Stalin
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2008
- Messages
- 1,801
Not sure what is happened in the US, but here in the South Pacific the climate change agenda has been hijacked by the usual suspects.
"...An extraordinary deal finalised Tuesday between the Labor government and the opposition Liberal Party on legislation enacting an Australian carbon emissions trading scheme will strip low and middle income earners of nearly $6 billion previously allocated as compensation for higher fuel and energy costs. The money will now be used to cover the bulk of an additional $7 billion allocated to the major corporate polluters, bringing the grand total of public funds to be transferred to business through the emissions trading scheme to a staggering $A123.4 billion ($US114.1 billion). The final terms of the government’s so-called Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS)—set to be approved by parliament this week and to commence operations in 2011—underscore that the mechanism has nothing to do with protecting the environment, but is driven by the interests of corporate Australia.
The additional $7 billion subsidy will go to different sections of business—an extra $1.3 billion for industries classed as “energy intensive, trade exposed”; a doubling of assistance to the coal industry, making a total of $1.5 billion; about $3 billion more to electricity generators; compensation of $1.1 billion to large and medium businesses for energy price rises; and various other measures including $600 million for the liquid natural gas sector and $150 million for food processing companies...
more at http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/nov2009/etss-n26.shtml
"The Bill to amend the ETS isn’t available yet, but this is what it looks like, from Monday night’s announcement.
Basically, it’s less obligation for everyone, and more delay. It seriously weakens the scheme we have now, and will do little to reduce emissions.
Agriculture gets two more years free holiday and has no obligations until 2015. That’s another five years when land prices will rise because farming’s emissions are being paid for by the rest of us, and more and more forest land will be converted to dairying.
Energy and industrial processes are delayed 6 months, till July next year. That was inevitable because officials had been told to stop work on the allocation plans when National became government, so there was no plan for allocating the free credits to industry and there would have been chaos. Transport comes in the same time, 6 months earlier than planned – small tick for that one.
However, when energy and transport do come in, their obligations are halved. They only have to purchase one emissions unit for every two tonnes of emissions. That halves the price signal to big trucks and weakens the incentive to send goods by rail. It halves the signal to use the car less or buy a smaller more efficient car. It halves the incentive to build renewable electricity rather than coal or gas. It halves the value of converting a boiler to wood instead of coal. It doubles the free allocation from the taxpayer to Rio Tinto aluminium smelter and other multinational energy intensive plants.
This is supposed to be until the end of 2012, but it is left open to continue longer.
Then, the free credits continue for the rest of the century. True. They are phased out at 1.3% a year which would take till around 2090.
However the worst feature of the new proposal is none of these. It is the proposal that free credits be allocated on the basis of how much a firm produces. It’s called “intensity based” or “output based” allocation. It means there is no limit ever to NZ’s emissions; they never peak and start to trend downwards; and the incentive is to grow our most polluting industries. It works like this.
A cement plant (or steel, or aluminium) currently produces 100 tonnes of product and emits 500 tonnes of greenhouse gases. Under the existing law, let’s assume the same numbers were true of 2005. They would then get free allocations for 90% of this pollution, or 450 units, and have to purchase 50 units. If they managed to become more efficient and reduce their pollution they would have less to purchase. If they grew their production to 150 tonnes at the same energy intensity and therefore emitted 750 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, they would still get only 450 free credits. So when they did the financial analysis about whether to expand production, the cost of carbon credits they would have to purchase would be part of the calculation. There would be a strong incentive to find new technology that emitted less pollution per tonne of product, or to invest their capital in something with lower greenhouse gases per dollar of value created. This is how a country can transition to a low carbon economy. At the same time, cement, steel and aluminium become more expensive and new technology is developed to build strong buildings using less cement, and in some circumstances to substitute strengthened timber for steel or concrete.
Under the new scheme, the plant gets a free allocation for every tonne of product they make. If the starting point is 450 tonnes for 100 tonnes of production, when they expand to produce 150 tonnes of product they get 90% of 750 units, or 675 units. When considering whether to expand, the firm never faces the full price of carbon on the next unit of product. They only ever face 10% of it. This leads to an economy where our most carbon and energy intensive industries grow and there is little reason for new technology or low carbon production or switching from high to low intensity materials. It is an economy stuck in the past, unable to transition to the new, hi-tech, climate-friendly future.
There is also a provision that the allocation will be related to the industry average emissions for that level of production. This raises more problems than it solves. It is unclear at this stage when the industry average is international or NZ, and how it is determined.
