Greens propose insane bills on climate change

I don’t recall what MP said that the thing about the Greens was that it was odd that a party that was so concerned about the planet spent so little time on it, but its latest flurry of draft Bills to “combat climate change” are perfect examples of this. Besides the legislation fetish (pass a law to stop it happening or make it compulsory - demonstrating the Green penchance for authoritarianism), you don't have to guess what they MUST have been smoking when they wrote this.

*

Snake oil? Yes, unfortunately they don't know how stupid they really are.

*

There is one requiring the government to buy little cars (I couldn’t really give a toss about that frankly, except they have allowed the cops to have cars they can use to chase suspects - and well the government can regulate itself if it wants). There is one requiring electricity companies to eliminate fixed charges (so you can subsidise the cost of keeping accounts open for people who only use electricity occasionally at their bach, even though they want the lines to be available 24/7/365). They also want the Cullen fund to start investing in ways to minimise greenhouse gas emissions – which, given the Green grasp of fundamental economics, is simply scary. The Greens have to win an award for most wanting to set money on fire.

*

However, it is the transport ones that, unsurprisingly, come out as being incredibly loopy.

*

So, without getting into the debates about whether man made climate change is happening or not, let’s purely look at the merits of the Green’s proposed bills to tackle transport related greenhouse gas emissions.

*

First, there is one to require all airlines to cap their current emissions (so don’t expect more flights) and then reduce them to 1990 levels. Now ignoring the fact this will breach the Convention on International Civil Aviation, this would mean a major hit to tourism and domestic air travel. Yes, airlines have been buying more fuel efficient aircraft, but aviation has been growing as well. So it would be back to $1200 return flights to Australia, infrequent provincial domestic flights and flying would, once again, be the preserve of the more wealthy. There would be jobs lots in tourism and export industries that use air cargo, but hey why should the Greens care? Ironically, Air NZ would be hit most hard, after all, its foreign competitors wouldn’t face these restrictions elsewhere and could probably take the hit after cutting their own number of flights. Of course, this wont affect climate change one iota – because one year of Chinese aviation growth would outstrip any “gains” from this proposal.

*

Another Green proposal is a bill to require that two thirds of your road taxes be spent on transport modes other than roads (they don't need a bill to do this, the last one they supported means the Minister could direct this if she was so inclined). So this means massive subsidies to public transport, walking and cycling, rail, coastal shipping and travel demand management. Of course, to do this would mean not only ceasing all new road construction (that means new signage at intersections as well as motorways – ALL road improvements would have to end), but a 17% cut in road maintenance spending. So welcome those potholes, for the buses and bikes too – but hey, roads are bad aren’t they, rails are good? (much like four legs good two legs bad). Oh and if you wondered about delivering freight around town, it goes by rail, or by bus – think about it.

*

However my favourite for sheer lunacy is the bill requiring the entire rail system to be electrified or using bio diesel by 2012. The Greens have even listed the lines they want electrified by then – being such transport experts, they must have got it right (hmm Christchurch-Greymouth means coal export trains – which form 90% of the trains on this line – will change locomotives twice in each direction as the coal goes from elsewhere on the West Coast to Lyttelton, but hey don’t argue with central planners). Of course this means almost all current locomotives get scrapped (no point retrofitting any, since almost all are more than halfway through their economic lives) 275 of them, at an average cost of (lets be generous assuming shunters are cheap) $2 million each. So there you have it, $500 million for locomotives alone (you’ll easily need $50 million in spares as well).

*

However, the actual Think Big electrification (it is many times greater than the scheme Muldoon imposed) is amazing in itself. We are talking billions of dollars, because it isn’t just about stringing up wires and poles (and thousands of them), but also lowering tunnels, replacing the signals along the lines (electrification interferes with signals), safety protection at bridges (because high voltage lines mean electricity can “jump” a metre or so) and complete replacement of any copper wire telecommunication lines near the track. Given the electrification of the centre of the main trunk cost $350 million in 1986 dollars, which today be $600 million (excluding locomotives) – we are probably talking about another $3 billion. Given the current value of the entire NZ railway business is $600 million – I doubt this would increase its value fivefold!!

