http://www.carbonfarming.org.nz/calculators.php

where you can find such joyous facts that it costs $8 per year to own a sheep under the ETS.

(Still puzzled why we need to pay for a sheep and not a human, but let’s not give them ideas )

The Emissions Unit Register is also worth a look
https://www.app.eur.govt.nz/eats/nz/Docs/ETS_Participant_Register.pdf

There are a lot of Oil and Energy companies in the list, three councils, some govt departments (is that positive or negative feedback I ask myself) and some individual forestry owners as well as corporates .

http://bit.ly/9AJr7P

Remember, Europe is run by undemocratically appointed commissioners who impose rules on its member nations. These “29″ other countries that Nick Smith refers to are mostly within this union.

Why would we want to follow the lemmings off the cliff?

This article by Prof Philip Stott is worth a read:

http://web.me.com/sinfonia1/Clamour_Of_The_Times/Clamour_Of_The_Times/Entries/2010/5/13_Oh_no!_It%E2%80%99s_Chris_Huhne!.html

The government may want to change our behaviour, but they should explain why this is necessary. By introducing the ETS, they seem to declare the reason is to change the climate. But they recant on that objective, saying we are too small to affect the climate and our anti-AGW actions are symbolic only — for marketing purposes.

Although our clients either have no ETS at all or, in the EU, it covers only 4% of economic activity, while ours will cover 100%, so they can scarcely complain, so why should we worry about them?

Then they hint that reducing hydrocarbon use is a good thing, presumably to reduce ordinary pollution. But now they’re in the strange situation of attacking one problem with a weapon designed against a different problem. Which is stupid, you can’t achieve what you want if you use the wrong tool.

Forestry is tricky. I don’t know all the facts, but if you’re talking pinus radiata, it’s 30 years to harvest. If (and it’s a big if) the ETS is still in force when you come to harvest your trees, you must replant immediately, or pay for carbon certificates at the current price of carbon. Most of the money the government is obliged to pay foresters is a windfall gain to foresters, because their qualifying plantations were planted years before the Kyoto Protocol was a gleam in a greenie’s eye.

I’m gathering some costings which I hope to post shortly which will help people understand the effects of the ETS.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/environment/news/article.cfm?c_id=39&objectid=10648525&pnum=2

He did fill me in with the government thinking on the ETS. One argument is that by increasing fuel and electricity costs, this will force us to change behaviour, use more public transport, etc.
I really can’t see the logic here. They could, for example, provide a disincentive to use large gas-guzzlers bu having a sliding scale road user charge based on emissions. The UK has this system, and it has worked in that SUVs are a rarity on the roads, at least compared with NZ. (This does of course start with the a priori assumption that we have a need to change public behaviour)

A farmer can get $2000 per annum per hectare credits by planting trees on marginal land.
I’d really like to see some numbers here, as I suspect to ROI on this could be quite low. How much does it cost to plant a hectare of trees? What is the payback time? What are the risks?

From the public’s point of view, this is just another cost to be borne, that will affect all consumers across the board. I can’t see it really changing behaviour in a positive way, as it is no different to any other cost such as a GST hike. Unless of course, the cost of carbon is so high that we cannot afford to drive, in which case we are forcing recessionary behaviour.
According to the government’s climate change website, the main driver of emissions reduction in NZ is recession.

We also discussed the agricultural emissions aspect. I have a lot of doubt about this aspect in particular, and why we should be spending millions on re-engineering cows to fart less, when we have real environmental issues (such as pest control) to deal with.

Finally, I do really think the NZ government think this is a “show-case” piece of legislation (the “most complicated act we have introduced”, according to Mr Gilmore – groan) that we can hold up to the world to show we are leading the charge. At this point I start to feel really depressed.

I’d like to thank Aaron Gilmore for taking the time to talk with me yesterday. My comments here in no way reflect on him, as I am sure he understands.

It’s the “stupidity” stories I’m keen to hear about. The more we know what’s in store, the fewer of us will vote for it.

It does seem that a tax is far better than an ETS. We know both are meaningless, but a tax is more easily abolished.

I don’t understand why you want to pre-empt the market by placing an extra charge on “carbon” before there’s any shortage. The history of hydrocarbon exploration is one of unending discovery of new sources, coupled with new methods of either extraction, processing or use which end up extending the life of known reserves. There’s no evidence that is slowing down.

Please forgive my ignorance, but what is the “FSC-style approach”?

You give a fascinating glimpse into some of forestry’s problems, and thanks for declaring your vested interest as a forester, but does your interest not colour your thinking? Of course you would like steel and concrete to be replaced by timber construction (if that’s your meaning) but what purpose would be achieved by a carbon tax? How does that help timber?

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/05/great-deluded.html

I think any savings that an ETS would make in CO2 levels would be wiped out by China in a matter of days.

I heard some anecdotes at the ACT meeting:
(1) A fishing company with 2 deep sea trawlers will be paying $700,000 a year in ETS costs, and no way to recoup them.
(2) You need to pay for carbon permits to remove wilding pines from your land.

I am sure there will be plenty of fodder for bureaucratic stupidity stories come out of this crock.

Ultimately, I don’t really buy into the Carbon tax thing, but my point above is that it is the better of 2 evils compared to an ETS