Talk:New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

GA?

Is it worth nominating the article as a GA? I know that it is rated as A-class, which is higher than GA-class, but currently it is not an official GA (different to GA-class).Adabow (talk) 10:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

With the amount of arguing that the article has right now, it won't pass GA. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

No, it still contains many errors. I have not had much time to proof read lately but looking through the Labour ETS section now.

This statement is wrong, "Under the Labour Governments ETS, forestry, transport, energy and industry, emission permits would not be 'gifted'"

Forestry and industry would have received free units. 'Transport' should be 'liquid fossil fuels'. Fishers, I think, would have also received an allocation for liquid fuel. I don't have time right now (its 11.52) to read the old legislation. If someone could fix it would be great.Catonz (talk) 11:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Can I remove this paragraph:

"Economist Geoff Bertram compared the price incentives of the 2008 NZ ETS with a carbon or greenhouse gas tax for Kyoto commitment period 1, 2008 to 2012. A tax of $NZ30 per tonne, on the 386 million tonnes of emitted greenhouse gases likely to be emitted from 2008 to 2012, would give a price signal (or government revenue) of $NZ11.6 billion. The exemptions and subsidies in Labour's ETS would have reduced that to about $NZ1 billion. In terms of the obligation to surrender emissions permits, Labour's ETS would have reduced the gross hypothetical surrender obligation of 386 million credits (one for each tonne) for the five years down to 35 million credits.[30]"

This para is incorrect. The power point presentation referenced does not even say this. It simply says the revenue will be reduced. Can I suggest when referencing what esteemed economists think we use papers they have written rather than mis-interpret power point presentations?

Gifting allocations does not remove the price signal. If it costs a firm $25 for each tonne of emissions it will price this into investment and production decisions, regardless of what allocations are given (unless allocations are connected to production as in an intensity scheme, in which case it will only factor the $25 per tonne in investment decisions to reduce emissions).

A basic understanding of microeconomics will tell any Vic Uni student watching this presentation that reducing the cost is not the same as reducing the price signal. Giving allocations based on production will not effect the return from investment on reducing greenhouse gases - from the Stern report: "Auctioning and free allocation both impose the same marginal cost on emissions (as the carbon price is the same". So the full price signal is felt by economy. Not the cost of emissions at 0% allocation minus the value of allocations as the article currently states.

Again the current A rating shows its worth. Perhaps we should remove this until these errors and mis-references are fixed?Catonz (talk) 12:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

No please don't remove that paragraph. Mrfebruary (talk) 13:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Does it not matter that the statement can not be attributed to the power point slide? Can I search Bertram's work and find a better reference?Catonz (talk) 03:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Mr Feruary: currently the article claims the Bertram presentation says something that it doesn't. Are you saying you disagree with me correcting this? Catonz (talk) 03:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Might be late in particpating in this discussion. But WikiProject Environment never hands out A-class assessment. I don't know where such assessment comes from. Until then, downgrading it to B-class. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Forestry CO2e-Certificates internationally exchangeable for other nations and companies to reduce their CO2e-emissions ?

Does anybody know if a company or gvt in say Western Europe can use these forestry AAU's in the EU ETS to compensate CO2e-emissions?--SvenAERTS (talk) 00:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. My understanding is that AAUs from NZ forest sinks can't be used in the EU ETS. But the Norwegian Govt has made some large purchases. See New_Zealand_Emissions_Trading_Scheme#Units_able_to_be_traded Mrfebruary (talk) 10:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Sector entry dates obligations and allocations table

Hi everyone! I just wanted to check that this table in the article is correct. It says for a few sectors that the transitional cost in CP1 is "One unit for two tonnes (50%) or fixed surrender price $NZ25/tonne", but my understanding is that the price is one unit for two tonnes AND a fixed surrender price, so a price of $12.50/tonne. That is what it seems to say at the beginning of the article at the summary:

"A transition period will operate from 1 July 2010 until 31 December 2012. During this period the price of NZUs will be capped at NZ$25. Also, one unit will only need to be surrendered for every two tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions, effectively reducing the cost of emissions to NZ$12.50 per tonne (MfE 2009, second bullet point)."

Could someone clarify this? I've also bolded the titles in the table to make it easier to read. Cheers Ballofstring (talk) 05:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ballofstring. You are right. It is one unit for two tonnes AND a fixed surrender price. See the second to last para of http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/climate/development-industrial-allocation-regulation-ets/page2.html

BTW Nice edits. Thanks for your contribution. Mrfebruary (talk) 06:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi again, just wondering whether the fishing industry actually has any obligations under the ETS to surrender permits – don't they just get free permits to offset the increased fuel costs (i.e., they are not a point of obligation as the fuel they buy will already have been priced under the ETS?)? The introduction says the fishing industry is not a participant... so the table might be incorrect in that they don't have any obligation and will never have to purchase emissions permits? Ballofstring (talk) 07:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ballofstring. Yes well spotted. Fishing has no compliance obligations and is not a 'participant'. See footnote 1 http://www.climatechange.govt.nz/consultation/fishing-allocation/draft-fishing-allocation-plan/page1.html#_ftn1 So their 'allocation' of units is not a "grandfathering" nor based on "output intensity". It is a compensation payment. Also, adding 'reward' after obligation in the forestry row. I am not sure if that fits well. Still thinking about it. Mrfebruary (talk) 10:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mrfebruary. Yeah I know what you mean, it is a bit clunky/doesn't really fit with the rest of the table. I just wanted to communicate the fact that the ETS can be both a reward and a punishment for the forestry industry depending on whether they cut down the trees or not (I don't completely understand the forestry obligations). It's probably simpler to remove the 'reward' bit... Ballofstring (talk) 06:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ballofstring. I have mulled it over. I am thinking of having two rows in the table, one for pre-1990 forests, which are allocated a fixed number of units as compensation; and one for post 1989 (Kyoto) forests which may earn units to recognise sequestration of carbon. Mrfebruary (talk) 07:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The changes you've done look good I think! Ballofstring (talk) 11:37, 28 May 2011 (UTC)