*

Of course all this electrification may actually be no cheaper to run, but if it is – it will be a subsidy to the main rail freight using industries – dairy, coal and forestry (and export containerised freight). I wonder what the greenhouse gas profile of those industries is?

*

So what would this be for? It is apparently to eliminate the greenhouse gas emissions of the rail industry. What would the cost of those emissions be if New Zealand bought them under an international carbon trading scheme at an estimated high end price? The government's own study, which the Greens quote at their convenience says $5 million in 2002. $5 million!!! $3.5 billion to save $5 million a year!! You could earn $175 million off $3.5 billion on a bank deposit. Ahhh I see the Greens protest, saying that they want more freight to shift from road to rail saving more. OK, so lets say ALL road freight (other than local delivery vehicles) went by rail – patently absurd since railway lines don’t go everywhere and railways are usually inefficient at moving freight less than 150km – then the total cost of the carbon credits that are saved is $53 million a year. Still light years away from being a good use of your money – even if you had given permission for the Greens to spend it.

*

So there you have it – even if you do believe that man made climate change needs to be combated, ask yourself if you are prepared to pay the price of:

- Shrinking the NZ tourist industry;

- Shrinking the NZ export sector dependent on air cargo;

- Significantly increasing the price of air travel for NZers;

- Rougher and more pot-holed roads as maintenance is deferred year after year;

- No road improvements of any kinds, from motorways to minor safety improvements;

- $3.5 billion in rail spending to get a gain that is probably at best $10 million a year.

No doubt they’ll say I’m mad and ignoring the Armageddon like catastrophe of climate change – in which case – I’ll remind them that they are mad – and that to slowly bankrupt an economy, because of ideological blinkering puts the Greens on a path worse than Muldoon.

Red Ken Livingstone goes to cuddle Castro

London's Mayor - Red Ken Livingstone is on a council taxpayer funded jaunt to Cuba and Venezuela to visit Castro (he has failed there) and Chavez.
*
Delightfully, he will no doubt ignore the several hundred political prisoners languishing in prison in Cuba, and not ask why free press and democratic elections aren’t allowed in Cuba. No, his excuse is:

*

"But it's very difficult to lecture the Cubans on human rights when on the other end of this island in the American base of Guantanamo there are hundreds of people who've been illegally seized, brought here illegally, and tortured,"

*

Furthermore he said Cuba's communist revolution was one of the high points of the 20th century!! The only high point was the end of the Batista regime, but it is no high point to then brutally suppress all further opposition - to confiscate private property and then invite the USSR to be a base for nuclear missiles aimed at the USA.

*

You see Ken, had Castro had his way there would be no freedom of speech in the UK - no elections and the UK would have been part of the Warsaw Pact. Private land ownership would have ended, and your precious London would be poor - the City of London desolate. However, everyone would have been equally poor - heaven for a blood red socialist.

*

Yes, indeed Ken. Difficult for the Mayor of London to criticise anyone torturing and killing dissidents when Guantanamo Bay exists. May as well have told the Nazis that in 1939.

*

His goal apparently is a crazy deal to pay Venezuela less than the market price for diesel for London buses – he obviously likes ripping off developing countries and supporting leftwing dictators. He might ask Huge Chavez how easy it is for the opposition to get on Venezuelan TV – but then probably not.
*
Livingstone is a vile little man. He has supported Irish republicanism and sought to meet leading members of Sinn Fein in the early 80s – so you might question how hypocritical he is on terrorism. He is lauded for helping London get the Olympics, which will prove to be a mistake for a city groaning under infrastructure starved of funding as it was state/council run for decades. He is also lauded with London’s economic success, which is in spite of him essentially. His most notable achievement was introducing a very crude and expensive to run form of road pricing to central London. A good move in itself, but badly managed.
*
From describing a Jewish journalist as a German war criminal (because he doesn’t like the Evening Standard, a conservative London newspaper), to cuddling up with authoritarians, Livingstone is a disgrace. He has transformed the mayoralty into a personal cult whereby he proclaims his nutty opinions on anything and wants people to follow it. His bigotry against the car is notorious, calling on massive taxes on 4x4 vehicles because he thinks they are “bad”.
*
If only the Tories could find a decent alternative candidate!

