Phil O'Reilly of Business NZ flogs the dead horse: ETS stands for Emitters Trading Scheme

Why is only Business NZ putting a proverbial head above the parapet and expressing a view on the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme (the NZETS)? I argue that the NZETS gives us the "Eyes Glaze Over" syndrome as it is a flogged dead horse. The NZETS is toothless by design. In both respects, Business NZ has got the NZETS exactly how they want it.

Phil O'Reilly, the CEO of business lobby group Business NZ, has just written an opinion piece in the Herald on the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme (the NZETS).

Okay, I think I can guess what you are thinking.

"Oh no, an article about the NZETS...just the mention of it sucks the life out of me. I bet it has attracted a whole lot of crackpot denier comments. It's so complex and full of jargon I don't really know what to think about it. I find the whole subject just a turn-off. My Eyes are Glazing Over.

Yes. This is the entirely natural MEGO response. You need to fight it! Most mentions of the NZETS descend into flogging the dead horse in order for the snake to swallow the elephant in the room.

We need to realise that this ETS-inertia politically assists the parties who gain from the current NZETS. That is of course, the big emitter business members of Business NZ. So, obtain a coffee or other stimulant and return. I can help you through this. I have waded through Phil O'Reilly's NZETS musings so you don't have to.

Turning to Phil O'Reilly's article, at first reading it seems a confusing mix of criticism of the NZETS and also some praise.

The criticisms; NZETS policies are uncertain, there has been lost of tinkering and amending - this is bad for investors and even low carbon investors.

"We need to stop the politicking, get the settings fixed, and just let the ETS get on with it its job."

The praise:

"The framework is fundamentally sound and capable of allowing a stronger price signal to flow through once the international carbon market revives...Major design changes at this point are unnecessary since higher carbon prices are almost certainly on the horizon, especially if Europe recovers."

What on earth is Phil O'Reilly on about? I can't decide which is further from reality; that the NZETS has a sound framework, or that the European economies are about to recover!

However, facts and internal consistency just don't matter in a business op-ed about the NZETS. A bit of criticism is a useful dog whistle to the fringe of climate change deniers. Sure enough, they pop up in the comments section including Hot Topic's favourite energy expert Bryan Leyland. The wingnuts perform the function of making Phil O'Reilly look centrist and therefore reasonable.

And, according to the flogging the dead horse theory, it doesn't matter what you say about the NZETS, the mere mention of it induces ennui. So the more yada yada yada, the better.

But! Let me focus on the bottom-line meta-message from Phil O'Reilly. It is "Hand offs the generous free allocation of emissions units to emitters" as indicated in this quote.

"The allocation of free units allowed under the ETS is not a subsidy but a necessary protection against an uneven playing field."

Business NZ have a history of lobbying very effectively against having an effective carbon price. In particular, for the NZETS, they have lobbied very hard and successfully for generous free allocation of emissions units to big emitters. Its useful to look back at the history of this.

In 2005 Business NZ opposed the proposed carbon tax

They succeeded in getting the tax withdrawn. Clearly, the carbon tax didn't have enough exemptions.

In 2006, Business NZ started "a project to develop a framework for emissions trading". Partners were Business NZ members (and big emitters) Genesis Energy, Mighty River Power, Contact Energy, BlueSkope Steel, Solid Energy, Comalco (now Rio Tinto Alcan NZ), Fletcher Building and Fonterra.

Why were they doing this? Phil O'Reilly said "It's important that the system doesn't harm business competitiveness, and hopefully it can actually enhance competitiveness." One part of the project was to "evaluate and make recommendations on emission credit allocation schemes for different sectors".

In other words, by 2006 Business NZ had already evolved what was to be a highly successful tactic; over-emphasize the competitiveness risks to the big emitters and lobby for generous free allocations of emissions units to the big emitters.

In September 2007, Helen Clark's Labour-led Government released its draft NZETS Framework. In this framework, the free allocation of units to eligible industrial emitters was to be equal to 90 per cent of 2005 emissions plus electricity consumption up to 2012, then decreasing annually on a linear basis so allocation ended in 2025, with no allocation to new industries.

