NZ to 'calibrate' response on ETS – Groser

Email
Print

NZ to 'calibrate' response on ETS – Groser

3News NZ

Climate Change Minister Tim Groser

Climate Change Minister Tim Groser

This week, the Government stepped back from its carbon tax commitments, revealing that agriculture and industry would wait longer before paying higher prices under our Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS).

The Government has hinted that our ETS could one day be harmonised with Australia’s – a much more expensive scheme than ours.

The Nation discussed the changes with Alex Tarrant from Interest.co.nz, Fairfax political reporter John Hartevelt and Climate Change Minister Tim Groser.

Tim Groser also put on his other hat, as Trade Minister, to discuss what powers foreign investors will have if the trans-Pacific partnership goes through.

Watch the video for the full interview.

Post a Comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide


(Won't be published)



Comments

8/07/2012 8:36:19 a.m.

Dr Euan Mason, Univ. of Canterbury wrote:

The biggest problem with our ETS is that it allows trading in "certified emission reduction" (CER) credits, which do not make logical sense. The reward for reducing emissions should be to not have to purchase credits. A gift of credits to those who reduce emissions represents a double payment, and CERs are undermining our ETS, leading to low NZU prices and reduced investment in much needed forests to fill a looming gap in our GHG accounts during the 2020s.

8/07/2012 8:31:10 a.m.

Dr Euan Mason, Univ. of Canterbury wrote:

New Zealand taxpayers are subsidising farmers in our ETS. It is not a question of whether the minister imposes costs or not, but on whom the costs are imposed.

8/07/2012 8:28:29 a.m.

Dr Euan Mason, Univ. of Canterbury wrote:

New Zealand could be completely GHG neutral by investing alternative energy sources and planting a Latrell modest amount of new forest on our eroding lands. Hill country farmers would be the main beneficiaries of the ETS, because they own the land on which the trees would be planted. Federated Farmers is undermining its members by pushing for a weakened ETS.

8/07/2012 8:25:26 a.m.

Dr Euan Mason, Univ. of Canterbury wrote:

New Zealand already has biological emissions in its scheme. Pre-1990 forest owners have been hit hard by the tax on land use change, despite some small gifts of free credits.

8/07/2012 8:16:15 a.m.

Mike wrote:

Actually an ETS probably wont hit farmers in the pocket.

The left has said that dairy farmers should be paying as much as $1.5 billion in ETS. is bit over 10,000 of these, so thats $150,000 ETS tax each.

Take their average income tax paid in 2009 of $1500 and you find that the 'rich farmers' just dont have the incomes to cover this ETS. So they will have to come up with a sustainable ETS, so where will they get the money from? International dairy prices are not set in NZ, so they wont get it there. That leaves the local NZ dairy market to charge the full $1.5 billion more, or roughly doubling of current dairy prices. When we hear the leftist loonies screaming for farmers to be ETS taxed, what they are really asking for is much higher dairy prices. take cheap milk currently $3 for 2 ltrs, with ETS that becomes $6. Cheap Cheese $8/kg on special, will be $16/kg on special! when ETS was added to fuel prices, it raised consumer fuel prices, the oil company profits didn't change. ETS on farmers will go straight to consumer prices. And leftist looney claiming otherwise is just too stupid to steal their own shoes, or lying.

Farming itself is a carbon soak as the grass grows, is eaten, adds weight/milk which is harvested as food. Its the penalty rates of methane (17:1) in our scheme that is wrong. If loko at methane, and plant composting produces methane, so this means if forresty was also taxed for 'composting' then no forrestry would get carbon credits. Why does our ETS penalise biologicals this much? No ETS in any other country currently taxes biologicals so we should not be the first.

Since pre 1990 forrestry is exlcuded from our ETS, we should also exclude pre 1990 farming, ie most NZ dairying. The carbon soak rate for our forrestry use EU growth rates not NZ rates which are almost 4x faster for likes of Radiata Pine. If we will tax cows who help support the NZ economy, should we not also tax those at the trough of our social welfare system?

7/07/2012 4:49:17 p.m.

Ruz wrote:

I don't think the Government is keen to have a full-blown ETS scheme because it will hit the public, and in particular farmers, in the pocket. Other countries are also reluctant to tax carbon emissions, so we are not alone in our reluctance. What we are banking on is universal inaction over climate change so that while the talk-fest continues the planet will keep warming up.