Talk:New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Half facts / Neutrality

I am making a number of changes to this article where it is loose in language and there is a tone of non-neutrality. I will list these here as I make them. I know it is not required that changes are logged in this manner but I expect some people to have disagreement with some of them so it is better to add to the discussion page for clarity and if people disagree they can edit the discussion and fully explain why they disagree before simply just revert to old versions.

Yes you have made a lot of edits. I provide some comments below. More to come. Mrfebruary (talk) 10:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

1.

Changed "is a largely proposed all-sectors greenhouse gases". 'Largely' is odd language to use here. The ETS is in legislation and forestry is already receiving, surrendering and trading credits. Fossil CO2 will enter in a few months and is highly unlikely to be delayed. No change is likely before late 2011 (completion of the first review) Catonz (talk) 00:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

'Largely' is not odd language. At the time of editing (Jan 2010) 'most' sectors had no compliance obligations. 'Proposed' may not be perfect wording, but I think it should not simply deleted without suggesting an alternative; such as 'unimplemented'. 'Largely proposed' may not be perfect but still adequately expresses the concept of delayed entry dates for different sectors. Particularly when the relative contribution in GHGs of the sectors was spelt out. However you have deleted that information as well.Mrfebruary (talk) 09:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

But the scheme is legislated and due to begin in less than 3 months. When the first line says it is a proposed scheme to me it strait away sounds as if its still in the discussion stages. The Aussie CPRS and US ETS to me are proposed. The NZ ETS is legislated. Thats why I changed it. I will add the info on New Zealand's GHG profile back in if you would like.Catonz (talk) 05:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I am quite happy to concede that the term 'proposed' can be replaced. THE NZETS is 'legislated' but not yet fully 'operative' or fully implemented across all sectors of the NZ economy. I still propose the original wording but without 'proposed'. Mrfebruary (talk) 03:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

2.

Deleted the second paragraph and retyped in a more neutral manner. Previous version was full of irrelevant half truths, such as "no overall cap on emissions","no firm ending date for allocations" (neither does EU ETS, it just doesn't make sense to do this), "fixed price" (price cap) "effectivly being a carbon tax" (market still exists while price is below $25) Catonz (talk) 00:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

"no overall cap on emissions". This is 100% factual and the RS is:

Emissions trading bulletin No 12 Industrial allocation update http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/climate/emissions-trading-bulletin-12/index.html#overview

"There is no longer an explicit limit on the number of New Zealand units (NZUs) that can be allocated to the industrial sector." Mrfebruary (talk) 09:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Read your comment again: no longer a cap on allocations. This does not mean no cap on credits. The NZUs available have not changed.

Allocations are not capped, but they are linked to production of EITE goods. In the short term the production of these goods will never cause allocations to rise above the level auctioned (NZ allocation from the UNFCCC).

Both schemes allow importing of certain units so in that sense the NZ cap is the same as the world cap. When CDM's are considered there is no cap.

Both schemes allowed a provision for the Minister to decide the number of units if there is no subsequent commitment period, so in that case there is no cap.Catonz (talk) 05:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

"no firm ending date for allocations" This is factually accurate and there are RSs. E.g.

Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Dr Jan Wright (2009-10-13). "Submission to the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill". . http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/C2BE71F6-AF44-46C9-B5E0-A215C6EC4D74/115918/49SCFE_EVI_00DBHOH_BILL9597_1_A14959_Parliamentary.pdf.

Page 2 "The phase-out of free carbon credits is far too slow. The phase-out rate of allocation should specify the latest year that allocation will be given"

Page 8, "Under the proposed allocation phase-out, the government will never stop giving away carbon credits to industry" Mrfebruary (talk) 04:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I said it was a half truth. Allocations are reviewed at least every 5 years. There is no legislated sun set clause. The text I replaced it with states this plainly and leaves no room for interpretation. It says "There is no specific sunset clause to remove the allocation of units to firms that undertake EITE activities" - this is to say there is no ending date. I didn't use words like 'firm' and 'big polluters'. Simply stated that fact and let the reader make up their mind. The the para then goes onto give the context that there is a review every 5 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Catonz (talk • contribs) 10:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

3.

Deleted 3rd para. "Most of the provisions of the NZ ETS have not yet taken effect due to delayed entry dates" - this is not true, MfE reported to the new National Government that the current dates for industrial processes and energy were unworkable due to time constraints. Delayed entry for Ag has not resulted in any provisions 'not yet taking effect' as they would not have entered yet under either scheme.

The National ETS has a later sector entry dates for agriculture than the Labour ETS. That is a fact. In that context 'delayed' is accurate. I would also be happy with 'staggered'. Mrfebruary (talk) 10:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The sentence said, "have not entered due to delayed entry dates", this implies they would have entered by now if National had not changed dates. Ag would have entered in 2013 under the Labour policy. MfE have said that there was not time to develop regs to begin the scheme in 2010. The development of regs has been sped up under the national plan by basing the scheme on the Aussie leg and regs. Catonz (talk) 05:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

"There is currently almost no domestic market" - true when reference was written, however that was 6 months ago. need reference this is still true. Market is developing now as July 1 approaches.

ok. I accept that point. Mrfebruary (talk) 10:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Forestry fact can be moved to body, not intro Catonz (talk) 00:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

4.

Deleted para on parliamentary commissioner for the environment from the intro. Moving to commentary section. Should not be in intro, intro should only be a brief outline of main topic and not involve expert opinion. I have replaced with a para on purpose of ETS and mention that this purpose has resulted in criticism. Previously the article noted criticism that ETS would allow emissions to increase but had not noted that this was infact in the purpose statement of the ETS, which is a non-neutral thing to do. Catonz (talk) 00:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Have you a reliable source for asserting that the purpose of the 2009 amendments was to allow emissions to increase? I disagree with your deletion of the PCE's three calls not to pass the amendments. I think it is both significant and relevant that a Officer of Parliament, independent of the Executive, with a statutory brief to act as an environmental watchdog, who had advised the earlier Select Comittee review, made three public statements recommending that the legislation not proceed. I can't see anything in the wikipedia policies of neutrality, verifiability or no original research that suggest the PCE's 3 statements should not be in the introduction. Mrfebruary (talk) 06:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Here are the 3 citations deleted: PCE (2009-10-15). "New bill ‘weakens ETS’ says Environment Commissioner". Press release http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0910/S00231.htm PCE (2009-11-16). "ETS amendments bill should not pass - Commissioner". Press release. http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0911/S00146.htm PCE (2009-11-25). "ETS bill won't help environment - Commissioner". Press release. http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0911/S00277.htm Mrfebruary (talk) 06:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

yes but other independent advisors said amendments such as the National ones should be passed, for example the Infometrics NZIER review. Where was that reference in the intro? We can't have a full analysis of the amendments in the intro. The guts of her criticism was that the scheme was not designed to cause aggregate reductions in emissions. I have replaced the opinion with the fact and simply stated that "Reducing emissions compared to business-as-usual levels rather than targeting absolute reductions has been criticized by some stakeholders[3][4]. By using 'business-as-usual' levels as the benchmark to target reductions against the Act allows emissions to grow overtime."

