Posts by David Haywood
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Southerly: A Tale of Two Iceblocks: Part…, in reply to Rob Stowell,
[*A carbon tax isn’t just – or even primarily? – aimed at consumers, but at producers, too, of course. Isn’t it possible that the NZ iceblock manufacturer will (in response to a carbon tax) even further reduce their dirty energy consumption, install a wind generator, avoid any carbon tax at all and end up doing ok – especially as dirty energy gets phased out in China?]
This is a complicated area. The problem is that GHG emissions have a genuine cost, which will be paid by people in the future. If manufacturers can avoid this genuine cost (by passing it onto future generations) then -- generally speaking -- they can undercut competitors who don't.
Yes, the carbon tax is ultimately aimed at the "manufacturers" who produce the GHGs, but it seems to me that this is most effectively done via the consumer, i.e. so that the price of a product signals the true cost (including GHG emissions). Then consumers will be incentivized to purchase products from manufacturers who can minimize prices by minimizing their GHG emissions.
Of course, purchasing decisions are not based wholly on price, but -- all other things being equal -- it will be an extremely important determining factor.
-
Southerly: A Tale of Two Iceblocks: Part…, in reply to Idiot Savant,
To address the policy issue: it wouldn’t be a problem if the countries we imported from also put a price on carbon. Then the cost would be built right in.
Exactly.
For imports from countries without such pricing, a border carbon tax is justified.
That's the appeal of modifying GST into a PGST (Polluting Goods and Services Tax), which therefore wouldn't be violating the conditions of any of our trade agreements.
The important thing is not to implement any policy that would have the effect of unintentionally increasing global GHG emissions. There's a whole bunch of genuine emissions from New Zealand that we can relatively easily do something about (and that will genuinely reduce global GHG emissions). Let's actually work on that...
-
I know that there was a team looking at exactly my example above for NZ before the earthquakes 2009. But I'm on a very old computer here (with actual brontosaurus damage, I think), and I can't find the results.
If anyone can locate them then I'd be grateful if they could post them here...
-
I didn’t really want to post these charts since the one on the right is very approximate. This is a ball-park analysis that I did in 2009 quickly updated for the 2014 year. The intention of the analysis was to show a ballpark figure for GHGs embodied in imports, and to explore the probable(-ish) upper limit for agricultural emissions.
The key point is that by using the standard UNFCCC “production” methods you get a very different analysis than the more correct “consumption” approach.
For example, in the standard accounting system agriculture (the blue area) is about 50 per cent of all emissions. But because all that embodied methane & NO is exported out of the country then it’s (guessimated here) to be actually no more than 25 per cent.
Looking at the first chart some might say there was little point in doing anything about NZ’s GHG emissions because of the difficult-to-fix methane. Looking at the second chart you can see that there’s lots to be achieved via the easier-to-fix area of energy (the red area).
Hopefully this will further explain my point (though don’t quote or rely on these numbers)…
-
Southerly: A Tale of Two Iceblocks: Part…, in reply to Brent Jackson,
I’d just like to re-assure you, David, that at least one person out here understands what you did, and is pleased to have been educated on why taxing carbon is a tricky problem.
Cheers, Brent! I think that brings my total to about four people in maybe 18 years (I suppose on an annual basis that's not too bad -- nearly 1/4 person per year)!
-
Southerly: A Tale of Two Iceblocks: Part…, in reply to ,
There’s the modern idea to mitigate some of the cost.
There are certainly some fascinating plans along these lines, Steven (a case where I had underestimated human ingenuity in the past)…
My own memory of the Hoover Dam relates to my intention for an un-American walk along the top. A policeman with a gun stopped me by saying; “You may think you can walk that far without collapsing, but I’m here to tell you that you can’t”. It was 45degC from memory, so he may have had a point.
If you rode a bicycle in Las Vegas then you have me (partially) to thank for not having to wear a helmet.
-
Southerly: A Tale of Two Iceblocks: Part…, in reply to Alfie,
It seems that the word ‘stoush’ applies primarily in New Zealand and Australia and appears to be derived from the Scottish word stooshie. And your spelling was correct David.
Thanks, Alfie – very interesting!
While appreciating your desire for ice block simplicity, surely the Chinese block travelling thousands of kilometres to market whilst remaining frozen also increases its total emissions?
Yes, you’re quite right, of course – although the actual transport by ship doesn’t add much in the way of emissions (small in comparison to transport via land in trucks). There’s also the effects of storage in NZ (manufacturing all year but selling mainly in summer, etc.). Not to mention the differences in shipping distances for the sugar and so on. That’s why I decided (as stated) to only consider cooling of the water and neglect transport and anything else. Turns out you could just about write a Ph.D. on GHG emissions from iceblocks alone.
-
Southerly: A Tale of Two Iceblocks: Part…, in reply to Ian Dalziel,
stooshie (sp?)
Stoush: a brawl or other fight…
Sorry Ian, I had momentarily lapsed into Scottish! It would be interesting to figure out the directionality of development of those words: was stoush or stooshie (sp?) first?
-
Southerly: A Tale of Two Iceblocks: Part…, in reply to ,
I’m surprised the NZ electricity generator and lines company’s haven’t pointed out that Solar panels and battery’s cost lots of carbon to make, so putting solar panels all over the roof rather than using the hydro dams, isn’t as cosmic as it looks.
It's all very headache-inducing, Steven. The short answer: because someone might point out how much carbon dioxide was released when making the concrete for the hydrodams, not to mention the methane released by the anaerobic decomposition of the original vegetation under the dam waters!
To evaluate this stuff you can work out a GHG payback period, i.e. when the renewable energy from the manufacture of the dam or solar set-up “pays back” the GHG that would have been released from the dirty electricity that the hydrodam or solar set-up displaces. (Hopefully this period is considerably shorter than the life of the dam or solar set-up!)
Much as I like the storage of hydro, it does have its problems in New Zealand. Only after the Alpine Fault goes off will we be able to evaluate the true cost of those dams.
It’s enough to give you a terrible headache, quite frankly…
-
Southerly: A Tale of Two Iceblocks: Part…, in reply to Hilary Stace,
I only buy Nice Blocks – from a New Zealand company which pays a living wage to its employees. Can you factor that into the equation?
Yes, there are, of course, ethical issues in terms of buying an iceblock from abroad so as to avoid paying health & safety costs, etc. that you would demand in your own country.
I'm now wondering if my choice of example was excessively delicious, and will (understandably) distract the minds of readers onto the earthly pleasures of iceblocks -- rather than the fact that our current system of accounting for GHGs can lead to an increase in GHGs (from well-intentioned efforts to reduce them).
Nice Blocks are my favourite, too...
