Secret talks held between Labour and National on ETS

Talks to build a grand coalition on an emissions trading scheme (ETS) were held last night, but those taking part are refusing to comment on them.

Climate Change Minister Nick Smith and his Labour shadow Charles Chauvel were understood to have met for an hour yesterday evening to see if the two major parties could reach a compromise on the controversial policy.

They were the first talks in some months after negotiations stalled over crucial design features of the ETS.

Dr Smith's spokesman said there would be no comment about the talks as the Government did not wish to negotiate with the media.

A review report on the existing ETS, enacted by the previous government and put on hold by National, was released last week.

It set out 34 broad recommendations but Labour, the Greens, ACT and the Maori Party put in dissenting minority reports.

Both parties agreed in principle to all sectors of the ETS, but National believed the version in the law now would cause too much harm to the economy.

It wanted an ETS closer in design to Australia.

Labour argued that National's version would not do enough to reduce emissions and both sides were haggling over a compromise.

Labour Leader Phil Goff wrote to Prime Minister John Key some time ago outlining areas where his party could not agree.

Yesterday's talks were the first since that letter.

An ETS would put limits on the amount of greenhouse gases different sectors of the economy could emit.

Those that exceed their limit would have to buy carbon credits from those who were under their cap.

The Government wanted to be able to take a finalised ETS scheme to the negotiating table at the next major international meeting on climate change in Copenhagen in November.

United Future leader Peter Dunne who chaired the review committee said the key to success for an ETS was long-term commitment from both major parties.

Labour had supported 32 of the 34 committee recommendations.

Areas of difference were around timing of entry of agriculture and intensity based approach or not.

3 · Got a question about this story? Leave it in Comments & Questions below.

This article is tagged with the following keywords. Find out more about MyNBR Tags

Post Comment

3 Comments & Questions

Commenter icon key: Subscriber Verified

we should scrap the whole thing!
clark now has her un job so there is no longer any reason to proceed down a path which can only impede our recovery

  • 0
  • 0

That would seem a little myopic.

Remember, the earch is a biological system with non-negotiable physical constraints within which society exists. These constraints include the availability of fresh water, the amount of carbon dioxide able to be reabsorbed by our biosphere and finite quantities of natural resources such as minerals and metals.

Society uses economic theory to enable the most efficient allocation of these scarce resources. The problem with the collective (basic) interpretation of economic theory is that GDP/GNP growth can continue unimpeded, despite the absolute limiations of the physical world.

This is not the end of capitalism, or economic theory, so never fear - market forces will remain the most efficient way to achieve development of our species.

However, the real growth opportunities for New Zealand (and the rest of the world!) are not those which will deplete finite resources or require us to increase the volume of pollutants, but instead focus on growth which improves quality of life without hitting up against physical limitations - Intellectual Property development, software, personal growth and education... and development of sustainable systems which focus on "cradle-to-cradle" design, allowing the outputs of one systems process to feed the inputs of the next.

The tyranny of distance will become moot for New Zealand (and the world) if we choose to embrace weightless exports and focus on products which are renewable, non-extractive and life enhancing.

For more information, I recommend some readings on Ecological Economics by Daly, or for a more succinct view take a look at

Have a great day :)

  • 0
  • 0

Agree that we should not pollute and be efficient, but CO2 isnt a pollutant.
You should stop muddying the waters in this matter.
ETS is a ridiculous system trading nothing but air and will fall over eventually to the cost of all.

  • 0
  • 0

Post New comment or question

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

NZ Market Snapshot


Sym Price Change
USD 0.6952 0.0000 0.00%
AUD 0.8901 0.0000 0.00%
EUR 0.5907 0.0000 0.00%
GBP 0.5276 0.0000 0.00%
HKD 5.4294 0.0000 0.00%
JPY 78.9230 0.0000 0.00%


Commodity Price Change Time
Gold Index 1278.6 -9.430 2017-10-20T00:
Oil Brent 57.8 0.550 2017-10-20T00:
Oil Nymex 51.9 0.580 2017-10-20T00:
Silver Index 17.0 -0.177 2017-10-20T00:


Symbol Open High Last %
NZX 50 8124.1 8142.3 8124.1 0.07%
NASDAQ 6633.4 6640.0 6605.1 0.36%
DAX 13057.8 13063.6 12990.1 0.01%
DJI 23205.2 23328.8 23163.0 0.71%
FTSE 7523.0 7560.0 7523.0 0.00%
HKSE 28360.0 28519.8 28159.1 1.17%
NI225 21391.0 21489.3 21448.5 0.04%
ASX 5896.1 5924.9 5896.1 0.17%