Showing posts with label Emissions Trading Bill. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Emissions Trading Bill. Show all posts

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.

Friday, September 12, 2008

VIDEO:FREAKY FRIDAY FUNNY-Aunty Helen hits out!!






Its time to introduce a new feature to the Political Animal Blog, Freaky Friday Funnies.


I will dredge the depths of the internet to come up with priceless and hilarious parodies of our dear Prime Minister, Helen Clark.

You are thinking to yourself, that politicians have become parodies of themselves?

Well yeah, there will be some of those.

Without further ado I will introduce the first Freaky Friday Funny.

This primitive Priministerial parody has a bloke dressed up as the aforementioned punching her screen co-actors in the face.

It is very funny and looks like a Uni production from somewhere made by ACT supporters.

It probably breaks the Electoral Finance Act, but fuck it, it deserves to be seen.

It looks at the Emissions tax scam, truckers, families, smacking! farmers and Helen's push for a position at the United Nations.

c Political Animal 2008

Wednesday, September 3, 2008

ACT PRESS RELEASE: Rodney Hide-Emissions Trading Bill speech

One of the best speeches made in parliament this year.


Wednesday, 3 September 2008, 9:44 am Speech: ACT New Zealand

Press Release

Climate Change (Emissions Trading And Renewable Preference) Bill

Rodney Hide MP Tuesday, september 2 2008

Speech to Parliament; Tuesday, September 2 2008

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 that it is significant for what I am about to say—that is, that the entire climate change - global warming hypothesis is a hoax, that the data and the hypothesis do not hold together, that Al Gore is a phoney and a fraud on this issue, and that the emissions trading scheme is a worldwide scam and swindle.

Enacting this legislation will cost New Zealanders dear—that is the point of it - and it will drive up the costs 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 put farmers off their farms. It will put businesses in New Zealand out of business. It will put farmers off their farms. And it will do all this 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 Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change reports was what was called the medieval warming period, where 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 - 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 this: 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 that saw the world running scared, that saw policy-makers running scared, and saw Al Gore make his movie based on it.

The science was rubbish, because a computer model is not science. Science is about theories, hypothesis, and the testing of these 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 select committee and talk about a "cap and trade" but, when asked, would say: "Yes, there is no cap." We are creating a market in hot air, without any quantified amount.

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.


Background

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)).

Conclusions

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.

Monday, September 1, 2008

Why the ETS Bill is fundamentally flawed

A recent post at The NZ Climate Science Coalition website spells out the massive financial cost and folly of Labour's religious zeal over passing the fraudulent Emissions Trading Bill.

It is well worth a read.

“There is something fascinating about science”, observed Mark Twain. “One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact”. His observation is still pertinent today as I will shortly demonstrate. But there is something equally fascinating about politics when far reaching and intrusive legislation can be built upon poorly conceived and flawed ideas. So imagine the impact on society then when a scientific hypothesis that is based on little more than conjecture is used to justify wide-ranging and economically damaging legislation. Everyone loses.

Continued

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

Friday, August 29, 2008

Injunction seeks to stop Labour MPs passing ETS bill

An application for an injunction to stop the Fraudulent Emissions Trading Bill has been organised by Basil Walker.

Please have a look at the application. It is one of the most damaging bills that have ever been contemplated in NZs political history.

An application to the High Court in Wellington by Basil Walker of Queenstown for an injunction to prevent Labour MPs enacting the Emissions Trading Bill will be heard on 22 September.

The injunction is sought "to prevent injustice and to enhance the viability and future productive capacity of the national of New Zealand and its business and citizens."

LINK to download pdf file of text of injunction then LINK here to download pdf of applicant's affidavit.

Related Links

NZ Climate Science Coalition

c Political Animal 2008

Wednesday, August 27, 2008

Helen Clark lies down with dogs

The Labour Government has found itself in a difficult position today.

It relies on one Winston Peters to pass their Emissions Trading Bill, a bill so deleterious and poorly drafted that it will have a huge negative impact on New Zealanders and their economy.

If the bill is not passed into law and we have the unfortunate occurrence of another Labour Government after the 2008 election, they will not be able to pass the various taxes and charges that they have devised so that they can adhere to the Kyoto Protocol that they signed us up to.

While to rely on such a corrupt individual as Winston Peters to pass such a corrupt law as the Emissions Trading Bill might be understandable and clearly appropriate in that respect, it behoves Helen Clark to have principles for a change. She needs to sack Peters for his lies over the Owen Glenn donation and not rely on such an individual to pass such a country changing law, regardless of the politics that she is pushing.

