Politics and Prose

(Soon to be ex-) Climate Change Minister David Parker’s claims that making the productive sectors pay for emissions via the emissions trading scheme is cheaper than if the taxpayer (government) paid for the Kyoto shortfall is completely at odds with analysis undertaken by leading economists, New Zealand Institute of Economic Research.

Unlike, Parker I’m interested in what businesses and industries think of the ETS.  NZIER’s analysis shows that it is eight times more expensive in the near term to put all the costs onto producers and exporters, than if the government just paid the bill.

Catherine Beard, executive director of the Greenhouse Policy Coalition, put it this way:

“The reason it is so expensive to put all the cost on to producers is because in the absence of all your trading partners pricing carbon, all you achieve is a loss of competitiveness of local industry and relocation to other countries where those costs will not be faced.  Making your local producers internationally uncompetitive and causing plant closure and business re-location is a high cost strategy.”

At a time of economic crisis when most Western countries are in full retreat from expensive climate change policies, it is foolhardy to be pursing policies that will cost New Zealanders jobs and increase global emissions.

It is also a moronic idea to make producers pay for what the government has failed to do.  Under Labour, CO2 emissions have doubled, so our
Kyoto liabilities are vast and expensive.  Sheesh, so much for making money out of Kyoto.