The Opportunities Party would allow the Climate Change Commission to directly manage prices in the emissions trading scheme and reinvest proceeds over a range of priorities.
TOP announced this policy and several others as part of its Climate Opportunities package which sets out how it would pursue emissions reductions and climate resilience.
The three main policies are to provide farmers with ‘biodiversity credits’ for planting natives on marginal land, getting the national bus fleet to 100% electric by 2030, and tightening the rules of the emissions trading scheme.
Secondary market prices for New Zealand carbon credits have fallen sharply this year after the government ignored Climate Commission advice to lift auction prices and lower volumes in December.
Further uncertainty has been thrown over the scheme by the commission's advice to adjust the rules to better incentivise gross emission reductions, not just forestry offsets.
TOP leader Raf Manji has backed that idea and said that his party would exclude new forestry offsets and cap the number of units, if elected to government in the October election.
This is something officials at the Ministry for the Environment are working on currently, and a six week public consultation period is expected to begin in the next month or so.
Options floated by the Climate Change Commission included limiting the number of forestry offsets allowed into the scheme, or somehow making offsets worth less than gross reductions.
TOP would go one step further than just following the Climate Change Commission’s advice and would hand over management of the scheme, much like the Reserve Bank is put in charge of setting interest rates.
The policy would enable the commission to set carbon prices through an Official Carbon Rate, or OCAR, in a nod to the Reserve Bank’s Official Cash Rate.
Revenue from the scheme would be reinvested into renewable energy development, emissions free transport, and a carbon dividend.
The Ministry for the Environment recently confirmed it was looking at a carbon dividend mechanism as part of wider work to address the distributional impacts of climate change.
Carbon dividends are popular on both ends of the political spectrum, with support from both the Act and Green parties.
Money from the scheme has been rapidly running out, however, leaving some question as to how much TOP would have to spread across its various policy goals.
The Government has made $6.6 billion of funding available in the Climate Emergency Response Fund, but Treasury only expects the ETS scheme to contribute $4.7 billion of that money.
Much of this money has already been allocated to various projects. Notably, $140 million for NZ Steel to decarbonise its Glenbrook Steel Mill.
Manji said climate change was the defining challenge of our time and leaders had a responsibility to reduce emissions and prepare for a net-zero world.
“Our three emissions reductions policies demonstrate our party’s commitment to system-level change through bold, creative solutions and smart investment”.
The electric bus policy brings forward the existing Government goal by five years and would cover the cost for regional councils to make the switch.
Manji said this would reduce emissions by approximately 171,000 tonnes—the equivalent of 75,000 petrol cars—each year and would cost about $2.5 billion.
In a TVNZ-Kantar poll released on Thursday evening, the political party was polling at just 1% of the vote and hasn’t polled much higher than 2% in most other surveys to date.
However, Manji hopes to win Christchurch’s Ilam seat and could bring the party into parliament on his coattails. The former city councillor came second to Gerry Brownlee in 2017, but only collected 23% of the vote.
National and Act were in a position to form a government in the TVNZ-Kantar poll, while the left-leaning bloc would not have enough seats to form a coalition
21 Comments
In a TVNZ-Kantar poll released on Thursday evening, the political party was polling at just 1% of the vote and hasn’t polled much higher than 2% in most other surveys to date.
They were polling at 3.5% at the end of March, according to Roy Morgan.
Still a ways off being able to run the country, but I'd like to see them have some form of representation in Parliament. The pigeons down in Wellington badly need a cat thrown amongst them.
TOP's best chance is to try and win Ilam (maybe by stitching a deal up with Labour - the MP who replaced Gerry Brownlee in 2020 is seen out working as frequently as Lord Lucan and Shergar) but it will be an uphill struggle as there is the solidly National part of the Ilam electorate in the wealthier suburbs, who would vote for a blue coloured dog if it were running, then the students in the area all tend to vote Green if they aren't too hungover to crawl out of bed on election day, and then there are the more working/middle class suburbs that will generally go Labour. TOP is more likely to take votes from Labour than National and although Manji has done alright as an independent in the past I don't think it will be enough.
