« Winston Missing Style? | Main | Get Fat and Spread Out »

November 22, 2008


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Nigel Brunel

Mmm - a bit harsh but I can take the criticism. My point is we have been wavering between nothing - a carbon tax and an ETS since 1992 - and now we want to revisit the science. That is a joke!

Carbon is (or was) only about 5% of my time – I do have plenty more to do but at the end of the day -I'm disappointed that we have reversed our decision to have an ETS - at least temporarily as I find the market fascinating and I'm passionate about developing new markets having been involved in many over 25 years.

My motivation was not entirely money - I saw it as important for emitters and carbon sellers to have a liquid transparent viable market.

I don't think carbon trading is a scam - I think its right to put a cost on pollution (or carbon emissions) and push for the planet to have more renewable energy as opposed to digging holes everywhere and burning everything.

Nigel Brunel

PS - I can get you a better photo than the Joe90 one you have - gosh thats terrible :-)

The Optimist

Hi Nigel,

Wow you're quick off the mark! Don't worry about the photo - I think it conveys a note of gravitas combined with technical knowledge, so not a bad thing in the finance field. Do you know anything about water pumps, because I have a real problem out here in the sticks...

You need to look at how the ETS was brought it: in a hurry, in the teeth of lots of opposition, and with more amendments than stars in the sky. If the government was intending to pass a well-thought-out piece of legislation there are better ways of doing it.

Re the carbon market, the ETS per se is not the problem - it is based on the idea that CO2 is a bad thing. This base premise is what is wrong.

I do worry that the CO2 price might fluctuate wildly and thus impair the ability of businesses to plan their investment, but then provided this is a global problem and not just confined to New Zealand then I suppose it is not too bad.

I am fine with putting a price on pollution. In fact we need to be more active in this area, so long as the compliance costs (in terms of efficiency, not just payments) can be absolutely minimised. But CO2 is a plant fertiliser, not pollution.

Digging holes and burning everything (well oil and coal) has its place also. Too many environmentalists want to simply switch off coal and gas, and let the fun ensue. That's not fair on consumers.

Anyway, sorry for sounding harsh (in my defence, this is a blog!). My reaction was mainly to the compulsion alluded to in your web page.

Good luck with your other work...

(but happy to change the photo if you like!)

murray and ang

nigel, nigel, nigel - where have you been? been trying to track you down since fiji!! give us a yell, murray and ang

The comments to this entry are closed.