See the release from Environment Minister Nick Smith:
The Government today released the Emissions Trading Scheme Review Panel’s report – Doing New Zealand’s Fair Share – that recommends the implementation of the scheme be slowed down.
“This is a good report on which to base future decisions on the ETS. Climate change policy comes down to a difficult choice between how much and how quickly we want to reduce emissions and how much households and businesses are prepared to pay. The report is consistent with the Government’s climate change policy goal of New Zealand doing its fair share on this global issue,” Minister for Climate Change Issues Nick Smith said.
“The current ETS legislation has the energy, transport and industrial sectors stepping up to a full obligation in 2013. The Report’s recommendation to slow this by phasing it in three steps in 2013, 2014 and 2015 would ease the price impact on households and businesses. The Report notes this slower timetable would not detract from investment in low-carbon technologies like renewable energy generation as they have quite long lead times.
“The recommendation to slow down the entry of agriculture by a more gradual introduction is also well considered. The Government does not support the introduction of agricultural emissions into the ETS before 2015. The Government also needs to consider the advice of the Agricultural ETS Advisory Committee on the practical implementation challenges. Agricultural emissions will only be included if practical technologies are available to enable farmers to reduce their emissions and more progress is made by our trading partners on measures to reduce emissions.
“It is significant the report and the bulk of the submissions to the review support most features of the ETS including the significant changes the Government made around allocations in 2009. These are working well, have broad support and enable industry to plan for the future with certainty.
“This report confirms the Government’s confidence in the ETS as the most effective way to reduce emissions at least cost. The scheme has seen a marked shift from deforestation to afforestation and from thermal to renewable electricity generation. Net emissions are down and New Zealand is on track to comfortably meet its Kyoto Protocol obligations.
“Climate change is a global issue in which the Government is calibrating New Zealand’s approach relative to our key trading partners. Australia is particularly significant given the extent that our economies are integrated. The Review Panel’s approach fits neatly with the Australian Government’s carbon pricing proposals introduced to its Parliament this week. While New Zealand has started earlier and more softly, the two schemes will be closely aligned in 2015. This review positions us well to advance the joint officials working group announced by both Prime Ministers towards linking the two schemes for the period beyond 2015.
“We are advancing the detailed work on the 61 recommendations. There are both upside and downside fiscal implications in different recommendations that will need to be considered. Changes to the scheme would require legislation and the Government will finalise its policy once the detailed work is complete.”
The Emissions Trading Scheme Review Report is available at http://www.climatechange.govt.nz//emissions-trading-scheme/ets-review-2011/index.html
60 Comments
So the scientists say [a lot] quicker but the Pollies decide its "prudent" to go slower....forget science...National is not only voodoo economics queens but voodoo science as well primadonnas as well.
Congrats NZ voters, you have 2 sets of losers to vote for in 2011.....I wonder what the raction is going to be like when Joe and Jane voter realises they have been shafted on Peak oil and then shafted again over AGW........guess they get what they deserve.
:/
regards
They know it's a fraud, just don't have the courage to say so. Furthermore international carbon credit trading is dead in the water and Kyoto will expire next year to become an embarrassing foootnote in obscure history textbooks.
In Australia, and no doubt here
53% believe climate change causes tsunamis
40% believe climate change causes earthquakes
37% believe climate change causes volcanic eruptions
93% think CO2 constitutes more than 1% of the atmosphere
47% think CO2 is ‘pollution’
37% think we should try to reduce carbon in the body
44% think food and drink would be safer if it had no carbon or CO2 in it
http://issuu.com/justinwhitten/docs/a_cool_look_at_global_warming__sydney_legacy_30_ju
45% of Australians think climate change is a serious problem. http://www.globaltimes.cn/NEWS/tabid/99/ID/663443/Australians-support-for-climate-action-slides-poll.aspx
82% of scientists and 97.5% of climatologists think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures. http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm
There you go Steven, all in good fun of course.
ALGORE is my shepherd; I shall not think.
He maketh me lie down in Greenzi pastures:
He leadeth me beside the still-freezing waters.
He selleth my soul for CO2:
He leadeth me in the paths of self-righteousness for his own sake.
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of reason,
I will fear no logic: for thou art with me and thinking for me;
Thy Gore?s family oil fortune and thy 10,000 square Gorey foot mansion, they comfort me.