From a strategic perspective I don't think Ilam was a great choice of electorate to run in for Manji, even if he lives there. Having grown up and spent about 30 years of my life in the area (although now moved out I still live in Chch and have friends and family in the area) there's one other problem I see for TOP - the electorate has suburbs like Burnside, Bishopdale and Avonhead that are primarily middle class However, many of the houses sit on valuable land while the dwelling is worth little... I grew up in such a place, all my friends lived in similar when I went to school in the area and so on.
Obviously you'd have to do the TOP tax calculator test, but I know a couple of friends and family who've tried it and found they would be on the hook for higher taxes overall due to the land value, because their modest 3 bedroom Bishopdale house they bought before property prices went wacko has a bit of grass in the front and back and so it would be better if Wolfbrook and Williams Corp can hoover up some more sections and build their latest future slums to maximise "land efficiency" or whatever.
On the other hand if Manji can get on the phone to Hipkins it might be possible to stitch something up.
Being on the NZ Super, I calculated our tax utilising the Land Tax model, and I was slightly worse off, but when I discussed this with Raf he acknowledged that and stated that I should look at the bigger picture and understand that the model will change once Treasury get involved, then the outcome would be different with some other taxes such as GST being reduced and/or the tax free component being raised. The beauty of Land Tax model is that it is very difficult to escape or reduce your tax, and we need to escape this complex tax structure we have to make our tax system much fairer on all especially the lower wage earners, there is currently too much inequality.
Any discrepancies would be looked into and removed quickly.
I'm not saying that we don't need to fix inequality, more that as most people vote in their own best interests (who would have thought it) if you find that you are suddenly on the hook for more tax because of an LVT on what is ultimately a modest home in a modest area purely because it has a bit of a garden, this could be a hard sell electorally. Also when you factor in that rural, commercial and Maori land is exempt from TOP's proposed LVT (at least as far as I understand it) that is another hard-to-sell aspect.
I think TOP could easily achieve 5% in party vote if they went first and foremost after speculators/investors, e.g. a more punitive LVT on 2+ properties. As it stands I think it will be another disappointing election for them.
I think it would be more palatable if it was phased in rather than implemented overnight, similar to how some Australian states were bringing it in I believe.
E.g start at an extremely low rate and slowly increase it yearly. Give people time to plan and land prices would be able to reflect the coming change.
Some kind of asset tax will be needed though. And a land value tax is more efficient and dependable than a capital gains tax. We can’t keep depending upon workers incomes especially if that group is shrinking compared to those who are aging out of the workforce.
They're barking up the wrong tree on two counts.
One - Climate Change (while real and human-forced) is NOT the major issue of our time. It is one of a multitude of facets.
Two - without as much carbon energy, not as much can be produced (there is no equivalent replacement). This means not as much money has a home. Meaning if there's too much money extant, it has to be inflated-away. And on that merry-go-round, how can you have an above-churn 'price' on carbon? Whether it ends up as taxes or whatever, it's a demand that energy be expended. Reminds me of a cat chasing its tail - driven by what it ate...
2 aspects I put forward.
1 I generally agree with your arguments re energy and the mining of resources. Primarily based on the human species being just one of the multitude of species occupying the ecosystem. In non-human species, when resources run short, there's a population collapse back to an equilibrium that can support the population (or there is an extinction event). The human species has insulated itself against such crises (e.g. rapid development of covid vaccine probably avoided massive death rates). And out of fundamental survival instinct, I don't see any human populations putting their hand up to say "knock me/us off so the population can reduce back to sustainable equilibrium". But the human species is on a relentless path to crisis.
2 Delaying that crisis is the likely path. Efficiency gains will be part of that. In NZ, there is arguably significant efficiencies to be gained in our agricultural systems. The presently nebulous term regenerative agriculture can be part of this. Especially in regard to the mining, transport, processing of rock phosphate, a seriously dwindling mineral resource. Phosphate (P) is critical to the food chain. In the last 100 years, I calculate somewhere between 200 million and 300 million tonnes of P fertiliser has been applied to farmed soils in NZ. About 10% of that is elemental P. And depending on soil geology, a percentage of that (high in clay soils) is locked on to the soil colloids, supposedly unavailablle to plant root systems (plantroots can only access P within millimetres of the root hairs). Soil mycelia (fungi) is gaining recognition for it's symbiotic relationship with plant root systems. Mycelia can break the tight bond locking P to the colloids, that plant roots cannot do. Thereby extracting "locked" P from soil colloids, transporting that phosphate (over significant distance in plant root terms) to the plant roots and receiving carbon in return (one reason you see fairy rings in lawns and pastures where fungi flower such as mushroom rings).
