Posts by Whoops
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
@Angus
Fact - a NZ ETS will encourage the planting of trees and the removal of sheep and cows in NZ. By doing so it will in turn incentivise the farming of cattle and the destruction of rainforests in the tropics. An ETS will be bad for Planet Earth.
Not if you listen to KFA... this is the lobby group that Nick Smith is really scared of, not those Fed Farmers pussies...
-
Also... an appology to Guyon (if you're reading this) regarding my earlier post, I've gone an read through the transcript. He did a better job than I had initially thought (still... apples/apples economic fudging is poltics 101, and Nick should've been called on it).
-
Lovely post Ian
Mrs Buttle. -
Let me know if you want more.
-
@ George
You'd rightly expect him and his advisors to recognise the limitations of the report, however.
If you knew who his advisors were you'd set a much lower expectation, and in any case you're assuming they and the Minister were wanting to use the reports' findings correctly...
-
The problem is when some fuckwit takes your worst-case-scenario and pretends it's the mid-point.
Yep.
Still trying to figure my way around forests... who knew counting trees was so hard?
Have a look here
-
International comparisons;
The Republicans inflated the cost of cap and trade by a factor of 20x according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Climate change legislation pending in Congress would cost U.S. households only about $175 annually in higher energy and consumer prices, far less than the $3,100 “burden” opponents have claimed would result, according to a Congressional Budget Office estimate. “The net annual economywide cost of the cap and trade program in 2020 would be $22 billion, or about $175 per household,” the CBO, which gives Congress nonpartisan advice about the impact of legislation under consideration, said in an analysis delivered to Congress late on Friday. The $3100 dollar estimate came from this study which estimates the cost of cap and trade at $366 billion. In March, House Republicans get ahold of this paper, divided $366 billion by the number of households in America, and concluded erroneously that $3,128 will be the average cost per home. In fact, if they read the study they would see the actual costs to consumers would begin at $31 a year in 2015 (cf. Table 8) or $79 per family. But the Republicans knew that. Why? Because the author of the paper wrote a letter to Minority Leader Boehner telling him the NPV cost of cap and trade to a household was about $75/year. At which point the Republicans stood by their dumb math. Now we have a tie-breaker from the CBO where the Republicans are off by a mere factor of 20 rather than 40. But, hey, why let facts get in the way?
from
http://bipartreport.com/2009/06/cbo-cap-and-trade-will-cost-175-per-household/
andUSDA performed a preliminary economic analysis of the impacts of House-passed climate legislation, HR 2454, on U.S. agriculture. **The analysis assumes no technological change, no alteration of inputs in agriculture, and no increase in demand for bio-energy as a result of higher energy prices**. Therefore, it overestimates the impact of the climate legislation on agriculture costs in the short (2012-18), medium (2027-2033), and long-term (2042 to 2048). In USDA’s analysis, short-term costs remain low in part because of provisions in HR 2454 that reduce the impacts of the bill on fertilizer costs. In fact, the impact on net farm income is less than a 1% decrease. In the short run, agricultural offset markets may cover these costs. Over the mediumterm and long-term, costs to agriculture rise but remain modest (3.5% and 7.2% decreases in net farm income, respectively). However, benefits to agriculture from an offsets market rise over time and will likely overtake costs in the medium and long term. Other studies that account for the impact of higher energy prices on input substitution and demand for bio-energy find that HR2454 leads to higher agricultural incomes, even without offsets. In summary, USDA’s analysis shows that the agricultural sector will have modest costs in the short-term and net benefits – perhaps significant net benefits – over the long-term.
from
http://www.usda.gov/documents/PreliminaryAnalysis_HR2454.pdf
-
-
Hey, Sony NZ... where's my PlayTV for the PS3 you conned me into buying? eh?
PlayTV vs getting Freeview was the only way my wife (She Who Controls All) would allow the purchase, and now she want's answers...
-
@ Keith
I don't think it was an assumption that prices will go to $200 if there was a 40% reduction - it was just a high-end scenario. "Where would we be if price was at $200 *and* we were faced with a 40% reduction?"
Whoops: It doesn't test for price @ $200 for other reduction scenarios because it doesn't consider $200 to be likely. That's why it's the only scenario at $200.
Sure... my point was that why do a calc for 40% (which is the politically charged figure) that's so out of whack with the other targets?
I've checked with one of the authors of the report;
0% change in AAU’s @ $100/t => RGNDI of $48k
+15% change in AAU’s @ $100/t => RGNDI of $48.4k
-15% change in AAU’s @ $100/t => RGNDI of $47.6k
-40% change in AAU’s @ $100/t => RGNDI of $47kAnd
0% change in AAU’s @ $25/t => RGNDI of $48.7k
+15% change in AAU’s @ $25/t => RGNDI of $48.8k
-15% change in AAU’s @ $25/t => RGNDI of $48.6k
-40% change in AAU’s @ $25/t => RGNDI of $48.4kso with their modelling a 40% target isn't that much worse than the others, but it sure looks like it if you cherry pick the $200/t value and slap it in a press release against the $100/t ones.
ps; Guyon - Do your job properly please. This is a big, serious issue that will profoundly affect NZ - and you're helping politicians mislead the public. Go away and read this. Greenpeace's target may/may not be bollocks, but come on man, have some pride in your work.