This is the full version of the Sarah Palin address to the Republican National Congress from CSPAN given on Sept 3 2008.
The Sarah Palin acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention was a sharp contrast to Barack Obama's bloated self righteous , flag waving vacuum fest of a few days ago.
Finding No. 4316 - This is the latest result from the Roy Morgan New Zealand Poll conducted with 841 electors over the period August 18 - 31, 2008.: September 04, 2008 |
In early September 2008 the New Zealand Roy Morgan Poll shows National Party support at 44.5% (down 3.5%) only 6.5% ahead of the Labour Party 38% (up 4%) — the closest the two major parties have been for nearly a year, since October 2007 when the National Party led 45% cf. 40.5%. If an election were held now New Zealand would have a Coalition Government likely to be led by the National Party.
Support for the NZ First Party of Winston Peters has dropped significantly in the wake of the party funding scandal with NZ First down 4% to 2.5% — the lowest result for NZ First since September 2007.
Support for the Greens was 8% (up 0.5%), Maori Party 3.5% (up 1.5%), ACT NZ 1.5% (unchanged), United Future 1% (up 1%) and Others 1% (up 0.5%).
The Roy Morgan Government Confidence Rating has risen strongly for the third New Zealand Morgan Poll in a row, rising 11.5pts to 115. It is now at its highest level since being at 118.5 in late February. For the first time since February, a majority of New Zealanders 50.5% (up 6%) say the country is “heading in the right direction” compared to 35.5% (down 5.5%) that say the country is “heading in the wrong direction.”
There has been a similar strong rise in the Roy Morgan New Zealand Consumer Confidence Rating which has leapt 12.4 points to 107.3 and is up 25.3 points since early July.
Gary Morgan says:
“Helen Clark’s Labour Government has closed the gap on the National Party as Election Day draws nearer. Since trailing by 21%, 30.5% cf. 51.5% in late June, Clark has closed the gap to only 6.5%.
“The first cut in interest rates in five years in July, down 0.25% to 8.00%, has driven the strong increase in the Roy Morgan New Zealand Consumer Confidence Rating — and given renewed strength to the electability of Labour with the prospect of further rate cuts to come.
“A personal tragedy on a camping trip taken by Helen Clark and some of her closest friends has also given voters a chance to see that Clark is not just the ‘consummate politician’ she is often portrayed as. Her efforts to revive a dying friend have given New Zealanders a renewed perspective and respect for the tough Prime Minister they’ve known for nearly a decade.
“The lack of a clear policy direction from the opposition National Party has given Helen Clark and Labour renewed hope of winning an unlikely election victory as the National Party has yet to make the case for why it deserves to form the next New Zealand Government.
Electors were asked: “If an election were held today which party would receive your party vote?”
This latest Morgan Poll on voting intention was conducted by telephone with a New Zealand-wide cross-section of 841 electors from August 18 — 31, 2008.
Roy Morgan Polls
Roy Morgan Poll: August 15 2008
Roy Morgan Poll: August 1 2008
c Political Animal 2008
The second letter from Owen Glenn refuting Winston Peters claims in the media and a written reply to Glenn's first letter of explanation over the Peters $100,000 donations.
The three letters have been submitted to the Privileges Committee as evidence.
Glenn here reiterates his initial letter and makes clear the unreliable claims made by Peters over dates, an appearance at a race meeting and the people involved.
Glenn will give evidence in person to the Privileges Committee on Tuesday but it is likely Peters lawyer, Peter Williams and Peters himself will try and disrupt the hearing as much as possible as they did this morning.
Mr Simon Power MP
Chairperson
Privileges Committee
House of Representatives
Parliament Buildings
WELLINGTON
27th August, 2008
Dear Mr Power
RE: Complaint concerning my donation to Rt Hon Winston Peters MP
I refer to my letter of 19 August and to the reply to it of Rt Hon Mr Winston Peters MP dated 26 August.
First, I confirm that the letter sent to you on 19 August was from me, but was unsigned because of the difficulty I had at the time with the location of a fax machine. The Clerk of the house was asked whether a signed copy was needed. This was not responded to. I attach with this letter a signed copy of the letter of 19 August, to tidy that aspect up accordingly.
Second, I would like to affirm to you the correctness of what I have said to you in my letter of 19 August, and to comment on some of the observations that Rt Hon Mr Peters has made in his letter to you of 26 August.