Under what we now see as traditional farming systems, soil conditions to support beneficial mycelium populations are compromised. Some argue that the Olsen P soil test contributes to this because it only measures water soluble P in the soil sample, rather than the total P (water soluble and insoluble locked P) in the sample. Thereby ignoring the plant/mycelium symbiotic relationship. Fertiliser applications are generally based on supplementing that soluble P - great for fertiliser sales.
Regenerative agriculture principles, now being researched and promoted, are aimed at enhancing the soil environment to support healthy soil biota which includes mycelia and beneficial bacteria (that are also nitrogen fixing, like inoculated legumes, read clover). The potential efficiency gains arise from lower external fertiliser requirement through enhancing natural soil biological mining/cycling processes coupled with deep rooting species relocating minerals from deeper down in the soil profile into the shallower rooting zone of grasses and clovers.
This doesn't eliminate population driven crisis, but within NZ, it allows the currently economically critical agricultural sector to continue with reduced GHG emissions.
However,
2 aspects I put forward.
1 I generally agree with your arguments re energy and the mining of resources. Primarily based on the human species being just one of the multitude of species occupying the ecosystem. In non-human species, when resources run short, there's a population collapse back to an equilibrium that can support the population (or there is an extinction event). The human species has insulated itself against such crises (e.g. rapid development of covid vaccine probably avoided massive death rates). And out of fundamental survival instinct, I don't see any human populations putting their hand up to say "knock me/us off so the population can reduce back to sustainable equilibrium". But the human species is on a relentless path to crisis.
2 Delaying that crisis is the likely path. Efficiency gains will be part of that. In NZ, there is arguably significant efficiencies to be gained in our agricultural systems. The presently nebulous term regenerative agriculture can be part of this. Especially in regard to the mining, transport, processing of rock phosphate, a seriously dwindling mineral resource. Phosphate (P) is critical to the food chain. In the last 100 years, I calculate somewhere between 200 million and 300 million tonnes of P fertiliser has been applied to farmed soils in NZ. About 10% of that is elemental P. And depending on soil geology, a percentage of that (high in clay soils) is locked on to the soil colloids, supposedly unavailablle to plant root systems (plantroots can only access P within millimetres of the root hairs). Soil mycelia (fungi) is gaining recognition for it's symbiotic relationship with plant root systems. Mycelia can break the tight bond locking P to the colloids, that plant roots cannot do. Thereby extracting "locked" P from soil colloids, transporting that phosphate (over significant distance in plant root terms) to the plant roots and receiving carbon in return (one reason you see fairy rings in lawns and pastures where fungi flower such as mushroom rings).
Under what we now see as traditional farming systems, soil conditions to support beneficial mycelium populations are compromised. Some argue that the Olsen P soil test contributes to this because it only measures water soluble P in the soil sample, rather than the total P (water soluble and insoluble locked P) in the sample. Thereby ignoring the plant/mycelium symbiotic relationship. Fertiliser applications are generally based on supplementing that soluble P - great for fertiliser sales.
Regenerative agriculture principles, now being researched and promoted, are aimed at enhancing the soil environment to support healthy soil biota which includes mycelia and beneficial bacteria (that are also nitrogen fixing, like inoculated legumes, read clover). The potential efficiency gains arise from lower external fertiliser requirement through enhancing natural soil biological mining/cycling processes coupled with deep rooting species relocating minerals from deeper down in the soil profile into the shallower rooting zone of grasses and clovers.
This doesn't eliminate population driven crisis, but within NZ, it allows the currently economically critical agricultural sector to continue with reduced GHG emissions.
However,
I would like to think interest.co.nz readers are smart enough to realise that voting in TOP to prove themselves, and maybe even have some real influence in Parliament, is the best thing they can do this election.
Major parties and MSM with a vested interest in maintaining status quo will still try and convince the public this is a "wasted vote"... which is absolutely not the case.
In the light of this article on interest.co.nz, about what looks like the selective use of data by NZ authorities to set targets, not sure this is a good idea. What happens when your reference experts are activists?
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.