Talk:New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

History of Climate Change Response Act 2002

I have added this section but I do not have a good understanding of the history prior to the introduction of the Labour Bill in 2008. If someone could expand this section to include events prior to this date it would be greatly appreciated. Catonz (talk) 01:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why this section should be in the page about the NZETS. The Climate Change Response Act 2002 had it's own page.Mrfebruary (talk) 09:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Section order

Alan, I see you have changed the paragraph order to chronological. I would prefer the article to be in reverse chronological order. I think readers will more frequently want to know about the current ETS than the 2008 ETS. Thats why I intentionally put the sections in reverse chronological order, as with the Nov 2009 ETS as first point of call after the introduction. Then the 2008 ETS at the end. Does that logic sound reasonable to you? Mrfebruary (talk) 10:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

WP generally has stuff in a chronological order. We don't know what the majority of reader want to read but if they are after the more recent info it is easy enough to click on the TOC. The TOC is descriptive enough. Hey how about we aim for featured article status for the page? You have done enough work on it to justify featured article status. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment about the page being deserving of featured article status. However, I really quite firmly think that the article should be in reverse date order, with the detail of the current NZ ETS first after the introduction. At the moment that is more important to me than aiming for featured article status. Mrfebruary (talk) 02:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Alan Liefting in terms of chronology. It can be useful to read things in order. By the way, if you want this article to reach FA status a peer review could be very useful, as suggested at WP:A?. Adabow (talk) 01:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, chronological order it is then. Mrfebruary (talk) 11:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It is silly to begin the article with an overview of an old version of the scheme. The main point of the article should be to document the current scheme not present an argument for one scheme over the other. I suggest the article begin with a quick legislative history, then cover the current version of the scheme, and then contain an expanded section on the Labour version of the scheme. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Catonz (talk • contribs) 00:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

While I preferred reverse chronological order, I was acquiesced in the change to chronological order as preferred by two other editors. I don't like the current version, with it's bullet point summary of the current ETS at the beginning and other subsections on the National ETS legislation on the far side of the section on the Labour ETS. The current section order does not IMHO flow well. I'd like to see it reverted. Mrfebruary (talk) 10:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

This article is about the New Zealand ETS. I think we need to get away from Labour vs National. The old article read like an argument against the revisions. If someone comes on here they want to learn about what the ETS, the first section should cover the ETS however it currently stands. If it amended by another Government in a few years or through review then this article should be reviewed to reflect that and the history updated.IMHO. I really strongly do not support the article beginning with an overview of the old scheme.Catonz (talk) 04:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I was trying to say that the issue of reverse date order vs date order had been discussed and resolved on this talk page. It is not helpful for the article for you to re-litigate it. It is a fact that there was a Labour NZETS and there is now a National ETS. There is a table of contents to allow navigation to the detailed paragraphs on the current version of the NZETS. That paragraph structure is logical and consistent with chronological order and easy to read. Now the structure is neither logical or chronological. Each 'section' (Labour ETS & National ETS) had a subsection giving the legislative history. Your version of this is to have a section on the Climate Change Response Act 2002. This is unnecessary as that Act has it's own page. I propose reverting to the structure 1. 2008 NZETS 2. Select Committee Review 3. 2009 ETS. Mrfebruary (talk) 23:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your honesty is saying "The old article read like an argument against the revisions". To me that makes it clear that as you personally disagree with that position, you decided to delete sourced material that supported that position. It would have been more helpful to use tags or included sources to 'correct' whatever 'bias' you saw. I'd like to point out that other readers/editors do not see the 'bias' you seem to see. Prior to your edits, the article was reviewed and given 'A' quality status. Mrfebruary (talk) 23:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Reference

Can someone please fix ref 9? At the moment there is a <ref name='mfe09' /> tag, but no prior tag, so it does not render a reference. I will hide the tag with <!-- --> for now, but can someone please add content to the ref? Thanks, Adabow (talk) 19:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

PS: It is in section 2.1 Summary. Adabow (talk) 19:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Ref name='mfe09' is Ministry for the Environment (2009) New Zealand’s Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1990–2007, Ref. ME 928, April 2009, Ministry for the Environment, Wellington, New Zealand. http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/climate/greenhouse-gas-inventory-2009/html/index.html. It was cited 4 times in the page until deleted by Catonz. I propose reverting those edits and restoring the proportions of emissions each sector of the economy contributes/sequesters. Mrfebruary (talk) 10:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I will put that back in in another location. In the old format the percentage of emissions from ag were not relevent where they were. But agree it is useful information and should be included somewhere.Catonz (talk) 05:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion the percentage of emissions of each sector in brackets (as in the version of 25 March 2010) mentioned along side the compliance/scheme entry dates was useful and was not inconsistent with any WP policy. The new subsection now duplicates a subsection in the NZ Climate Change page. I still favour reverting to the 25 March 2010 style. Mrfebruary (talk) 08:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Sector entry dates

I prose the following needs revising, "The proposed sector entry dates, obligations and unit allocation terms of National's proposed NZ ETS are set out in the table below."

