Poor Nigel

One would think that the environmentalists would be thrilled tonight, having picked up an extra seat in parliament. [I am thrilled too, having made $50 or so on iPredict, although thanks have to go to Kiwiblog for the tip. Mr Farrar you can claim your beer when next in Christchurch]

But no, they are sad, because New Zealand is apparently a joke in Europe.

...broker Nigel Brunel, of OMF Financial, [is quoted] as saying New Zealand is “a bit
of a joke in Europe at the moment” following the National-Act agreement
to suspend the emissions trading scheme.

Now OMF Financial is company with a carbon trading arm (so they hope), and Mr Brunel is their man in Wellington, by the way. This from their web site:

The ETS focus is the compliance market – the scheme is compulsory and
punitive for those who do not comply. The New Zealand compliance market
involves the top 200 emitting companies who are continuing to emit
Green House Gases (GHG’s) and therefore will be forced to either reduce
their carbon footprint and/or buy carbon credits to offset their
emissions.

[So, suckers...] Please contact Nigel Brunel on +64 4 4990028 or [email protected][or we'll release the hounds]

Poor old Mr Brunel has probably just managed to set himself up in Wellington, has been on the job less than a year, and has installed his money-printing press. He was hoping for safe harbour from the financial storms all around him. All he needed was for the Emissions Trading Scam to hold together for a little while longer so he could make his fortune!

Mr Brunel may still get his cream, but for the moment there is a delay while the government decides whether the ETS is worth pursuing. (The answer is no, by the way).

But I think Mr Brunel has this wrong, and he is the one who is a joke. And now that we are contemplating not sending $1 billion or so each year to Russia, New Zealand might be somewhat less of joke in the Eastern parts of Europe.

Chalk one up to common sense. The environmentalists finish:

Meanwhile, the very allies and trading partners that National and Act
say we should emulate are actively putting in place their own schemes.
And we wonder why we look the fools on the international stage. Bad
timing boys!

'Actively putting in place' doesn't sound like they've actually done anything yet. That's European-speak for 'let's all have a nice cup of tea and talk about the war'. It is a bit hypocritical for Europeans to complain that little old New Zealand, responsible for less emissions than Essex, should refuse to be first into the economic slaughterhouse. Let's see their schemes first shall we, and then we can see who is the fool.

Good luck in your new job, Nigel. Perhaps you could try something that doesn't rely on regulation.

Comments

[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