Posts Tagged ‘environment’
A shiny example of how ETS should not be done
New Zealand has started its emission trading scheme (ETS) from 1 July (yesterday). The country is one of the handful countries that have such scheme in place. Once again, New Zealand has become an experiential ground of a new concept for the world to observe.
New Zealand’s has experienced serious changes even before it is implemented. As the centre-right wing national government gets elected in 2009, the scheme has undergone a hasty review, and several changes were resulted.
One of the major issues that will eventually topple this ETS is the removal of caps on total amount of emissions allowed nationally, and by sector. Government is responsible to supply unlimited amount of emission units at a fixed price of $25 per unit until 2012.
Now this is a very weird thing to do by a government which proclaims itself as “pro-market”. The reason for a cap isn’t just limiting the country’s total emission, but providing a market mechanism that provides financial incentive for cleaner sectors to emerge. By removing such cap the scheme becomes no more than a new type of tax, since there is no limit on the amount of emissions, businesses can go on as usual, and the cost of this new “tax” is conveniently transferred to end users – i.e. every day consumers.
And this appears just like what has happened.
The effects of ETS are further reduced by not having agriculture sector included in the scheme until 2015. As the country’s largest polluter, agriculture accounts for nearly half of the total greenhouse gas emissions. This isn’t a sign that such issue is being treated seriously in New Zealand.
No wonder this ETS receives very little support – consumers absolutely hate it, even politicians don’t agree. From the very right wing Act Party, which highly doubts the existence of global warming, to the very left environmentalist Green Party, all voted down for such scheme.
But such scheme does provide a good example to rest of the world though – how it should not be done. I highly doubt the ETS will last as its current shape for long - a major overhaul might just be an election away.
Open season for trees
The Resource Management Act (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill is currently in the house. I've spent a bit of time to watch the debate, with particular interest in section 52 of the Bill.
The bill is not finalised so I'm not going to put it here. You can view the most updated version here. In a nutshell, the bill prohibits a district plan that prohibits tree removing, unless the tree is expressively protected in the district plan.
There are at least several concerns for this.
Firstly central government should not intervene local government businesses at such level of detail. District Plans have to give effects or at least have regard to several national documents, is not that enough? Every part of the country has its unique environment and situation, why the central government thinks it knows better than locals?
Secondly, this bill removes an important mechanism to protect urban enviroment. Environment minister Nick Smith argued that 98% of tree related concents are granted, therefore it is just a waste of time. Now here is an example of incompetency, he seems to forgot that consents can be granted with conditions and modifications.
Thirdly, it is likely to add unnessary workload for local authorities. I do expect an increased number of surveying in order to put more trees in the schedule after the law is passed, but happens for an area of unprotected bush? Waitakere is a good example - scheduling each single tree would be a process that you would never want to do it again.
So ... end of tree huggers?
Councils say they will not be able to stop people cutting down native bush and coastal pohutukawa in cities under planned changes to environment laws.
The Government wants to take away councils' power to stop trees over a certain size being chopped without permission. If the change goes ahead, landowners will be free to cut down any tree on their land unless it is listed in their council's district plan. (Via New Zealand Herald)
Oppositions to the councils' tree management claim that "it's their land so they should be able to do anything they like", but let's face it, it's no different than how a teenager feels like "I'm free and independent so I can do what ever I want", we all get that kind of feeling during our adolescence time, most grow out of it, but sadly, some don't.
The basic principle of the Resource Management Act is the "effect based approach", as long as you can demonstrate that you can minimise the adverse effects on environment, even a non-complying activity can get a go ahead. I was a "tree hugger",which means that use trees as an excuse to stop development in quite a few cases, in one case, a two storey new residential development is proposed on about two lots away from my friend's house, developer wants to chop down a 60m+ tree to provide an extra one or two parking spaces.
From my friend's point of vew it's actually quite hard to see that tree, just the top part, but I still criticized the development plan anyway because this is just too ridiculous. If development cannot get ahead without chopping down that tree I may just let it go, but such a tall tree for a mere parking space? Quite a lot of people still don't treat environment protection as part of citizens' responsibility, and think that as optional.
Property right was never absolute, before the current law system there were several common law principles existed, such as good neighbourliness, as long as you don't affect your neighbours' economic well-being then you should be fine. But we don't live in the beginning of the industrial age, we understand the value of our environment more than just a place to dump all our wastes for free.
Not a good one from National, I say, central government should minimise its influence on local government.
Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill 2009
RMA reform was part of National's 100 days actions, and it's now online. Here it is.
I don't have time to read it yet, I'll try to do that this weekend to see if there's anything interesting. So far it looks like they didn't change the definition of environment, that's a good sign.
Emissions Trading Scheme review now calling submissions
My position on climate change is that it is happening, and it is not as some said, "just a recovery from the little ice age" - human activities are at least partially responsible. There are uncertainties on how worse it would be, but there should be no doubt that it is happening.
So I feel very unease to talk about a "balance" between combating climate change and accommodate economic growth. Environment, the global weather system is still something that we don't fully understand how it works and when it will strike, yet it is so closely connected with the future well beings of mankind. Nature should be something that every one of us respect, not something that you can do "trade and exchange" or mess up with. Our survival solely depend on environment, not economic development.
For this review, any significant change that denies the existence of the climate change will send a wrong message to the world(yes, I'm talking about Rodney Hide). This looks unlikely for now, but there are still chances for surprises in the final select committee report, for example, extracted from the terms of references:
- identify the central/benchmark projections which are being used as the motivation for international agreements to combat climate change; and consider the uncertainties and risks surrounding these projections
- consider the timing of introduction of any New Zealand measures, with particular reference to the outcome of the December 2009 Copenhagen meeting, the position of the United States, and the timetable for decisions and their implementation of the Australian government
Well, what you say? The submissions close on February 13 - it's shorter than usual, but hey, at least they didn't sneak it through the system before the Christmas.
MfE Briefing to the Incoming Minister released
It's here.
I 'm only interested in the Resource Management Act part, so here's what the briefing said.
- Devolved RMA decision-making has exacerbated capacity issues in local government and led to variability in planning controls and consent processing. It is often difficult (both practically and politically) for councils to factor national benefits, priorities and strategies into planning and decision making when the costs of decisions fall locally.
- Central government is now making more use of the RMA instruments that offer greater national direction, involvement and guidance. Because there is no overall strategy for use of these powers, there is a lack of certainty about when and how central government will intervene.
- Under current RMA practice, effective and efficient resource allocation is not occurring, and new or expanding high-value uses are not being provided for. Problems are most keenly felt where resources are approaching or at full allocation in some areas: fresh water, coastal space, and air-sheds.
- The current ‘first-come-first-served’ system evolved from case law in the absence of central government direction, in a period of less resource competition.
Another thing worth to notice is that MfE stressed that "Meeting New Zealand’s international climate change obligations" as part of critical issues for environmental sustainability - bit harder for Rodney Hide to explain why he wants to dump the carbon credit system.
