Showing posts with label climate change. Show all posts
Showing posts with label climate change. Show all posts

Thursday, May 28, 2009

"Climate Change" theory hits business bottom line

From the Mainfreight Ltd [MFT.NZ] 2009 FY profit announcement today comes a management commentary piece about Government red tape and its associated cost.

Don Braid usually has a well placed go at Government bureaucracy when it comes to profit season and his target this time is "climate change" and carbon emissions and it is one of the largest pieces of commentary in the profit release on one subject:

Mainfreight has always attempted to reduce the environmental impact of its operations. Our sustainability initiatives have often resulted in reduced costs; so the bottom line and the environment are both winners.

Real or not, climate change is fast becoming a core strategic issue for businesses everywhere. For Mainfreight, it begins with accepting that our business is based on an activity that generates carbon emissions and then taking responsibility to reduce those emissions over time; without negatively impacting on our competitiveness.

Last year we commenced a programme of measuring the carbon emissions in our business in New Zealand with a view to extending this measurement to other countries where we have a presence, and to reducing our emissions per tonne of freight moved. We made this information available to the public through our annual report and other avenues.

This year however, we have been faced with significantly increased costs and bureaucracy from the Government departments which oversee carbon emissions, and while as a business we will continue our programme of measurement and reduction to support our long-held policies of environmental responsibility, we have chosen not to incur the substantial costs involved in the audit and certification processes that are now demanded. We believe that incurring these costs would not provide a measurable benefit and therefore would not be in the best interests of our shareholders.

Don Braid, Mainfreight Managing Director

It is good to see the middle finger being extended to the bureaucracy and cost associated with it but what is clear from Bruce's revelation is that the "climate change" zealots in our midst are costing businesses millions and this will be the same with any other business, be it a logistics company which would be heavily impacted by "climate change" red tape to a business such as Sky City Entertainment [SKC.NZ] while less severely impacted would be impacted nonetheless.

All because of a mythical theory that the planet is warming.

It would be interesting to get comments by management from other CEOs of listed New Zealand companies to see how much it is costing their businesses. I have yet to see such comment from anyone, which is odd considering the substantial tax on company profits.

Related Share Investor Reading

Mark Weldon now in two minds about Carbon Trading
Quote of the Year
Mark Weldon strikes out on Carbon Trading
Carbon Credit Trading puts global markets at extreme risk
Of Tulip bulbs and Tooth fairies
Global warning: Tax iceberg ahead
Emissions trading review the first step towards sanity
Time magazine slips inconvenient truths past it's readers
Earth day: turn on,tune out, buy some candles

Related links

Kristen Byrne - 15 year old schoolgirl debunks climate change myth

Related Amazon Reading

Air Con: The Seriously Inconvenient Truth About Global WarmingAir Con: The Seriously Inconvenient Truth About Global Warming by Ian Wishart
Buy new: $24.90

c Share Investor 2009

Wednesday, April 15, 2009

Ian Wishart's "Air-Con" no con

At last a book from the sensible side of the "climate change" debate.

Air Con: The Seriously Inconvenient Truth about Global Warming looks likely to be a best seller not just in New Zealand but internationally to boot.

It has got the lefty control freaks up in arms already and it ain't even out yet, so it definitely has merit on that point alone.

It may be written by the sometimes off the wall Ian Wishart but the book is a good read, factual rather than the fictional Inconvenient Truth on which title its fucks with and the annotated research it contains is something that Inconvenient Truth lacks in spades.

We know that the science on this matter is far from settled and in fact the balance of known scientific research, not the made up bullshit from the left who are making money out of this, is reinforced in this excellent book.

I would recommend it to all my readers.

From Investigate Website

Straight to the point, easy to read, Ian Wishart has pulled together the latest research and lights a fuse under the global warming industry. Have all the facts at your fingertips, and then you can decide whether you should be paying higher prices and higher taxes to fix global warming.

Related Reading - Buy at Fishpond

Air Con: The Seriously Inconvenient Truth About Global Warming

Related Amazon Reading

Air Con: The Seriously Inconvenient Truth About Global WarmingAir Con: The Seriously Inconvenient Truth About Global Warmingby Ian Wishart 
Buy new: $24.90

c Political Animal 2009

Bookmark and Share

Friday, January 16, 2009

Rod Oram: On the Prius to Obscurity

Let me just say that Rod Oram is probably a very nice guy if you get to know him on a personal basis. There my praise for him ends however.

Mr Oram has the distinction of being widely published, I do not. He is influential because of that, I am not.

His business columns
are syndicated by the left wing media and snapped up by an unsuspecting and intellectually lazy New Zealand public because the alternative means you have to have the ability to think and reason rather than soak up garbage like a wet liberal sponge.

Because of this and his views about so-called "global warming" he is also a very dangerous person, as are all advocates of GW in all their various political colours and stages of delusion.

The GW agenda is being pushed as a means of control, higher taxes and will be fatal for business and the global economy when emission trading schemes inevitably collapse in a heap of harmless (in terms of the gas not the fallout for the global economy) carbon dioxide.

Last week, evidence of fraud, lies and cover-ups from the GW pushers themselves - via leaked emails and better known as Climategate - was uncovered that should completely blow GW and its followers out of the water but Rod Oram chose to ignore this last Sunday when yet another diatribe from him about GW pushed the line that he keeps trying to sell his readers - that GW is the most important thing since that first atom exploded quite some time ago and you better be on board the GW Prius or by god you will not be the chosen one and you are gonna go straight to hell in your Range Rover Vogue.

In New Zealand NIWA has been fudging figures to suit their purposes and Mr Oram would be aware of this.

Why then does he continue to push this line?

Is he stupid? I don't think so.

Is he ignorant of the facts? Surely he cant be? He has Google on his computer and can read the scientific evidence against GW.

