Join! it's $20

Fix the Carbon Trading Scheme

Fix the Carbon Trading Scheme

The cost of carbon emissions needs to be made real for there to be the needed incentive to change practices. The National Govt in the 1990's tried to introduce an effective scheme which was resisted "tooth and nail" by the Business Roundtable who brought out "Climate Change" deniers to NZ. Labour introduced a cut down scheme but left in an ability to trade in "international credits" These Junk bonds drove the price down to the degree that there was no incentive to change practice or plant trees. Simply removing the international option means that we in NZ get the benefit locally and the price should return to something realistic. Also agriculture needs to be included. Essentially it is our children's and grandchildren's future that we are talking about.

Showing 16 reactions

How would you tag this suggestion?

Sign in with

Or sign in with email

    Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.
    • Dennis Ingram
      commented 2016-12-03 17:43:50 +1300
      Either a better emissions trading scheme or carbon tax, I think something needs to be done (if 99% of climate scientists are to be believed). We live in a capitalist society, so taxing or trading are the tools at hand.
    • Dennis Ingram
      tagged this with important 2016-12-03 17:43:50 +1300
    • Matt Walkington
      commented 2016-12-01 10:36:27 +1300
      It is essential that some policy change happens that produces a meaningful carbon price.

      The issue with the ETS is that such a meaningful price will impact disproportionately on those who can lest afford it and well off people will simply go on with business as usual. The ETS is a regressive measure and is likely to be unpopular when it produces a meaningful carbon price. There are alternatives that suffer less in this way.

      It is also essential that attitudes change so that the global rich 10 of people immediately modify their lifestyle to halve their emissions, the effect of which would be to drop global emissions by 20-30.
    • Matt Walkington
      tagged this with essential 2016-12-01 10:36:26 +1300
    • Matt Walkington
      commented 2016-12-01 10:23:43 +1300
      The way I would fix it us with a fee and dividend scheme

      http://www.top.org.nz/mattw/the_new_zealand_fee_and_dividend_scheme

      Note: such a scheme does not involve the concept of a cap. Instead it sets the price of carbon directly at a sufficiently high level to produce behaviour change (I.e. reduce emissions). The price can be raised if it is not having an effect and can be set well in advance according to a well advertised schedule to provide certainty for business.

      Note: the fee and dividend scheme could certainly include agriculture and all significant greenhouse gas emissions.
    • Gene Dalefield
      tagged this with interesting 2016-11-30 15:40:04 +1300
    • Alan Barraclough
      tagged this with essential 2016-11-29 21:23:52 +1300
    • Paul Eaton
      commented 2016-11-29 19:29:54 +1300
      Sorry Sue, but animal agriculture is the 2nd highest use responsible for climate change after energy and beats transport (according the the UN committee on climate change). Methane (from cows) has 5 times the effect of CO2, land is cleared to farm, you need 10x as much land to produce 1kg of animal protein as plant protein, the number of dairy cows in NZ has increased 5 fold in the last 20 years. Animal agriculture has a large part to play in climate change.
    • James Reardon
      commented 2016-11-29 19:22:58 +1300
      There is a lot of noise in the data surrounding the actual contribution of livestock to green house gases at the global scale according to the literature I’ve read but this Lancet article seems to present a compelling and broad case for their inclusion in any attempt to control ongoing GHG emissions, might be of interest Sue: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ricardo_Uauy/publication/5971535_Energy_and_health_5_-_Food_livestock_production_energy_climate_change_and_health/links/09e4150fe63eabd53e000000.pdf
    • Sue Rine
      commented 2016-11-29 18:58:48 +1300
      I do question the inclusion of animals though, since they don’t create carbon. They can only emit what they have previously taken in, although maybe in a different form. Also, it seems pointless to replace efficient production with less efficient overseas production. By the way, agriculture is already included through the purchase of petroleum based products and the repayment of carbon credits upon harvest of trees. It’s just their animals that are not included.
    • Sue Rine
      tagged this with essential 2016-11-29 18:58:48 +1300
    • James Reardon
      commented 2016-11-28 23:30:16 +1300
      I suggest the opportunity to look for solutions that maintain international trading is important as this has to be a global system to be effective, I can’t see how a lot of closed carbon markets could thwart the big global emitting sectors (agriculture, power generation, transport infrastructure) without the competition and advantages of progressive policy. However, from what little I understand of global carbon markets, there is a lot of junk credits and very questionable accounting to be negotiated.
    • James Reardon
      tagged this with essential 2016-11-28 23:30:15 +1300
    • Tam Eaton
      followed this page 2016-11-28 15:41:01 +1300
    • Kirk Archibald
      followed this page 2016-11-28 15:32:33 +1300
    • Paul Eaton
      published this page in Suggestions 2016-11-28 13:18:10 +1300