I propose the word "proposed" be removed. I would prefer it is simply removed, but it could be replaced with 'legislated'.Catonz (talk) 09:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

POV-statement

Is it acceptable to reference POV comments such as "indulging Mr Hide in his fruitcake views on global warming" from NZ Herald journalists? Presumably if this is acceptable one could find a reference for almost any viewpoint and justify it with a reference. For this to remain it should be shown it is a majority belief.Catonz (talk) 09:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is acceptable. I consider the reference is consistent with WP:YESPOV, and WP:VERIFY in particular 'The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.' I suggest you read WP:VERIFY. On that basis I have removed the POV tag. I have also slightly reworded the sentence that is referenced to Brian Rudman's NZ Herald article. I replaced 'criticised' with the absolutely neutral term 'commented'. Please note that this is the first edit of yours I have reverted. Whereas you have deleted a lot of verified material without seeking consensus first. Mrfebruary (talk) 12:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Surely there are better ways to sum up the review than reference the esteemed Brian Rudman? Making a baseless claim stating that the ETS review was an indulgence to Mr Hide. By having a reference stating that "hear[ing] competing views on the scientific aspects of climate change" is tantamount to being a fruitcake you open the door for the article to begin to discuss the robustness of climate science. I am of the firm opinion that this article should be on emissions policy only. I do not see what the quote ridiculing Mr Hide as a fruit cake ads to the article.Catonz (talk) 11:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

You just don't agree with the view expressed by Rudman, so you wish to delete it. That seems to be your standard response - delete statements and viewpoints you disagree with, irrespective of their verifiability. The in line citation verifies that Rudman described Hide as having "Fruitcake" views. Mrfebruary (talk) 13:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Noted opinions

In the Permit Allocation section there is three comments all critical of the allocations. I think this is non-neutral as there was also commentary that suggested the Labour ETS was too stringent(NZIER report, RIA). If people have references that will give more balance to the article can they please add them to the sections that contain opinion. Please leave opinion references out of Section 2.

Catonz (talk) 09:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

These statements were verified with inline citations. They complied with WP:VERIFY You should not have deleted them just because YOU regard them as not 'neutral'. Mrfebruary (talk) 14:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

unpublished synthesis of published material?

The section "allocation of units to trade exposed sectors" has been marked "This section may contain previously unpublished synthesis of published material that conveys ideas not attributable to the original sources"

Could someone please let me know what this means so that I can either defend the content or edit the content to alleviate this problem?

Thank you Catonz (talk) 12:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:SYNTHESIS Mrfebruary (talk) 12:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I have already commented about this at Talk:New_Zealand_Emissions_Trading_Scheme#5. in my response of 08:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC). I repeat what I said then. "Your inclusion of the Garnaut Report and using it to infer justification for free allocation of credits to trade-exposed, emissions-intensive industries appears to be contrary to Wikipedia policy WP:SYNTHESIS. It is not directly verifiable. Who in the NZ context has said 'the Garnaut Report justifies free allocation to trade-exposed, emissions-intensive industries'?" Mrfebruary (talk) 12:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

"Your inclusion of the Garnaut Report and using it to infer justification for free allocation of credits to trade-exposed, emissions-intensive industries appears to be contrary to Wikipedia policy WP:SYNTHESIS. It is not directly verifiable. Who in the NZ context has said 'the Garnaut Report justifies free allocation to trade-exposed, emissions-intensive industries'? Verifiable source please. Also, as far as I am aware, there are no peer-reviewed journal articles about the NZETS. If you know of some, please point them out. I do not consider it valid to delete a verifiable source on the grounds that it is not from a peer-reviewed journal, particularly when when you have said you think its a "half-truth" i.e. not conforming to your viewpoint.""

No one has said, "the Garnaut report shows allocations are needed in New Zealand", but plenty of people have said, "allocations are needed in New Zealand because...." and outline the same reasons in the Garnaut report (reduce leakage). For example, reference 16, 24, 30, references 9, 15 and 18 say this in a EU context, and 20 in a general context. Its simply a well known fact that allocations are needed to protect competitiveness. No emissions trading scheme has been introduced to date, or even proposed by a governing party, that does not include allocations. So to think that the view allocations are needed to protect competitiveness of trade exposed firms is a personal view of mine is very, frankly absurd.