Does he have an agenda? Like most of us, yes he does, but his agenda is hidden under reams of Climate-babble.

But why?

Well, like most other proponents of GW there is a question of dirty filthy capitalistic profit ( Oh you are such a sarcastic bastard Darren! ) One can only imagine then that for Mr Oram it is also about money.

Al Gore, the number one peddler of the GW myth has become very rich from his connection to the GW religion and the conflicted business interests that he invests in.

We know Mr Oram offsets his "Carbon Footprint" by buying carbon credits when he jets off to the next GW conference in Brazil, London or Wairoa and we also know he pushes "Green Technology" and a fancy new way to run the global economy - see "Green Jobs" for an explanation - at every opportunity.

How much money does Mr Oram have invested in the "Green Economy", an "economy" that relies upon the GW machine to continue to function regardless of the fraud on which it is clearly based?

We don't know but I challenge Rod to come clean and let us know in one of his future columns on this topic just what financial interest he has in keeping the GW windmill spinning.

Until then anything he writes should be viewed with a least suspicion and at worst contempt.

I am convinced that contempt is the most appropriate adjective for him and he deserves the obscurity he so clearly craves as the thread continues to unwind on the emperors clothes.

Related Share Investor Reading

Another reason to ignore Rod Oram
Rob Fyfe's "Environmental Extremism"
Carbon Credit Trading puts markets at extreme risk
Mark Weldon Strikes out on Carbon Trading
Quote of the year
Of Tulip bulbs and Tooth fairies

Global warning: Tax iceberg ahead
Mark Weldon in two minds about carbon trading

Related links

Kristen Byrne: Ponder the Maunder - a 15 year old schoolgirl debunks climate change myth

Recent Share Investor Reading
Discuss this topic @ Share Investor Forum - Register free

c Share Investor 2009

Monday, November 17, 2008

Emissions trading review the first step towards sanity

The "review" by National of Labour's Emissions Trading Scheme, more commonly known as the Emissions Tax Scam, rushed through under urgency at the end of a dying Government is great news for New Zealand business and of course individuals as a whole.

While the detail of the review is not clear, any relaxing of the cost to Kiwis that the scheme was set to foist onto every family-at least $6000 per household per year-cant be a bad thing.

Annoying morons like Rod Oram from The Sunday Star Times is icing on the cake and he was in hyper greenie/commie mode last Sunday over Nationals review.

The Environment and Conservation Organisations of NZ continue dribbling:

National and ACT by putting on hold climate change action and reviewing the emissions trading regime is making New Zealand an irrelevancy in international negotiations in the lead up to the crucial Demark meeting on Climate Change at the end of next year 2009. More

The contrary is actually the case. Changing or removing the ETS completely would make New Zealand the most relevant country in the world in relation to Global Warming. 

Leading the world back to sanity would mark us out again as the little country that could. We did it before in the 70s and 80s over Nuclear power-ironically a power source that would improve the effects of Global Warming if you believed carbon had any effect on climate-and we can do it again, beginning with the repeal of Labours ETS scheme.

There will be much opposition to change from the extreme sectors of the country but it is all politically, financially and control motivated.

To relax or remove nutty legislation like the ETS Scheme is going to help our economy get back on track and certainly the 180 degree turn on building thermal power stations alone will help cement certainty for business-already established and those wishing to expand or enter the New Zealand market.

The carbon trading aspect of the ETS legislation, if introduced, would have led to the eventual collapse of the economy when the scheme inevitably imploded on its pyramid scheme made of ticky tacky and fairy dust and that is the most important part of the news that this scheme will be reviewed.

We can now all breathe a little easier.

Wednesday, September 17, 2008

RODNEY HIDE: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill

Below is the contribution by Rodney hide on September 2 2008 to the Emissions Trading Bill debate. He is one of only two individuals in Parliament, the other being Gordon Copeland, to have the balls to go against the tide of make believe that is "climate change".

It is compulsory reading.

RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) : I think I will be the only person speaking in this debate who has any qualifications in environmental science. It is not that that should count, but I think it is significant for what I am about to say—that is, that the entire climate change and global warming hypothesis is a hoax, that the data and the hypothesis do not hold together, that Al Gore is a phony and a fraud on this issue, and that the emissions trading scheme is a worldwide scam and a swindle.

Enacting this legislation will cost New Zealanders dear—that is the point of it—and it will drive up the cost of basic goods and services for New Zealanders, probably by at least $500 or $600 a year. It will put businesses in New Zealand out of business, and it will put farmers off their farms, and it will do all that for no impact on world weather, for no environmental gain, and for no conceivable advantage to New Zealand or to the world. Yes, it is bad that we are rushing this legislation through in the dying days of a teetering regime, propped up by a Minister of Foreign Affairs who is under investigation for serious and complex fraud. That is bad, but it is the impact that this legislation and this policy will have on New Zealanders that is so truly shocking.

All we have in this is a computer model. That is notoriously difficult, because the answers are written in the assumptions. Let me give members just one example. The problem for the first two reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was what was called the medieval warming period, whereby a thousand years ago the Earth was warmer than it is now. Then, magically, an obscure physicist in the US came up with a new bit of analysis—the “hockey stick” model—that showed world temperature to be flat and then rising dramatically as the world became industrialised. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change grabbed this, put it on the front of its document, and repeated it five times.

Researchers all around the world were puzzled by this, because it did not fit any of their data. Eventually they got hold of that computer model and they discovered that any numbers fed into that model would produce the “hockey stick”. We could take the Wellington telephone directory, feed it into the model that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change used in 2001, and we would get the “hockey stick”, which saw the world and policy makers running scared, and which Al Gore based his movie on. The science was rubbish, because a computer model is not science. Science is about theories, hypotheses, and the testing of those against the facts. That is not what has happened in the basic science here.