Of course, if the plant expands its production so that it emits 750 tonnes rather than 500, that becomes part of New Zealand’s obligation under Kyoto. As a country, we have to purchase units overseas to balance out that extra 250 tonnes. The difference between 450 free units under the old scheme, and 675 under National’s proposed scheme is picked up by taxpayers.
http://www.greens.org.nz/factsheets...arty-proposed-ets-different-and-what-wrong-it
Comrade Stalin
"...An extraordinary deal finalised Tuesday between the Labor government and the opposition Liberal Party on legislation enacting an Australian carbon emissions trading scheme will strip low and middle income earners of nearly $6 billion previously allocated as compensation for higher fuel and energy costs. The money will now be used to cover the bulk of an additional $7 billion allocated to the major corporate polluters, bringing the grand total of public funds to be transferred to business through the emissions trading scheme to a staggering $A123.4 billion ($US114.1 billion). The final terms of the government’s so-called Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS)—set to be approved by parliament this week and to commence operations in 2011—underscore that the mechanism has nothing to do with protecting the environment, but is driven by the interests of corporate Australia.
The additional $7 billion subsidy will go to different sections of business—an extra $1.3 billion for industries classed as “energy intensive, trade exposed”; a doubling of assistance to the coal industry, making a total of $1.5 billion; about $3 billion more to electricity generators; compensation of $1.1 billion to large and medium businesses for energy price rises; and various other measures including $600 million for the liquid natural gas sector and $150 million for food processing companies...
more at http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/nov2009/etss-n26.shtml
"The Bill to amend the ETS isn’t available yet, but this is what it looks like, from Monday night’s announcement.
Basically, it’s less obligation for everyone, and more delay. It seriously weakens the scheme we have now, and will do little to reduce emissions.
Agriculture gets two more years free holiday and has no obligations until 2015. That’s another five years when land prices will rise because farming’s emissions are being paid for by the rest of us, and more and more forest land will be converted to dairying.
Energy and industrial processes are delayed 6 months, till July next year. That was inevitable because officials had been told to stop work on the allocation plans when National became government, so there was no plan for allocating the free credits to industry and there would have been chaos. Transport comes in the same time, 6 months earlier than planned – small tick for that one.
However, when energy and transport do come in, their obligations are halved. They only have to purchase one emissions unit for every two tonnes of emissions. That halves the price signal to big trucks and weakens the incentive to send goods by rail. It halves the signal to use the car less or buy a smaller more efficient car. It halves the incentive to build renewable electricity rather than coal or gas. It halves the value of converting a boiler to wood instead of coal. It doubles the free allocation from the taxpayer to Rio Tinto aluminium smelter and other multinational energy intensive plants.
This is supposed to be until the end of 2012, but it is left open to continue longer.
Then, the free credits continue for the rest of the century. True. They are phased out at 1.3% a year which would take till around 2090.
However the worst feature of the new proposal is none of these. It is the proposal that free credits be allocated on the basis of how much a firm produces. It’s called “intensity based” or “output based” allocation. It means there is no limit ever to NZ’s emissions; they never peak and start to trend downwards; and the incentive is to grow our most polluting industries. It works like this.
A cement plant (or steel, or aluminium) currently produces 100 tonnes of product and emits 500 tonnes of greenhouse gases. Under the existing law, let’s assume the same numbers were true of 2005. They would then get free allocations for 90% of this pollution, or 450 units, and have to purchase 50 units. If they managed to become more efficient and reduce their pollution they would have less to purchase. If they grew their production to 150 tonnes at the same energy intensity and therefore emitted 750 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, they would still get only 450 free credits. So when they did the financial analysis about whether to expand production, the cost of carbon credits they would have to purchase would be part of the calculation. There would be a strong incentive to find new technology that emitted less pollution per tonne of product, or to invest their capital in something with lower greenhouse gases per dollar of value created. This is how a country can transition to a low carbon economy. At the same time, cement, steel and aluminium become more expensive and new technology is developed to build strong buildings using less cement, and in some circumstances to substitute strengthened timber for steel or concrete.
Under the new scheme, the plant gets a free allocation for every tonne of product they make. If the starting point is 450 tonnes for 100 tonnes of production, when they expand to produce 150 tonnes of product they get 90% of 750 units, or 675 units. When considering whether to expand, the firm never faces the full price of carbon on the next unit of product. They only ever face 10% of it. This leads to an economy where our most carbon and energy intensive industries grow and there is little reason for new technology or low carbon production or switching from high to low intensity materials. It is an economy stuck in the past, unable to transition to the new, hi-tech, climate-friendly future.
There is also a provision that the allocation will be related to the industry average emissions for that level of production. This raises more problems than it solves. It is unclear at this stage when the industry average is international or NZ, and how it is determined.
Of course, if the plant expands its production so that it emits 750 tonnes rather than 500, that becomes part of New Zealand’s obligation under Kyoto. As a country, we have to purchase units overseas to balance out that extra 250 tonnes. The difference between 450 free units under the old scheme, and 675 under National’s proposed scheme is picked up by taxpayers.
http://www.greens.org.nz/factsheets...arty-proposed-ets-different-and-what-wrong-it
Comrade Stalin