*

Oh and if you have any doubts about the BBC being biased, all it has reported is that Ken said Britain had a lot to learn from Cuba's Olympic achievements. Clearly the BBC has decided it is not in the public interest to reveal the Mayor of London celebrating communism!

*

UPDATE - The Independent (London) reports on Ken's trip (it's not entirely a commie rag hehe).

Rates Review complete waste of money

The government’s recently announced review on local authority rates is nothing to get excited about. New Zeal describes it as vacuous and I agree. The terms of reference are here. The key point is that this review is not about whether councils do too much or are inefficient. Nooo, it is about how best to pluck the turkeys. You’re the turkeys, you don’t like rates so much, so there might be new ways of plucking you that mean some of you are plucked more than others, and that some of the plucking is done with anaesthetic (i.e. you wont notice, such as a local sales tax). *

You’ll still be thoroughly plucked by local government. Check out this key assumption in the review:

*
“The inquiry is not a review of the system of local government per se, and in particular of the purpose, autonomy, or structure of local government; or · the principles of democracy, transparency, equity and accountability that local government operates under”

*
In other words, there will be no more accountability or transparency for what local government does. Excited? I thought not. It IS about what revenue raising mechanisms could be available and what exemptions exist for rates. In other words, changing from rates to something else – something else that makes it easier for local government to strong arm money out of your bank account.
*

So what does everyone else think?:

*
The Greens welcome the review because they want poor people to pay less and businesses and wealthy people to pay more (it’s pretty obvious). The Greens like local government, especially when it stops people using their land in ways they don't like, or subsidises public transport and doesn't build roads.
*
The review has been concocted with New Zealand First. This is to stop Winston supporting Rodney Hide's Bill which would have made a real difference (and upset Labour oriented local authorities). Winston has said: “New Zealand First campaigned on this and was the only party calling for an independent inquiry when the rates issue intensified earlier this year” Well, because half of the other parties supported Rodney Hide’s Bill. What a fizzer Winston, even if this review reduces the rates bill for the elderly, by the time anything is done, some of them will be dead. Winston says there is a prospect for real change – well had he supported Rodney Hide’s Bill there would have been real change.
*
Rodney Hide, whose bill on capping council spending would have started to make a difference has condemned the review saying:
*
“There is nothing in this inquiry that will deliver lower rates to ratepayers, put rates under control, or deliver the infrastructure or services that ratepayers so desperately need.”
*
Quite right. Rodney is the only MP who proactively put forward a proposal to limit increases in rates to the rate of inflation (which is still too much, as rates rise with property values which grow above inflation).

*

The Nomorerates.com campaign is also disappointed and is urging people deliver submissions expressing how they are affected by the current system.

*

Local Government New Zealand (which represents councils) wants more of your money taken through central government to fund local government (in other words, councillors wouldn't have to argue with you about rates increases). Nice - more money, less accountability.
*
United Future rightly claims the review doesn’t go far enough. Peter Dunne is on the ball on this one:
*
"Rates are only a symptom of the problem which is the size, role, scope and activities carried out by local authorities.”
*
Indeed – and as a party keeping Labour in power, you might hope there could have been some influence in this, never mind Peter Dunne is still a Minister.
*
National agrees that it doesn't tackle the key issue, with John Carter saying:
*
“Yet, one of the single biggest issues in local government does not appear to be in line for any attention at all with this inquiry. That is the question about which activities ratepayers believe their local councils should be involved in”
*
The Maori Party thinks that the public consultation process excludes Maori and want Maori to have a “special say”. Nevertheless, an excellent point is made that:
*
“Large tracts of Maori freehold land are unoccupied and unimproved. This land creates a significant rating burden on the Maori owners who often do not have the means or, in some cases, the desire to make economic use of the land”.
*
Indeed, there shouldn’t be rates applied to that land, or to any land regardless of the owners. However, the Maori Party is not interested in rate relief for non-Maori - it has an apartheid world view.
*
Local government should be put on a diet, which means a permanent cap on rates which would encourage councils to shift to user pays, sponsorship and voluntary donations to pay for their activities – and to privatise activities like housing, rubbish collection and water. Such a simple cap would provide a painless way to encourage councils to innovatively find new ways of funding their activities through choice not coercion. Note that many councils will actually face continued increases in rates revenue because as property prices increase, so do rates. Ideally, local government should be privatised, cut back and phased out - a simple step now is to force them to work within their current budgets and to stop rates rising at all - then some hard choices would have to be made - about how best to spend a limited amount of other people's money.

