The Cabinet paper on the upcoming changes to the ETS is out. While there are some significant changes proposed to the settings of the ETS and how it works, the main focus of the media has been on the delay for the entry of livestock emissions.
Under the proposed changes the delay in entry of biological emissions was to be for a maximum of three years. We submitted that there was no point in placing a maximum on the delay. If the conditions required for biological emissions to enter the ETS were not met then they should never enter regardless of what year it was. The Government has listened it appears and the 3 year maximum has been removed and the delay indefinite. Most submitters opposed delaying the entry of livestock emissions including our forestry friends.
Other changes heralded in the Cabinet paper see the requirement to review the ETS, which was put into the legislation as part of the National –ACT coalition agreement in 2008, dumped. There will no longer be any requirement for the Minister to review the ETS. Any review will instead be totally at the discretion of the Minister. The Minister has signalled that a review will be held in 2015 dealing with the entry date of biological emissions and the two for one surrender obligations. Whether this proceeds will be at the discretion of the Minister at the time.
The reason for dumping the review process is cited as avoiding “review fatigue” but I think delaying the next review to 2015 is more to do with the election than fatigue. In any case the fatigue is not ours, it is the Government’s. They are the ones that are getting weary of more and more compelling arguments against their ETS. Very few arguments in support of John Key’s ETS are compelling.
The other reason for abandoning the reviews is the Government’s desire to let the ETS slip into the background, constant reviews don’t help with that. We consumers pay for this nonsense everyday at the pump and in our power bills but we have no idea how much. The Government would like to keep it that way.
The Minister has also signalled that they are looking to move towards obligations being at the farm gate instead of processor level. This will make compliance with the scheme more expensive but it makes more environmental sense if you believe that livestock emissions can cause global warming. This is because farmers can be rewarded for reducing their imaginary emissions. If you don’t believe this nonsense then neither farm gate or processor level obligations make any sense. It will just be an expensive waste of money.
It will take a lot of work and money to get the scheme able to cope with farm gate reporting and it does not seem credible that they are going to go to that trouble and not bring biological emissions into the ETS at some time. We want that time to be never, so better for them to remove biological emissions from the ETS altogether and not waste all that money developing the compliance regime for farm gate reporting. By developing a farm gate reporting system it also removes one of the reasons to keep bio emissions out of the ETS, namely that processor level reporting will not promote change on the farm so why bother. Bringing farm gate reporting in will mean reasons to bring agriculture into the ETS become more compelling.
Egg producers will be removed from the ETS because emissions are small and compliance costs high. They join the horse industry in being exempt from the ETS for the reason of cost.
Right at the back of the Cabinet paper is an admission from the Minister that the ETS is not working.
It says that New Zealand’s primary measure to reduce emissions is the ETS. Even with the ETS in place, NZ’s emissions are projected to increase significantly over the long term. Therefore we may need to consider other measures that could help reduce NZ’s emissions.
So NZ’s primary measure to reduce emissions, the ETS, is not working. So why do we keep it? This is typical of politicians, they bring in a scheme to achieve something, it doesn’t work, so they keep it. I suppose if one wanted to be sympathetic to them one would recognise that for politicians the desire to do something is usually greater than their ability to it. That is why we have things like an ETS, micro chipping of dogs, anti smacking etc.
Morally though the image of a little old lady shivering in front of her heater with only one bar on because she can’t afford the power bill should make every politician who supports this ETS ashamed, even more so now they know it is not working.
You can see the cabinet paper here