To do nothing is to lay down with the Banana Republic dog, list member of Parliament, one Winston Peters and it reflects poorly on the credibility and honesty(again) of Helen Clark and her Labour Party.

It also tarnishes the high office of the position of Prime Minister, regardless of who the Prime Minister is.


Related Political Animal reading

Don't let the Bastard go
Dompost reels in another Peter's Payment
Winston isn't a conspiracy theorist: Yeah right!
Winston Peters lost in Wonderland
Winston peters Scrutiny tazered by Anette King
Owen Glenn's letter to the Privileges Committee
Winston Peter's letter to the Privileges Committee
Winston Peters caught out lying
Winston Circus hangover continues
Winston Peter's Glenn donation scandal: But wait, there is more!
Peter's hangs himself in February Paul Henry Interview
Peter's admits lying about Glenn donation
Winston's silence is telling
Labour gets tangled in Peter's lies
Leaked Glenn Email
Winston got secret donations from Owen Glenn
The Owen Glenn Story: Singing the same tune but hitting a bum note

c Political Animal 2008

Cash for voting Labour

Its about tax, its about redistributing wealth, its about State control and it is about Labour staying in power.

In the guise of the fraudulent Emissions Trading Bill and the extra costs that it and other Labour imposed "climate change" policies will foist on New Zealanders, it was reported this morning that Labour will give the most cash to those on "low incomes" to ameliorate those costs.

The money will apparently come from income derived from the extra taxes that Labour and its support parties, the Greens and NZ First, have already imposed on us to "offset climate change" and the additional taxes to come.

In addition another billion dollars will be given to "insulate every New Zealand home".

In effect, these cash handouts will make every individual in New Zealand a welfare beneficiary-like working for families welfare but this time it enfolds everyone in its life stifling, vile State grip.

It is reported that the one-off cash handouts, "with most going to low income families" will be given in 2010.

I suspected that Labour would try to buy the 2008 election with cash bribes and I was right.

Doing it in the guise of the fraudulent "climate change" religion is a very clever way to do it. It appears hidden in the confusion and hype of this dopey movement.

Whichever way you cut it though, cash payments to voters is definitely buying votes.

The main reason Labour say they are handing out the cash though-to offset the costs that they are imposing on us in the first place- will have little impact because their "climate change" policies will costs all consumers manifold times more than they will "give back" to "vulnerable consumers".

That is without taking into account the eventual collapse of the emissions trading scheme and the whole dodgy "climate change" house of cards that it is built around.


Related Political Animal reading

NZ First & Greens collude to pass fraudulent emissions trading bill
Fraudulent Emissions Trading Bill
Bitching and moaning
Jeanette Fitzsimons & Helen Clark in conflict with business
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
Of tulip bulbs and tooth fairies

c Political Animal 2008

Tuesday, August 26, 2008

NZ First and Greens collude with Labour to pass fraudulent emissions bill

It looks like the Labour Government's emissions trading wet dream is set to pass over the next two weeks.

The Green Party and NZ First's Winston Peters had secret talks in Wellington a week or so back and both parties then agreed to vote for Labour's scheme.

It is set to cost New Zealand billions, lost jobs, and a destruction of the economy when the carbon trading market collapses and it will because it is based on hot air.

The scheme is based on a fraudulent trading scheme put together by the boys at the collapsed energy trading firm Enron in the 1990s.

The trading scheme and all that it entails is simply about making money for "inside individuals" and more taxes for our government.

A question one might have to ask oneself why some of the highly placed individuals in New Zealand might be pushing this carbon nonsense?

In the absence of any logical reason I would have to surmise that money is involved.

Like Al Gore, the answer might be that people like him in New Zealand stand to benefit financially by millions and have a vested interest in passing such moronic laws.

It would be interesting to see what investments Helen Clark, Russell Norman, Jeannette Fitzsimmons and Winston Peters have in their bottom draw.

We know Jeanette or her family trust have shares in Windflow Technology, a Windmill company set to benefit from this law being passed and she and the aforementioned are all leaders of parties that are voting for it.

I cant think of any other explanation or motivation for these politicians to back this law except lining their own pockets.

Can you?

Related Political Animal reading

Fraudulent Emissions Trading Bill
Bitching and moaning
Jeanette Fitzsimons & Helen Clark in conflict with business
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
Of tulip bulbs and tooth fairies

c Political Animal 2008

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 pm@ministers.govt.nz 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: john.key@national.org.nzWebsite: www.johnkey.co.nzPhone: (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