(a) I gave the authority for the payment instructions to be made on 20 December 2005 to Mr BP Henry's account. Mr Henry supplied the ASB bank account details in an email from him addressed to me on Wednesday 14 December 2005. That email from Mr Henry refers to an earlier telephone conversation between me and a person Mr Henry refers to as "my client" that same day. My recollection is that I was called by Mr Peters to seek financial assistance for his electoral petition challenge. I agreed to that request because I understood that it would be of assistance to the Labour party, which had the confidence and supply agreement with New Zealand First at the time we spoke. I do not recall that I had any conversation with Mr Henry about my donation. There is absolutely no doubt that the request came to me from Mr Peters, I would not have made the donation on any other basis through any intermediary. I did not do so.
(b) I believe that I first met Mr Peters at 3pm in Sydney on Friday 12 August at the Four Seasons Hotel. My personal assistant was with me at the meeting. I have no recollection of meeting him at an earlier time but it is possible.
(c) I was not at the Karaka sales in early 2007, I was at the sales in early 2006. I believe that the statement I made to you in my letter of 19 August is factually accurate.
I am happy to respond to any further questions from you, if that would be helpful.
Yours faithfully,
Owen G. Glenn
Related Political Animal reading
Ist Owen Glenn Letter to Privileges Committee
Winston Peters Letter to Privileges Committee
c Political Animal 2008
The bullshit from Winston Peters is set to continue this morning.
The Privileges Committee that is looking into secret donations from Owen Glenn to Winston Peters/NZ First sits again and will apparently hear new written evidence from Owen Glenn and clearly yet more bullshit from Peters.
It has been rumoured that Glenn will appear in person before the Committee next week.
Since the committee sat last Thursday Peters and his party has been beset by a slew of new donation revelations and more bullshit from Winnie supporters to explain these revelations away.
The more time passes, the closer Winston's initial lies and denials over getting money from Glenn, the Vela Brothers, Bob Jones and probably yours truly(I forget) cant withstand scrutiny.
More lies and excuses have had to be spun to explain away the inconsistencies of previous bullshitting.
The latest revelation earlier this week from Peter Brown, NZ First MP and Winnie's bed mate, was that office staff had "make a mistake" over $50000.00 of donations made to the party in 2005 and not declared and therefore that is the end of the matter.
Id like to know the name of the auditor blamed and hear what he has to say.
The stink over that cow dung is extruded to great lengths even further because Prime Minister Helen Clark believes that the explanation from Brown is plausible and things are just hunky dory.
Perhaps the fact that Ms Clark's Labour Party are now passing multiple poorly drafted and fraudulently intentioned laws(the Emissions Trading(TAX) Bill and Bio-fuels Bill two glaring examples)under urgency and she needs Peters vote to get them through, has something to do with her complicity in the face of the cow pats raining down on her from her support Party.
Meanwhile Bauble Boy Peters has been stood down from office but still receives the $500 a day salary, expenses, ministerial limo and car and various taxpayer funded support staff.
From an individual who said before the 2005 election that he would "not take the baubles of office" over his political principles(I'm doubled up and writhing on the floor with laughter at this point) it is clear that it is only the Baubles that now exist.
It is time that Winston Peter's Baubles were taken in hand and removed by Clark but because her political future is in doubt she is afraid to grab them.
And that just stinks.
c Political Animal 2008
National Party Deputy Leader Bill English says the Electoral Commission has confirmed that Labour's Electoral Finance Act is unenforceable and has had a 'chilling' impact on our democracy.
"The admissions from Dr Helena Catt at a conference yesterday are worrying in the extreme.
"As New Zealanders head to the polls, the Electoral Commission is effectively saying it is unable to promise that the law will be properly policed or applied. That is the direct consequence of Labour's decision to railroad the law into place with the support of New Zealand First and the Greens.
"The EFA, like the controversial Emissions Trading Scheme, had hundreds of amendments that the public had no chance to comment on."
Dr Catt said of the EFA that:
• Implementation planning and process development had to begin while the shape of the final legislation was unclear. The significant changes to the Bill at Select Committee, and a lack of time between enactment and commencement also meant that interpretive and practical implications could not be worked through in advance of the law being in force.
