Have a plan for global warming/climate change:

Have a plan for global warming/climate change:

address solar tax, cost of electricity/government involvement in electricity retailers New Zealand is suffering from a quasi monopoly situation of the electricity sector, imposing crazy rates for solar panel users. Let's develop a policy that addresses electrical vehicles (a charging network/grid), solar energy for home use and commercial use.

Showing 17 reactions

  • Paul Eaton
    tagged this with important 2016-11-28 21:57:55 +1300
  • Paul Eaton
    tagged this with essential 2016-11-28 21:57:55 +1300
  • Mathew Knight
    tagged this with important 2016-11-28 17:09:05 +1300
  • duncan cairncross
    commented 2016-11-27 17:33:53 +1300
    Important – but the dropping costs of solar and electric cars will make this a no brainer soon
    Saying that the government could finance a “company” to make this easy – the Chinese price of solar panels is a LOT less than we have to pay here as in about one fifth!
  • duncan cairncross
    tagged this with important 2016-11-27 17:33:52 +1300
  • Renate de Ryk
    tagged this with interesting 2016-11-26 18:18:03 +1300
  • Richard Wyles
    tagged this with important 2016-11-26 11:08:26 +1300
  • John Rusk
    commented 2016-11-26 09:57:19 +1300
    Essential to have a plan. I’m not sure I fully agree with solar panels as being part of the solution (in a country where generation is dominated by hydro) however it’s definitely essential to have a viable and appropriate plan.
  • John Rusk
    tagged this with essential 2016-11-26 09:57:18 +1300
  • Graham Wallis
    commented 2016-11-25 17:05:42 +1300
    Stop arguing about what’s causing it, and build it into town planning- it’s not going to go away. We need a slow programmed withdrawal from very low-lying areas, or possible conversion by raising with solid fill. Don’t wait for the perfect storm. For example, South Dunedin will eventually be underwater from storms or tsunami, if not wrecked by liquefaction.
  • Graham Wallis
    tagged this with essential 2016-11-25 17:05:42 +1300
  • Philip Wilkinson
    commented 2016-11-25 15:18:39 +1300
    Hi Bart,
    Business will be driven overseas to maintain their customer base.
    example 1. Nuplex industries was employer of ~300 in new Zealand, Auck council forced emission controls on plants in Penrose and Onehunga. Nuplex purchased Chinese and Vietnamese plants and now import to NZ the same goods. Customer base maintained BUT environmentally not made under the same controls as they would have in Auckland… how many employees now employed By that company in NZ? And ask their clients if they have access to the same level and quality of technology.
    Have a look at the paint and printing ink suppliers in this country for similar examples.
    example 2.
    Is fontera really offshore to provide growrth for shareholders? their shareholders were the local farmers. Perhaps they see the writing on the wall for CO2 emisions making it too costly for dairy in NZ

    My comments re closing coal plants is focussed on NZ already having 80% renewable energy such as hydo… most other countries have 80% coal/oil so they can change to hydro and meet Kyoto requirements… we cant so need to aim at dairy. China shuts a coal plant and adds a million cows, everyone thinks they have done a great job.
  • Bart Brichau
    commented 2016-11-25 15:00:06 +1300
    Hi Philip
    allow me to address your response point by point.
    BUT to then allow goods manufactured with lesser controls without penalty into our country is not a level playing field”

    totally agreed. We should put import taxes / restrictions on those goods.

    “If we force a manufacturer to implement controls on their plant in NZ then we should apply tariffs to overseas manufacturers who do not have the same constraints on their manufacturing process.”


    “Effectively what we currently do is force “dirty industries” to clean up then hit them with a double whammy that ensures they are not competitive with their dirtier overseas competitors. i.e. the overseas supplier has lower costs because they have not had to spend on emision control"

    Is that not going to change over time with the Paris agreement?

    “this will drive the NZ company offshore and promote less effective environmental controls. This is not really NZ being a good global citizen.”

    Sorry I don’t understand that statement. Why would we drive the NZ company offshore when we have just said (above) that we would apply tariffs to overseas manufacturers? And why would NZ not be a good global citizen when we lead by example?

    “I wonder if this is the future for the dairy industry with regard CO2 emissions… (Fontera are already investing overseas)”

    Correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t Fonterra investing overseas to satisfy the hunger for growth of the shareholders and pay better dividend, ie. purely for financial reasons (other than just cost cutting related to cleaning up their dirt?)

    “Are we going to penalize the dairy industry to a point where its cheaper to import milk probably from countries where by shutting down coal plants they will be able to offset carbon credits…(we are already importing dutch milk powder). Seems NZ will be penalized in the same way for leading the world in renewable energy i.e. we cant close coal plants.”

    Why can’t we close coal plants? Won’t we stop importing dutch milk powder when we start applying tariffs to overseas manufacturers?

    Related to milk: why is a liter milk in NZ more expensive than a liter of fuel when the cows are grazing around the corner but the oil is imported? This is related to other suggestions around the lack of affordability of basics in NZ (due to monopoly/duopoly)
  • Philip Wilkinson
    commented 2016-11-25 14:40:58 +1300
  • Philip Wilkinson
    tagged this with important 2016-11-25 14:40:58 +1300
  • Peter Jamieson
    tagged this with important 2016-11-25 14:34:39 +1300
  • Bart Brichau
    published this page in Suggestions 2016-11-25 14:23:08 +1300