You also seem to have issue with the use of the Garnaut Report in general. In my opinion, the three most relevent studies on the economics of climate change for this article are The Stern Review, The Garnaut Report, and the NZIER Infometrics study (references 16, 19 and 20). Possibly could add in some thing from Nordhaus if I have the time. These represent studies done in the UK, Australia, USA and New Zealand. The UK, Australia and USA ones by some of the worlds leading economists in this area. If you disagree with this opinion please provide the studies that you feel are more robust.

Thank you, Catonz (talk) 11:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

False Statement

The article currently contains the statement,

"The review did not make any specific recommendations to amend either the ETS or the Climate Change Response Act 2002."

I refer the reviewers who gave this article an enviromental project 'A' rating to the following webpage: (that contains the text of the report)

http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/83AC973B-6FDE-4260-846E-E7CCFBD3FE21/113444/DBSCH_SCR_4485_ReviewoftheEmissionsTradingSchemean.pdf

They will find, on page 7, 34 Recommendations.

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Catonz (talk • contribs) 10:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC) 

This is just soapboxing. I have deleted the 34 recommendations which consisted of 2,033 words and 11,095 characters in accordance with Help:Wikipedia:_The_Missing_Manual/Collaborating_with_Other_Editors/Communicating_with_Your_Fellow_Editors#What_Not_to_Post which states "If you can't make a point in two to four paragraphs, then you're either using Wikipedia as a soapbox (which is a no-no); or confused". People are capable of downloading a PDF if they want to. Mrfebruary (talk) 13:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. You will have to excuse me on occasion. I am not up with all of the policies of Wikipedia. I do however have excellent knowledge on the NZ ETS and emissions trading. So if we work together we will be fine.

Can I remove the false statement then?

Also, where I have added references to your citation needed tags, are these adequate?Catonz (talk) 11:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

You have "excellent knowledge of the NZETS"! What a joke! You are just acting as a mouthpiece for big business. Mrfebruary (talk) 13:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I am wanting to work with you. But this last comment is insulting and uncalled for. Can you please show me the comments that are pro-big business and are nonfactual? Please work with me. Catonz (talk) 06:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't slow your rate of respiration waiting for an apology. Your version of "working with me" is to delete verified material you disagree with. It is highly frustrating to see hours of edits backed up by inline citations being deleted by someone who is pushing a POV. Your synthesised defence of 'intensity/production-based allocation of free units' to emitters and your argument that such free allocations are not subsidies are viewpoints 100% consistent with a pro-big-emitting-business viewpoint. Mrfebruary (talk) 11:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

So more insults and accusations. But nothing constructive, and no detail building on your previous accusations.

My "view" that intensity allocations are needed is the same view as all the literature that I referenced above ([The Stern Review|Stern], [The Garnaut Report|Garnaut] etc). You have not offered any referenced alternative. The only prominent counter view that I know of is that border adjustments are cleaner. But this is not your argument either is it?

Border adjustments would not work very well in my view in New Zealand as we export so much nothing would be left except electricity and transport emissions. And then you middaz well just have a fuel tax and regulation on generation (moratorium on thermal or something). Importing adjustments do not send a strong signal to producers and would lead to trade retaliation. But this is all only my view so I have left out of article.Catonz (talk) 09:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Catonz, you say 'you have not offered any referenced alternatives'. Actually, you have deleted them. Mrfebruary (talk) 10:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Article that may be helpful

This article from the New Zealand Herald may be of use. Adabow (talk) 10:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

addressed this in transitional section (actually did it before I saw this comment so ended up using a different reference). Thanks, Catonz (talk) 10:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Allocation of Units to Trade-Exposed Activities

I consider this section is not neutral and pushs a viewpoint of promoting intensity-based allocation of emission units. The subject matter is more about generic emissions trading issues, rather than NZ specifics. The first two paragraphs lack in line citations. There is too much emphasis on the Garnaut report, which is from my reading of the relevant literature, not often referred to in a NZ context. Mrfebruary (talk) 10:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. This section should be edited to simply cover what the allocation plan under the NZ ETS is. Discussion on the merits should be moved to another section.Catonz (talk) 05:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I have not herd a reply to this in a week now. I am following the action that I have suggested in the past. Please have a look and let me know if you do not agree with the remedies I have proposed.