In April 2008, Business NZ said the proposed NZETS allocations did not sufficiently protect the competitiveness of businesses. They catastrophically predicted that the NZETS would would cause 28% to 32% contractions of sheep and wool farming, dairy farming and processing and metals production, causing the loss of 52,000 jobs.

By 2008 Rod Oram was describing their approach thus.

"Business New Zealand says it supports an emissions trading scheme. But it's now clear it means one that transfers most of the costs to consumers and taxpayers."

Business NZ were not even trying to deny this. Passing the cost of the Kyoto Protocol onto taxpayers had been an explicit policy since 2007 when Phil O'Reilly said:

"The government needs to meet the 2012 liability itself rather than multiply its cost many times by passing on to businesses."

Labour stuck with 90% of 2005 emissions for free allocation and the 2025 end-year in the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading) Amendment Act 2008 which became law in September 2008. Business New Zealand spat the dummy at not getting its way. Phil O'Reilly described the NZETS as "deficient","a risk to our economy" and an "example of poor law-making".

In 2009, the new National Government reviewed the NZETS, and then adopted amendments to it in November.

Brian Fallow noted that the large industrial emitters had got three big wins: a price cap of $25 a tonne to 2012; allocation of free units based on an intensity basis; a more gradual phase-out of free allocations at 1.3 per cent a year not 8.5 per cent.

Phil O'Reilly of course agreed and said "the Government had listened to business concerns about potential economic damage by providing for a more measured transition into a full trading scheme, while still placing a price on carbon."

In February 2010, Business NZ submitted on the development of Industrial Allocation Regulations in their by now time-honoured way, of emphasising free allocation to emitters:

"In the absence of other jurisdictions having emissions trading or carbon taxes, officials need to err on the side of generosity when developing the specific detail around the allocation of free units."

Fast forward to April 2011 and in Business NZ's submission to the David Caygill review of the NZETS they recommended that the $25 price cap and the 1:2 part obligation (which were due to end in 2012) be kept for ten years and that the start of phase out of free allocation be delayed until 2018

In November 2011, when the David Caygill review announced it was recommending slower implementation of the NZETS, Business NZ said the slowdown was welcome but not enough.

In April 2012, the Government announced its intention to keep the $25 price cap until at least 2015 and to have a slower phase out of the 1:2 part obligation to 2012. In other words, they met Business NZ almost halfway.

I think its clear from this review that Business NZ has always taken a tough negotiators position on the NZETS free allocations. They work out what they can reasonably expect, then they always ask for more concessions above that. Then they complain vigourously when they don't get everything they want.

Hence their op-eds seem confusing, contradictory and act as honeytraps for crackpots. But it doesn't matter, as any discussion of the NZETS is enwrapped in a veil of flogging the dead horse.

The ETS in NZETS really does stand for "Emitters Trading Scheme"

Pure Advantage replies about downplaying carbon pricing

The green-business-growth ginger group Pure Advantage have posted a reply at Hot Topic blog to my criticism that they are avoiding talking about carbon pricing.

They say they are completely aware of the need for real carbon pricing and that they are aware of the ineffectiveness of the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme. And they paid for James Hansen's speaking tour.

However, they perceive a "political reality" that John Key's National-led Government is not listening to criticism of the ETS or their broader energy and climate policies. Duncan Stuart says;

Your argument that Pure Advantage is not being transparent on carbon pricing is unfounded.
Will dialling up the price of carbon and including all sector scheme participants change behaviour? Absolutely.
Will government do this? No.
Will Pure Advantage repeating our ETS position make a difference to government’s lack of willingness to act? No.
But what would happen if Pure Advantage were to encourage industry to take the initiative and change their behaviour in the absence of a strong carbon price (i.e. ‘reality’)?
Well, for one thing you get a win by actually decreasing emissions rather than talking about it, and, secondly, you’ve then got a marketplace which is actually more capable and willing to accept said carbon price and a government that feels more comfortable about dictating that price.