If it was really neutral I would add, "but supported by others", and then give reference. The PCE criticism is important but not everything can be put in the intro.Catonz (talk) 10:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

You state "I have replaced the opinion with the fact". No, what you have done is to delete views 'attributable to a reliable published source' (the PCE) that you disagree with and then justify the deletion by defining opinions you don't agree with as not being 'facts'. It is irrelevant if you don't think what the PCE says is "The Truth". According to WP:VERIFY 'The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true'. Most of your deletions to this page fail this test. Mrfebruary (talk) 12:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

That is not what I meant. The fact is that the purpose statement of the ETS does not target absolute emissions reductions. In some people opinion this is a bad thing. By saying that the PCE commented that the Bill would allow emissions to increase it sounds as if this is defiantly a bad thing. But in actual fact the purpose statement of the ETS under the labour government was always only to create reductions from BAU. So it was not essential to reduce emissions in absolute terms. By placing an out of context reference in the intro with no supporting information to explain why emissions are allowed to increase the article was non-nuetral. Catonz (talk) 04:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

5.

"Two independent estimates and an estimate by the New Zealand Treasury give the cost to taxpayers of the subsidies to emitters at roughly $NZ100 billion over the 80-year period of gifting of credits"

deleted this from intro. The issue of if allocations are subsidies or not needs further discussion in body of article. The Garnaut Report is a more robust and more independent piece of work than "ETS: Bill to a Future Generation" by the sustainability council and argues strongly that allocations are needed not to subsidise dirty industries but to protect clean ones while the world transitions to a price on carbon (see chapter 14). Catonz (talk) 01:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

This statement was factual and referenced. Clearly you disagree with it. If you thought this was a matter of 'balance' you should have provided a different viewpoint backed up by a RS. Instead you deleted 3 reliable sources . Mrfebruary (talk) 10:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

They were referenced but not to peer reviewed studies. The measured the opportunity cost of allocations and then labelled this a 'subsidy'.

Allocation are not subsidies. A subsidy is paid to prevent an industry declining due to natural market forces. The reference I provide is from one of the most highly regarded studies on climate change produced and states "The rationale for payments to trade-exposed, emissions-intensive industries is different and sound. It is to avoid the economic and environmental costs of having firms in these industries contracting more than, and failing to expand as much as, they would in a world in which all countries were applying carbon constraints involving similar costs to ours". Allocations are needed to maintain the level of production that would occur if other nations had ETSs also.Catonz (talk) 05:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Your inclusion of the Garnaut Report and using it to infer justification for free allocation of credits to trade-exposed, emissions-intensive industries appears to be contrary to Wikipedia policy WP:SYNTHESIS. It is not directly verifiable. Who in the NZ context has said 'the Garnaut Report justifies free allocation to trade-exposed, emissions-intensive industries'? Verifiable source please. Also, as far as I am aware, there are no peer-reviewed journal articles about the NZETS. If you know of some, please point them out. I do not consider it valid to delete a verifiable source on the grounds that it is not from a peer-reviewed journal, particularly when when you have said you think its a "half-truth" i.e. not conforming to your viewpoint.

'Allocation are not subsidies' Verifiable sources, please. I have several credible sources that say free allocations are subsidies. Dr Suzi Kerr, the independent advisor to the Finance and Expenditure Select Committee. Page 5. "Free allocation should certainly be removed as our competitors enter the agreement. It should be phased out relatively quickly even if they do not. This is for the same reasons that we do not subsidise our agriculture even though the US and EU do. The benefits to the protected activities are vastly outweighed by the costs to the economy as a whole. The phase out of free allocation in the existing bill was probably already too slow on economic grounds"

Kerr, Suzi (2009-11-18), "Comments to select committee, invited independent specialist advice on the Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill", Motu Report MEL0473, Motu Economic and Public Policy Research http://www.motu.org.nz/files/datasets/docs/MEL0473_ETS_submission.pdf

The PCE. "Allocation is costly. Each credit that is given away rather than kept or sold is a real dollar loss to the taxpayer" P 5, Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Dr Jan Wright (2009-10-13). "Submission to the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill". . http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/C2BE71F6-AF44-46C9-B5E0-A215C6EC4D74/115918/49SCFE_EVI_00DBHOH_BILL9597_1_A14959_Parliamentary.pdf

The IPS/NZCCRI submission, page 5 "The Bill will fail to encourage cost-effective emissions-reduction strategies, because key emission-intensive sectors will be protected for decades"; page 6, "Protection for emission-intensive activities by way of long-term subsidies comes at the expense of the remainder of the economy"; page 7, the Bill creates "a baseline 80-year commitment by the Government (and hence the taxpayer) to subsidise emissions-intensive activities via an intensity-based allocation arrangement..."

Bertram, Geoff; Barrett, Peter; Boston, Jonathan; Chapman, Ralph; Lawrence, Judy; Manning, Martin; Reisinger, Andy (2009-10-15). "A submission to the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill". The Institute of Policy Studies and The New Zealand Climate Change Research Institute, Victoria University of Wellington. http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/4D9F76EC-128A-497A-8DFD-F8267956318E/115992/49SCFE_EVI_00DBHOH_BILL9597_1_A15141_InstituteofPo.pdf Mrfebruary (talk) 08:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

You need to read the Suzi Kerr comments again. She says, "for the same reason as subsidies". Not "they are subsidies".

Suzy's argument is that it is more efficient to allow the economy to change towards the new conditions. IE - if the EU and US have subsidies that is not ideal but that is reality. We should create efficient conditions for the reality we face. Page 7 of the bill creates no such commitment for 80 years of allocation. Read section 160 of the act. Allocations are reviewed every 5 years. That is why you need to have robust sources, you will notice in many places I have replaced a reference to an opinion piece with a reference to the legislation. The legislation is not debatable, it is what is.

