Thursday, November 26, 2009

Lets be realistic

We all know now that climate change is based on fraudulent data and that the ETS should not have been passed. But lets be realistic. The current piece of crap legislation is still better than the previous piece of crap legislation that Clark and her buddies passed last year.

What we need to do now is to put pressure on to repeal both pieces of legislation and get to a point where the climate change policy is based on open source science rather than closed source politically influenced pseudo science.

14 comments:

Psycho Milt said...

The current piece of crap legislation is still better than the previous piece of crap legislation that Clark and her buddies passed last year.

In what way?

sagenz said...

It reduces the putative cost and timeline of enforcement

Anonymous said...

Ummm crap sagenz. We're up for the costs (putative or any other variety) anyway. The Nats' version of the ETS just passes the bill from the emitters to the taxpayer (that's you), and will thus cost us more by removing any incentive to reduce said emissions.

Judge Holden

Anonymous said...

..and, one can avoid, for example, buying dairy to avoid a personal 'carbon cost', but not the cost of a tax. So much for user pays.

Psycho Milt said...

The Nats' version of the ETS just passes the bill from the emitters to the taxpayer (that's you), and will thus cost us more by removing any incentive to reduce said emissions.

I don't believe the Nat's ETS passes the bill from the emitter to the taxpayer, because we end up paying for it either way - if not as taxpayers, then as consumers.

But the bit about removing any incentive to reduce emissions is spot on - how can you describe an ETS that seeks at great expense to establish an artificial market for carbon, while at the same time carefully ensuring that no market signals can be generated by that market? Other than as colossally, monumentally, astonishingly stupid, I mean?

Andrei said...

Other than as colossally, monumentally, astonishingly stupid, I mean?

Its not stupid if the purpose of the exercise is to transfer wealth from the little man into the pockets of your cronies whilst exercising even more control over their lives.

National has revealed its true colors - a slightly more unprincipled version of Labour.

David Baigent said...

PM, If you accept that GW is occurring then your statement: .."while at the same time carefully ensuring that no market signals can be generated by that market? Other than as colossally, monumentally, astonishingly stupid, I mean?"..

would be quite justified.

However if you believe that GW is fraud and that farm, fish, fuel, and jobs are important then alternative conclusions are perhaps just possible.

Think about it.

Anonymous said...

I don't agree with your post. If National had any integrity, they would slow down with the passing of this faulty legislation, or better still, dump it altogether. A major change for NZ, and the voters'will ignored. What a surprise.

JC said...

But PM, where's the evidence that National is committed to anything more than just a holding operation that allows the tradable sector to rebuild free of further constraints?

And at this point with Copenhagen a dead duck and the "A" in AGW in disrepute, why would you want much more till the dust settles?

If all the parties were serious about AGW they'd bolt for ACT's small and adjustable tax on emissions. Cap and Trade is just another name for Smoke and Mirrors.

JC

Anonymous said...

open source science rather than closed source politically influenced pseudo science.

no such thing.


the "A" in AGW in disrepute,

You don't get it (thank you Labour for paying for your useless education with MY TAXES). It's not the A that's in dispute - it's the f**king W

Psycho Milt said...

David Baigent and JC: I see two possible scenarios here:

1. Scientists are correct that biffing gigatonnes of carbon into the atmosphere is going to have effects on climate that we won't like, and therefore some scheme to disincentivise carbon emission would be useful.

Or

2. The alarmists are full of shit, the climate will change only about as much as it ever does and slowly at that, and a scheme to disincentivise carbon emission is simply a drag on the economy. However, we won't be given a choice about implementing one as people won't buy our goods otherwise, so we'd better implement one that does the least damage to our economy while satisfying our trade partners that we've made an effort.

On either one of these scenarios, National's ETS is crap. In scenario 1 it's obvious why - the proposed ETS doesn't disincentivise carbon emissions. In scenario 2, it's crap because the proposed ETS will hammer taxpayers but doesn't stand a chance of fooling our trade partners into imagining that we're actually doing something. At least under Labour's scheme we had an at least vaguely useful response under either scenario - under National's one, we pay through the nose to no purpose whatsoever.

nadya.nz said...

I didn't realise that crap came in grades.
Crap is crap. Labour or National.

George

Murray said...

"The current piece of crap legislation is still better than the previous piece of crap legislation that Clark and her buddies passed last year"

You're debating which turn smells the best while ignoring that a turd is a turd.

JC said...

"You don't get it (thank you Labour for paying for your useless education with MY TAXES). It's not the A that's in dispute - it's the f**king W"

You could do with some of that education yourself.

The temperature is what it is, but its whether its "manmade" is the question. The business of warming is mainly a topic for conversation and a shrug of the shoulders, but the minute you blame it almost entirely on anthropogenic activities you bring in the blame game with the consequent demand we change our ways.

At the moment the scientists studying this anthropogenic aspect are being shown up as a bunch of bullshitters bordering on being crooks because of their activities, which is no more than I knew years ago because of the dodgy behaviour.

JC