What to do in the US?

My previous post was a teaser, but I have thought - more than I should - about the US mid term election, mainly because sadly I am an election junkie.
*

Objectivists have been debating this extensively, and PC has summarised the two main views .
*
Having bemoaned recently about how the Conservative Party in the UK now looks increasingly like it is closer to Tony Blair’s view than half of the Labour Party, it is nothing like the ideological battle lines of the USA. There is not a great deal to celebrate there. I have long tended to support the Republicans on a two-party basis, while tending to support the Libertarian Party in terms of influence on issues (although it is beset with many of its own problems which I wont go into here). The Republicans were, during the Reagan administration, the party of lower taxes, the party that most clearly took on the might of the morally and economically bankrupt USSR and the party that started to roll back the ever creeping New Deal socialism that had increasingly stifled the USA over the decades. The downside was that it also carried with it a branch of fundamentalist religious evil that I always thought was at best containable, at worst a cancerous influence on US politics. The flipside was that the Democrats were and are everything else that is wrong about US politics – they are more thoroughly the party of pork (but not by much), the party of big government solutions, of political correctness and subjectivist moral relativism. The Democrats are the party of anti-capitalists – endlessly meddling. The Republicans were the only ones willing to back off, on balance – and a slender balance it was.
*
After Reagan, the 1994 Contract with America was an attempt to make a difference with a mix of governmental transparency, fiscal responsibility and social conservatism. It was, in many ways, a step forward but became unstuck as the smell of pork became too appealing for too many Republicans, and a Democratic President also got in the way.
*
I celebrated Bush’s election in 2000 and re-election in 2004 partly because I was pleased to avoid the socialist minded, subjectivist (and mind numbingly boring) Al Gore, and the contemptuously lying John Kerry. Bush jr. might be a bumbler, and thanks to an almost entirely hostile media, is seen as non-intellectual, but he did understand two points. The first being that government wasn’t always the answer and secondly that terrorism, and Islamofascism in particular, are a threat to western civilisation.
*
The Bush administration has been a disappointment in domestic and foreign policy. On domestic policy it pushes a conservative religious agenda, although not one that fundamentally challenges the constitutional separation of church and state. Some in the Republicans would like to, but it simply wont happen. For example, Bush’s proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage has failed – but he does not oppose allowing gay civil unions – hardly the policy of a Pat Robertson type political evangelist. Bush rallied the Christian conservative masses to vote for him in 2004, but has hardly delivered for them at all. The real domestic policy disaster has been the inability to contain spending and pork. There have been some signs in the area I am familiar in (transport) that the Bush administration is more innovative than past administrations (in transport it has actively supported private investment in highways, opposed raising taxes on vehicles and fuel in favour of tolls on new highways and new lanes), but otherwise there is little to cheer about besides tax cuts. However, this was the administration that on the one hand instituted a tariff on steel imports (since removed), but also promised major cuts in agricultural subsidies if the EU agreed the same to progress a WTO trade agreement. Having said that, there is not the slightest evidence that the Democrats would do any better.
*
On foreign policy the Bush administration has put US national security first, followed by a rigorous pursuit of “democracy spreading”. This is on the basis that democracies are less likely to wage war than dictatorships. The key planks of this approach have been to overthrow the Taliban, a wholly justifiable act without doubt, although executed poorly – as Afghanistan now simply has a more moderate Islamist government. It is akin to replacing a North Korean communist regime with a Vietnamese one – far less oppressive, but hardly freedom. Bush’s unwillingness to support separation of religion and state in Afghanistan and Iraq has been a major blunder – and one he could hardly support, as he himself promotes a quasi-religious agenda in the US. Nevertheless, the action in Afghanistan is wholly justifiable in itself.
*
The war in Iraq is more controversial. The US was fully justified in attacking Iraq and overthrowing the Ba’athist regime of Saddam Hussein given that regime’s past actions. A positive spinoff of that has been Libya’s surrender of its WMD programme, but the execution of Iraq has been a disaster. As with Afghanistan, the US wanted to transplant democracy – not liberal democracy that would protect the rights of Iraqi citizens. Given that Iraq under Saddam was a secular not an Islamist state, there was a chance to do this – but again, the Bush administration was not up to it. Iraq is now doomed to continue under civil war as Islamists attempt to kill off a secular Iraqi government, literally. There is little doubt that Iraqis do not fear safer today than they did under Saddam.
*
The promotion of democracy has also seen the Palestinian Authority become led by Hamas, although the Bush Administration has fortunately refused to support this until Hamas recognises Israel’s right to exist. Beyond this, the correct declaration of Iran and North Korea as being part of an “axis of evil” has incentivised both to accelerate their nuclear weapons’ programmes. Programmes that were well under development before Bush.
*
The dark side of the war on terror has been the willingness of the Bush administration to use torture, to detain without charge, to intercept public communications without warrant and to take a less than sympathetic view of the personal freedom it is meant to be defending.
*
So my strategy is as follows:
*
1. Assess the Democrat and Republican candidates for the ward/state you are in and choose positively the one (if any) that supports less government. You might find one that does not believe in theocracy and does believe in less government, good luck.
*
2. If neither are good, then ask if either are particularly evil. Is one an ardent advocate of theocracy, is another an opponent of the WTO, worshipper of environmentalism, appeaser of Islamists, proponent of higher taxes, proponent of censorship? If one stands out on any of these fronts, then vote for the other. Yes, I know, they both are aren’t they?
*
3. So now it is hard. What are the odds of the incumbent being rolled? Is there a huge majority or is it paper thin? If it is a huge majority for EITHER side, then vote Libertarian Party, if the candidate isn't a lunatic isolationist or moral relativisit. Why? It is not because it will do anything for the LP in particular, but it will not further endorse the two status quo parties. If the LP comes a respectable 3rd in a Democrat seat, then the Republicans there may think twice about theocratic policies. If it comes a good 3rd in a Republican seat, then the Democrats may think twice about socialist policies. Yes I know this is all highly unlikely.
*
4. If it is a paper thin majority, between two reasonably equally evil or reasonably equally bland candidates then choose the Republican. Why?
*
There is no short to medium term threat of a US theocracy. There would be civil war before this happened. It would animate far more Americans than currently are animated in the political scene. A strongly religious Republican campaign would lose an election, and they know it.