All litriture agrees that allocations should be phased out once competitors also adopt carbon pricing.

The Garnaut report acknowledges arguments such as Suzy's as being the norm but argues thus: Two future worlds may exist, one with carbon pricing in most nations (world A), one with carbon pricing in few nations (world B). If World B persists we do not need an ETS -what will it achieve? If World A develops we don't need allocations, as there is no competitiveness risk. So the current period is a transition period. Garnaut demonstrates this, he argues that allocations are needed to ensure an inefficiency does not occur if this industries over-contract during the transition.

This is backed in a NZ context by the RIA.Catonz (talk) 10:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

6.

Deleted "The current emissions trading scheme includes a number of significant differences from the version legislated by The Fifth Labour Government Government." - Differences between the current scheme and past schemes can be explained in the sections covering past schemes Catonz (talk) 22:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

This was a factually accurate summarising statement that was quite validly in the introduction. It succinctly summarised material in the body of the page. It appears to me you have deleted it without a good enough reason. Mrfebruary (talk) 23:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

7.

" will decline annually at a very slow rate of 1.3% " very slow is opinion. Catonz (talk) 01:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

There are several RS for that 'opinion' One is: Dr Jan Wright (2009-10-13). "Submission to the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill". Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/C2BE71F6-AF44-46C9-B5E0-A215C6EC4D74/115918/49SCFE_EVI_00DBHOH_BILL9597_1_A14959_Parliamentary.pdf

"The phase-out of free carbon credits is far too slow. The phase-out rate of allocation should specify the latest year that allocation will be given". You could have tagged the statement with {fact} or {dubious} or {refimprove}. Again, you deleted because you disagreed with the assertion and wished to push a different POV. Mrfebruary (talk) 23:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

8.

"Experts in climate change policy from The Institute of Policy Studies and The New Zealand Climate Change Research Institute argue that 80-year subsidised credit allocation is economically indefensible. " I have removed this. Allocations are not legislated for 80 years. There is no sunset clause in legislation, there is a review clause instead. So there is no 80 year subsidy that these 'experts' (vic uni lecturers, many science, some policy, and a few economics) speak of. I have added this explanation to the section titled "decrease in allocation of units".Catonz (talk) 03:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

You have deleted this statement as you appear to disagree with it. It is an assertion of The IPS and The New Zealand Climate Change Research Institute. It is a fact that they made that assertion. There is a RS. Just because you have a different opinion on the interpretation of the legislation does not justify deletion of a statement with a valid RS. If you thought this was a matter of 'balance' you should have provided a different viewpoint of the statutory interpretation backed up by a RS. Mrfebruary (talk) 10:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

OK. I think we should remove all opinion from the section on the Act. I have added in opinion from the Garnaut Report and from the Regulatory Impact Assessment. Perhaps this should be moved to a different section. In general I have attempted to remove the references to newspaper articles and think-tanks such as the IPS and reference the legislation primarily for facts and then the RIA and Garnaut report for justification. Before the article just cherry-picked negative opinion. But I agree there is a place for negative opinion, and this statement could be added back in. My main aim to begin was to get the article factually accurate, now contextual information could be added back in. Catonz (talk) 05:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Also those from the NZCCRI are not "experts in climate change policy".Catonz (talk) 10:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

It appears to me that although your stated aim was to get the article 'factually correct', I will politely suggest that your edits have in fact deleted statements that you personally don't agree with and that in your opinion make the article "look like it came from the Green Party". The key WP policies are verifiability, neutrality, and no original research. Can I respectfully suggest that your edits are not consistent with those policies, particularly neutrality; as you are editing the article to be consistent with your own Point Of View. Mrfebruary (talk) 08:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes the amended legislation does provide for 80 years of free allocations. Source. The PCE states on page 8 "the phase out of allocating free carbon credits will be significantly slowed to a decrease of 1.3% of the previous year's allocation each year". The PCE (2009-10-13). "Submission to the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill". . http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/C2BE71F6-AF44-46C9-B5E0-A215C6EC4D74/115918/49SCFE_EVI_00DBHOH_BILL9597_1_A14959_Parliamentary.pdf A footnote refers to Section 82(2)(a)(ii) of the Climate Change Response Act 2002. http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2002/0040/latest/DLM1662645.html The 1.3% decrease in free allocation p.a. is hardwired in that section (from 2012). As the The Institute of Policy Studies and The New Zealand Climate Change Research Institute note in the foot note on page 6, "Ostensibly the transition path is reviewable at 5 yearly intervals, with the first review at 2011. Nevertheless, at the stated transition rate, the path would not be complete for about 80 years" Bertram, Geoff; Barrett, Peter; Boston, Jonathan; Chapman, Ralph; Lawrence, Judy; Manning, Martin; Reisinger, Andy (2009-10-15). "A submission to the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill". The Institute of Policy Studies and The New Zealand Climate Change Research Institute, Victoria University of Wellington. http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/4D9F76EC-128A-497A-8DFD-F8267956318E/115992/49SCFE_EVI_00DBHOH_BILL9597_1_A15141_InstituteofPo.pdf Mrfebruary (talk) 09:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Rather than citing the PCE For what the act contains why not read the act it self? you will find no sunset clause but a clause (160) to review allocations every 5 years. I have removed viewpoint and used the Act.Catonz (talk) 10:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

9.

"Experts from the Institute of Policy Studies (New Zealand) and The New Zealand Climate Change Research Institute consider that the delayed entry of agriculture into the NZ ETS is also a delay and reduction in the incentive to reduce emissions" - well of course it is! Deleted and improved this.

Under what Wikipedia policy do you justify deleting that verifiable sourced statement? Mrfebruary (talk) 08:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I kept the source and referenced a more meaningful statement. You dont need experts to tell you delaying a policy delays the effects of that policy.

I replaced it with "Experts from the Institute of Policy Studies (New Zealand) and The New Zealand Climate Change Research Institute consider that the delayed entry of agriculture into the NZ ETS will reduce long term competitiveness of the New Zealand economy by supporting industry that can not compete in an emissions constrained world[20].", this is a far more meaning full statement. Catonz (talk) 10:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

10.