That is bad enough, but what is worse is the policy rationale underpinning this legislation. The Minister would come before the Finance and Expenditure Committee and talk about a “cap and trade”, but when asked, he would say: “Yes, there is no cap.” We are creating a market in hot air, without any quantified amount.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs): It works.

RODNEY HIDE: It works. I will remember that. You are so lovely to me. [Interruption] Doug Woolerton over there knows the Vela cheques went missing; some of them went missing. I say to Doug Woolerton that they did not get all of them. I want to address clause 5—which covers the purpose of the Act. It sets out the purpose, and it is missing a couple of purposes, in my humble view.

One purpose that is missing is Helen Clark’s purpose. She knows that she is not going to be Prime Minister after this election, and she is wondering where one goes after being the Prime Minister of New Zealand. We know where Winston Peters is going after having been the Minister of Foreign Affairs. But Helen Clark does not want to be wearing a pinstriped suit with wide stripes and a number on it; she wants to be a big wheel on the world stage. So the purpose of this bill—clause 5—

I would like to add to clause 5(1) a supplementary subclause (c), and I will speak to that. Clause 5(1)(c) would explain that the purpose of this bill is to allow Helen Clark to look good on the world stage and say that she can become a big wheel in the UN because, when she was the Prime Minister, she led the world in producing the most comprehensive, economically destructive emissions trading scheme ever. That is what my amendment would say in clause 5(1)(c).

Helen Clark now does not care about New Zealand; she cares about what is going to happen to her after the election. She certainly does not care about the economic damage this legislation will do to New Zealand; I covered that in my earlier speech. She does not care about the damage that is done to her Government and to this country’s reputation by clutching Winston Peters, and his Tiberius corporation and the money from the Spencer Trust, to her bosom. Clause 5(1)(c) in my amendment would explain that. Helen Clark is kissing goodbye to New Zealand and saying: “Look at me.” Helen Clark knows that she is toast at the election, and I think it is appalling that we are rushing through this legislation, with 785 amendments, in the dying days of a teetering Labour-led Government, with a Minister of Foreign Affairs with no portfolios—all baubles and no work. The real purpose that we are putting through this bill is for Helen Clark to say to the rest of the world and to her lefty mates: “Look what I did. To hell with New Zealand!”.

I think this is a disgrace.

Wednesday, September 3, 2008

NZIER:The impacts of the proposed Emissions Trading Scheme

Research from the NZIER, who believe in the nonsense of man-made global warming, say that it will cost every New Zealand household, conservatively, $3000 per year to comply with the Labour Govt ETS taxation scheme currently being rushed under urgency though Parliament.

That cost is based on government supplied figures that assumes a tonne of carbon will be traded at NZ$25. European carbon prices are currently trading at around 20 Euros-roughly twice the Labour government figure on which the $3000 cost is based.

So Kiwis in reality are likely to face a minimum cost of $6000 per household per annum and that is if Carbon prices remain at current prices-which is highly unlikely.


In December 2002, New Zealand ratified the Kyoto protocol. Under the protocol, the Government agreed to reduce average emissions over the 2008- 2012 period to 1990 levels, or bear the cost of any emissions over and above this level.

The latest emissions forecasts from the Ministry for the Environment suggest that for the 2008-2012 period, New Zealand emissions will be around 15% higher than 1990 levels, and will thus have to bear the cost of around 46 Mt CO2-e emissions.

Emissions trading

It is in this context that the government has proposed the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). The ETS imposes a charge on products and processes that produce greenhouse gases. Just as the government taxes cigarettes because they are bad for your health, the ETS effectively taxes emissions because they are bad for our environment.

The mechanisms of the ETS are slightly different to a standard tax however. Instead of simply paying a tax for total emissions at the end of each year, companies that create emissions during production (e.g. burning coal to make electricity) or sell products that produce emissions when consumed (e.g. petrol) must obtain credits for those emissions. "Credits" are like vouchers that entitle the bearer to produce greenhouse gasses. At the end of the year, the bearer has to surrender one credit for every tonne of greenhouse gas they create.1

Some of the credits will have to be bought from overseas, some will be bought from the government, and some will be given away by the government ("free allocation"). Buying the credits is an increased cost to businesses, designed to provide an incentive to reduce emissions rates.

The "trading" part of an "emissions trading scheme" is what makes an emissions trading scheme different to a tax. Companies that buy their credits overseas will be "trading" in credits from overseas. Similarly, if a company is allocated credits from the government, but reduces its emissions, then the company can sell any surplus credits.

The other main difference between an emission trading scheme and a tax is that we know the cost of a tax per tonne of gas because the government tells us what it is, but in an emissions trading scheme the market will determine the credit price.

1 One credit is usually equal to one tonne of carbon dioxide or the equivalent of one tonne of carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is the most common greenhouse gas, but it does not have the “worst” effect on climate change. For example, scientists say that one tonne of hydro-fluoro carbons (HFCs) has a 12,000 times bigger impact on climate change than one tonne of CO2. That means that a company that wants to emit one tonne of HFCs will have to buy 12,000 one tonne CO2 equivalent emission credits.

Profile of New Zealand emissions

The make-up of New Zealand’s emissions is peculiar when compared to most other countries, especially other developed or rich countries. Specifically:

• a disproportionately large proportion of New Zealand’s emissions come from agriculture and animals in particular (50% compared to 7% on average internationally)

• a disproportionately small amount of emissions come from energy (23% relative to 63% internationally)

• New Zealand has a relatively high proportion of renewable electricity generation (around 70%) when compared to other countries.