It seems Pure Advantage are still saying the path forward to a carbon price is by downplaying the carbon price within the larger rubric of "Green Growth/sustainable development". To me this is Pure Advantage admitting that what they understand about carbon pricing is not quite what they say about carbon pricing.

How is that leadership?

I think Churchill's comment on the Americans in the Second World War hits the spot.

"Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing...after they have exhausted all other possibilities."

Pure Advantage pushes 'New Zealand’s Position in the Green Race' but is silent on carbon pricing

I look at the latest Pure Advantage report promoting green economics. It's all great sustainability stuff except that it fails to mention carbon pricing (emissions trading schemes or carbon taxes). How seriously can we take the Pure Advantage "green growth" message on climate change, when they are not upfront about their position on a price on carbon?

Pure Advantage, the green business advocacy group, have just released another green growth report 'New Zealand’s Position in the Green Race'. Hot Topic blog has posted about Pure Advantage before and Phillip Mills guest-posted on how NZ needs a bold low-carbon business strategy too.

The report has three goals: to define green growth, to summarise New Zealand's uninspiring environmental and economic performance, and to propose "a process for developing a green growth recipe for NZ and a strategy for delivering it" (page 27).

The basic idea of the report is clear from this graphic - where 'Green Growth' starts as an amorphous brain storm of idea, which then gets focused through the 'NZ Green Race' report and an economic analysis, before emerging like a butterfly from a chrysalis as a number of strategies and policies.

Pure Advantage believes that "corporates need to step up to provide the necessary leadership" because "New Zealand’s political leadership has successively failed to make the distinction between greening our current dirty industries, and creating new forms of high-value growth in a green economy" (page 11). Hear hear for both observations!

Climate change features strongly in their definition of green growth (as does flowery language).

Green Growth is:

* "the aggregated economic benefit that comes from minimising waste and the inefficient use of energy, reducing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, enhancing natural resources and biodiversity"
* "an economic progression driven by a series of interrelated and unprecedented global commercial imperatives, including the geopolitical drive for domestic energy security, exploding population growth, changing social demographics, mounting climate obligations, rapid decarbonisation of economies towards renewable energy..."
* "a global economic revolution driven by a series of interrelated global mega-trends, including rapid decarbonisation of economies towards renewable energy"

The report works well on the first two goals, but it fails in terms of the the third goal as their 'recipe' for dealing with climate change does not include carbon pricing. The New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) is mentioned twice in the report. On page 27 there is a brief mention of the ETS in discussion of NZ's growth in greenhouse gases. And in a quote from the OECD on page 34.

So what? Should Pure Advantage mention the ETS or carbon taxes/prices? The ETS is probably perceived to be most boring topic ever. Discussing the ETS is usually flogging the dead horse to swallow the elephant in the room.

But how do Pure Advantage think we can achieve a rapid decarbonisation of the economy without carbon pricing? As James Hansen says there needs to be a rising carbon fee on all emissions of carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases.

Or, as the economist William Nordhaus says

"If economics provides a single bottom line for policy, it is that we need to correct this market failure by ensuring that all people, everywhere, and for the indefinite future are confronted with a market price for the use of carbon that reflects the social costs of their activities. Economic participants - thousands of governments, millions of firms, billions of people, all making trillions of decisions each year - need to face realistic prices for the use of carbon if their decisions about consumption, investment, and innovation are to be appropriate."

It is very unlikely that Pure Advantage don't have an opinion on emissions trading and carbon pricing. Its also very unlikely that they think they know better than either Hansen or Nordhaus. They are after all successful intelligent business people who have identified with sustainability. So its highly improbable that the Pure Advantage team think that decarbonising the economy can be done without effective carbon pricing.

So why don't they mention carbon pricing explicitly as an essential method to decarbonise? I suspect the answer is in this quote from the executive summary;

"To date much of the green debate in New Zealand has focused on the downside: costs and enforced obligations. Pure Advantage has been formed to focus on the economic upside of being green..."