I have also added citations. Will now aim to address other issues.Catonz (talk) 11:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to repeat myself, but, I have already commented about this at Talk:New_Zealand_Emissions_Trading_Scheme#5. in my response of 08:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC) where I said: "Your inclusion of the Garnaut Report and using it to infer justification for free allocation of credits to trade-exposed, emissions-intensive industries appears to be contrary to Wikipedia policy WP:SYNTHESIS. It is not directly verifiable. Who in the NZ context has said 'the Garnaut Report justifies free allocation to trade-exposed, emissions-intensive industries'?" Mrfebruary (talk) 14:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Garnaut says allocations are needed in an open economy. Who has said the atomic weight of hydrogen is 1 in a New Zealand context? Who has said dogs have 4 legs in a New Zealand context? The regulatory impact assessment referenced in this article states the same thing the Garnaut report does 'in a New Zealand context' anyway. It just doesn't state 'Garnaut says this'. It just says what is obvious to independent economists.

Also I disagree that using the Garnaut report to justify the need for allocation is a synthesis of a previous unpublished theory. Catonz (talk) 12:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Allocation of units based on intensity

The section "allocation of units to trade exposed sectors" has been marked as non neutral.

This section records the development of the modern method of basing allocations on production.

The statement, "Economic assessment is heavily in favour of intensity based allocations for emissions trading schemes rather than allocations based on historical emissions" has been tagged as non-neutral.

All the major economic assessments that I know of agree allocations should be based allocations based on current production.

Does anyone know of any economic assessment that is not in favour of this approach? If this statement is indeed non-neutral then it should indeed be removed. But first lets see the studies that disagree with it.Catonz (talk) 11:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

"All the major economic assessments that I know of agree allocations should be based allocations based on current production". And you have written a paragraph into the NZETS article to that effect, justifying your viewpoint by referring to the Garnaut Report and the Stern Report. That is 'original research' or 'synthesis' which is contrary to Wikipedia policies (as well as pushing a POV). The 'fix' is delete reference to Garnaut and Stern. Mrfebruary (talk) 13:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

There are more references that that their now. Stern and Garnaut are the two most prominent studies done on emissions trading. I could reference a hundred if this would help? But I have not seen one solid reference that states they are not. Can you please provide a reference favouring the Labour ETS method rather than just tagging as non-nuetral? If you provide ill be happy, but until then I am left unconvinced. Catonz (talk) 12:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion

Hey. I saw that there's a 3O pending for this page. Are there still issues here, or is it resolved? The conversation above is really, really hard to follow since it's all over the place, so if someone could give me the state of things, we could take it from there and maybe get some resolution going. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey mate. Still issues I think. But I hope we are working together rather than at a stalemate. I think 'MrFebruary' may actually be waiting for a third opinion before progressing with any one chosen approach. So great you have interest.

Issues are widespread. Original article was written by a user called ' Alan Liefting'. I felt it was very biased and read more as a political piece. Strongly promoting the view point that the NZ ETS was bad for the environment and good for business (see above for examples).

I feel that an article on a piece of legislation should contain a good solid chunk based purely on what is that legislation. It should not really need to be referenced to anything but the legislation itself. No opinion needed. So, in my opinion, I trimmed the fat. Removed all the references to opinions etc from main section.

However, I may have let a little of my own opinion into the section on allocation. This has been tagged as various things now. I moved the section out of the "2 Technical Details of Current NZ ETS" so that it could fairly remain, and added as many references as I could. Now waiting to see what others think.

I haven't really touched the sections 4 onwards much. I think they need work also but am waiting to iron out issues in first two sections first. Get some more people like your self on here contributing, then move forward with consensus.

Bottom line is this is an important article for any Kiwi wanting to know about a major piece of legislation kicking in just over two months, so we should do all we can to make it a great, robust, balanced, and most importantly, informative article. Cheers,Catonz (talk) 11:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I have MANY issues with Catonz's edits. His edits suffer from synthesis, bias, undue weight, and lack of NPOV. His edits have taken the page backwards. They are not in any way constructive. My top priority is to restore chronological section structure i.e. Section 1. 2008 Labour NZETS. Section 2. 2009 Select Committee Review. Section 3. 2009 National Government NZETS. Second priority is to restore deleted verifiable referenced material that Catonz has unjustifiably deleted as he personally disagrees with the viewpoints expressed. Third priority is to delete 'synthesis' material quoting Stern and Garnaut. Mrfebruary (talk) 13:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Um... okay. There's entirely too much information here and I can't really pick out one set of issues from another. You both clearly know this topic better than I do, so maybe the best way to handle this is to start small and look at parts of the page, one at a time, and try to resolve issues there. I can comment on whether or not text seems POV to me, whether it's a synthesis of the sources given, if it violates other Wiki policies, or something like that. If you guys would be agreeable to that, I'd say let's stop all other conversation in the other threads here, start a new thread at the bottom, and go through one at a time and handle these issues. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Issue 1 - order

