Comments on: Letter to the editor

By: Stanley

Stanley — Sat, 15 Sep 2012 06:45:22 +0000

Ms Wright doesn’t seem to grasp that the Kyoto Protocol obligations were a one-off phenomenon with a 5-year lifespan. They resulted from a ‘grand bargain’ between USA and EU 15 years ago, when emissions were seen to be an exclusively rich-country problem.

The irony of it all was that EU already had its post-1990 credits in the bank, and USA never attempted to ratify or honour the obligation.

Mandatory GHG reductions, backed by financial penalties, will never be accepted again. They are history.

By: Richard C (NZ)

Richard C (NZ) — Fri, 14 Sep 2012 21:10:09 +0000

“…not much point in taxing the inefficient”

Thing is Robin, the emitters in the electricity generation sector are efficient before the tax but it’s the tax that produces the inefficiency.

I’m talking about CCGT and coal-fired generators for example. These are best run as a constant base load without ramping up and down causing unnecessary wear and maintenance costs but when wind is given the luxury of gaining priority by offering supply at 0$/MWh then the gas and coal operators have no choice but to conform to the inefficiency of that regime.

The wind is there only because of the economic inefficiency caused by the tax which is loaded on to gas, coal and geothermal – not because of its natural competitiveness.

By: Richard Treadgold

Richard Treadgold — Fri, 14 Sep 2012 20:10:48 +0000

She gives the impression of a distinct lack of knowledge of reality. She obviously knows little about the environment she’s meant to monitor.

By: Robin Pittwood

Robin Pittwood — Fri, 14 Sep 2012 00:34:34 +0000

Well there’s not much point in taxing the inefficient because there’s next to nothing left over (ie profit) to pay the tax with.

By: Gary Kerkin

Gary Kerkin — Thu, 13 Sep 2012 20:31:52 +0000

“Without a direct cost, there will be no transition to a low carbon economy, smooth or otherwise. Major polluters will still be paying for just 5 per cent of their emissions in 2050.” – Jan Wright, NZ Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment

I heard her on Morning Report a few days back and thought that if she believes that shifting the burden from taxpayers to major “polluters” she is seriously deluded. I wonder if she has thought how those major “polluters” will recover their costs and who will be paying?

By: Andy

Andy — Thu, 13 Sep 2012 05:54:21 +0000

Aren’t we already a “low carbon”economy?

By: Richard C (NZ)

Richard C (NZ) — Thu, 13 Sep 2012 05:28:26 +0000

Two lies ….. carbon dioxide is “pollution”,,,,,,and ……Australians are….. “carbon polluters”.

Not reserved for Australia Viv,

“The Bill before Parliament fundamentally undermines the Emissions Trading Scheme by continuing to subsidise polluters at the expense of taxpayers” – Grant Robertson, NZ Labour Party Environment Spokesperson

http://www.voxy.co.nz/politics/govt-slammed-%E2%80%98hollowing-out%E2%80%99-ets/5/134468

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/politics/7656489/Emissions-trading-nearly-toothless

By: Richard Treadgold

Richard Treadgold — Thu, 13 Sep 2012 01:09:19 +0000

Your point about carbon activism punishing Australia for its efficiency is a very good one, Viv. I hadn’t seen that before.