Thou preparest a movie in the presence of contradictory evidence:
Thou anointest mine head with nonsense; my fear runneth over.
Surely blind faith and hysteria shall follow me all the days of my life:
and I will dwell in the house of ALGORE forever.
I wonder what the percentage of people were who thought the earth was flat in years gone by? Why are either of you using % of what the general populace or scientists think to try and back up your side of the argument?
AGW whether it is or isn't, won't be decided by votes and polls.
The IPCC is a large collection of peer reviewed papers by the best academics on the subject this planet has to offer.....The fact that in your ignorance and political blinkers you cannot accept that is farcical and you make up lines to dismiss it....one wonders where you go for medical advice....it must be a witch doctor.....it cant be a MD, that would be trusting ppl of science.....
regards
44% think food and drink would be safer if it had no carbon or CO2 in it
That's really funny!
Actually that could be a fantastic marketing strategy for an organic food company that sells lentils to greenies. Fight global warming! Buy our all natural and organic, Carbon and CO2 free lentils today.
They are really good for the carbon cleansing diet, and getting rid of all those CO2 toxins.
Brilliant!
At Helen's Store on Quezon Street , 56 % think food would be safer if it had no mercury in it , 30 % wonder if global warming is a plot to " fix " the local cock-fights , 14 % wonder where the feck Bangladesh is ......
.... and 3 % can't add up .
[.. Gummie's " Roy Morgan Poll " , 09 / 15 / 2011 . Brought to you by Pepsi Cola , Banco de Oro , and the Miag-Ao Sari-Sari Bakery ... ]
No one mentioned " CO 2 " , can't be much demand for it , around here .
Oddly enuff , no ! .... the simple peasant folk seem to " get " the concept that we breathe in O2 , and plants suck in CO 2 .... and that more CO 2 equates to happy happy plants , sucking it up , and producing more of the stuff that we , the O 2 orgasms , love : Rice , Tomatoes , Apples , Broccoli , Cocaine .
..... being poor and impoverished means that you're intune with wot really matters ....
And social-welfarist junk such as the RMA / ACC / interest-free-student -loans / bailouts for SCF & AMI / WFF / WINZ / the Family Comission / Dept. of Women's Affairs / Rental Assistence / .... yadda yadda .... when you're poor & scraping the bottom of the barrel , all this faff & nonsense that you rich folk indulge yourselves in , has absolutely no meaning here .
You raise an interesting point, gummy, on one level and that is the use of CO2 by plants. Sugar molecules contain carbon, and plants of course make sugars, and that carbon has to come from somewhere. And CO2 is it. They don’t need the oxygen, so they strip the C out of the CO2, and dump the O2, which is the oxygen that we breathe.
Most people are probably aware that our atmosphere is made up of 21% oxygen, almost entirely made by plants, but what they are generally not aware of is how scarce CO2 in the atmosphere is. I have read some reports that have speculated that as the amount of CO2 in the air increases, this in turn may allow plants to grow more quickly because of the greater availability of this scarce molecule to them.
To put it into context, let’s say the atmosphere is the equivalent of $1000. So nitrogen, the most abundant gas in our atmosphere would make up $780.84, and oxygen, $209.46. How much do you think the CO2 would equal? Are you seated? It’s 39 cents. That's right, 39 cents. There is 24 times more argon in our atmosphere than there is CO2! So exactly how 39 cents worth of CO2 is going to make us all bake to death over the next 20 years and bring civilisation as we know it to an end is beyond me. But I’m still waiting for a plausible explanation.
Nobel Prize winning physicist resigns form American Physical Society.
Giaever announced his resignation from APS was due to the group's belief in man-made global warming fears. Giaever explained in his email to APS: "In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming isincontrovertible? The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period."
Giaever was one of President Obama's key scientific supporters in 2008. Giaever joined over 70 Nobel Science Laureates in endorse Obama in an October 29, 2008 open letter. In addition to Giaever, other prominent scientists have resigned from APS over its stance on man-made global warming. See: Prominent Physicist Hal Lewis Resigns from APS: 'Climategate was a fraud on a scale I have never seen...Effect on APS position: None. None at all. This is not science'
So one senile leaves a group....