"Costs and enforced obligations": that sounds more like the more traditional business view of the ETS. The Pure Advantage team seems to view the ETS as a downside, just like the rest of the business community who are not-so green-growth. And they only want to push the upside of green growth. So in promoting green growth (and decarbonising) to their business colleagues, Pure Advantage feel they have to downplay the ETS.

I have problems with this approach. It is less then completely transparent. Its also not showing leadership.

Wouldn't real green growth leadership involve openly stating that New Zealand must have a carbon price? That New Zealand needs to have an effective no-exception no-subsidies ETS or carbon tax instead of the ineffective NZETS?

William Nordhaus has made this comment on global warming eloquence without carbon pricing.

Whether someone is serious about tackling the global-warming problem can be readily gauged by listening to what he or she says about the carbon price. Suppose you hear a public figure who speaks eloquently of the perils of global warming and proposes that the nation should move urgently to slow climate change. Suppose that person proposes regulating the fuel efficiency of cars, or requiring high-efficiency lightbulbs, or subsidizing ethanol, or providing research support for solar power—but nowhere does the proposal raise the price of carbon. You should conclude that the proposal is not really serious and does not recognize the central economic message about how to slow climate change. To a first approximation, raising the price of carbon is a necessary and sufficient step for tackling global warming. The rest is at best rhetoric and may actually be harmful in inducing economic inefficiencies.

I'd love to hear from a spokesperson from Pure Advantage who can tell me that they are not just "eloquent speakers" on global warming who do not propose a carbon price.

Here are some questions for Pure Advantage.

* Do they recognise the economic point that decarbonising must involve carbon pricing?

* Do they accept that the NZETS is an ineffective carbon price scheme?

* If yes to both these questions, why don't they show leadership and stand publicly for what they believe in?

Livestock and Feed Policy in New Zealand: 1975 to the Present

I have just added the paper 'Livestock and Feed Policy in New Zealand: 1975 to the Present, to the real Robin Johnson's Economics Web Page. Robin wrote this in 1985 and 1986 when he worked for the Centre for Applied Economics and Policy Studies at Massey University.

Meridian misjudged millions on the Mokihinui hydro dam

Gareth Hughes blogs that energy company Meridian's persistent advocacy for Mokihinui River hydro dam proposal, including obtaining resource consents, has now been proven to be a waste of 18 million dollars now that Meridian has withdrawn the proposal and the consents.

Gareth is bang on to describe the Mokihinui Dam proposal as ‘far-fetched’ and ‘unconsentable’. It’s the Conservation Act not the the Resource Management Act that makes the dam proposal ‘unpermit-able’ (if thats even a word!).

The Mokihinui River is conservation land. The Minister of Conservation can’t just give away conservation areas for non-conservation purposes.

The case law is a 1995 High Court declaration Buller Electricity Ltd v Attorney-General [1995] 3 NZLR 344 that said that the Minister of Conservation was correct to decline to give away the Ngakawau River for a hydro dam as it wasn’t a conservation purpose.

Meridian and its advisors have only themselves to blame for the $18m dead-loss (and also DOC’s costs). When they initially scoped out the feasibility of the proposal, they should have realised that the Buller Electricity precedent was a very high hurdle to cross.

I can only presume that their initial scoping suffered from ‘optimism bias’. It was also their choice to pursue resource consents before receiving formal access to the conservation land from the Minister of Conservation.

Kevin Anderson tenuous hope brutal numbers

This is a brilliant talk by Kevin Anderson of the University of Manchester and the Tyndall Center about how the OECD countries have deluded themselves that they are doing anything meaningful to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases since the 1992 Rio Earth Summit.

The title of the talk is "Going Beyond Dangerous Climate Change: Exploring the void between rhetoric and reality in reducing carbon emissions"

Or download the audio file

There is also this alternative version.

Professor Kevin Anderson - Climate Change: Going Beyond Dangerous

View another webinar from DFID

Too big to fail

Here is the other Simon Johnson talking about breaking up the American banks that are "too big to fail". This is the key message from the book 13 Bankers Johnson co-wrote with James Kwak. See also this Wall St Journal article