I have deleted: "If emissions grow, then the taxpayer will have to pay for carbon credits, almost certainly at a higher international price, to cover the excess, not the emitters." - unreferenced and non neutral. This a debatable point. It implies that the government needs to buy units from international markets. Mostly the government has not need to buy units at a higher price because they have been allocated units by the UN. Smith has repeatedly said the ETS is fiscally neutral. Catonz (talk) 09:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The statement that high free allocations equals cost to taxpayers is verifiable and has several sources. starting with: Fallow, Brian (2009-09-17). "Carbon bill time bomb for taxpayers". The New Zealand Herald. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10597735&pnum=0

"The deal struck this week between the Government and the Maori Party on emissions trading writes a large post-dated cheque on the account of the New Zealand taxpayer."

"The changes agreed are all about transferring cost from the emitter to the taxpayer, and to that extent it defeats the purpose of the exercise."..

"The ETS and other domestic policies are only about how to apportion that cost. The less it falls on those who are responsible for the emissions, whether as producers or consumers, the more it will fall to the taxpayer." Mrfebruary (talk) 07:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The PCE concurs in page 2 of her submission to Finance and Expenditure Select Committee. "allocation at very high levels...removes the price signal...doesn't remove the cost of emissions, since the taxpayer must pick up the tab"

Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Dr Jan Wright (2009-10-13). "Submission to the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill". . http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/C2BE71F6-AF44-46C9-B5E0-A215C6EC4D74/115918/49SCFE_EVI_00DBHOH_BILL9597_1_A14959_Parliamentary.pdf

Dr Suzi Kerr the independent advisor to the Finance and Expenditure Select Committee also confirms that high free allocation results in costs to the taxpayer. See page 4 of her advice.

"Free allocation redistributes the cost of climate policy away from the owners of protected firms, who tend to have higher than average incomes, toward all taxpayers. It also significantly raises the overall cost of the climate policy to the economy".

Kerr, Suzi (2009-11-18), "Comments to select committee, invited independent specialist advice on the Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill", Motu Report MEL0473, Motu Economic and Public Policy Research http://www.motu.org.nz/files/datasets/docs/MEL0473_ETS_submission.pdf Mrfebruary (talk) 07:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

It is true that the NZ Govt is highly likely to have to buy additional units. I think you need to read up on Kyoto Protocol mechanics. NZ is not allocated unlimited units from the UN. Under the KP NZ has issued itself Assigned amount units equivalent to the 'assigned amount', the 1990 baseline times 5 or 310 million units. The more units NZ allocates for free to participants in excess of the 310 million, the more NZ will have to buy on the international market so that it can surrender units equal to the actual emissions for the 5 year CP1. That is the driver behind international emissions trading under the KP. Mrfebruary (talk) 07:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a source for Dr Smith? "Smith has repeatedly said the ETS is fiscally neutral". If so, include his statement. Mrfebruary (talk) 07:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I do have source, will find.Catonz (talk) 10:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

In the article, "has stated that National campaigned on amending the ETS to be fiscally neutral"

Reference in article, number 31, http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0911/S00385.htm

John Key and Gerry Brownlee saying the same thing, http://www.johnkey.co.nz/archives/382-NEWS-National-wont-cut-corners-on-ETS-at-kiwis-expense.html http://theyworkforyou.co.nz/portfolios/prime_minister/2009/nov/24/emissions_trading_scheme Catonz (talk) 06:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

11.

deleted "Consequently this change transfer costs from the emitter to the taxpayer and further reduces the price incentive to reduce emissions" Referenced to Brian Fellow New Zealand Herald. In my opinion a news paper article is not a definitive reference for effects of a policy, especially an opinion piece. A NP article could be used to reference comments made by someone.Catonz (talk) 09:02, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

See my comments and sources for 10. above. Mrfebruary (talk) 07:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

12.

deleted "Business lobby groups such as Business New Zealand and the Greenhouse Policy Coalition (representing the energy intensive sector) welcomed National's changes to the NZ ETS as they had been lobbying for an interim price cap on carbon, intensity-based allocation of free units and a longer period of allocation of free units.[11]"

BusinessNZ did not support the changes put forward by the National Government. In their submission to the Finance and Expenditure Select Committee BusinessNZ argued for a carbon tax, argued that the revised ETS was still world leading, and opposed thresholds for allocation being introduced, as well as disagreeing with a number of other aspects.

Greenhouse Policy Coalition also opposed the thresholds for allocation and argued it was not wise to align to a draft Aussie scheme that may never be passed.

This para is a devious half truth, as it implies the National ETS is a cave into business when this is far from true. Many businesses will not qualify for allocation under the threshold test. Catonz (talk) 02:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The sources backing up this deleted statement are: Brian Fallow, http://www.nzherald.co.nz/climate-change/news/article.cfm?c_id=26&objectid=10597295 Business backs emissions plan changes, The New Zealand Herald, 2009-09-15

"Business lobby groups such as Business New Zealand and the Greenhouse Policy Coalition (representing the energy intensive sector) welcomed National's changes to the NZ ETS as they had been lobbying for an interim price cap on carbon, intensity-based allocation of free units and a longer period of allocation of free units"

"Business lobby groups welcomed proposed changes to the emissions trading scheme agreed by the Government and the Maori Party yesterday, which transfer cost from emitters to taxpayers."... and

"Large industrial emitters have secured three things they argued for consistently. One is a price cap, set at $25 a tonne, at least until the end of 2012....Another is an allocation of free units based not on what plants emitted in some arbitrary base year (90 per cent of 2005 emissions) but on an intensity basis."

"The Greenhouse Policy Coalition which represents the energy intensive sector, said a slower phase-out of assistance to 2050 sent a better signal to industry looking to make new lower carbon investment in New Zealand, which would be good for the economy and good for the global environment."

and Brian Fallow 'Carbon bill time bomb for taxpayers' NZ Herald, (2009-09-17) http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10597735&pnum=0

"The Greenhouse Policy Coalition, representing the trade-exposed, energy-intensive sector, has got almost all of what it had lobbied for. The changes mimic the Australian carbon pollution reduction scheme. The allocation of free units to large emitters will be on an intensity basis without any overall cap." Mrfebruary (talk) 07:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Again, please provide some sources for your statements about the GPC's and Business NZ's viewpoints. If you have sources, please feel free to include them. Just because you have a different interpretation from Brian Fallow is not a reason to delete a reliably sourced statement. I stand by the use of Brian Fallow the Herald Economics editor as an adequate source for this type of article. I would be happy to reword to clarify that these are opinions of Brian Fallow the Herald Economics editor. Mrfebruary (talk) 05:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I have provided sources in the article, referenced BusNZ and GPC's submissions to finance and expenditure committee. Anyone should agree this is a better source on their opinion than a NP article.Catonz (talk) 10:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

For the record: I agree this article still needs A LOT of work. It appears the previous version was more or less written by a member of the Green Party.