For a small open economy, dependent on exports, the implications of such an emissions profile are important. It is likely that direct emissions reductions will be relatively expensive in New Zealand, because:

• it is expensive to increase our reliance on renewable generation – being weather dependent, renewable generation requires a larger installed capacity to achieve the same level of output generation

• there is as yet limited scope for reducing emissions rates from agricultural activity. While there is optimism around the use of nitrogen inhibitors, no such technology yet exists for methane emissions, which make up the majority of agricultural emissions. This means reducing agricultural emissions most likely requires reducing stock numbers and thus production, a clear negative effect on the economy

• our exporting industries may face competition with countries that don’t impose a charge on emissions, and are therefore at a competitive disadvantage. Agriculture, in particular, has not been included in any emissions trading schemes anywhere around the world.

As result of these factors, New Zealand is particularly susceptible to high levels of “emissions leakage”. Emissions leakage refers to emissions being reduced in one country but increased in another, for no net benefit to global emissions. For example, if an ETS causes the cost of dairy production in New Zealand to rise, and therefore reduces the amount of dairy exports, there will be a reduction in New Zealand’s emissions. However, another country will increase their production of dairy to compensate. Because New Zealand production is efficient, global levels of emissions will not fall. This is a particularly poor result, because New Zealand suffers from reduced economic activity, but global emissions are not reduced.

The proposed New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme

The government’s in-principle decisions on the basic design of the NZ ETS are:

• the NZ ETS will, over time, include all major sectors (i.e. forestry, transport, stationary energy, industrial processes (non-energy), agriculture and waste) and the six greenhouse gases specified in the Kyoto Protocol

• the NZ ETS will be introduced across the economy in a staged process to allow gradual adjustment to emissions pricing:

− forestry will be introduced on 1 January 2008
− liquid fossil fuels on 1 January 2009
− stationary energy and industrial process emissions from 1 January 2010 and− agriculture, waste and all other emissions from 1 January 2013

• the core obligation will be for participants with unit obligations to surrender to the government one emission unit to cover each metric tonne of eligible emissions in a compliance period (usually a calendar year); the obligation is absolute, rather than intensity-based, so does not vary with the level of output

• the New Zealand Unit (NZU) will be the primary domestic unit of trade; for the first commitment period, NZUs will be fully comparable to, and backed by, Kyoto units by the end of the period for determining compliance. This means the price for a NZU will effectively be set at the international level.

• The government has decided in principle to allocate NZUs initially through a combination of sale and free allocation. In free allocation, as a form of assistance to business ‘at-risk’, it has decided in principle that:

− free allocation to forestry will be 21 million tonnes CO2-e for plantation forest, plus a relatively small allocation set aside for forest weed control

− from 2013, an additional 34 million tonnes CO2-e for plantation forest (i.e. taking the total free allocation to owners of pre-1990 exotic forest land to 55 million tonnes)

− the agricultural sector will be provided with a free allocation equal to 90 per cent of its 2005 emissions

− eligible industrial producers will be provided with a free allocation equal to 90 per cent of their 2005 or, if firms choose, 2003 or 2004 emissions

− over 2013 to 2025, the free allocation pools for industrial producers and agriculture will be reduced each year, on a linear basis (i.e. zero from 2026).

Modelling the impact of NZ ETS

Clearly the impact of such a scheme across the entire economy needs to be analysed. To do this, we use a General Equilibrium model, that includes all the key sectors in the economy, including households, government, exports and 131 industries from dairy farming to coal electricity generation to retail. We incorporate greenhouse gas emissions into the model, so we can analyse how putting a cost on each ton of GHG affects each industry, and the economy as a whole. We calculate leakage of emissions to ensure we are considering the global emissions reduction rather than simply New Zealand’s for, what is after all, a global problem.

We put the rules of the ETS in the model, and then investigate, which industries and regions are affected and by how much, and the reductions in emissions. We also investigate some broad alternatives. In this case we model a scenario where the government pays all the Kyoto obligation out of general taxes instead, and an intermediate case where the government still introduces the ETS, but maintains free allocation of credits indefinitely to ‘at-risk’ industries. We believe the results make for important reading.

In its current design, the ETS is not least cost

The challenge is to design a policy that ensures that New Zealand meets its commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions “at the lowest achievable long-term cost” (MfE and Treasury, 2007).

An emission trading scheme could meet the Government’s objective of meeting Kyoto obligations at least cost, but only if its design takes account of the extent to which our trading partners also face these costs.

The regulatory impact statement attached to the proposed legislation states that the “macroeconomic impact, as represented by a variety of indicators is very small…. around 0.1 percent of GDP” This statement also reports that the modelling has shown that in the long run an “ETS reduces the impact of meeting our international obligations over the case where government remains responsible for all emissions.”

Our analysis, however, shows both that the costs are greater, and that the design proposed in the Bill is not least cost. This is primarily because the ETS, as currently designed, does not adequately deal with New Zealand’s exposure domestically and in export markets to competition from producers in countries that do not face the costs of their emissions.

Short term, the proposed ETS would reduce employment and profits

In 2012, the economic impact of the ETS and the cost of New Zealand’s Kyoto liability is a:

• $900 million reduction in GDP (0.5%)
• $600 reduction in an average household’s spending (0.8%)
• reduction in employment equivalent to 22,000 jobs (1.0%)

Most of these costs come from the way the ETS works through the economy, impacting on the productive capacity of the economy, rather than impacts from paying directly for the remainder of New Zealand’s Kyoto liability.

Of the $900 million reduction in GDP, $800 million is directly attributable to the ETS. That is the ETS would cost 8 times more.

Long term, living standards will be lower than they would have been
Longer term, once the free allocation of emission credits have been phased out and the ETS covers substantially all greenhouse gas emissions, including those from agriculture, the ETS is four times more costly than the alternative of paying directly out of taxes for emissions reductions.