Also he isnt a climate scientist......his speciality is along the lines of,
"Giaever showed that tunnelling also took place in superconductors, demonstrating tunnelling through a very thin layer of oxide surrounded on both sides by metal in a superconducting or normal state.[5] Giaever's experiments demonstrated the existence of an energy gap in superconductors, one of the most important predictions of the BCS theory of superconductivity, which had been developed in 1957"
So Ok in your book one PHD/Nobel Winner not of that disapline cancels out the entire APS and all their PHDs etc.....that is just wierd if so.
regards
How about this senile, Steven, your non scientist mate Al Bore
Fell over laughing at Forbes take on this clown with his crp - that's his climate reality project ( curiously missing the a )
Another take on "concensus."
The small number of climate scientists actually supporting the Al Gore/IPCC claims of catastrophic global warming and the actual AGW “predictions” has always been a major embarrassment. As a result, the left/liberal/greens have been forced to fabricate bogus support that can’t stand up to any form of scrutiny.
First, it was the claim that 2,500 IPCC-related scientists agreed with the 2007 IPCC report. Soon afer it was discovered that the actual number of scientists who actually agreed with the report contents was only 25.
Next, when the 2,500 shrunk to 25, a couple of University of Illinois researchers conjured up a 2-minute online, anonymous survey that they hoped would deliver some big numbers to crow about. They solicited 10,257 earth scientists and only 77 chose to answer the online survey (yes, only 77). 75 of those “climate scientists” agreed with the survey’s two questions (yes, only 2 questions).
Voila, the infamous and widely publicized “97%” of climate scientists (75 divided by 77) who thought man was the cause of global warming turned out to be a numeric joke.
As a side note, in order to assure an initial high survey percentage, the two researchers did not ask major segments of the scientific world to participate. Those would be the segments that were known to be critical of the AGW theory, including: solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists and astronomers.
Hockey sticks anyone?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/15/24-hours-of-climate-reality-gore-a-thon-hour-8/
What temperature trend?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/14/24-hours-of-climate-reality-gore-a-thon-hour-6/
Polar bears are being threatened. They need rescue from climate change!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/14/24-hours-of-climate-reality-gore-a-thon-hour-5/
Sea level! Yes that’s it. Sea level rise is a primary indicator of global warming! Let’s have a look.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/14/24-hours-of-climate-reality-gore-a-thon-hour-4/
So one senile leaves a group....
So that’s your highly qualified scientific opinion then is it Steven? Never mind the fact that the man has a Noble Prize in physics, the fact that he doesn’t support an unquestioned belief in global warming, renders him senile in your view.
That’s pretty cheap, mate.
What are your qualifications in science again? You have been asked numerous times to supply them but you keep failing to do so. Let's see if you match up to your own standards that only people qualified in climate science have anything worthwhile to say about it.
This all reminds me of the fishing quota debate. The gummit see's the problem then sets the quota based not on marine biologists advice , but on what the industry can swallow...........in the short term. The resource will of course be depleated..............later.............when theyre not here.
The reality is that people are now aware that they are being dictated to by the global agenda via mouth piece billionaires like Al ( I invented the internet, NAFTA & GATT would be good for the USA, I have huge energy investments drilling in the Brazillian Rain Forests, that will rocket up in value when i crush competition, I have multiple massive mansions, private jets, boats & a huge family, and I want to dictate to to the peasants what they can/cant do, and I want you to pay for to me and all my billionare friends for the rest of your life, we will live in luxury and you will live under our rules and pay for it through our global TAX schemes) Gore.
Unfortunate poster boy for your movement I'm sure you will agree!
Maybe you can go petition the worlds largest polluters, and while youre at it knock on the door of the Pentagon because war has wrecked the planet as much if not more than any other industry or nation in history! Nah thought not, rather just let little NZ screw itself over for what, NOTHING, because what we do makes no difference!
Steven et al, you are onto the right track, but you just don't realise that you have been taken for a MASSIVE ride, (I'm not saying you are might be wrong, I am saying that because you can't or don't understand or want to believe who funded/started/runs the climate agenda, you are unable to see where your ideals have been hijacked!
For the record, I have said I am all for less pollution/destruction of the environment, but paying carbon credits WILL NOT facillitate this!
