Got a question or comment on this topic? Share your views and experiences with other Consumer members...

To add a comment you need to be a member of Login or Join.

Deniers are out in force Posted by: Jean Wignall 13 Jul 2010 8:10pm

Having studied the greenhouse effect and the likely damage to our world in the 1970s, and lived with that knowledge throughout my adult life, I am (unfairly, I suppose)gob-smacked at the level of ignorance and denial out there.
May I just add to the more sensible responses: the only reason NZers don't contribute much in total to CO2 emissions is that there aren't many of us. As individuals, we're almost as bad as Americans when it comes to consuming and polluting.

I'll be expecting my money refunded.... Posted by: Ken Luskie 13 Jul 2010 4:20pm

YEAH RIGHT ! ! ! !

When this Anthropogenic Global Warming SCAM is seen for what it is & a world leader stands up and shouts "the emperor is NAKED", then I'll be expecting every cent that has been extorted from my family & me refunded.

The science is FAR FROM settled.
We need to wonder who is behind the scam & why are countries falling over themselves to jump on the bandwagon???

Check these sites out

Misdirection Posted by: Michael Rynne 13 Jul 2010 3:15pm

It's a real shame that your writer didn't bother to actually examine what an ETS is. Clearly, it was simply more convenient to reproduce the usual inane flim-flam that passes for "informed" comment when it comes to climate policy analysis. Very disappointing from Consumer.
As an example, the very first sentence is factually and logically incorrect. WHY does “allocation of free credits and other “subsidies’ provide a weak price signal for polluters to cut emissions”? Who says this? This assertion is illogical nonsense. There is a price on carbon under the ETS. If I reduce my emissions by 1 tonne, I save the equivalent cost of 1 tonne of CO2. That’s incentive. The reverse is also true. How much I paid for the other 10 tonnes of my emissions is irrelevant. All that matters is that I get an incentive (or a penalty) if I change my emissions by 1 tonne. Secondly, there are relatively few recipients of “free credits in the ETS. Most energy consumers in New Zealand will not receive free credits – AND, by definition, those that do receive them CANNOT sneakily pass on the cost of the ETS to consumers. If they do, they will lose their “free” credits. Why? Such free credits are only granted to businesses that are unable to raise prices because they are subject to import or export competition that would kill them off if they did indeed raise their prices. As a counter-example, electricity suppliers can indeed pass through the cost of the ETS because they do not have import competition (you can’t import electricity from overseas!).
The lament that the cost of meeting our obligations will be passed from “polluters to taxpayers” is a straw-man argument. Of course it will. What did you expect? Why is that any different to rates, income tax, GST, electricity costs, packaging….? Any cost of the business is going to be passed through to the customer in the price of the product. If it wasn’t, you wouldn’t have a viable business. If you don’t like that fact, then remove the ‘cost’ by legislation (not that I’m advocating that!).
Finally, there is a ridiculous implicit assumption that a carbon tax will somehow “fix” all these imaginary problems. Why? Who do you imagine will pay the carbon tax? …, answer: the “taxpayer”, that’s who. And, seeing as we’re complaining about the cost of the ETS to the taxpayer, exactly how much will I (“taxpayer”) have to pay under the alternative carbon tax? Why will “polluters” not also pass through the cost of a carbon tax to “taxpayers”, just as they do with an ETS cost? And, what happens to those businesses (read: employers) that have to pay a carbon tax when their import competitor does not? But, hey, let’s ignore inconvenient facts. They get in the way of slagging off the ETS.

Too complicated Posted by: Mrs Chappie 13 Jul 2010 2:19pm

My husband and I have an area of forestry containing 12,000 trees. We did try and register, but it was so complicated, we needed to look up all sorts of things to make sure we got the wording EXACTLY CORRECT, as we were instructed to do, then we had to submit a "file plan" of the area. Our local Regional Council said they could help with this, but then discovered that they didn't actually have a GPS map of the area, so we were on our own. On the website there were 22 PAGES of criteria on how to construct a file plan. Unbelievable. At this point we could either just give up or use one of the "ETS consultants" just springing up to milk the system. Needless to say, we decided to forget it, as it is totally voluntary. It was going to cost $500 to register, then there is an ongoing charge per annum to stay registered, and so long as we replant in the normal way when we harvest the trees, we will not be charged any carbon credits, so what is the flaming point??? Just think, there is a whole new level of beaurocracy now, consultants explaining the gobbledegook that is the ETS. A whole new career field - just think, unemployment will go down, and the Government will look even better! Yeah right.

GREEN TAX JUST FEELS BETTER Posted by: Andrew Clarkson 13 Jul 2010 12:51pm

Is global warming (and cooling) really dangerous? Climate extremes have occurred naturally for thousands of years - without human (or animal) assistance.

Of course air pollution never has or will be a good thing, and we should be doing all we can to reduce emissions for a healthier, more breathable atmosphere. But is climate change really our fault? If it isn't our fault we shouldn't be taxed as if it were.

Widespread propaganda has us convinced that industrial and mechanical carbon dioxide emissions and animal emissions (methane) have the power to alter climate globally, but are these claims really true? Are the computer models accurate? Is this impending environmental disaster really based on the testimony of the majority of the world's leading climatologists and meteorologists? Or is it a hot air mixture of false science, environmental guilt and financial greed?

Al Gore and many others make a lot of money from shares in carbon credit companies, as do all governments and companies that charge carbon taxes.

The media also love this! We humans enjoy a good story, especially a potential cataclysmic global disaster that might just be averted if we all just do our bit. The Copenhagen climate change conference last December was "unsuccessful" in its aims to convince (force the hands of) all governments to tax their people even more. Possibly part of its failure had to do with the totally under-reported "Climategate" scandal that occurred in East Anglia, England a week prior to the conference (Google it).

I recommend viewing the documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle" or reading "Air Con - The Seriously Inconvenient Truth About Global Warming" by NZ author Ian Wishart.

Or check out these YouTube videos:

NZ is a bad emitter Posted by: Harry Matthews 13 Jul 2010 9:11am

On a per head basis (the only fair one) New Zealand is one of the highest emitters of greenhouse gases in the world. In spite of all the confusion spread by those profiting from the poisoning of our planet, there is now no doubt that the planet is being poisoned and that the situation will soon become irreversible by any known technology. New Zealand should quickly get its per head emissions at least in line with the rest of the world.

we are taxpayers Posted by: Jillian Forbes 12 Jul 2010 8:20pm

will people please realise that farmers are taxpayers like everyone else and like everyone else think this whole thing is a big scam

Fiddling at the margins Posted by: R M Scaife 09 Jul 2010 11:06pm

I would not object to paying the so called ETS tax if it were actually going to reduce green house gasses and pollution. This Govt has no long term strategy and lack of direction and just fiddling at the margins to save face with our trading partners. Any money I pay now I consider a scam and an absolute waste of time. We will see at the next election just what strategies are in place and how well the public buy in to it. Pathetic.