now. There is nothing to be gained by being a laggard. Quite the reverse.
However, it seems the bleeding-edge narrative, pushed by Farrar and co, has won the day... I guess it didn't help that the forecast net revenues were so far off the mark.
-
[about 14] European countries have announced that they are [withdrawing/defaulting/not going to meet their commitments or something]
I've heard nothing of the sort - there are ZERO countries stating they'll withdraw from Kyoto (Canada made noises but haven't), the EU as a whole is committed to Kyoto, many of the Eastern Bloc are making their targets through virtue of economic decline, and the Nordic countries are doing a stellar job (and will make a small fortune in selling excess units I imagine).
Post your response…
This topic is closed.