Comments on: Wellington protest against the ETS

By: Andy

Andy — Fri, 18 Jun 2010 02:14:46 +0000

I posted up some correspondence I have had from Nick Smith and others here

http://www.buildwith.net/blog/2010/06/18/WhyDoWeHaveAnETS.aspx

The “significant loss” that the government says it is making on the ETS is a bit of a worry. Who exactly will pay for this, and how?

By: Richard Treadgold

Richard Treadgold — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 17:29:12 +0000

Yep!

By: Richard Treadgold

Richard Treadgold — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 17:28:08 +0000

Thanks Andy. Some of this comes back to me now. Yes, BH normally has something to say.

By: Lisa G in NZ

Lisa G in NZ — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 02:17:06 +0000

** sigh ***
what’s next… taxed for how much Oxygen we consume as humans on the planet?

crikey… what stupidity for NZ to follow all the moroons at the UN…. sorry Helen, your new employer stinks

By: Andy

Andy — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 05:00:28 +0000

Mike Hulme, Prof of Climate Change at UEA.
http://mikehulme.org

He gets mentioned quite a lot at Bishop Hill

e.g

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/6/11/quote-of-the-day.html

The comments at BH are usually worth reading.

By: Andy

Andy — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 02:53:58 +0000

I should also point out that all the government projections of emissions through to 2020 assume a carbon price of $50/tonne

By: Andy

Andy — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 02:20:26 +0000

One of the factors that we are not being told is that the ETS is exposed to the international carbon market after the transition phase :

Q: Won’t the transition phase just lead to a sharp increase in carbon prices for firms at the end of the phase?

A: At the end of the transition phase firms will face the international carbon price. This could be higher than the $12.50 that firms will effectively face through the fixed price option and the 2:1 progressive obligation. However, firms will be able to monitor carbon markets during this period and plan for any cost increase that might occur at the end of the transition phase.

From:
http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/climate/emissions-trading-bulletin-11/index.html

What MFE is saying is that all industry and farming sectors need to monitor the carbon market and make price adjustments in reaction to this.

This could have an adverse effect on polluters if the price suddenly shot up. Also, it could make a carbon farming concept a very risky concept if it is so exposed to a potentially very volatile market where there is no real product that is in demand.

Of course, the consumer would be affected by this in prices across all sectors.

In effect, we are being coerced into “investing” in a potentially volatile and risky market, and we don’t have any choice.

This is the untold story of the ETS.

By: Richard Treadgold

Richard Treadgold — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 03:11:28 +0000

Thanks Lisa. The links to this are coming at me from several directions at once. This is as stunning as the release of the CRU emails and I think it will prove just as disastrous to the case for dangerous AGW. We want this news spread quickly around the country, and I don’t think we can count on the MSM helping us!

Does anyone know much about Mike Hulme? I know the name, but not the man or what he’s done.

By: Lisa G in NZ

Lisa G in NZ — Mon, 14 Jun 2010 22:21:54 +0000

Richard,

You might like these links if you haven’t yet seen:

http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/06/top-global-warming-official-there-never-was-consensus-only-a-few-dozen-believed-it/

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/06/13/the-ipcc-consensus-on-climate-change-was-phoney-says-ipcc-insider/

cheers

By: Richard Treadgold

Richard Treadgold — Sun, 13 Jun 2010 07:44:29 +0000

Thanks Lisa (I’m not sure I will get there, either).

LOL, that’s a good question. Hard to know, isn’t it? There are some conservatives, for want of a better word, and I don’t think the hope I cling to, that change is possible, is entirely blind.

I don’t write enough letters to editors, perhaps we could all do more of that?