Submission On ETS Amendment Bill

Wednesday, November 11, 2009


burning money, emissions trading
Click to enlarge

I wish to make a submission on the Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill. Official submissions have closed, but that’s all right, as I mean to to publish my mine here, where someone who cares might read it.

I OPPOSE the Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill.

1. While its purpose is laudable, I believe the mechanism is inappropriate.

2. The most notable change brought about by this bill would be giving polluters, to 2050, one hundred billion dollars ($100 000 000 000), money which under the scheme as it stands would go to the Government. (See figure 1.)

3. That’s one hundred billion dollars less incentive for the economy to reduce carbon emissions, and one hundred billion dollars less money for tax cuts, hip operations, trips to Hawaii, buying Kyoto credits and so on.

4. As I say, I am right behind that idea, but the proposed system for delivering the money is unnecessarily complicated.

One tip to a thinner treasury – official government graphs
Click to enlarge

[figure 1]

5. Since, under the proposed intensity-based system, polluters will be able to gain credits by reducing emissions and by increasing them – why not just hand these industries a great big cheque?

6. In these difficult times, with the government fighting a “decade of deficits” and wondering how to pay for ACC, I think the nation would be cheered by the spectacle of Nick Smith handing polluters a giant novelty cheque for one hundred billion dollars.

7. A giant novelty cheque made of coal.

8. No no no – made of diamonds.

9. By the way, I apologise if I’ve said anything racist. Apparently I’ve got no idea what counts as racism. Judging by what everyone else says, I tend to mistake it for someone’s self-serving justification of their own sense of entitlement. Which is, in itself, less despicable and – perhaps even among politicians – more common.

10. Also, if a reporter can’t tell the difference between a simple declaration and a rhetorical exaggeration wrapped in a conditional statement, they should be shot.

11. Where was I?

12. I may be mistaken about the purpose of this bill. It might be that it is not designed to hand vast amounts of cash to industry.

13. Perhaps it is done out of enthusiasm of global warming. Or the National Party’s much-voiced antipathy to Government surpluses.

14. If the second option is the case, I suggest we should pour the money into a hole in the ground.

15. As well as minimising transaction costs, this would sequester the carbon content of five billion (5 000 000 000) twenty dollar notes.

16. I release that may be of little – even entirely rhetorical – benefit to net New Zealand carbon emissions. But even that much would be an improvement on the current bill.

17. I do not wish to speak to my motherf*****g submission.


Labels: , , , , , ,