Member log in

Timing of higher ETS costs delayed as global action stalls

BUSINESSDESK: The government has sided with advice from industry and farming lobbies, pushing out the dates and levels at which New Zealand will face higher carbon costs under the emissions trading scheme.

Climate Change Minister Tim Groser told BusinessDesk today's decisions were akin to "maintaining the current speed limit" by changing none of the settings that could increase costs to businesses and consumers, while pushing the inclusion of the agriculture sector in the ETS to an unidentified future date.

Agriculture had been due to enter the ETS in some way in 2015. Agriculture is "still in", but without what Mr Groser said were artificial deadlines which ignored global progress on a climate change deal and the scientific progress required to reduce emissions from farming.

The decisions announced after today's Cabinet also mean the scheme will not be reviewed again until 2015, a year later than previously proposed, reflecting submissions complaining of "review fatigue" on the four year-old scheme, he said.

The temporary system whereby major emitters buy only half the offset units they need to cover half their emissions – known as "one-for-two" – will stay in place until "at least 2015", capped at $25 per tonne of carbon.

The government has also turned down recommendations from the review committee that reported last year to restrict the purchase of international carbon credits by New Zealand emitters.

Depressed global carbon prices have allowed emitters to buy units for as little as $6 a tonne in recent times, compared with the capped price of $25.

However, the weakness in carbon prices was an international political problem stemming from the European Union, and carbon prices were unlikely to be so low for long, Mr Groser said.

"This is a politically determined market. For us to expose our covered [export-competing] sectors when others aren't would force them to face costs that nobody else is." 

However, consultations will be undertaken on an auction system to encourage local emitters to buy New Zealand-produced offset units rather than import them.

Also announced today is a deal for so-called pre-1990 forest owners, who will still be able to collect a second tranche of compensation at harvest if they choose not to reforest the land.

However, if they plant an offsetting forest elsewhere such compensation won't be available, following changes to international rules on forestry offsetting at the Durban global climate change summit last December.

Mr Groser said the decisions would be likely to draw criticism from an "uber-green" lobby, but the government had a mandate only to act on climate change as quickly as the rest of the world.

While Australia now had a carbon tax that could eventually be aligned with the ETS, it had been in existence for "precisely one day" in a country where the incumbent government faced a tough election.

Australian Liberal Party leader Tony Abbott has vowed to repeal the scheme his first act in government, if elected.

Europe was the only other place a functioning ETS is in place, while international negotiations grind on, with no replacement yet for the Kyoto Protocol, which expires later this year.

On that basis, New Zealand was doing its fair share, Mr Groser said.

"There are major uncertainties around the international economy. We didn't want, just as we are consolidating jobs and growth here in New Zealand, to put extra costs on businesses and households."

Comments and questions
23

I regret I am not optimistic enough to believe this government is having second thoughts in participating in the Ets scam despite the groundswell of evidence proving the entire farce has no scientific basis. Over the weekend I witnessed an intense debate by some fairly well connected in political and economic circles and the prediction was that Key and National is gone next election with MMP delivering a green return to the stoneage. Whatever Mr Groser does or dosn't do may prove immaterial to our future. I need more than a good headline to remove the depression sorry.

The ETS is a farce. NZ has no liabilities under Kyoto according to the EMA - in fact we are due a credit. The science is now shifting and waking to the fact that ocean churn (where cool deep welling water rises to replace the warmer waters at the top) releases more CO2 than anthropogenes do.

Warmer oceans cause C02 rises, not the other way around. It's like trying to force oxygen into your bathtub of water - its physically impossible.

Unfortunately, people have their heads in the sand and are blindly walking to the UN's goal of having one common currency being the Carbon Currency.

All the talk of Rio +20 ignored one crucial fact - it's getting colder. Average global temperatures have not risen since 1998. Sea levels were supposed to have risen 1.2M by now, as per the 2000 IPCC report, which hasn't happened.

The whole thing is a shambolic lie built on half truths and disinformation.

Couldn't agree more with you but unfortunately Puppet John has to do as he is told and whether he gets back in or not doesn't matter one bit as long as he gets things squared away on his list of things that must be done thats all that matters....theres a retirement job waiting for him at the UN when he gets booted or something similar...ambassador maybe?

"Unfortunately, people have their heads in the sand and are blindly walking to the UN's goal of having one common currency being the Carbon Currency."
The converse to a Carbon Currency is an Energy Currency, [ FFoils] much more sensible to 'standardise' wealth against say a country's assessable kw/hrs potential, in whatever its elemental form, than some dreamed up
UN science fiction.

Let me guess...you are over 50, drive a 6 cylinder, are comfortably off..........and have just crawled out from under a rock

Very good summary. The scamists ( scientists caught up in their self importance plus desire for funding and publicity) can't explain how it was that CO2 levels increased AFTER warming, and unfortunately for the scamists, there were no evil people around "causing the increased CO2"
Note the recent fires in Australia and USA probably created more CO2 than was saved by all the wind power installed in the world today. Nature doesn't need resource consent or the United Nation's permission to play havoc with emissions of all kinds, even those by underwater volcanoes.
Mankind's foot-print is irrelevant on this scale.