• It is clear that having uncertainty remaining within the regulated period has had a chilling effect on the extent and type of participation in political and campaign activity … The meanings of significant sections of the legislation are obscure.
• The commission is not confident that it will be able to reach informed positions on the interpretation of some provisions within the election period, and notes that the situation is exacerbated by the legal reality that it cannot finally determine questions of whether, for instance, an item is an election advertisement.
"The Electoral Commission has confirmed National's worst fears. The voices of those who want to participate in our democracy have been silenced, and just a few months out from the election, watchdogs still don't know what an election advertisement is.
"When it came to election laws, Labour put self-serving politics ahead of good, enduring policy. With the ETS, history is repeating."
Seleted Political Animal Electoral Finance Act coverage
Labour first to break own Electoral Finance Act
2008 Electoral Finance Act protest
Electoral Finance Act March Mar 9, 2008
Electoral Finance Bill VoteNZ losses democratic freedom
Mike Moore turns the knife
List of MPs who voted for Act
Cartoon and comment
2007 Auckland Protest against EFB
The purpose of the Bill is clear
Links c Political Animal 2007 & 2008
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.
Following revelations yesterday that many donations made to the political party NZ First, were not declared simply because the office girl "made a mistake" German public relations guru Private Schultz (by name and by nature) has now come to Winston Peters defence and is speaking on his behalf.
When asked what Peters had told him about donations from Mr Owen Glenn, Sir Robert Jones, The Vela brothers and a whole host of other secret donations Private Schultz replied, "I know nothing, I see nothing , I say nothing".
Given the German connection now apparent SFO Investigators are now searching Berlin for evidence of donations from various German sources to Winston Peters or his party but they are being hamstrung by a plain buxom blond office girl, who has just started in the job and has a bad memory.
The girl, German wrestler Helene Clarkitz was staying silent. Sources say six months of interogation might make her talk, because Clark was "one sour kraut".
Private Schultz' law firm Hogan, Kintch, LeBeau, Carter and Newkirk partners are advising lawyers for Winston Peters and have been retained for the duration of the opposition attack on Peters.
Another source close to the story, Mr Klink had only one thing to say about the whole saga.
PETERS!!!!!
c Political Animal 2008
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.
While very serious issues of honesty and accountability surround Winston Peters and his boss Ms Clark, it might be interesting to see what blogs of all flavours are talking about.
Lets start with the Labour Party affiliated and funded blog The Standard.
It has its crotchless knickers in a twist over Key making a reference to Barry Obama, a meeting between Lord Ashcroft and John Key-both clear made up "news" and the new National Party billboards.
From The Standard:
OK, so there are limitless ways to mock the Nat’s ‘WW2 bombers flying to Chile’ billboard (send us yours to add to these ones) but I want to quickly examine it seriously as a piece of political argument. Continue reading ‘Dissection’
As the Serious Fraud Office has now moved on obtained documents regarding the alleged corruption of Winston Raymond Peters, 63, List MP of no fixed abode it begs the question as to what else there may be out there.
While the previously secret video clip questions Suminovich’s credibility I’m not sure it is the smoking gun it was touted to be against Peters.
We know what Winnie is up to at his girlfriend's house in Herne Bay-blogging
“We believe that an emissions trading system is the sensible approach for New Zealand to take in response to the huge challenge of climate change.”
Who said that?
I’ll tell you – it was the National Party’s Nick Smith at the end of 2007 talking on the Climate Change Bill. Smith went on to say, “We now welcome the fact that there is consensus between the major parties that an Emissions Trading System, covering all sectors and all gases, is the right way forward.”
A press release from NZ First have just blamed "office staff" for "making a mistake" over failing to declare $50000.00 donated to the party in 2005.
Peter Brown declared that is appeared to be a "genuine mistake".
I'm not sure if it was Brown or Winnie who concocted this latest whopper but surely it would have been easy to blame the office boy immediately there were questions over the 50K months ago.
Not as bad as Helen Clark's omission of knowledge that she knew about Winston Peters funding irregularities 6 months ago but surely given several weeks the Brown/Peters concoction could have been cooked a bit longer before serving?
Political Animal 2008
I have to admit it I am like Obama because I have a similar haircut-it doesn't make me Presidential material though.
O.K. lets have a full look at the article that the Left is bleating about to deflect scrutiny over secret donations, undeclared funds and lies from Winston Peters and omissions of truth from the Prime Minister over Winnie's behaviour.