Now that by itself does not mean what the wrote is automatically biased, but in my opinion the article was biased. When I first looked at the article it was not in order to change it. However as I read through I was alarmed by the half truths contained. Only after beginning to make changes did I look to see who had written the original and see that, yes it was someone who came from an environmentally minded background. I do not mind negative opinion in the article but it needs to be in context and supplementary. The main body of the artical should be factual: What is the NZ ETS? What are the key features? etc. Then the expert opinion can follow.

I agree it still needs A LOT of work, but I hope it has been improved in the last few days :-) Catonz (talk) 06:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Dear Catonz,

I appreciate that you have been very open in commenting on your edits in this talk page. I am sorry to say I don't agree that "the article has been improved in the last few days". It was reviewed and rated as 'A' quality before your edits, well structured in date order, with sources for all statements. I think it's gone backwards in the last few days.

You state "It appears the previous version was more or less written by a member of the Green Party"..."in my opinion the article was biased", "I was alarmed by the half truths contained", "yes it was someone who came from an environmentally minded background", "Previous version was full of irrelevant half truths". Okay, so those are your views and I defend your right to have those views.

However, this is not a personal blog, this is a community open-source-information project, and at Wikipedia, we editors are meant to play the game by the rules and policies. The key WP policies are verifiability, neutrality, and no original research. The NPOV policy applying to edits is; "Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors." Further, NPOV requires "all majority- and significant-minority views be presented fairly, in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material."

Can you stand back from this discussion, think about it for a moment, and really honestly say that your edits have been consistent with those policies? I politely suggest that you have been editing the article to be consistent with your own point of view and that your edits have in fact deleted verifiable sourced statements that you personally don't agree with.

Mrfebruary (talk) 09:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Give me the weekend. I want to work with you and yes we should continue to edit and improve.

First comment: This is not an issue that always needs expert opinion, the legislation factual and not open to interpretation. I have read it. It does not set allocation for 80 years. It actually sets them for ever! But it has a review every 5 years of these allocations.

That is one example.

Lets continue to talk and improve the article.

Thanks, Catonz (talk) 10:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

You are not 'working with' me. You are not improving the page. You are just pushing your personal biases. Mrfebruary (talk) 14:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

New section on economics

This section "basis of allocation" is biased and does not provide a good background to the subject:

Paragraph 1:

Historically, resource trading schemes have dealt mainly with local resources[6]. Rights to fish a body of water may have been allocated for example[7]. Under such a regime the right to fish is usually allocated to existing fishers who would otherwise own stranded assets to retain equity and future investment confidence

This has no relevance to emissions trading. I don't see any purpose in having this paragraph. I've deleted it.

Paragraph 2:

Under an emissions trading scheme the resource is global[10][11]. A domestic ETS can only place a restriction on a percentage of the global atmospheric resource[11]. (iii) Rather than attempting to reduce emissions from one location, it is better for an ETS to attempt to reduce global emissions[12]. (iv) Allocations are needed to protect competitiveness of firms within the ETS while other nations do not have equal emissions policy.[13] (v) A marginal cost is still felt by emitters as they may sell surplus units if emissions are reduced.[9]

This is not good. Sentence (iii) is biased. There is no scientific consensus on who should bear the costs of adapting and mitigating climate change. To say that "it is better to regulate global emissions..." is too vague a statement. Sentence (iv) is unspecific – which firms need protection and according to whom? – and therefore misleading. (iv) and (v) are biased rhetorical arguments. Enescot (talk) 13:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

What are you saying, that global reductions do not matter? A normal trading scheme such as the example provided needs only worry about its own actions. Reducing the amount of fish taken from an area of water is simple. An ETS can only be effective if it reduces local emissions and global emissions. Agree the sentance can be reworded but it does not need deleting. If you disagree with the notion that it is more important to reduce global emissions than local ones perhaps read the purpose statement of the NZ ETS:

"3(1)(b)provide for the implementation, operation, and administration of a greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme in New Zealand that supports and encourages global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by assisting New Zealand to meet its international obligations under the Convention and the Protocol, and by reducing New Zealand's net emissions below business-as-usual levels." Catonz (talk) 22:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Reducing the amount of fish taken from an area of water is simple [...] Agree the sentance can be reworded but it does not need deleting. - Catonz

I disagree. In my view, the source you've used should directly refer to the NZ ETS. If the source is not directly referring to the NZ ETS, your comparison should go in another article. I am also doubtful as to whether it's important enough to be included in this article. I've not come across the analogy in any of the books I've looked at on ETS's.

What are you saying, that global reductions do not matter? [...] If you disagree with the notion that it is more important to reduce global emissions than local ones perhaps read the purpose statement of the NZ ETS: "3(1)(b)provide for the implementation, operation, and administration of a greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme in New Zealand that supports and encourages global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by assisting New Zealand to meet its international obligations under the Convention and the Protocol, and by reducing New Zealand's net emissions below business-as-usual levels." Catonz (talk) 22:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

This article is not a free-of-all in regards to editors advocating particular viewpoints. My opinions are therefore beside the point. Enescot (talk) 02:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Deleted and moved economic references

Previous revision:

The economist Ross Garnaut states that allocations are needed to trade-exposed and emissions-intensive industries not to compensate for the fact the host nation has an ETS, but rather to compensate for the fact that other nations do not have ETSs[15]. Garnaut then explains that the form of allocations is dependent on the purpose. If allocations are to compensate for a loss of property right they should be based on past emissions. If they are to compensate for other nations lack of an ETS they should be based on the expected price rise on the good that the firm is producing in a world where all nations have an ETS. The economist Sir Nicholas Stern also favours allocations based on actual output

"It is important that we stop thinking in terms of payments to Australian firms in order to compensate them for the effects of the domestic emissions trading scheme. There is no basis for compensation arising from the loss of profits or asset values as a result of this new policy. The rationale for payments to trade-exposed, emissions-intensive industries is different and sound. It is to avoid the economic and environmental costs of having firms in these industries contracting more than, and failing to expand as much as, they would in a world in which all countries were applying carbon constraints involving similar costs to ours."