*
The war on terror is important and most important is a philosophical understanding of what that war means. The Democrats don’t have it, the Republicans have some of it. The supporters of the Democrats think the answer is to understand Islamists and to withdraw from the world and accept what is “wrong with capitalism”. No succour should be given to them for this.

*
The Democrats are absolutely irredeemable. The Democrats are, more now than at any time in recent history, a left wing party. The Democratic Party has swung that way in response to Bush and it is now a coalition of left wing, anti-globalisation, environmentalist, moral relativists who promote big government solutions. There is no future whatsoever in saving the USA through the Democratic Party, and at this time, while it is at its most leftwing the only candidates that deserve endorsement are those who are on the laissez-faire liberal side of the party (go find them please!).
*
So there you have it – it isn’t a ringing endorsement, but it is a grudging endorsement. The USA is not becoming a theocracy, as immoral and wrong as the Bush administration is for leaning down that path. The Democrats need to be demoralised to get out of their radical leftwing period and be brought closer to the centre, and then - and only then, can the Republicans be punished - when it is clear the Democrats can CONTINUE the war on terror on more secular centrist grounds. The time to divide and defeat the Republicans will come, when the Democrats are competent enough to not risk US national security, and not risk some loony leftwing experiment. Nevertheless, I wont be celebrating either way - both parties are, by and large morally and philosophically bankrupt.

Are green taxes a good idea?