Come up with some ideas which the major worlds polluters will embrace, and get them to change their industrial destruction, and you will have my ear all day long. In the mean time I will be aware of conserving energy & water resources etc in my micro world where I can, and be happy with my effort!
Gore, no Im perfectly happy with him as the poster boy...dispite his weaknesses.
"massive ride" no I dont agree....I think the deniers are the ones that have been lied to and are so willing to believe that its easy....but that doesnt matter, I suspect it wont effect the outcome.
"WILL NOT facillitate this!" you are probably right....no matter the strength of the case for AGW, and I certianly think it is overwelming the simple answer is, like over-population and raising taxes it is off the political agenda....
"Come up with some ideas which the major worlds polluters will embrace" as above really....the idea that a cost is put to pollution and co2 emmissions is probably about as sound an idea as it gets to try and get behaviour changed......the reality is no one wants to pay more than they think they have to....that doesnt mean its a fair cost of course....
The only solution is to reduce population, nothing else works long term, its all can kicking....and it wont happen easily... Since we eat fossil fuel calories and since that supply will decline soon (inside this decade) the population will decline fairly soon, (within 2 decades).
So what is going to kill our economy and its co2 emissions is Peak oil and that might just save future generations from the worst effects of AGW.....pretty much by chance....maybe.
Simply put the financial system will implode and take with it any chance of exploiting the remaining fossil fuels at the rate needed.....I was reading the rate was 2 to 4%......more recent thinking suggests at least double that....so we will collapse into a mega depression and all that entails. Including a collapsed demand for oil and hence its cost....and at <$100 a barrel it makes no sense for many projects on the books now o go ahead in time to keep the decline at 4%....
Right now we consume about 17TW of energy per year.....take wind as an alternative, its best macro calculation suggests not more than 1TW is possible and its not a transport energy source.....reality we will not see more than half that, probably 1/4.....NZ might well indeed see quite a high % achieved because our population is so low and land mass so high....I cant see any sign that many other countries will do as well. Nothing else is there to replace a substantial part of that 17TW....so that 17TW will decline, that means less ppl........a lot less.....2billion say.....
Where you go wrong Lloyd is you see conspiracy where I see simple stupidity.....also perfectly rational behaviour at an individual level can occur between ppl without any co-ordination and have disasterious / unattended effects.....
Now Im willing to accept that if you want to have a wee conspiracy to latch on to the oil companies and oil producers and those behind the AGW deniers is where to look...really though its self-interest.....
Steven we are mostly on the same page, but disagree as to some of the reasonings. You and your ilk can continue to use the word conspiracy theory all you like, I call it covering the bases in an attempt to find as near to the truth as all the lies, spin and BS out there will allow me to be comfortable with my understandings.
Let's see now, you say you might allow me (thank you my lord) to look who are behind the AGW deniers, how are you so arrogant that you think it is NOT the very same self interest (you admit to) of those oil companies you refer who are behind the campaign to fool people such as yourself that AGW really does exist. This is where you come badly unstuck Steven, I can see both sides, you appear to only be about to see one!
The fact that you are happy with Al Gore shows some of the worst denial/lack of knowledge I have ever seen, you simply can't see the hypocracy in being happy with him up front of your environmental campaign. What is it all about Steven? Too proud to admit when you have been fooled (referring to approval of Gore). LMAO at you for this singlular act of idiocy!
For once, I (sorta) agree with Steven. The simplest answers are nearly always the right ones. "Deniers" are just skeptics until you know their motives for sure, which you don't because you can't read their minds. Al Gore isn't evil, he's just a self-important Senator's son who really believes this stuff, passionately. Hey, everyone needs a hobby! He gets points for being passionate and thinks he's absolutely right but he's probably wrong just like the rest of us. AGW is just too complex an issue to have a solid answer yet. Nobody really knows whether it's true or not. Admit it.
And finally, conspiracy theories are for chumps. They are just too damn hard to pull off and too many people have to keep a secret and go along with it. Not likely. Give me just one major global conspiracy theory that was actually PROVEN true.
Your response is not really too suprising given your other posts elsewhere.
1: "Simple answers are nearly always the right ones" - Righto, so in a simple answer please explain why the world is such a mess then!
2: "Everybody needs a hobby blah blah, he is probably wrong like the rest of us" - Ok, you pay for impacts of his hobby on other people then Bozo, for those of us who think he is (personally full of S*), because I for one don't want to pay for anything (more than I already do) until there is a proveable argument. (Yes stop polluting the planet of course I am all for that!)