In 2025, the combined economic impact of an ETS and the cost of paying for an international emission reduction obligation (in today’s prices), is a:

• $5.9 billion reduction in GDP (-2.1%)
• $3,000 reduction in an average household’s spending (-3.0%)

• reduction in hourly wages equivalent to $2.30 per hour (-6.7%), or $90 a week for someone working 40 hours a week

Of that $5.9 billion reduction in GDP, $4.6 billion is directly attributable to the ETS.

Of course, GDP per capita would still be 42% higher in 2025 than it was in 2007. But that is still less than Australia’s GDP per capita today. That highlights that it is critical to seek least cost solutions before committing to any increase in cost on the economy.

…yet emission reductions are not as large

Moreover, for all the additional cost that an ETS imposes on the New Zealand economy, New Zealand achieves 5% less emissions reductions, in terms of contribution to global emissions, than we could achieve if we funded emissions reductions elsewhere in the world or at home.

As proposed, the ETS is not a least cost climate change solution…

This is for two reasons. First, New Zealand production becomes more costly and less competitive compared to production elsewhere in the world leading to reductions in emissions in New Zealand but increased emissions elsewhere in the world. Second, our emissions reductions are expensive. Cheaper alternatives are available elsewhere.

Thus, the ETS as currently proposed is not the least cost solution for mitigating the impacts of climate change.

This finding is in line with earlier work by NZIER:

The reality is that it may prove cheaper to pay emitters in another country to reduce emissions rather than to achieve any reduction within New Zealand. (NZIER, 2007)

…unless producers in other countries also pay for their emissions

The main reason is our assumption that New Zealand producers exposed to import competition or New Zealand exporters are unable to increase their prices to reflect the cost of climate change mitigation policies. If climate change measures are adopted elsewhere in the world such that that assumption no longer holds true, then we would need to revise our analysis.

Agriculture will be hit hardest through reduced competitiveness…

The proposed ETS would increase costs largely in export industries, especially the agricultural sector. In the agricultural sector in 2025:

• dairy farming declines 13%
• dairy land prices fall 40%.
• sheep and beef farming declines 6.6%
• the price of land used in sheep and beef farming falls 23.4%

The impact on the agricultural sector is also a major source of leakage – where emission reductions occur in New Zealand only because our production is replaced with production elsewhere in the world. Our analysis suggests that the ETS would cause leakage from the pastoral sector to more than the equivalent of 3 million tonnes of CO2 – around a quarter of the emission reductions resulting from the ETS.

Another sector heavily affected is basic metals manufacturing where investment declines and plant, machinery, and equipment and other capital falls by 6.5% and there is a 3.4% reduction in employment.

Variation in impacts of the ETS across different industries also means quite variable impacts across New Zealand’s regions - as regions have different concentrations of industries. The regional economies of Northland and Southland contract more than others, because both regions have significant concentrations of agricultural production and substantial employment in other large industries shrunk by the ETS – basic metals (aluminium) manufacturing in Southland and petroleum refining in Northland.

Regions with high concentrations of service industries and public sector employment, such as Auckland and Wellington, do not contract by as much as more rural regions.

The right permit allocation scheme would reduce the cost of an ETS

The impacts of an ETS change considerably when partial free allocation of emissions permits are not phased out. In 2025, an ETS with indefinite free allocation reduces GDP by 1.2% compared to 2.1% under the ETS with free allocation phasing out. Emissions reductions are 4.2% compared to 10.4% under phased out free allocation, but leakage of emissions of almost 3,000 kt CO2-e are completely eliminated.

This result arises because indefinite free allocation of permits at initial allocation levels – i.e. not entirely free allocation – cuts the harm to export competitiveness.

We find that costs to the economy are more sensitive to changes in the quantity of permits allocated freely to industry and agriculture than to assumptions about emissions reductions from technology change.

Our research confirms conclusions from other qualitative reviews

The Government commissioned review of the proposed ETS reached conclusions that our similar to ours (Kerr, 2007):

…several very important aspects of the proposal require further development… [including] …the need for clear thinking on interred leakage and allocation issues; how to achieve a smooth, low risk transition; (p.1)

Any policy used to address leakage should be simple and closely targeted. It should be designed to phase out as other countries regulate their emissions. (p.7)

In the agriculture sector, [output-based or intensity-based allocation] could simultaneously address the question of how to freely allocate units that intend to compensate for capital losses (loss of land values). (p.7)

Previous research reports have come to similar conclusions (Skilling and Boven (2007), Castalia (2007), and NZIER (2007)).


We find that, as long as there is no comprehensive global commitment, paying directly for emissions reductions out of general taxation is cheaper and more effective than the ETS as is currently designed. Our results are robust to sensitivity testing.

This means that if the Government intends to proceed with the ETS, then it should amend the allocation and phase-out rules to minimise the costs to the economy.

Sunday, August 24, 2008

Fraudulent Emissions Trading Bill

The most contentious, dangerous and economically disastrous legislation in New Zealand's history is set to be rammed through by the Labour Party and its lapdog support parties over the next two weeks.

The Emissions Trading Bill, to allow the trading of "Carbon Credits" has had 1000 corrections, little critical input and is based on the well known fraud that man is "warming the planet".

If you want to voice your opinion to Helen Clark and her fraudulent legislation contact her office at or fax or phone: Fax : 64 04 473-3579Phone : 64 04 471 9998.

Ask John Key from The National Party to ditch their own intention to pass a similar bill should they take office after the 2008 Election contact him at the following.

Email: (04)4719307 (Parliament)Phone: (09)4122496 (Electorate)

Lets try and stop this garbage.