I am opposed to so called “green taxes” because any move to justify the government compulsorily taking your money is justifying theft. The idea that taxing something “bad” (pollution) is better than taxing something “good” (income) has a superficial appeal. From an environmental policy perspective, paying more to do something that has a negative impact (on who, you may ask) will reduce the incidence of that activity. So if you want to discourage people doing something then taxing them will certainly discourage, as long as demand for undertaking that activity is elastic.
*
However, green taxes aren’t just about stopping people doing bad things. If something is bad enough (in that it infringes on people’s rights) then you ban them or give them the right to say no. Imagine, for example, taxing murder, or theft, or vandalism (it’s ok to spray paint that wall, just costs you $20 for the permit). In the case of localised pollution, it is a matter of granting property rights over airspace, for example. Ah, but greenhouse gases are not a local pollutant. So does that mean you should pay the government money for emitting them? Well no, it might mean that a carbon trading system, as has been much talked about, may be worthwhile – but you better have one that applies globally, allocates rights fairly (!) and enables rights to be traded according to demand and supply. Anyway, back to green taxes.
*
Green taxes are a transfer from the public to the government, which then can spend the money on whatever it wishes. So the assumption still is that the government not only can spend your money better than you can, but that it has the right to do so.
*
The incidental effect of reducing your willingness to undertake the “taxed” activity is beside the point.
*
You see the same effect in other taxes. Income tax reduces incentives to earn income, but by and large the main effect is to transfer money from you to the government (notice the term “generate revenue” as if it is producing it rather than stealing it – imagine if a thief described burglary as “generating assets”). Sales taxes reduce the incentives to buy certain goods and services, but the main effect is to transfer money from you to the government.
*
The effect of suppressing income or purchases comes when the tax becomes more and more oppressive. A 90% income tax will be avoided with alacrity or the person will leave the country. A 90% sales tax will have a similar effect. The existence of chronic congestion in much of the UK while fuel tax is one of the highest in the world (67% of the purchase price) demonstrates how little demand is suppressed through taxation (and how blunt it is).
*
So as a tool for fixing the environment, green taxes don’t appear to take you far unless they are high – very high. That means that you have to tax something “bad” so much that it isn’t worthwhile for many people to do it – in other words driving has to be so expensive, people would rather choose to spend the money on something else rather than fund the government.
*
You see this is the only positive side. If a government decided to be fully funded from environmental taxes, and low or zero polluting alternatives were accelerated onto the market (because of the massive disadvantage the existing technologies have), then government revenue would decrease – as pollution tax revenue decreased and the size of government would then have to decrease. Green taxes COULD be a long term strategy to move to less government because technology could make the taxes obsolete. Ridiculous notion? Well as cars have become more efficient, the revenue collected from fuel taxes has declined as traffic has increased (meaning the amount of pollution has been declining too), so governments have been moving to increase fuel taxes to make up that revenue.
*
However, I doubt that will happen. I doubt green taxes will mean the reduction in government. Other taxes will remain. Besides that, it is far from a good idea to tax the hell out of fossil fuels, beyond the economic “cost” that economists may quantify, just to discourage pollution. The money collected is not about compensating people for damage caused by pollution – because those people can’t be identified, the appropriate compensation can’t be quantified, so it just becomes an excuse for government spending.
*
Green taxes are instinctively appealing to the left because they are punishing what is “bad” about capitalism and modern civilisation – transport and energy. It punishes people for wasting energy, it punishes them for leaving on a light, or going on a Sunday drive or flying to their holiday destination. In other words, it punishes them for taking advantage of the delights of modern technology and civilisation. It is an exercise in masochism for those who support it – their guilt in “damaging the environment” assuaged by “paying the cost of carbon”. The right likes it because economists see it as paying for externalities – without identifying who it is paying (the government) and who suffers from the externalities (unidentifiable private individuals to varying degrees) . It uses an economic instrument (tax) to reduce demand for a bad thing (pollution), while ignoring what it does to the state (increases its role).
*
Those who advocate new green taxes should be resisted for the statists they are. Those advocating green taxes as a revenue neutral replacement for other taxes should be thought of suspiciously, and asked what happens if less people pollute – what happens to those taxes? (probably increase). Most of all, ask those who advocate green taxes what they think the money collected should be spent on – I doubt it will be about compensating those who are “harmed” by the pollution, because they don’t actually know who those people are and how much they are harmed. This is because, green taxes are really just another excuse for the state to tax you more, but with more of a message of “punishment”.