You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Down Under
New Zealand first to levy carbon tax
2005-05-05
New Zealanders will pay an extra NZ$2.90 (£1.11) a week for electricity, petrol and gas when the country becomes the first in the world to introduce a carbon tax to address global warming.
It is expected to add about 6% to household energy prices and 9% for most businesses but will help the economy in the long run, according to Pete Hodgson, the minister responsible for climate change policy.
'cause raising taxes always helps the economy, ya know. Paul Krugman says so, you can look him up.
Mr Hodgson set the tax yesterday at NZ$11 a metric tonne of carbon emitted. It will come into effect in two years. "If we are going to tackle climate change, we need to start taking environmental costs into account in the economic choices we make," he said.

The tax, planned after New Zealand signed up to the Kyoto protocol, would make polluting energy sources like coal and oil more expensive than cleaner ones like hydro, wind and solar, he added. The experiment will be watched closely by bigger countries who are also committed to reducing carbon emissions but are failing to reduce energy demand.
They aren't going to look closely; they're going to plough ahead and make the same mistakes.
The government estimates the tax will raise about NZ$360m a year but has said it will not increase revenues. "It will be balanced by other tax changes so there is no net increase in government revenue", a government spokesman said yesterday.

The most energy-intensive businesses will be exempted so they are not forced to shut or relocate. In return companies such as Comalco, which uses 15% of the country's power, and Carter Holt Harvey Ltd, the country's biggest saw mill, must commit to reducing carbon emissions.
So they're just getting bully-ragged. Bet they feel special.
New Zealand, which produces about 29% of its electricity from gas or coal-fired power stations, has a record of introducing the idea of green taxes but then dropping them. In 2003 the government planned to impose a methane tax on farmers because flatulence of cows and sheep was responsible for more than half of New Zealand's total greenhouse gas emissions. But that was abandoned after criticism from angry farmers, who labelled it a "fart tax".

Reaction to the carbon tax was mixed yesterday. "It's good to see there are no surprises," said Tom Campbell, the managing director of Comalco's aluminum smelting operations.

A government spokesman said the tax would have long term benefits for the economy: "If New Zealand does nothing ... our emissions will continue to rise as will the future cost of reducing them.
Or maybe the cost of reducing them could go down as technology improves, or you could decide that it makes no sense to do in the first place.
"If we can curb our growth in greenhouse gas emissions now, we will be better placed to make a smooth transition to more challenging commitments after 2012."
"When Kyoto really requires us to tank our economy.
Other countries, especially in Europe, have energy taxes which are weighted against producers but New Zealand is believed to be the first to ask the public to pay directly for the costs of reducing global warming. Proposals for a Europe-wide carbon tax were abandoned in the 1990s.
Posted by:Steve White

#14  sounds like a Han Solo tie-in for the Star Wars opening...
Posted by: Frank G   2005-05-05 21:22  

#13  They have a lot of tree farms in NZ, Mrs. Davis. They used to have a bunch of kauri trees on the N island. Great hardwood, slow grower. I saw pics in a pub of them logging 8-ft dia ones out of the forest. Link here on kauri trees.
Posted by: Alaska Paul   2005-05-05 21:11  

#12  Is there a fine for chopping down trees?
Posted by: Mrs. Davis   2005-05-05 21:05  

#11  1. I doubt this will sink the NZ economy
2. Its a market solution - the cost of emitting carbon goes up, and the MARKET chooses the alternative - in some cases alternative energy sources, in some cases less energy consumption, in some cases the market will decide its not worth changing to avoid the tax.
3. Its revenue neutral so some other tax goes down - since all other taxes have distortive effects on the economy that is an added bonus. Think about it - income tax is a tax on work and productivity - something wed like MORE of. C02 in the atmosphere is something we want LESS of. Better to tax what we want less of, and reduce taxes on what we want MORE of.
4. Of course if you think that more C02 in the atmosphere is a neutral thing, or even a positive good than this makes no sense. But thats a scientific argument, not an economic argument.
Posted by: Liberalhawk   2005-05-05 15:34  

#10  A domestic carbon tax is really not a big deal. In NZ And that's why this is a pretentious, obnoxious sham.

About what you'd expect from NZ these days.
Posted by: anon   2005-05-05 13:25  

#9  Mmm! A domestic carbon tax is really not a big deal. In NZ its effectively a tax on imported oil. Of far more significance is Kyoto 'carbon credits', a true tranzi tax, where developed countries have to pay 'developing' countries a tax to consume even domestically produced oil/gas/coal.
Posted by: phil_b   2005-05-05 12:00  

#8  That was NZ$11/tonne or US$8.40/tonne, still doubling the cost of coal in my example.
Posted by: ed   2005-05-05 11:50  

#7  So they tax carbon, now where does the revenue go? NZ's electric power is largely generated by hydro. The aluminium producers won't be affected because they get their power from hydro. Did the bureaucrats ever think of tax incentives for ''green'' power? Or something besides a tax?
Posted by: Alaska Paul   2005-05-05 11:20  

#6  Compare the $11/tonne carbon tax with the $8/ton ($9/tonne) cost of Powder River Basin coal, the cheapest US coal. Nice to know that if implemented in the US, it would double many an electric power plants fuel costs.
Posted by: ed   2005-05-05 10:45  

#5  What they should be doing is taxing all the sheep farts, for crying out loud. Didn't Dixie Lee Ray once assert that the hole in the ozone layer at the South pole was caused by too many damn sheep in NZ emitting methane in their flatulance?
Posted by: Jack is Back!   2005-05-05 09:24  

#4  There is no ''money from the tax to reduce global warming'': ''It will be balanced by other tax changes so there is no net increase in government revenue''.

This is a neat little trick that punishes consumption but does not otherwise address the ''problem''. The lawmakers get a neat and tidy ''solution'' that makes them look proactive without having to get into gritty technical details. And the exempted companies have more reason than ever to drag their feet.
Posted by: Tom   2005-05-05 09:12  

#3  What is the government going to do with the money from the tax to reduce global warming?
*chirp*
Right, just what I thought.
Posted by: Spot   2005-05-05 08:14  

#2  Here Tranzi fools, tax this carbon.
Posted by: Sock Puppet 0’ Doom   2005-05-05 04:54  

#1  I'll bet Maurice Strong is laughing his bloody ass off... prolly the only thing we have in common.
Posted by: .com   2005-05-05 01:34  

00:00