Thu 13 Jul 2017 10:05AM

Should we strengthen the ETS to get rid of bogus credits and include all industry?

TH Tane Harre Public Seen by 119

In 2002 the Labour government passed the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading) Amendment Act 2008. It doesn't cover some industry (farming), and it has been criticised for allowing the purchase of bogus credits and having no base price.

Some history

The Act


Colin England Thu 13 Jul 2017 9:35PM

Fraudulent credits should be illegal. This means that there needs to be a process to go through to determine if the credits are fraudulent and then to put those credits on the banned list.

The other option is just to go for a carbon/GHG emission tax. The ETS regimes seem to be more of a profit making venture (usually through some form of fraud) ATM than a means to limit use of GHG emission processes.


idiom axiom Mon 31 Jul 2017 10:22PM

The only people wanting a base price are those looking to extort. The price should go to zero as soon as we hit carbon unity.


Tane Harre Fri 4 Aug 2017 4:10AM

As an idea toward fixing the bogus credits problem why not mandate that credits can only be bought in NZ and at the same time allow credits to be generated by regenerating bush.

This would also help pay for the DOC estate and encourage owners of marginal land to let it grow back into forest.

It could also link in with this thread as additional income for farmers through forestry.


Colin England Fri 4 Aug 2017 11:25PM

…allow credits to be generated by regenerating bush.

That's already allowed. In fact, in the Kyoto Protocol negotiations NZ pushed for it. Since then, though, we've decreased the amount of forest we're planting and our farmers have been rapidly converting to dairy because they make higher profits doing that.


Tane Harre Sat 5 Aug 2017 4:58AM

Really? Because they make no mention of it in their 2016 annual report that I can find.


Colin England Sat 5 Aug 2017 6:33AM

Yes, really:

The Emissions Trading Scheme in the context of the ETS Bill has, understandably,
grabbed much of the headlines to date. Conceptually, it offers owners of land that was not in forest in 1989, the opportunity to enter the ETS scheme with an existing or to be established forest with the juicy carrot of accruing tradable New Zealand Units on the basis of their forest’s ability to sequester CO2. In other words, a new source of pre-harvest income.

This is the problem with 'incentives' rather than simple law. Things change and the incentives no longer work.


Tane Harre Sat 5 Aug 2017 9:04AM

That would explain why they don't make any money then. I imagine most of DOCs forests were there pre-1989. Another dead idea..........:)


idiom axiom Mon 14 Aug 2017 9:20PM

"This is the problem with 'incentives' rather than simple law. Things change and the incentives no longer work."

Whereas law magically stays relevant.


Colin England Tue 15 Aug 2017 12:28AM

In context we'd still have a Carbon Tax to encourage reduction of GHG emissions. With the ETS we don't and our GHG emissions are going up.


idiom axiom Tue 15 Aug 2017 4:30AM

Load More