Related Political Animal reading

Kyoto critic comes to town
Global warming: Power to the people
Carbon Credit trading puts markets at extreme risk
Global Warning: Tax iceberg ahead
Unstoppable global warming
Earth Day: Turn on, tune out, buy some candles
TIME magazine slips inconvenient truth past its readers
The Great Global Warming Swindle
PRIME TV PRESENTS: The Great Global Warming Swindle
Kristen Byrnes-Ponder the Maunder
Helen Clark and Jeanette Fitzsimmons in conflict with business
Of tulip bulbs and tooth fairies

c Political Animal 2008

Monday, August 18, 2008

Mark Weldon strikes out on Carbon Trading

When Mark Weldon came from a well paid Wall Street job at the beginning of this century to become CEO of the New Zealand Stock Exchange [NZX.NZ] I held much promise for this dynamic, ambitious, innovative and successful young man.

Weldon has fostered the NZX from a economic backwater exchange into a more broad based one with more revenue streams-even though it is still a underdeveloped exchange, but that is another story.

Unfortunately Weldon's latest push for more revenue, in the form of launching a "Carbon Trading platform", whatever that means, is at the risk of ameliorating his good results so far, and more.

Weldon seems to have caught the zealotry nature of the carbon trading Nazis , like Minister for "Climate Change", whatever that means, David Parker.

Mark talks of his TZ1 Carbon Platform as "leading the world" and "innovative".

"The most important thing NZX can do here is get the right CEO, free the business to succeed, and hold a high quality team accountable for results."

No it isn't Mark. Trading a real asset is the most important part of any market. Even if you had the smartest person in the world who fully understood the carbon trading market, you will still find it impossible to make this kind of platform a long term success because of its fraudulent nature.

Mark Weldon goes on:

"Mark Franklin is the perfect CEO for TZ1. He has the right technical background, knowledge, relationships, credibility, strategic skills and drive. Mark chose this position ahead of a number of global roles on offer to him - a choice that reflects his belief in the potential of this market.

Quite frankly we have heard this kind of enthusiasm for business and markets based on nothing for as long as human beings have had a history. The majority of Internet businesses and wild poppies traded in Holland during the 1600s were two similar fake manipulated markets and both of them collapsed with spectacular results.

The carbon trading market collapse will make those meltdowns look like a Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan movie.

The carbon trading market and the "economics" on which it is based has its genesis in the fraud that is the Enron invented carbon trading market and its associated Al Gore pushed "climate change" movement, scientifically disproved and with a negative economic impact rather than a positive one-which clearly makes it a liability rather than an asset.

To put so much misplaced faith in a market for trading carbon credits simply defies economics 101, something that Mark should have remembered from his 3rd form economic class-an asset has to have a clear value, be easily understood have a real demand based on an intrinsic value, not a demand pent up by politicians and scientists on the State breast-in other words a false market.

When the price of an asset is based on the regulator or principle organiser of trading that asset, TZ1 in this case, or the government setting or influencing the carbon price, then the relationship of trading to the value of that asset is not only artificial but in the long term unsustainable, in the true sense of that word, and will eventually lead to its collapse.

Mark Weldon has forgotten the basics to investing, what an asset is, the fact that a market relies on real assets to have any chance of a long term future and the history of previous economic collapses.

Putting faith in "Carbon Trading", being excited and passionate about it being a huge success is a thin veneer pasted over the reality behind it that it is based on a fraud.

You should be ashamed of yourself Mark.

Related Share Investor reading

Carbon Credit trading puts global markets at extreme risk
Of Tulip bulbs and Tooth fairies
Global warning: Tax iceberg ahead

Related links

TZ1 Market
Kristen Byrne - 15 year old schoolgirl debunks climate change myth

NZX financial data

Related Amazon Material

The Great Global Warming Swindle (DVD)The Great Global Warming Swindle (DVD)
Buy new: $14.99 / Used from: $15.99
Usually ships in 24 hours

c Share Investor 2008

Friday, May 30, 2008

PRIMETV PRESENTS: The Great Global Warming Swindle

Sunday, 1st June at 8.30pm

 Watch TGGWS on the net here

Global warming is the biggest threat facing the world today, but not in the way you may think. The Great Global Warming Swindle blows the whistle on the biggest swindle in modern history. The theory of global warming has been postured as fact and as such does not need to be questioned but what if man’s CO2 emissions were not the cause of the problem? In fact there is overwhelming evidence, and has been for some time, showing that it’s solar activity that determines temperature.

Many solar scientists attest to the fact that during the late 20th century we experienced the highest levels of solar activity for centuries. Global Warming is the morality tale of the decade – politicians are eager to pander to middle class green prejudice, and are throwing vast quantities of public cash into scientific research aimed at supporting an unsupportable theory.

It’s a tale of scientists fearful of speaking out, of upsetting the funding applecart and jeopardising the many thousands of research jobs generated for them by the global warming scare.

WARNING: Content May Offend

**NB: there is a one hour discussion of The Great Global Warming with skeptics and loony believers alike. Leighton Smith, talkback host on Newstalk ZB is one of the skeptics !

There have been attempts from some devotees of Global Warming to appeal to the Broadcasting Standards Assc to have the programme removed so nobody can watch it. This is typical of the GW zealots who dont want others to see the the other, more believable side to the GW "debate".

Related Political Animal reading

Unstoppable global warming
Global Warning: Tax Iceberg Ahead
Kyoto critic comes to town - Sunday Star Times
Carbon Credit trading puts Global markets at extreme risk
Of Tulip Bulbs and Tooth Fairies
Ponder the Maunder - 15 Yr old Kristin Byrne explodes the GW myth

c Political Animal 2008

Wednesday, May 7, 2008

The Great Global Warming Swindle[UPDATE]

Prime TV which is part of the Sky TV stable, is going to show the documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle", the antidote to Al Gore's fictional "The Inconvenient Truth".

The major networks have been bereft of any balls, having had the best part of a year to play TGGWS but news producers have let it slip. TV One played Al Gore's ode to Michael Moore though earlier this year.

