New Zealand Celsias

Now that the emissions trading scheme has gone into effect, we rounded-up an overview of opinions on the plan from news media around the country.

The biggest worry from all sides seems to be the cost passed on to the consumer, with prices set to rise almost immediately on power and fuel.  

Consumer NZ  chief executive Sue Chetwin said in the New Zealand Herald she thought the impact on consumers would be heavier than the $5 a week for an average family estimated by the government.   "Consumers are facing a barrage of price increases over the next six months," she said. 

The article said Consumer NZ believed in the need for an ETS, but thought this one would not address the environmental issues and would leave consumers "short-changed".  

Chetwin said: "Consumers are being hit from all sides, and in terms of sending a signal to polluting businesses that they need to cut their emissions, we don't actually see this scheme does that."

ACT Climate Change spokesman John Boscawen released a statement that he believed the ETS would allow ordinary Kiwi families to freeze, unable to pay their power bills, while forestry owners would profit. 

After today's parliamentary question time, Boscawen's statement said "Dr Smith seems to think that [families who will struggle to pay their heating bills] should take solace in the fact that forestry owners in Marlborough are going to benefit by $80 million". 

Boscawen said Environment minister Nick Smith was "out of touch" with ordinary New Zealanders and those on low and fixed incomes. 

Radio New Zealand reported that the Government expects 95 percent of profits from the higher power and fuel prices to go into the pockets of foresters. 

Meanwhile, in her press release, Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Dr Jan Wright acknowledged the plan was a step in the right direction, however she said it was let down by subsidies for the biggest carbon emitters and agreed consumers would be worst hit by the scheme. 

"The ETS is the right framework but I still have serious concerns about the subsidies to big emitters, which will not only impose significant costs on the taxpayer but also distort the carbon market and limit the incentives to reduce emissions," she said.  

In a Radio Australia story, Environment minister Nick Smith said the subsidies on the big emitters were a necessary compromise to avoid negative impacts to the job market.  

"If we whack [the agriculture and business sector] with a big cost, the incentive is simply for those businesses to relocate somewhere else in the world... 1,000 plus New Zealanders going out of work and for no advantage to the climate," he said. 

"The Government has had to design the ETS quite carefully so that we don't simply export jobs overseas." 

But according to another Herald story, this fear is already realised and Auckland-based aerosol manufacturer Arandee said the ETS would make it too expensive to remain in New Zealand.  The company will be moving its headquarters to Singapore, instead. 

The Green Party, however, criticised National's scheme for failing to provide adequate ways for consumers to reduce their carbon emissions and thereby their bills. 

Green spokesperson for climate change, Russell Norman, said the Government had acted instead to limit climate-friendly choices for the consumer, and pointed to - among other things - abandoned plans for renewable energy goals and repealed fuel efficiency standards on new cars. 

He said; "The easiest way for consumers to reduce their power and fuel bills under the ETS is to switch to more energy efficient transport, homes and appliances. But the Government is failing to ensure that these options are provided."

While in today's Herald editorial on potential price rises being falsely - and illegally - attributed to the ETS, the point was made that "consumers are being asked to pay more than their fair share of costs to help this country meet its Kyoto Protocol commitments. They should not have to pay too great a price".

Image via Victor Bezrukov @ flickr