Here is the Obama reference in its full context where it makes sense. From the Financial Times.
But John Key, a 47-year-old former Merrill Lynch investment banker and republican, risks arriving ahead of time.
After entering parliament just six years ago he stunned many by taking over in 2006 as leader of the conservative National party and he will become the most inexperienced politician to lead New Zealand in more than 100 years if he succeeds in winning government.
“I’m a bit like [Barack] Obama. I am not institutionalised in Wellington [the country’s capital],” Mr Key told the Financial Times from his parliamentary office. “I had 18 years in the commercial world and I will be quite pragmatic.”
Mr Key said his years in Singapore, London, and New York, where he latterly ran global foreign exchange for Merrill Lynch and spent two years on the foreign exchange committee of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, would help.
Continued
It was a small, off the cuff comment by Key, the larger part of the article mentions nothing else Obamaesque-thank god for that!!
Duncan Garner on TV3 last night is getting almost as desperate as Helen Clark.
Another fabricated non-story about Lord Ashcroft meeting John Key for dinner, and the Obamarama piece latter on in the TV3 "news".
But he conceded that his experience in finance was useful only to a point. “There are a huge range of issues you need to be across. Economics is good but it is only one part,” he said.
It is very 3rd form video studies type stuff from Garner.
c Political Animal 2008
Helen Clark today accused the SFO of leaking the inquiry into the Winston Peters/Owen Glenn /Helen Clark donation scandal to the National Party.
Both the SFO and the National Party of course denied it because it was palpably untrue.
Ms Clark latter conceded that the leak may have come from the police or another government organisation-not true again and largely unimportant in the grand scheme of things.
The latest on Clark's accusations of interference by the SFO is that Clark knew on the Wednesday before the SFO announced the next day that Peters would be investigated by the organisation.
This is according to Fran O'Sullivan on Newstalk ZB news on a late news bulletin, Monday 1 Sept.
c Political Animal 2008
As the series Why did you buy that stock? comes to an end-unless I add a new company to the Share Investor Portfolio- the last company in the portfolio I will look at is blue chip darling Fletcher Building Ltd [FBU.NZ]
National Party Leader John Key today launched the first of a series of billboards highlighting the issues the party believes matter to New Zealanders.
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
Yet more desperation from a cornered Helen Clark.
Clark could go before the Privileges Committee this Thursday, if called.
Clark would be asked how much more she knows about Winston Peters and the $100,000 he got from Owen Glenn.
Direct from the Winston Peters playbook called "Accuse when you are being attacked" Clark has come out with a bizarre and unsubstantiated claim that the Serious Fraud Office tipped off the National Party over their move on Peters.
Smearing the SFO for no good reason? well, Labour and Winston have been trying to get rid of the SFO for some time but simply making up stuff to deflect from the fact that you haven't been honest about what you knew about Peters and his wayward donations is clearly VERY desperate stuff.
Of course the accusation hold no water. The SFO and John Key have come out and put the record straight.
There was no tip off.
To accuse a Government department of corruption -that is what a real tip-off to a political party would be- is a very serious statement to make in isolation from the whole Glenn/Peters/Clark saga, but making it in conjunction with fact floating around her about a Prime Minister withholding information on a fellow Minister, who is under the cloud of corruption charges is a desperate move in the extreme.
It exemplifies the strain Ms Clark has put herself under by not being open and honest in the first place.
c Political Animal 2008
The Greens are today prevaricating over whether they should vote so Helen Clark has to give evidence at the Privileges Committee, due to meet this Thursday over the Winston/Glenn/Clark payola scandal.
Clark knew about the Glenn donations in February but chose last Thursday to make them public, after the heat from the Serious Fraud Office and written statements by Owen Glenn forced her hand and it is those statements from Glenn, and other evidence that the public might not be aware of that Ms Clark could be called to the Committee on.
From The NZ Herald:
National would need seven votes on the privileges committee to call Prime Minister Helen Clark to answer questions on the Owen Glenn affair.
It could count on votes from its four MPs (chairman Simon Power, Gerry Brownlee, Murray McCully and Wayne Mapp) and Act's Heather Roy.
Labour's four MPs (Michael Cullen, Lianne Dalziel, Paul Swain and Russell Fairbrother) and NZ First's Dail Jones would vote against, which would leave National chasing two of the last three votes.
