Key's Bullshit ETS
Me
Blatant favouritism for reasons of political expediency is corrupt.
Add on to that favouritism based on race, and it even gets worse, as
it's just a privileged selected few, with self-proclaimed right to
represent "their" people - claiming all.
Where the fuck is the media on this?
More to the point perhaps, where is a strong opposition party?
It's a bit of a surprise - I expected that the strong election victory
last year might have resulted in some hubris and John might flounder,
but not the way he has done.
Sailor Sam
Don't forget, the taxpayer will be footing the bill for the polluters.
Me
Perhaps it's a joke, a "serious" summit on the environment, attended by
the descendants of moa hunters, claiming ancestral rights. For what?
Pooh
"Me" <us...@domain.invalid> wrote in message
news:hedbl3$28m$1...@news.albasani.net...
The big question is : How is it any different from Labours attempt? When all
is said and done just exactly what will any ETS achieve and who will finish
up paying for it? Here's the answers: Nothing and the poor bloody people of
the world.
On this one National and Labour are just as dumb. Neither party has shown an
iota of common sense. But then they're politicians which says it all!
Pooh
George.com
"Me" <us...@domain.invalid> wrote in message
news:hedbl3$28m$1...@news.albasani.net...
"Iwi/Kiwi" to "Kiwi/Iwi" inside 4 years. The racial pot Brash stirred up is
coming back to haunt National. Quite fitting isn't it.
rob
Me
> "Me" <us...@domain.invalid> wrote in message
> news:hedbl3$28m$1...@news.albasani.net...
>> Key's honeymoon is over IMO.
>> Blatant favouritism for reasons of political expediency is corrupt.
>> Add on to that favouritism based on race, and it even gets worse, as it's
>> just a privileged selected few, with self-proclaimed right to represent
>> "their" people - claiming all.
>> Where the fuck is the media on this?
>> More to the point perhaps, where is a strong opposition party?
>> It's a bit of a surprise - I expected that the strong election victory
>> last year might have resulted in some hubris and John might flounder, but
>> not the way he has done.
>>
>
> The big question is : How is it any different from Labours attempt?
One penalised the consumer of "bad" product indirectly.
The other penalises everyone, whether they choose to consume from
"polluters" (now subsidised) or not, so forgetting the science (or lack
of it) the economics aren't set up to achieve the end which justified
the means.
IOW, from a "user pays levy" (Labour), it's now just a plain old
"everyone pays" tax (National).
IMO they're both based on BS, but National has played the game much
dirtier.
Roger Dewhurst
The taxpayer will be footing the bill for Piltdown Mann's global warming!
R
J.Wilson
"Pooh" <jus...@polies.suc> wrote in message
news:hedg84$v3f$1...@adenine.netfront.net...
Maybe not so dumb but just have to follow orders from above.. or else!
hellicopter
So they will demand high wages and so force polluters to
move overseas nevertheless. The few polluters left who
cannot move will be insulated by the farmers again!
Welcome to stupid economic thinking from the NAT ACT party.
Instead of stressing our companies that have to stay
here, can't move, we give them a free ride off the taxpayer.
Its creepy how bad Key financial engineering makes profits
for his mates and stuffs our economy up.
hellicopter
Ants have it easy, if they destroy their environment they die
back in numbers. If they produce too much methane, ant
populations drastically die back globally. So ants populations
are selected on the basis that they don't do anything excessively
and everything they do have to do to survive they do
as simple and consistently as possible. Because toxicity
will build up and harm the colony, so closed loop is
essential.
Then Human kind rocks up and kills the ecosystem, using cheap
oil and science, with copious amounts of bureaucratic paper
to justify the complex remixing of policies (pork redistribution
to insiders).
Keep it simple! Carbon credits were a good idea, if the governments
and corporations of the world could keep their hands off the scheme.
Which they clearly can't.
Look like a more drastic solution is required. Force goods to be
sent back to their point of manufacturer and disposed of. So
it someone buys a chinese pot and the handle comes off, then
there is an incentive for the manufacturer to fix the handle
(and save the consumer going out to buy another for a small
fee, or with a web page do it yourself) or not make such a
shoddy product to begin with. Now take the
same idea to energy, if the energy comes from oil, then that
carbon must be put back in the ground! Unlike nuclear where
the element is changed into other elements and the goal
is to reduce the radiation from the waste.
If the energy comes from oil, gas, then let the energy user
pay for having to match their carbon use atom for atom put
into some carbon dump! If the energy comes from wind! solar!
hydro! earth heat! just make sure the equipment goes back
to the supplier to recycle or repair.
Put a price of the real material costs of goods.
Brian Dooley
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 19:55:22 +1300, Me <us...@domain.invalid>
wrote:
All we need now is Hide to say he won't support the bicycle track
and it's all on.
--
Brian Dooley
Wellington New Zealand
Pooh
"Me" <us...@domain.invalid> wrote in message
Do you reealy think the manufacturer pays the "user pays levy"? Because the
poluter pays nothing! They just add their cost to what they charge us. The
National model is a lot more honest one than Labours. Labour is under the
misapprehension that manufacturers have a money fairy that provides money
for things. National knows the money comes ultimately from the long
suffering taxpayer.
> IMO they're both based on BS, but National has played the game much
> dirtier.
>
Labour played it dirty (or dumb) by ignoring the fact the taxpayer pays for
everything.
Pooh
Sailor Sam
AKA User pays.
>The
> National model is a lot more honest one than Labours.
Because it takes from the taxpayer...
> Labour is under the
> misapprehension that manufacturers have a money fairy that provides money
> for things. National knows the money comes ultimately from the long
> suffering taxpayer.
>
Wrong.
>> IMO they're both based on BS, but National has played the game much
>> dirtier.
>>
>
> Labour played it dirty (or dumb) by ignoring the fact the taxpayer pays for
> everything.
>
> Pooh
>
>
Under National... yes....
Me
If the manufacturer is "subsidised" by the taxpayer, instead of being
penalised for emissions, then the incentive is removed for them to
reduce emissions, which AFAIK was supposed to be the whole point of the
exercise in the first place (not one that I ever believed would work in
the real world, but that's another story).
National have also made it very clear that liability is negotiable -
they'll intervene in the "market" if it suits them.