Our own Helen Clark and David Parker, Minister of hot air, should clear their schedules to watch, so they can redefine their religious zealotry towards those of us who already know it is one of history's great cons.

The Documentary, from Britain was screened last year to much acclaim.

Prime will show "The Great Global Warming Swindle" Sunday June 1 at 8.30pm.

The great global warming swindle - Part 2
The great global warming swindle - Part 3
The great global warming swindle - Part 4

Related Political Animal reading

Unstoppable global warming
Global Warning: Tax Iceberg Ahead
Kyoto critic comes to town - Sunday Star Times
Carbon Credit trading puts Global markets at extreme risk
Of Tulip Bulbs and Tooth Fairies
Ponder the Maunder - 15 Yr old Kristin Byrne explodes the GW myth

c Political Animal 2008

Friday, April 25, 2008

TIME Magazine slips inconvenient truths past it's readers

An absolute cracker of an editorial in a business paper that I picked up while in a recent visit to San Francisco.

The paper gives a more enlightened and investigative view rather than the left wing drivel that comes from the likes of the New York Times and Washington Post.

On issues like so-called climate change the papers writers are spot on. In reference to the latest dross written in this weeks TIME magazine the magazines authors leave out the inconvenient truth(thanks Al) about an article they wrote in 1974 about an impending ice age. They do not reference THAT article in their 2008 diatribe.

Politicians in New Zealand and globally would do well to pick up and read such fact based writing, for the fairy dust stuff they are basing economically disastrous rorts such as carbon trading and associated taxes is only going to see an end to our way of life as we know it.

Food shortages because of wasteful and environmentally unfriendly bio-fuel production is only the start.

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Posted Friday, April 18, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Media: Time calls green "the new red, white and blue" and likens global warming to the fight against Nazism and fascism. As it insults World War II vets, the magazine seeks to impose a tyranny all its own.

We never cease to be amazed by the inability of the left to feel shame and its lack of reverence for America and those who defend its freedoms, including the right to be stupid. The cover of the April 21 issue of Time, taking the famous Joe Rosenthal photo of Marines planting our flag on the blood-soaked island of Iwo Jima and replacing our flag with a tree, qualifies for obscenity of the year.

It echoes the greenie theme first advanced by Al Gore in his book "Earth In The Balance" that the internal combustion engine is the greatest threat in the history of mankind. Gore and Bill Clinton have both said that global warming is ultimately a greater threat than terrorism.
That, admitted Time managing editor Richard Stengel, was the thinking behind the cover story. "One of the things we do in this story," he said last week on MSNBC, "is we say there needs to be an effort along the lines of preparing for World War II to combat global warming and climate change."

This trivializing of the sacrifice of American blood and treasure to defend freedom ignores the fact that in World War II we faced a real enemy with a terrible agenda. The bombs that fell on Pearl Harbor were quite real, not the output of some badly fed computer model.
"Global warming may or may not be a significant threat to the United States," Tim Holbert, a spokesman for the American Veterans Center, told the Business and Media Institute (BMI): "The Japanese Empire on February 1945, however, certainly was, and this photo trivializes the most recognizable moment of one of the bloodiest battles in U.S. history."

It was not that long ago that the media, including Time, was singing a different tune and waging a different war.

An article in its June 24, 1974, issue entitled "Another Ice Age?" told of how, "when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe, they find that the atmosphere has been gradually cooler for the past three decades."

Time spoke then of a "global climatic upheaval" and "climatological Cassandras who are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age."

Reputable scientists and satellite and other observations have noted another cooling period under way since 1998. Declining solar activity in the current cycle correlates with other cool periods in Earth's history. It ties in perfectly with climate history that shows the warming and cooling of Earth is a natural and cyclical process.

A man who knows a little about fighting totalitarianism, Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic, wrote in the Financial Times last year:

"As someone who lived under communism for most of his life, I feel obliged to say that I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism, not communism. This ideology wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global) planning."

Lt. John Keith Wells, leader of the platoon that raised the flags on Mt. Suribachi, told BMI: "That global warming is the biggest joke I've ever known." He knows a real enemy and a real threat when he sees one.

Related Political Animal reading
Kyoto critic comes to town - Sunday Star Times
Ponder the Maunder - 15 Yr old Kristin Byrne explodes the GW myth

c Political Animal 2008

Saturday, March 29, 2008

Earth Day: Turn on,tune out, buy some candles

In the interest of sanity,reason, intellectual honesty and beating Al Gore to a bloodied death with a chunk of Antarctic ice smuggled into the country up the arse of a whale sympathetic to my cause, I propose a ying to the preposterous yang of something called "earth hour" which starts in New Zealand first at 8.00pm (NZ time).

proposal is this. At 8.00pm sharp, when the dolphin loving, Volvo driving, mung bean eating, bearded female, non smoking, non drinking, Leo Dio loving, vegetarian, hairy arm pitted, sandal wearing , finger pointing, lesbian school teachers are sitting in the dark with all their lights out for an hour, playing with the insert appropriate expletive here next to them, I will turn on every light, appliance and electrical device that I can lay my meat eating, chain smoking, 6 litre V8 Holden driving hands on... for two hours.

Even if this Global warming-or Climate Change, as they are now calling it,because the planet is actually cooling-was true, turning the lights off for an hour is actually what is going to happen for real if these climate change junkies get their way and have windmills dotted all over the place and they stop us from using lovely black coal, gas and oil to keep us alive. This is their intention.

In New Zealand, David Parker, Minister for "Climate Change" , bogey men and tooth fairies, proposes that we only build "renewable" power sources from this day on and forget about real sources of energy like hydro and gas.

We do however export coal to other countries and import the same from Indonesia, do those carbon miles get you a new power station when you get to a billion points?

