Posts by Idiot Savant
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Thanks I/S - one other thing, they reference ~$400m over the four year period, not p.a. Agree with that?
Nope. Those sectors were responsible for 37.8 millions tons of emissions in 2007. A 50% subsidy means we pick up the tab for 18.9 million tons a year. At current carbon prices of $22.36 a year, that's $422.6 million a year (or $472.5 at the nominal $25 a ton price), or about $100 per kiwi.
-
George could you explain the workings behind that $1b number?
In 2007 (the latest year we have figures for), agriculture was responsible for 36.4 million tons. With the ongoing expansion of the dairy industry and resistance by farmers to any improvement in practices which could reduce emissions (even when it is profitable to them!), that figure is likely to grow.
Carbon costs around $25 a ton, give or take the exchange rate (currently due to the high dollar Treasury has it at $22.36 a ton). That number too is only likely to grow, as more countries sign up for emissions trading and caps are lowered.
National has committed to a 90% subsidy of whatever agriculture is emitting in 2015. Assuming that's the same as in 2007 (a conservative assumption), that means 32.8 million tons. Multiply that by $25 a ton and you get $820 million a year.
The number of credits will reportedly decline by 1.3% a year. But agricultural sector emissions are growing at a faster rate, while prices are likely to increase. The upshot: that cost is never going to go down. National has signed up to give farmers close to a billion a year in straight-out subsidies in perpetuity.
So, next time you see some farmer, ask him for your $200 back.
-
The way this story goes will be intriguing to follow. Does the media take the "electricity is cheaper for a bit, business is saved" line, or the "it costs taxpayers $430m a year and emissions won't come down as much" line.
The Dom-Post seems to be taking the latter line: Public to pay tab for polluters
I/S - is the $430m fiscal cost they reference above and beyond projections for the Labour ETS? Or inclusive of that?
Additional to. Its the cost of subsidising industrial, energy, and transport-sector emissions (petrol!) by 50% a year, based on 2006 emission levels.
-
Um, did the Maori Party just throw the rest of us under the bus there?
Yes - to the tune of $430 million a year, excluding agriculture.
That's serious money, which could be used for serious policy (alternatively, it could just not be borrowed). Instead, it is going straight from our pockets into the pockets of large polluters' (mostly foreign) shareholders. And we have the Maori Party to thank for it.
-
And Idiot/Savant has a graph.
Which doesn't show what I think it does. Its not millions of tons of CO2, but percentage of 2005 emissions.
it would be nice if supposedly professional government departments remembered the first rule fo graphs: always label your axes.
-
Call it another modus tollens (thank you Jack) - Science = Unnatural, imaginary made-up bullshit = Not Science, therefore Not Unnatural.
Actualy, I'd call that "denial of the antecedent".
-
<quote>You are kidding right? If I had a penny every time some Labour type has said `now we support that in principle but the money just isn't there' then I'd be able to fund half these damn programs.</quote.
But they don't talk about the big compromise, why the money isn't there: their continued commitment to NeoLiberal economic policies.
Why not? Because people might not like it. So they lie to us instead.
-
Let alone any effort to explain the compromise and why they made it. You know - treating us like adult citizens whose consent must be sought, rather than morons to be spun to.
To follow on from this: when the Greens compromise - on the Prisoners and Victims Claims Act, on the ETS, on cooperating with National - they have the decency to a) say they are doing it; and b) tell us why and what they hope to gain (and what they expect to lose) by doing so. In short, they treat us like adults. It would be nice if the leading party of the left did the same.
-
No, that's modus tollens. Modus ponens is "a, therefore b. a. Therefore, b." Modus tollens is "a, therefore b. Not b. Therefore, not a."
D'oh! Shows how much I've forgotten over the years.
-
Well, no. I'd even accept: they are willing to let inequality increase in exchange for increased economic growth, etc. But `happy for inequality to increase'? Yeah. No.
And yet, I see a spectacular lack of hand-wringing from them. Let alone any effort to explain the compromise and why they made it. You know - treating us like adult citizens whose consent must be sought, rather than morons to be spun to.
(Which neatly wraps back onto an earlier part of the thread: why doesn't Labour fight its corner? Why don't they advocate for their beliefs? Why are they so bloody timid? Are they that embarassed about their views? Are they that scared of saying anything?)