Utter destruction

Owen McShane has, in todays Herald, utter slain the weaseling of Brian Rudman and put to bed some of the lies and obfuscations surrounding climate change and emissions trading.

He dismisses the need for a wide-ranging review because the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) tells us the science is settled, and the British Government’s Stern Review tells us climate change demands an urgent response.

And yet I suspect that if anyone told our Government to adopt a Budget written by the World Bank, Rudman would be equally up in arms.

Exactly, everyone would be screaming if we had to set our budget by World bank standards, yet we seem to think that everything is ok if the IPCC decides to tell us all that the science is settled.

There are scores of papers in peer-reviewed journals challenging the hypothesis that anthropogenic actions, and in particular, the burning of fossil fuels, are causing dangerous levels of global warming.

The select committee could also focus on science relevant to New Zealand. Rudman might like to find a peer-reviewed paper containing a simple equation describing the change in greenhouse gas emissions resulting from turning forestry into perennial pasture in New Zealand. We simply do not know the size and nature of the biological transfers or even whether the final outcome is positive or negative.

How can we base any form of taxation or subsidy on such ignorance?

And if we are determined to tax our nine million belching cows why don’t we require the Indians to tax their 290 million cows and buffalo? And what about taxing all those methane emitting termites, rice paddies, wetlands and mangroves? Why pick on us?

Yes, therein lies the obfuscations that a climate change enthusiast will slap down on the table like a royal flush. They always claim the “peer-reviewed” papers prove it. Yet the plain ignore and continue to ignore the building body of evidence that “climate change” is a scam. As with any taxation regime, exemptions nullify any benefit, thus it is incredulous that we are trying to embark on saving the planet when Russia, China and India either won’t, can’t be arsed or plainly refuse to also do so.

Most economists prefer a straightforward tax on fossil fuels because no one actually knows how to calculate most of the carbon dioxide footprints that the emission traders assume to be correct. It’s worth remembering that “carbon credit” trading was invented by Enron. Do we really want another round of life-savings to disappear down a “carbon-black-hole”?

Need he say anymore. Everytime I find a Warmist and point out to them that emission trading was invented by Enron they promptly act like ostriches. Sorry folks but it is true. Emissions trading was dreamed up by the charlatans at Enron who wanted to control the market in emissions trading.

Actually he does say more and sets out why the Emissions trading Scheme must be repealed.

The New Zealand Herald properly campaigned about the undue haste with which the Electoral Finance Act was rammed through Parliament. Compared to the emissions trading scheme the electoral act was a model of procedure.

Our constitutional conventions require that all bills presented to Parliament be supported by a regulatory impact statement. Such a statement should address three issues:

First, that there is a real problem.

Second, that all relevant alternative solutions have been identified and considered.

And third, that the proposed law will solve the problem better than all the alternatives, and its benefits will exceed its costs.

These assessments should be undertaken diligently, impartially and from a non-partisan position. The previous Government obscured the first, evaded the second, and ignored the third.

It also breached constitutional conventions by forcing through a bill containing over 1000 amendments with just three days notice.

Many hope the new Government will set a higher standard of parliamentary procedure, which should deliver better informed, and more soundly based policy.

That is the slam dunk. Owen McShane is right, this Act should be repealed as unconstitutional and illegal. Oh for an Upper House.

105%