This does not appear to have any direct relation with the NZ ETS. Were Garnaut and Stern specifically referring to the NZ ETS? If so, the text should say so, e.g., "Garnaut/Stern recommended the NZ ETS etc..." Because of the unclear relevance of these paragraphs to this article, I've moved them to the carbon emission trading#Incentives and allocation article.

I don't agree with this logic. If we did this we would be limited to New Zealand economists. There is only a very small number of NZ economists doing work in this area. Why would we not look to more reputable work done offshore? You have not given any reason why the analysis provided does not apply to NZ (ie allocations as compensation for rest of world not having ETS).Catonz (talk) 04:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Economic assessment is heavily in favour of intensity based allocations for emissions trading schemes rather than allocations based on historical emissions

This needs more precise citations along with an attribution. For all I know, this could be an improper synthesis. I note that a newspaper is referred to as one of the sources backing up this statement. I don't think newspapers are reliable sources. Any assertions based on newspapers should, in my view, be clearly attributed, e.g., "According to a story in newspaper X, economic assessment supports....". I also think that attibution is desirable even for academic analysis, e.g., "Economist X favours intensity-based allocations for the NZ ETS"

It seems the newspaper was referenced incorrectly. If you go back to this old version it is not there: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Zealand_Emissions_Trading_Scheme&oldid=355734952#cite_note-gpvsi-8 . So someone has added it in. Agree that it needs deleting.

Regardless, there was still 5 other sources given. Every economic assessment I can find says it is more efficient to allocate based on current production rather than historical emissions. The old version of the article made it sound like moving to intensity based allocation was a cop out to business when it is in fact what the the research suggests.

There is a simple solution however. The statement is difficult to prove but easy to dis-prove. All you need to do is show 2 pieces of work that disagree with intensity based allocations. I have provided 5 pieces of research, and now added another reference to a study done by the European Parliament. If you can show 2 pieces of work that will be enough to cast doubt on the statement. If you can't even show 1 then I am not led to believe the statement is wrong.Catonz (talk) 04:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The economist William Nordhaus argues that allocations cost the economy as they cause the under utilisation an efficient form of taxation.[30] Nordhaus points out that normal income, goods or service taxes distort efficient investment and consumption, so by using pollution taxes to generate revenue an emissions scheme can increase the efficiency of the economy

I've moved this to the article on carbon emission trading#Incentives and allocation. Obviously its inclusion would be appropriate if Nordhaus was actually referring directly to the NZ ETS, but in the previous revision, this wasn't made clear. If Nordhaus was referring to the NZ ETS, the revision should be re-added in the form "Nordhaus criticized the NZ ETS...." Enescot (talk) 01:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Can we move all the other commentary in the article as well then please?

ie

Professor Jonathan Boston, Director of the Institute of Policy Studies (New Zealand) at Victoria University of Wellington, commented that the 2008 NZ ETS will be less effective in reducing emissions because of political compromises such as the delayed sector entry dates and the extended period of free allocation of credits.[34]

Dr Suzi Kerr, an economist and Senior Fellow at Motu Economic and Public Policy Research, commented that the NZ ETS would be costly to tax payers as it provided for very high levels of free allocation of credits to emitters.[34]

Rod Oram commented that "National's changes would drive up emissions, perpetuate old technology, necessitate ever-greater subsidies and reduce New Zealand's international competitiveness and reputation." Oram considers that the National Government's changes to the NZ ETS destroy its effectiveness. His examples are: removing emission limits via intensity-based allocation of free credits, slavishly following climate-laggard Australia, minimising the price incentive by extending the free allocation of credits for 75 years, muting the price signal with a $NZ25 per tonne of carbon cap, forcing forestry holders of credits to sell them overseas because of the $NZ25 per tonne cap, cancelling complementary measures such as fuel efficiency standards, giving in to special pleading via subsidies, and creating uncertainty for business.[69]

Colin James described the National ETS as "...the ETS you have when you are not having an ETS - no cap on emissions (so no "cap" in the "cap-and- trade"), a cap on price (so no "trade", just tickle the taxpayer) and languorous phase-downs of gross emissions which push out hard decisions (if needed) into a misty future"[70]

Greenpeace Aotearoa New Zealand noted that the intensity-based allocation of NZ Units to industry and the slow phase-out of free units would allow emissions to grow and described the NZ ETS as "pathetic".[4]

Gary Taylor, of the Environmental Defence Society, said that 'An emissions-trading scheme welcomed by polluters and coal producers is not going to work' and 'New Zealand is now a climate change laggard'.[75] ECO (the Environment and Conservation Organisations of Aotearoa New Zealand) said that the subsidies in the National bill will lead to inefficiency and unfairness. The subsidies send the wrong price signals to businesses. That will result in harm to the climate and a deadweight loss to society.[76] World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) New Zealand described the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme as "a complete shambles" because it sets no limit on total pollution, it allows emissions to grow and it transfers the cost of emissions from polluters to taxpayers.[77]

Dr Jan Wright, Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, said that the allocation of free carbon credits to industry is too generous and the phase-out too slow. Without a carbon price signal to invest in low carbon technologies, emissions would continue to rise.[3]

Seems unfair to allow a lot of opinionated criticism but not allow any robust economic analysis to show that amendments were in fact justified. Catonz (talk) 04:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Reply

Part 1: use of economic assessments

Garnaut and Stern

I don't agree with this logic. If we did this we would be limited to New Zealand economists. There is only a very small number of NZ economists doing work in this area. Why would we not look to more reputable work done offshore? You have not given any reason why the analysis provided does not apply to NZ (ie allocations as compensation for rest of world not having ETS).Catonz (talk) 04:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any problem in referring to specific analysis of the NZ ETS. That is surely the point of the article. As for looking for more reputable sources, that is original research, in my opinion. You are defending the NZ ETS allocation based on your reading of the work of certain economists.

You have not given any reason why the analysis provided does not apply to NZ (ie allocations as compensation for rest of world not having ETS) - Catonz

It's not my job to do a critique of your analysis. Without sources that support your statements, your edits are, in my opinion, original research. This is because you are analyzing the work of some economists and applying it to the NZ ETS. In my view, it is therefore not appropriate for your analysis to be included in a Wikipedia article.

