Posts by mccx
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
You assume that farmers are driven by something other than mere survival. That is prejudice.
It's not prejudice, and it's nothing to do with some reified rural/urban divide. It's the way the existing economic and sectoral structure of the industry work. Some farmers may be driven by something besides economic interests, but even when farmers own their operation they often don't have complete autonomy in their farm management decisions. If a farmer want to take on debt are banks going to be as willing to lend for a less profitable operation? Will farmers who don't maximize profit be priced out of the land market? Getting better environmental performance out of farming doesn't just take farmers, it requires change in the sector and government as well.
-
Hard News: Fact and fantasy, in reply to Farmer Green,
If seems to me that if there is surefire way to get more value out of less milk that the dairy industry would be interested in doing this (or possibly already doing this.) What I don't see is how this means that NZ winds up with fewer cows. Why wouldn't this just lead to more intensification and more conversions to dairy? The point of the any industry, dairy or otherwise, is not to produce X amount of profit, but to produce more profit. Then the more money the industry makes, the less the government is willing to interfere in that industry with regulation, etc.
-
Poor people should pay less burdensome taxation than rich people. As a tax rate governments would be free to set the rate.
I agree. My point was that it's not possible to imagine carbon taxes without a set of binding emissions limits for countries. The whole purpose of the Kyoto framework to establish and ratchet down these binding quantitative limits. Countries not signing on for Kyoto2 does not make the adoption of carbon taxes more likely, it makes it less likely.
A level cap places highest marginal costs upon the poorer group of nations to subsidise the technological advancement of the richer group – unfair.
Sorry but that doesn't make sense to me. Given how much higher per capita emissions are in developed countries, the marginal costs of reducing these emissions to the level of per-capita emissions in developed countries and below is going to be more expensive in developed countries than in developing countries. There's a reason 'cap and share' is widely seen as fair. It doesn't end global inequality, but it does frame an equitable distribution of emissions allowances.
-
Hard News: Fact and fantasy, in reply to Farmer Green,
Do you see no prospect of a better arrangement? Perhaps NZ would be better to identify what is most important to us , and attempt to bring it about. It may be that climate is the least of our concerns as a nation.
I don't think you're reading what I wrote. Better long-term climate agreements are possible, but their adoption is very uncertain at present. Kyoto2 is a short-term agreement that extends the current framework and did not interfere with adopting a long-term agreement. The government posed a short-term commitment and working toward a long-term agreement as somehow contradictory, when they are actually steps toward the same goal.
NZ has a moral responsibility to be part of global progress toward effective emissions reductions regardless of the effects of climate change in NZ. We're a long way off of doing our part now. Same goes for a number of other international and domestic environmental issues (which I suppose is what led us to this discussion in the first place.)
-
Hard News: Fact and fantasy, in reply to Angus Robertson,
So do I, but I also think that we are never going to be able to agree on a cap. So what does it leave us with?
My 2c answer – tax the consumer.
I agree that widespead adoption of effective emissions caps is in the near future is unlikely, but I can't see widespread adoption of carbon consumption taxes as politically feasible either. Wouldn't developing countries just say that the level of tax they levy should be deservedly less than that of developed countries? The fairest solution would seem to be an equal per capita allotment of allowable emissions that at an aggregate level avoids dangerous climate change.
I don't see how NZ opting out of Kyoto2 gets either NZ or the rest of the world closer to either equitable or effective solutions though.
-
Hard News: Fact and fantasy, in reply to Angus Robertson,
I agree that the proposed Kyoto cap levels are unfair to the developing world and that they were promoted by the developed world on the basis of domestic political feasibility. What's the developing world's solution though? I thought it was uncontroversial that a cap was needed, but that the terms of the debate were about whose cap is at what level. I have a hard time imagining how continuing growth of emissions from the developing world and significant climatic change, even if it came with technology transfer and development aid, would turn out to be a good deal for the developing world.
-
Hard News: Fact and fantasy, in reply to DexterX,
What are you doing about it?
Why? Because how much I personally do should determine how much I get to advocate for change? Like how if I pay less in taxes I should have a smaller say in government policy?
But to play along, I cycle when and where I can, I try to make ethical consumer decisions including eating less meat and eating seasonally, and taking fewer long-distance trips that I'd like. I'm also doing a degree in a related area and have in the past been involved with community planning groups. But I also live in an inefficient flat (because it's what's here and what I can afford) and consume many of that same things other New Zealanders do.
I can't personally change climate action any more than I can change agricultural pollution. That's enough though. This discussion is neither very on topic nor feels like it's going to do any good.
-
Hard News: Fact and fantasy, in reply to Farmer Green,
Which I why I said Kyoto 2 is supposed to be a step towards including everyone. NZ starting the changes to reduce emissions sooner isn't symbolic. It makes reducing more later that much easier.
-
Hard News: Fact and fantasy, in reply to Farmer Green,
It's not actually an either/or. Both Australia and the EU are doing Kyoto 2 AND working toward a global agreement.
-
Hard News: Fact and fantasy, in reply to Farmer Green,
In this particular context “broad” means global right?
No and yes. The point applies at any scale. A majority of Petone residents, a majority of Wellingtonians, a majority of NZers, a majority of everyone. I'd say it's most important in countries with high per capita emissions (like NZ) but the more places that enable low-emissions lifestyles the more common low-emissions lifestyles will be.