#2 and #3 - You do realise that even the USA and all of the oil majors now accept the science behind global warming? When even the oil majors now consider that climate change is occurring, you and your claims that the science is full of "half truths" are on pretty flimsy ground....

The reality is that there will from now on be a price on carbon, it will be instituted globally within a decade, and NZ/AUS/Europe will be ahead of the pack.

Yes anon its frightening that these denialists trolls still infest the pages of the NBR. Dupes of the fossil fuel industry, malign enviro-haters or just befuddled sheeple owned by the far right Fox media circus? Its difficult to know which camp they fall into, but no doubt they all have children and grandchildren - what a reckoning is to come when these generations demand answers for the obstruction of these wretches.
The scientific concensus is overwhelming and becomes more so daily:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
How typical of National that its seeks to waesel out of its committments- what a misbegotten administration of fools and short termists.

The scientific consensus is a lobbying myth swallowed whole by the ignorant. The science is far too complex and uncertain for any informed consensus to exist - and it doesn't.

Your silly insults just reveal the emptiness of your case.

I'd much rather take my science results from real books like Flotsam and Jetsam, Circumpolar Gyres, Not by Fire, but Ice, North Pole, South Pole and many other well researched books rather than reading some twittering fools inserting their own topical biases into Wikipedia (which has a well known history of deleting any arguments to the contrary)

Denialist trolls? Hardly, we just look at the revolving door of warmist propaganda spinning from warming to changing to climatism and now to using "sustainability" as the buzzword to continue furthering your delusions.

Ever worked in a nursery? Bet you haven't otherwise you'd be well aware of the fact that plant life cannot function well where CO2 drops below 300ppm, and that plants take in three times the amount of CO2 during the day than they exhale at night. Tomato plants struggle where CO2 drops below 400 ppm which is why many grows artificially pump CO2 into greenhouses to make them grow.

"Scientific consensus" is an oxymoron: regardless of it how many scientists believe in the orthodoxy of the day, it only takes one confirmed and repeatable result to overturn the "consensus". Think about Copernicus and his confounding the thinking of the astronomers (and the Church, no less).
In the case of climate change, it is indeed inconvenient that the climate itself is already confounding the theories of the warmists and alarmists.

The oil majors are right behind the myth of dangerous man-made global warming because it downgrades coal resources and upgrades oil and gas resources. So they are merely pursuing their own self interest.

Enron looked at man-made global warming years ago and internally decided that it was nonsense. But they promoted the myth because they hoped to make heaps of money from trading hot air. They went to bed with Greenpeace and helped to start off the whole fraud.

Okay you "believers" in global warming? tell us please, how many years will carbon trading add to the life of planet earth?
Don't tell me you don't know, 'cause if you do, then that tells me you are really only guessing re global warming causes.

ok all you climate change doubters here's a physics crash corse on what's happening with the whole 'global warming' thingy. Firstly, yes 'global warming' is an incorrect term as really what's happening is the weather extremes are increasing due to the increased warming in the troposphere. Because the air in the troposphere gets warmer it there for must hold more energy and in turn is capable of chellenging the earths escape velocity more than usual. Now because the warm air is able to climb to higher altitudes it now has a longer distance to fall when its descending due to convection currents. This longer fall gives the air more time to cool and there for cools to a colder temperature than normal. So thats why 'global warming' also causes 'global cooling'.

If carbon credits are only worth $6/tonne, versus an "official" $25/tonne, isn't that teling us a whole lot of people don't believe all that much in global warming? (ops, sorry, "climate change" just in case temperatures go down and not up).

carbon tax is a tax on productivity itself... carbon is an abundant element that is involved in nearly every chemical reaction (remember life on this planet is carbon based). This scheme is setup to "cap n trade" productivity it will eventually kill SMEs as we know it as huge multi-nationals will be the only ones that can afford the carbon credits or the right to be productive.... i am a proud tree hugging hippie and i can say that i see no environmental outcomes in this scheme

Co2 is heavier than air which is how we are able to dig up it's remains to fuel our lives. Plus the big yellow thing in the sky has a lot to do with the warmth or coolness of the planet. The science is a fake. The polar bears are fine.

And Oxygen is heavier than Nitrogen. So I guess we have pure Oxygen at sea level, with Nitrogen floating higher above it ;-)

The issue is it's not getting warmer isn't it. Not even with the influence of the big yellow thing in the sky, Oxygen, nitrogen and or Co2. When you look at the reducing emission levels in the US...tends to suggest that the whole thing is a hoax as shon-key said.

So why are the polar bear cubs not surviving?Because they are having to swim so much further to find ice and many are drowning in the process.

The polar bear colonies are thriving.

Robert Muldoon has become Tim Grosser.

The tax payer can pay for farm emissions and we can just borrow, this is how Robert would build a stronger economy.

Robert Muldoon had it right, agriculture was the foundation of our economy in 1984 and Tim Grosser knows this is still true.

That’s why both men have been prepared to cross subsidise agriculture from the rest of the economy, because we need a strong base to our economy.