Assessments of intensity-based allocations

Every economic assessment I can find says it is more efficient to allocate based on current production rather than historical emissions. The old version of the article made it sound like moving to intensity based allocation was a cop out to business when it is in fact what the the research suggests.

There is a simple solution however. The statement is difficult to prove but easy to dis-prove. All you need to do is show 2 pieces of work that disagree with intensity based allocations. I have provided 5 pieces of research, and now added another reference to a study done by the European Parliament. If you can show 2 pieces of work that will be enough to cast doubt on the statement. If you can't even show 1 then I am not led to believe the statement is wrong. - Catonz

I'm not interested in doing a literature review. I don't have the expertise to do this nor am I sufficiently interested in the topic either. If you can cite a particular part of your sources that says:

"In relation to the NZ ETS, most of the economics literature supports intensity-based allocations... (Source X, p.Y)"

that would, in my view, be satisfactory. At the moment, the citations are too imprecise. If you can't find wording to support such a statement, then I would be happy with:

"According to X, Y, Z, intensity-based allocations are preferable for the NZ ETS (page numbers)"

I'd only be happy if the analysis specifically relates to the NZ ETS. If you want to refer to generalized comments on intensity-based allocations, then I think they should go in the sub-section on "economics". I would find that acceptable, because that section makes no attempt to synthesize information with regards to the NZ ETS. Its purpose is purely to provide background information.

You would only be happy if the analysis specifically relates to the NEW ZEALAND ETS? Tell me, what makes the NZ ETS unique to the hypothetical ETS studied in the Stern Review, or a potential ETS studied in the Garnaut Report? You seem to be drawing this distinction for no good reason.

So if the NZX article was to be extended to include a discussion on the merits of forward contracts, and the effect these can have on price volatility, would it only be OK to include research conducted on New Zealand capital markets? Would all overseas research be ignored????? Where is the Wikipedia policy that states when discussing a domestic issue only local research can be used? It seems a strange idea to me to disregard all other research without even reading it simply because it was not specifically done on the NZETS. Are you sure are not the one being biased simply because you don't like the statement?

The issue with your request is that NZ research is very limited. The biggest piece of research is that done by NZIER and Infometrics. IPS from Vic uni have done qualitative work but no general equilibrium modelling to my knowledge. And all the work out of NZIER Infometrics favours allocations based on output over grand parenting. The regulatory impact assessment done jointly is referenced to this statement. However one piece of work from NZ is not enough to say, "economic assessment is heavily in favour of intensity based allocations", is it?

If really wanted to be pedantic you could change it to, "General equilibrium modeling done by NZIER and Informetics, based on the New Zealand economy, showed allocations were only welfare enhancing when linked to production (ref name="ria"). International economic research also supports basing allocations on intensity of production rather than historical emissions"(ref all others). Catonz (talk) 12:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Part 2: Other comments on the NZ ETS

Can we move all the other commentary in the article as well then please? ie Professor Jonathan Boston, [...] - Catonz

All the information you've presented is directly related to the NZ ETS. I don't see any reason to remove it myself. Enescot (talk) 02:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Mrfebruary (talk) 22:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

2nd Enescot Reply to Catonz

Part 1

You would only be happy if the analysis specifically relates to the NEW ZEALAND ETS? Tell me, what makes the NZ ETS unique to the hypothetical ETS studied in the Stern Review, or a potential ETS studied in the Garnaut Report? You seem to be drawing this distinction for no good reason.

To start off, writing in caps, as I understand it, is usually taken to mean shouting. I don't know if this was your intention, but I do not appreciate that kind of response. I'm happy to talk with you about this article, but I will only do so if the conversation remains polite.

No. NEW ZEALAND was capitalised to emphasis the words.Catonz (talk) 21:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Reply:

I'm drawing this distinction because those reports are not referring to the NZ ETS. It is possible that your analysis is in some way misleading. In any case, it's not my job as an editor to analyse the NZ ETS. Garnaut's and Stern's analyses are relevant to this article, but they are not directly applicable to the NZ ETS. This is an important distinction.

For example, carbon taxes are preferred by most economists to carbon trading. That does not mean that a particular implementation of a carbon tax is preferable to an ETS. What matters is how policy is implemented. To assume that the theory of ETS design can be applied directly to practical implementation is not an acceptable assumption for an editor to make. That kind of comparison requires expert analysis.

The problem that I've identified with your edits are that you synthesize information from sources inappropriately. There is nothing wrong with referring to Garnaut's and Stern's analysis, so long as it is done in a way that makes it clear that they are not directly referring to the NZ ETS.

So, to respond to your question, I am in no position to assess whether or not your analysis is correct. That is to say, whether your view that Garnaut and Stern's analyses do directly apply to the NZ ETS is correct or not. I am not an expert, and even if I was, my opinion would need to be backed up with a published analysis.

Part 2

So if the NZX article was to be extended to include a discussion on the merits of forward contracts, and the effect these can have on price volatility, would it only be OK to include research conducted on New Zealand capital markets? Would all overseas research be ignored????? Where is the Wikipedia policy that states when discussing a domestic issue only local research can be used? It seems a strange idea to me to disregard all other research without even reading it simply because it was not specifically done on the NZETS. Are you sure are not the one being biased simply because you don't like the statement?

The NZX is the New Zealand stock exchange. My point is that if one was to discuss the merits of the methods used on the NZX, as this article does for the NZ ETS, would it only be OK to use local research, when most research on capital markets originates overseas. To me its a bit like saying, "that lions are carnivores in the wild has never been proven in a New Zealand context". It should be obvious that the fundamental rules that apply in other economies also occur in New Zealand. Catonz (talk) 21:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

(I):

So if the NZX article was to be extended to include a discussion on the merits of forward contracts [...]

The discussion on these contracts would need to be basis on analysis on the NZ ETS. For example:

"The NZ government has proposed..."

(II):

would it only be OK to include research conducted on New Zealand capital markets?

I'm not in a position to say. This would all depend on the cited opinion of experts who have done analysis of the NZ ETS.

(III):

Would all overseas research be ignored?????

This would depend on whether or not the research was applicable to the NZ ETS. Following on with what I said earlier, I would draw a distinction between:

• (a) overseas research that looks at the subject in a generalized way,
• (b) and overseas research that specifically looks at the NZ ETS.