I'm relaxed now in the knowledge that I am going to do my bit tonight to save our collective sanity. If you are flying across Auckland's North Shore, I think you might be able to spot me.

I will be the one with my feet up on the Brazilian rainforest timber table, in the living room, watching BBC4s "The Great Global Warming Swindle", the house humming, with a power surge so immense, I will be able to supply energy to all those lesser folk in their houses with all the lights turned off.

Do the earth a favour then, engage your brain before turning off those sparkly, modern, gas and oil fired wonders, your lights.

Saturday, January 5, 2008

Carbon Credit trading puts global markets at extreme risk

Originally posted at my Share Investor Blog this piece is also a highly political one, and in an Election year voters need to be wary of our political masters and their views on the new global warming religion.

The New Zealand Labour party passed a law at the end of 2007 to allow the trading of "carbon credits" in 2008 and the legitimacy that it sees this trading give their lunatic stance on "global warming" will give them ample cause to bring even more new taxes in 2008 to "lessen the impact of our carbon footprints" and therefore have even more control over New Zealanders.

Man made "global warming" is a myth and it is a means used by politicians to suck your pocket drier than a dust storm in the Saudi desert on a 60 degree day in the full sun.

Nothing more.

Carbon Credit trading puts global markets at extreme risk

From Share Investor Blog

I'm going to kick 2008 off with a topic that is going to be a constant of mine this year, and in the years to come, because as far as economics, the impact on economies and business, it is going to be one of the biggest negatives we have ever faced.

The scourge of the global warming Nazis and their thirst for control, of individuals and nations, through new and increased taxes, in the name of decreasing your "carbon footprint", is going to have far reaching impacts into every aspect of everyday life.

The relevance of this to investing and my interest comes in the form of "carbon trading".

The introduction of a so-called "Carbon Trading" platform by New Zealand's NZX is likely to be the beginning of the end for this country's economy and global economies as we know them and there is a possibility that our sharemarket could be wiped off the face of the earth completely when the carbon trading market inevitably collapses.

Scaremongering and overstating my case to make a point?

I think not.

If we learn anything from history in regards to booms and busts and meaningless frenzies whipped up by market hysteria, we have only to look back to the most recent tech bust of 2000, where there was at least some substance and truth and real profit involved in a handful of tech companies, some of which still survive today.

We can also look back to the Dutch poppy boom around 400 years ago, where "rare" blooms were being traded for outrageous prices, well beyond any intrinsic value and of course just like the tech boom 400 years latter, much wealth was made by those that got in first but eventually things turned pear shaped, and most people lost, collectively, vast sums of money.

If we look at the carbon trading market, one can see the beginnings of a frenzy, one being whipped up by the likes of Al Gore, Hollywood and theorists who base their whole "global warming" theory on failed "science" and outright lies.

Al Gore is one of the leading proponents of carbon credit trading and has a huge financial interest in that market.

These early adopters are set to make billions on carbon trading markets and will be the only ones to profit from it.

The outfall when the latter come investors lose faith from trading "carbon credits", which they will because they are not only worth zero in dollar terms, but are a negative weight on economies and have no intrinsic value in themselves, will cause a crash in multiple markets not seen since 1929 and the 2000 tech plunge.

The trading of good stocks, property, land, businesses, minerals, commodities and the like, that have an actual value, and clearly while the prices of these assets will fluctuate in price, most provide a real income and have value. Carbon credits, which are and will be traded increasingly in the future, have no actual value if you don't believe the flawed concept on which they are actually based.

As most critical thinkers know, the concept of man made "global warming", the basis for it and the reasons it is being raised as a concept or theory, is a highly contentious one and the trading of carbon credits, in order to make money for the savvy, gives it a respectability it really doesn't deserve.

Just like the poppy rush of the 1600s, the great crash of 1929, the market meltdown in1987 and the tech bust in 2000, the coming carbon credit trading bust shares some of the reasons why markets crashed at these times.

These four market crashes all share an over exuberance and a market frenzy to a point where the value of the assets or shares traded far exceeded their real intrinsic value and these were the main reasons why the markets eventually collapsed.

The poppy trading, tech market boom and carbon credit trading share a similar trait in themselves.

In all three cases the values placed on "goods" traded often had no or little value from the get go.

Poppies traded 400 years ago were wildly inflated in price, the majority of tech company stocks traded had never made a profit, and in the carbon credit trading example not only does the "product" traded have no real value, it is actually of negative value, in a local and global business sense because it adds cost to running a business and will eventually be applied to every product and service that consumers buy and use on a daily basis.

From a carbon tax on gas at the pump, to food you buy in the supermarket, the new carbon taxes will be applied to everything and clearly it will cost us all more, all for no good reason, for that is what taxes do, they constrain business and economies.

So clearly the carbon credit trading part of the equation means you can offset those extra taxes forced on us by the global warming Nazis but the negative value of those so called carbon credits is self evident from my explanation that they are a cost not a productive commodity that is worth anything.

They are worth less than nothing!!!

Politicians and business "leaders" who have jumped on the carbon credit bandwagon, because they can see the dollars to be made and the control of the populace that extra taxes afford, are putting the global economy under threat. Ironic then that this is being led by a failed politician, Al Gore.

The past has left us littered with evidence that getting caught up in such bandwagons only leads to disaster.

To ignore the warning signs of history is to go forward blindfolded, deaf and with ones mouth shut and is clearly moronic to the ultimate degree.

In writing this piece I am constantly reminded by the old adage "...when one ignores history one is bound to repeat the same mistakes..." but we know what has passed and it is more like, "... repeating the same thing over and over and expecting a different result".

Either way the global economy is in for a huge shock when the carbon credit market implodes.

Resist the temptation to get involved this time.

Humourous look at trading in "dreams"

C Share Investor & Political Animal 2007, 2008