ACT attacks National’s ETS

The recent press release from ACT is a pretty effective hit on John Key and Nick Smith and their corrupt and farcical Emissions Trading Scheme-

The Emissions Trading Scheme imposes significant costs on all New Zealanders. We need our exporters to lead the way out of our economic crisis – instead we are shooting them in the foot.

Families are paying more for power, fuel and food due to the ETS. Last week’s ETS Advisory Committee’s report recommended the Government slow down the Scheme’s implementation. This won’t help those already suffering.

Whatever you believe about climate change, it makes zero sense for New Zealand to try to lead the world with this ‘all sectors, all gasses’ shambles of a Scheme. Consider these facts:

  • We produce just 0.2% of the whole world’s greenhouse gas emissions
  • None of our major trading partners have anything similar to our ETS
  • The ETS has caused electricity prices to spike by 5%
  • It has forced petrol prices up by 4 cents per litre, which will double by 2013

On top of this, the average dairy farmer is paying an extra $4,000 each year in diesel and electricity costs. This will rise to over $10,000 annually if they start being taxed for animals’ natural bodily functions.

It is preposterous to think that our ETS will make any tangible difference to global warming – but it is making a major difference to our bank accounts.

ACT will fight to dump the Emissions Trading Scheme, or have it suspended until our major trading partners catch up.

11 thoughts on “ACT attacks National’s ETS

  1. Heh. I just read Mike Butler’s latest post at Breaking Views NZ and had to share his closing paragraph:

    “Given that the report excludes discussion about the ultimate ineffectiveness of the scheme, that at best it is, as the report’s title suggests, a token gesture, this National-led government’s response raises serious questions about their ability to deal with existence in the physical and economic universe. The only reality this government understands is pressure from stakeholders and special interest groups.”

    Emphasis mine.

    Pretty much nails it.


  2. Bit of a beggar for ACT really. In my mind, I am not sure that it was such a great idea climbing into bed with Key & co. Especially, not great for the long term for ACT. Great for Key. It is said that “He who sups with the devil needs a long spoon”, and this has never been truer than in the ACT/National coalition deal. I think that it set in train destructive forces that will do nothing but harm to the junior partner. Call it dichotomy or hiatus, but there is a big problem. How on the one hand can you try to deal with/fight demonstrable crap like ETS etc. and then take a breath and defend your so-called partner on other issues. At the very least credibilty suffers, and wearies the soul. I mean, how would any of you guys like to be forced to defend Key?
    A cunning plan, Rodney got to fight a war that he couldn’t really win.
    Best to go it alone and defend your principles.


  3. Its pretty complex. Saying they would not support National may have had a negative effect on their party vote, and if they don’t get over the 5% or win Epsom then they’re stuffed.

    I said right from the start and I say it now, Brash should have been part of a new party. ACT carries too much baggage and is too internally fractured to be saved.


  4. You’re probably right Redbaiter. As an Epsom voter I would have preferred Rodney but will still vote for John Banks – I might even give Act my party vote as a protest against National. I recall Leighton Smith saying that when tempted to boycott an election it’s probably better to vote for the best fit rather than not voting, For me, continuation of the ETS by National was the tipping point. AFAIK no other party opposes the ETS.


  5. I think Don Brash could have done better in the way he became leader of ACT and I have told him so. However, we have to deal with how things are not how things could have been or how we would like things to be. ACT is the only party highly likely to be in Parliament that opposes the ETS. The same applies to youth wages. I would think the question any voter who supports ACT’s position on these issues should ask themselves would NZ be better or worse off with ACT having fewer MPs? I fail to see the logic in not voting.


  6. Regardless of my post yesterday, I will be voting Act both ways. It was only a minor opinion, of little consequence.We all get odd things wrong, view things wrong from time to time, and we all have differing opinions, that change thru time, as well. The BIG issue, at least one of them is for me : THANK GOD WE STILL HAVE A CHOICE. Thank goodness people are prepared to make the effort. ACT is on the ground and running.


Comments are closed.