For (a), this would need to be cited in a way that makes it clear that the analysis is not directly applicable to the NZ ETS. There are two ways in which this can be done:

• (i) Cover the topic in an another article and expect readers to refer to that article for information
• (ii) or provide a quick overview/background on the topic within this article.

Personally I prefer (i) because it is more efficient, but I am not opposed to (ii), so long as it is done properly, i.e., without synthesis. For (b), I would have nothing against including this information in the article.

(IV):

Where is the Wikipedia policy that states when discussing a domestic issue only local research can be used?

I don't know of any such policy. My criticism of the article has been the inclusion of original research and the improper synthesis of ideas.

(V):

It seems a strange idea to me to disregard all other research without even reading it simply because it was not specifically done on the NZETS

I addressed this point earlier. There is an important difference between generalized analysis of a subject and analysis that specifically relates to policy implementation. Additionally, I think that it is inappropriate for editors to try and defend NZ policy independently. My impression is that that is what you are attempting to do. You are doing this implicitly by citing the support of economic analysis for how the NZ ETS has been implemented. That would be acceptable if the analysis was directly applicable to the NZ ETS. However, you have used analysis (Garnaut and Stern) that is not directly applicable.

Yes it is inappropriate for editors to defend government policy. Is must then also be inappropriate for editors to use Wikipedia to attack government policy? As mentioned earlier the original article only contained attacks. We as a group can delete all attacks or balance out using Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines (I am not sure if you are NZ based so I will point out that the ETS and environmental policy was a major last election and the current Government defeated the previous Government on a platform of amending the emissions trading scheme - so the point that emitters need allocation is not a minority view in this country. The view of green NGO's are actually the minority).

The reason for the insertion of statement that economic literature supports intensity based allocation is simple. The previous article stated:

"In the NZ ETS, intensity-based allocation was favoured over allocations based on historical emissions by business groups, and representatives of large emitters,[18] by Fonterra[19] and by Federated Farmers.[20] Environmental organisations and opposition political parties opposed intensity based allocations.[4][3][21]"

This implicitly implies that intensity allocations are only good for 'large emitters' and are bad for the environment. Adding the next statement that intensity based allocations were actually favoured by the independent economic review and overseas economic analysis is therefore warranted while the previous remains. This provides context for readers who could be fooled by the first two statements. They can then make their own mind up the advice of environmental groups or economic analysis is preferable (I expect different readers to fall in different camps, but I am not telling them what to think).

If the previous is deleted then the economic statement may also be deleted. But one should not be deleted and the other allowed to remain. Catonz (talk) 21:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

(VI):

Are you sure are not the one being biased simply because you don't like the statement?

No, I simply pointing out what I believe to be an improper use of a source. I'm not in any position to decide whether or not you application of the source is correct or not. The fact that I am having to make that judgement means that you may have not used the source appropriately. You seem to misunderstand that editors like me are not required to be experts in the topic at hand. It is, however, necessary, for editors like me, to judge whether or not sources have been used appropriately.

Part 3

The issue with your request is that NZ research is very limited. The biggest piece of research is that done by NZIER and Infometrics. IPS from Vic uni have done qualitative work but no general equilibrium modelling to my knowledge. And all the work out of NZIER Infometrics favours allocations based on output over grand parenting. The regulatory impact assessment done jointly is referenced to this statement. However one piece of work from NZ is not enough to say, "economic assessment is heavily in favour of intensity based allocations", is it?

I agree. I don't see how you can make the statement -

"economic assessment is heavily in favour of intensity based allocations"

- if there are no sources to support that viewpoint.

Well you are being condescending , as I made that statement referring to the global body of work on intensity based allocation in general (not applied strictly to any one country). Catonz (talk) 21:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Part 4

If really wanted to be pedantic you could change it to, "General equilibrium modeling done by NZIER and Informetics, based on the New Zealand economy, showed allocations were only welfare enhancing when linked to production (ref name="ria").

Well, that has a lot of economics jargon in it. I would have thought that could be simplified to, e.g.,

"Source X pointed to the benefits of intensity-based allocations over grandfathering"

Part 5

[...] (I) General equilibrium modeling done by NZIER and Informetics, based on the New Zealand economy, showed allocations were only welfare enhancing when linked to production (ref name="ria"). (II) International economic research also supports basing allocations on intensity of production rather than historical emissions (ref all others). Catonz (talk)

No, I don't think sentence (II) is acceptable:

• (a) You haven't specified precisely where that statement comes from
• (b) The statement is unspecific as to what degree of consensus there is in that viewpoint
• (c) You have improperly synthesized the sentence with the earlier sentence on the study specifically related to the NZ ETS.

Is the statement, "Intensity-based allocation was favoured over allocations based on historical emissions by business groups, and representatives of large emitters" not also a synthesis then????? Catonz (talk) 21:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

(a and b) I asked you to specify what research supports intensity-based allocations. To say that -

International economic research also supports basing allocations on intensity of production rather than historical emissions

- implies a consensus view among experts about this research. Where, in your sources, does it give you this impression? There should be an explicit statement in your sources on the degree of consensus, e.g.,

In the source: "Most of the literature supports intensity-based..."

In any case, "international economic research" is a vague statement. It is better to specify which studies you are referring to, e.g.,

"Economists X, Y, and Z have pointed to the advantages of..."

(c) You've synthesized two distinctly different pieces of research, which is not acceptable.

International economic research also supports basing allocations on intensity of production rather than historical emissions

Someone reading the article might mistakenly get the impression that the NZ ETS has wide international support for its allocation methods. This is not correct. To repeat the point I made earlier, the assessment of the NZ ETS is different from generalized assessments of ETS's.

How?Catonz (talk) 21:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

In my experience, experts always make a clear distinction between the theory of policy and the implementation of policy. This is done, for example, in the IPCC report. Experts do not mix the two topics up, because they know that the two things are different. Enescot (talk) 03:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

All the other research is also about the implementation of policy (Garnaut, Stern etc).Catonz (talk) 21:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your suggestion to change second sentance to, economists X, Y and Z also.........

I think first sentance can remain, economic jargen is not that bad. Perhaps link jargen to wiki articles explaining them?Catonz (talk) 21:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

For neutrality perhaps we could also change language implying that all business and ‘large emitters’ favoured intensity (when I wrote the sentence I was merely copying this previously accepted format). NZBCSD for example did not support intensity based allocations. Catonz (talk) 21:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)