3: "Deniers are just skeptics until you know their motives" - People who seek power or are in positions of power & influence, always have motives. All people have motives/incentives to some degree, however we are talking global power & influence scale in this case, hence global motives/incentives to match!
4:"AWG is just too complex to have a solid answer" - I agree , but you said nearly all answers are simple though , bozo, which is it?
5:"Gets points for being passionate" - What are his real motives Bozo? (oh you don't know as you can't read his mind) - argh, makes your comments totally moot. (Before you ask what mine are, refer point 3!)
Ok, point by point...
1. The word is in a mess because people are imperfect, self-centered, beings. I was only referring to Occam's Razor. Look it up.
2. I agree with you there. I think old Al is horribly misguided and if we were to have it his way, we would waste squillions for no discernable benefit. I also think he's sincere. That should scare the c**p out of you more than if he was some kind of charlatan.
3. Sure, everyone has motives, Since I don't really know Al's motives, I'll just guess that his motives are the same as yours and mine: namely that he would like to see the world ordered according to his way of thinking. Well, wouldn't we all? The only difference between us and him as that he happens to have a slightly higher probability of making that actually happen.
4. A simple answer doesn't mean it was easy to find. Einstein didn't come up with E=mc**2 in grammar school. For example, there was a scientific paper published recently that posited that global warming might be caused by variations in solar output. The sun causes global warming? Why, who would have thought of that? If you take a closer look at what most scientists are actually trying to do, you will find they are looking for the most elegant (read, simple) explanations for complex phenomena. That's what gets you a Nobel Prize, matey.
5. I think I answered that in point 3, but I'll take an aside to rant about the use of "deniers". We all know where that term came from, don't we? To imply that someone who is skeptical of a scientific theory is somehow like the president of Iran, who claims a well-documented historical fact, the Holocaust, didn't happen is, to put it politely, pretty unscientific. In fact, it's just another way to not have an argument with someone you disagree with by turning them into a pariah. It's also deeply shameful and whoever is using such language needs to stop it - now.
"might allow me" no I suggest that if there is a consiracy you will find it there, as usual follow the money....its up to you.
The difference between pro-QGW and anti-agw is the pro-side has a massive amount of scientists, science and data....the anti-agw side consists of politics and money......science is negligable, but draw your own conclusions....
"Happy" with Al Gore, yes Im happy enough with Al Gore.....like I said he isnt perfect by any means....but this is the usual black and white thing of extremists....if the other side isnt perfectly white all the arguments are invalid......Take the argument on how Al Gore Invests, he has three choices, no investments, non-green investments and green investments....he chose green so now the right wingers claim he aims to line his pockets....If he hadnt of course they would claim he isnt putting his money where his mouth is.....its a lose / lose situation if you accept that argument....Now if you cant see that wel,l you clearly cannot see both sides of the argument.
It comes back to looking at the best science available and then its a risk management exercise....the science is more than adequate to do a risk analysis against and decide on how much needs to be done.....In fact the science is getting more sure and more dire as time progresses.....yet the pollies are going the other way.....that is a huge management and moral failure.....
regards
1000's of reputable scientists are now distancing themselves from the notion of AGW
Here's an example
As the global warming edifice crumbled in 2010, the movement lost one of its leading lights due to the Climategate revelations. Dr. Judith Curry, the chair of Earth & Atmospheric Sciences at GA Institute of Tech, explained her defection from the global warming activist movement. "There is 'a lack of willingness in the climate change community to steer away from groupthink...' They are setting themselves up as second-rate scientists by not engaging,” Curry wrote in 2010. Curry critiqued the UN IPCC for promoting "dogma" and clinging to the "religious importance" of the IPCC's claims. "They will tolerate no dissent and seek to trample anyone who challenges them," Curry lamented. "The IPCC assessment process had a substantial element of schoolyard bullies, trying to insulate their shoddy science from outside scrutiny and attacks by skeptics...the IPCC and its conclusions were set on a track to become a self fulfilling prophecy," Curry wrote. Curry called the Climategate fallout nothing short of a "rather spectacular unraveling of the climate change juggernaut...I immediately realized that [Climategate] could bring down the IPCC...I became concerned about the integrity of our entire field...While my colleagues seemed focused on protecting the reputations of the scientists involved and assuring people that the 'science hadn't changed." [Note: Curry is not included in the count of dissenting scientists in this report.] Also see: 'High Priestess of Global Warming' No More! Former Warmist Judith Curry Admits To Being 'Duped Into Supporting IPCC' - 'If the IPCC is dogma, then count me in as a heretic'] [Note: There were many Cilmategate inquiries that sought to downplay Climategate, but they fell short of their goal and were labeled as nothing more than the "global warming establishment exonerating the global warming establishment."