Those deciding votes would come from Russel Norman (Greens), Peter Dunne (United Future) and Hone Harawira (Maori Party).
Russel Norman has come out today and cast doubt over whether he would force Clark to give evidence, so that just leaves professional racist Hone Harawira from the Maaoori Party as a deciding vote.
Hone came out yesterday in the media and slammed Labour's chances at the 2008 election.
The Labour-led government was "stale" and arrogant and it was time for a change of government. "They're suffering from the arrogance of being in power too long"
With this and Maori forestry land being devalued by 2 billion dollars through the impending Emissions Trading Law, it looks likely that Hone could be the first cab off the rank to get Ms Clark to appear at the Commission and tell the truth-for a change.
c Political Animal 2008
The Labour Party's direct mouthpiece on the Internet, the Labour Party funded The Standard Blog is doing a Helen Clark-she refused to speak over the weekend. It is discussing everything but the Glenn/Peters/Clark payola scandal because even "Steve Pierson" who wrote this, cant spin the news story of last week and at least another couple of weeks, in Labour's favour.
I’m not going to spend a lot of time on Peters because its not the kind of issue that affects Kiwis lives (its messy but its not like secretly planning to sell public assets). I’d rather use my post-writing time taking a deeper look at the findings of the Social Report. But…
What else are the girls at The Standard talking about instead of THE most important political crises since Muldoon got pissed and called an early election in 1984?
John Key on Facebook-or my Facebook is bigger than yours
After I was part of the ‘Great NZ Sell-off’ skit protest outside the National Party conference at the start of the month, I did a wee interview with a journo from NewstalkZB and he, knowing I’ve got something to do with this interweb thing, asked ‘what do you think of the fact that John Key’s Facebook page has twice as many supporters as Helen Clark’s?’
Morris Williamson's sensible ideas on road funding from a week ago-Labour will toll and has already passed legislation to allow local politicians to charge 5c a litre on your gas. Extra taxes for your Holden will also be on the cards under Labour.
John Key tells us that National hasn’t decided yet what it would spend its extra borrowing on, what projects would be PPPs, what roads would be tolled under National.
Labours List-buried by the Glenn/Peters/Clark scandal, I think the author meant to write "our" instead of "their".
Comment soon but for now here’s their full list (PDF link).
A deluge of Australians moving to New Zealand-What?
We’re used to hearing opposition parties talk about people rushing to Australia. But let’s remember we’re attractive to Australia too
The Social Policy Report-A self-congratulatory Labour prepared report on how much Labour have helped the proletariat.
These things do not just happen and they are not just the actions of ‘evil’ people who deserve punishment; they are social phenomena linked to the health of a society.
Homosexuals in New Zealand-The fascination by Labour for everything but Mum Dad and the kids. Apparently one cant have a different opinion if you are not a Homosexual and if you do you are somehow a "gay hater".
Youtube Video
Dancing around the subject is not my style. I like to face up to my accusers. It is something that one does when one doesn't have anything to hide. One can have respect for an individual, even if they have committed a heinous act, if they simply front up and tell the truth.
You have to ask yourself then if you are being truthful about getting donations from wealthy business people or having timing and disclosure issues over when you heard something then if you were telling the truth you would front up with the goods.
Our Prime Minister, Ms Clark, hasn't been up front yet and there have been questions over her honesty, again, and Winston Peters has clearly been caught out lying through his back teeth.
The Labour Party Blog, The Standard is echoing its Prime Minister's prevarication on the truth, stalling tactics, bluster and spin.
Meanwhile today, back on the main news story of the past week and probably this one and longer, Helen Clark may be called before the Privileges Committee to give her evidence that she knew about the Owen Glenn donation in February and kept it secret until last week.
Interesting that a Lawyer that works close with the Government on Government legal contracts, May Chen, said yesterday on Agenda that those with hearsay evidence-Helen Clark and Owen Glenn-should be before the Privileges Committee, so they can see witnesses' "demeanor".
Chen dismissed having Clark as an in-person witness but mentioned that Owen Glenn in the same capacity was crucial for hearsay evidence.
Funny that Clark spun that same line this morning on the Paul Holmes show and quoted May Chen and the Agenda programme.
It really is a small world.
c Political Animal 2008
