Nerine

Yep, good point, why not adopt the precautionary principle - even if the green loonies aren't right it will make the planet a much better place to live in, I'm all for that.

The question is how best to do so? should governments impose taxes on carbon emitting processes, or instead allow companies/individuals to spend that money on carbon reduction methods, or even offer financial incentives to become greener? The concern I have is that 'carbon tax' is just another nice little revenue earner.

lardyl

well, I suppose the issue is that there needs to be control over carbon emissions and polluter pays is the least worst method..........
Carbon sequestration may get us out of the woods (us great chemists save the world finally!), but bio-fuels look like something of a false economy unless they rely on waste materials to generate them rather than using up valuable crop land and water/fertilizer........
We'll all see I suppose

Nerine

I can see the logic in that and I'm not disagreeing with you but Polluter Pays is only effective if every country imposes the same penalties, otherwise products from countries such as China will continue to be cheaper...leading to more demand for its products...& increased production and more pollution.

Do you mean ethanol and biodiesel? At present the production of these from biomass requires disproportionate amounts of fossil fuels, perhaps the efficient buring of biomass would be a better option?

But I wonder if there really is a will amongst the developed nations to exclusively use green fuels - almost all of the major industrialised nations generate valuable $$$ from their oil/gas/coal reserves and interests.

Carbon sequestration is an important process, sorry but I don't know that much about it other than there are natural CO2 sinks such as trees and oceans, and engineered methods, such as those used in coal fired power stations.

Tan0410

UK £1.03/litre - roughly converted NZ $2.72

Nerine

Ouch....that's a lot, wonder how much of that is tax?

Maz

Probably rather a lot... when I still lived in England back in 1991, there were 4 taxes on petrol, and one of those was a tax on one of the other taxes.

Professional_Gypsy

I agree to a point here - although I saw the biggest green tax grab in the UK, and none of that tax used to help the environment. Thinking fuel and airfares here...
What governments could be doing is implementing free mass transit. I was pleasantly surprised to see a free bus in auckland, however it didnt go further than you would walk, anyway it is a good start
Not too sure of the details of the North Shore bus lanes into Auckland being built - but sounds potentially a very good thing. Moving the South Island ferry port from Picton to somewhere closer to Wellington - and a possible cable car from Glenorchy to Milford sound are both good ideas in the pipeline to reduce emissions. I don't remember any ideas like this in the UK - apart from slapping on an extra 'green' tax

Nerine

I think the south bound bus land opened a few days after we left, not sure how much the fare is - maybe $5 each way? but there's still a problem with the harbour bridge not being wide enough.

Free public transport would be a massive step forward, the circuit bus in Auckland being a good start. I think I have a recollection of there being a similar scheme in Melborne with a free train/tram. But here there are only subsidised buses, trains and ferries - nothing free as far as I know....

Cape Blue

PG - I think you'll find the concept behind green taxes is not to spend the money raised on green things, but to help incentivise (or disincentivise) behavior.

i.e. making petrol & diesel expensive has incentivised people to buy more fuel efficient cars and use public transport (look at the average mpg figures for the US and you can see what cheap petrol incentivises)

Same with waste - adding a landfill tax (as in the UK) isn't really about the revenues raised, but it does make the recycling of waste more competitive with the alternatives (dumping in a hole in the ground).

I do agree however that just adding a tax on one side, when the alternatives are limited on the other (public transport in many areas) is disincentivising the bad behavior but not incentivising good.

Professional_Gypsy

Exactly - this is where 'green' taxes are totally flawed. If the government is adding to its tax take by charging these taxes - then either they should be reducing taxes on products/services that are green, or use the money to fund a green project - like free buses for example. Otherwise as a taxpayer - you just feel ripped off by the whole issue - which is probably how some governments are trying to make you feel (so you dont support green issues perhaps!).

lardyl

re: biofuels yes, I was reading articles in Chemistry Today (or whatever Chem in Bit became) and it was pretty clear that we need the productive land for something other than strictly "biofuel" crops. As you suggest the choice seems to be either take the tarry from a decent food/comodity crop and chuck a load of energy in to make some useable fuel or grow crops specifically for fuel - both seem to have disadvantages on a cost/benefit basis.
As far as sequestration goes - I suppose that we could try all sorts of things to get rid of the greenhouse gases and some might work. Perhaps what we really need is some efficient, cheap, reliable renewables, maybe tidal power? Have plenty of coastline here in NZ so we should be able to harvest energy from the sea?
I think that most developed countries and particularly the EU/US would like to reduce their reliance on energy from less stable or hostile countries in order to make their energy security a bit more, errr, secure. But I hear what you say about the trade in fuels and fuel derivatives, that must make the western world quite a lot of cash.
As far as the North Shore bus lanes go - not sure what is happening, seen a few south bound and the odd north (I think) bus using it but it is intermittent - the bus I caught back to Hibiscus Coast on Friday did not use it - but that was during a good period of traffic, which begs the question "will all buses use it?"

TIE

How nice to read a relatively balanced thread on this "current burning issue" without the usual abuse hurled at anyone who questions the current orthodoxy on global warming so endlessly espoused by the media, greenies and other people who seem to be looking for a cause to bash "The Establishment" or the "middle classes" (and heaven help The Rich!!) with.

I also think that there are a lot of unanswered questions on what is so often stated as incontrovertible Truth that the world is warming, going to get much warmer and its all the fault of western economies and fat capitalist bastards. Unfortunately anyone of standng who tries to make the point is ridiculed, derided and accused of being in the pocket of Big Business, so many people who could provide informd input prefer to keep out of the limelight.

In the world of computer modelling, small differences in assumptions can make huge differences to results and it seems that the papers so often go with the consequences of teh worst-case scenarios and largely ignore the fact that these are only predictions based on a very imperfect understandng of weather & climate (no matter how well qualified/educated the scientists they still dont know it all).

Put simply, I often think that with all the computers & scientists/meteorologists money can buy, most of them cant tell you with any real accuracy what the temperature will be tomorrow (try following a TV weather forecast over a week or so & check actuals against what was forecast the day before) , and they expect us to believe they can make accurate predicitions 40, 50, 100 years into the future?????

Professional_Gypsy

The scientists are looking at a generalised pattern of weather over the long term - it is far easier to forecast a trend than the exact weather on any particular day. They are not going to tell you it is going to be raining and windy 40 years to the day - they are saying the trend in temperature is up, and taken as a year as a whole 2048 will be a lot hotter than 2008 - which will have huge implications for all species.
The trend in global temperatures rising has been so obvious - you wouldnt even need a calculator to work out the direction they are going.

southerner

The weight of scientific evidence seems to point to the fact global climate change is being caused by human activity. Like you would expect with this sort of field, it will be a long time before the science is perfected and I don't think we can afford to weait and see.

Based on the "precautionary approach" others have discussed I'm in favour of personally reducing waste/ over consumption right now. There are a lot of advantages and apart from the odd personal inconvenience there are few disadvantages to this approach. And we all have to do our bit however small it might be, so why shouldn't NZ take an early adopter approach to this.

The more that western countries try to worm out of doing the right thing, the less pressure can be put onto developing countries to clean their lot up. Thats why the current US stance is most galling to me at the present time.

We all pay taxes - and we all grumble about paying too much tax. Taxes are all about redistributing wealth. When it comes down to it, it can be argued it makes more sense to pay a tax that incentivises green behaviour than one that disincentivises work and investment (like income taxes).