All of these references are from a "think-tank" sponsored by ExxonMobil. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Climate_Depot#Funding
Must be an election coming soon.
AGW does not pose a global crisis, but the POLICY of attempted global control does!
AGW is a political issue. It is not a scientific issue!
Teaching children AGW alarmism is child abuse!
Climate models' predictions of the future cannot be trusted!
Think the Chinese care?
So what Li Daokui said is not bad for the dollar as such. He said there is "$10 trillion" waiting to be invested in the US, if America will open its doors.
It is bad for bonds – or will be. The money will go into strategic land purchases all over the world, until the backlash erupts in earnest. It will go into equities, until Capitol Hill has a heart attack. It will go anywhere but debt.
Yet another reason to be careful of 10-year Treasuries and Bunds below 2pc yields. There is a big seller out there, just itching to let go.
Big-picture, the above tells us one thing:
Whether it be Climate Change, Peak Energy, fish-stock collapse, degradation/pollution/depletion or whatever, we are not going to address it well enough, fast enough, for our species to survive in any meaningful way.
The vested interests will pay the SN/OMG and Gonzo types, to do anything to continue BAU. The echelon of smaller folk with delusions of grandeur, will gratefully believe the spin from the former. The politicians will wish the system they think they're 'winners' in, to continue. Reporters - the so-called purveyors of truths - will opt to retain their jobs/income/status, and censor accordingly.
In short, mass denial will make us leave it until it is too late, and exponential growth of activities, will make 'too late', come too fast.
Bother, sad Pooh.
Boulding was right - at some point every life-supporting planet has to throw up a superior-intellect species. At some point, it will hoe into the store of resources on its planet, and will accelerate both in activity/consumption, and numerically. At some - entirely predictable - point, it will have to choose; to either live within the limits of its planet, or to keep accelerating and die off.
That point is the top of the Gaussian - the Hubbert Peak. Actually, leaving the decision until then shows a lack of intellect, in itself.
He points out that if we don't get it right, probably no superior intellect species anywhere will. Nor will the remnasnt of their collapse have the ability to kick-start things again - the pile of resources (particularly energy) will be gone.
Judging from the above, he's probably right.
Shame on you, oh little-minded ones
It looks as if agriculture's entry into the ETS has been deferred. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10752678 Although agriculture's ability to mitigate its emissions are limited and most of our competitors don't have anything similar, it does mean that the tax-payer will likely pick up the tab for any future obligations.
agreed..the idea of taxing farmers based on some shiny Ar#e's unfounded theory is crazy.If they want to do something for the enviroment then tackle river pollution or animal neglect or.. ...something tangable
as for the taxpayer picking up the tab well ....who's idea was it to sign the stupid Kyoto protocol?(Didnt Cullen at the start think we would actually gain$ from signing, then reworked the numbers to include Agriculture and find we had a liability instead?)
What a drongo..
The govt knows full well AGW is a crock and that carbon trading is a dead duck. On top of that electricity consumption is not showing the expected level of increase as household appliances, computers etc are becoming much more efficient. An economic slump will see even less electricity use as consumers struggle to pay their bills.
It's 3 years now , since we kicked Clark & Cullen into the gutter ...... where they belong . Why then , are we still ham-strung by the seriously dopey policies which they signed us up to ?
..... when is Jolly Kid gonna finally grow a spine , and attack the NZ Labour rubbish such as the ETS / WFF / interest-free-loans / yadda yoda .
Un-Cullenise the economy & the tax system ( he was the drongo who introduced a myriad of loop-holes for tax-advisers to drive their rich clients through ) ......
... and watch how quickly the productive sector recovers ! .... It'd be 'like magic .
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.