How about starting with the order? This article is about the NZ ETS. Originally it covered the development of the ETS, in order from the Labour ETS through to the current version. I felt that the main focus should be the current version of the ETS, so I changed the order of the sections to move the Labour ETS to the bottom. Mr February disagreed with this position. (note to MrFebruary: MrFebruary, as a side thought is it possible to have a second article titled "Development of NZ ETS"? My wish for this article is for a one stop shop where Kiwi's wanting to know what the ETS will mean and how it will effect them can go to).Catonz (talk) 06:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Minor point but you are incorrect in saying the article was written by me. Check the article history. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, my apologies for the error.Catonz (talk) 06:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay lets start with section order (article structure). BTW I have moved this section to the end for ease of navigation. The page was originally in reverse chronological order. i.e.

1. NAtional Government Nov 2009 NZETS

2. National Government 2009 Select Committee review of NZETS

3. Labour Government 2008 NZETS.

Alan Liefting changed to normal chronological order. I initially disagreed but then agreed when a third editor agreed with chronological order. See Talk:New_Zealand_Emissions_Trading_Scheme#Section_order

From that point until April 2 or so the section order was;

1. Labour Government 2008 NZETS.

2. National Government 2009 Select Committee review of NZETS

3. NAtional Government Nov 2009 NZETS

Catonz changed the order into reverse chronological in spite of the fact that there had been a discussion and resolution on the talk page of the issue.Also, the current version is not strictly all reverse chronological. The sub-section 'Recations' now near the end of the article is about the 2009 version of the NZETS, but the rest of the paragraphs on the 2009 version of the NZETS, are nearer the top of the article, but seperated by a section on the 2008 version of the NZETS.

Each of the 2008 and 2009 sections had similar sub sections, such as 'legislative history' and details and viewpoints on the details 'folded in' to the article, and not under a 'criticism' subsection. I believe that this structure is logical for the topic, consistent with other wikipedia articles. Mrfebruary (talk) 11:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, here's my take. Most Wiki articles start with a Background section that explains how the thing came about - in this case, that section would probably be a combination of "History of the Climate Change Response Act 2002" and "Background to Policy" sections. I would then have a History or Ratification section or something like that, that shows how the stuff in the background led to the policies being enacted. That would probably be the "Labour-led Government 2008 ETS" section. I would then have an Amdendments section that would contain the "The 2009 Select committee review" section. This would be followed by a Details or Policies section that explains what the ETS entails - the "Technical Details of Current NZ ETS" section. And then I'd follow with the Reaction section.

Does that make sense? What do you think? It's roughly a chronological order of the events, if you want to describe it that way. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with that view, but if that is the view of the wiki-community, then I am fine with it.

Before that version is agreed to can I suggest an alternate,

My main concern with the old version was that it was more about the process of the ETS, than the actual ETS. We do not need every detail of the old version of the scheme. Especially since it never made it to the regulation stage, so much of the detail is speculation (for example, how allocation would be made - grand-parented by firm, or by industry? ie each firm maintains allocation irrespective of production?). What is needed is key differences from the current scheme, and some explanation about the pros / cons of these differences.

What I was in the process of doing, but stopped because comments started appearing, was changing the article to run:

History

Detail (of current scheme - ie the ETS)

Background

Development

Kyoto

Labour Policy

ETS Review

Ammendment Bill

Reaction

Catonz (talk) 09:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you HelloAnnyong for your suggestions. I am more than happy with a "roughly a chronological order of the events". Thats more or less what existed up to 25 March 2010 Here is the section structure as at 25 MArch 2010.[[1]]

You suggest these sections:

"History of the Climate Change Response Act 2002" {this Act has its own page Climate_Change_Response_Act_2002}

"Background"

"History or Ratification"

"Labour-led Government 2008 ETS"

"The 2009 Select committee review"

"Technical Details of Current NZ ETS"

"Reaction"

That sounds generally fine. Just a note The NZETS is not the only policy in the Climate Change Response Act 2002. The Act also records NZ's ratification of Kyoto Protocol, and it sets out NZ's national GHG inventory functions and National 'Kyoto Unit' Register functions. And it has it's own wiki page. So a 'legislative history' section should be on that page. Mrfebruary (talk) 10:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Catonz, could you explain the difference between History and Background in your example above, and why you would separate them out like that? Seems like they would be the same thing, or similar enough that they could be put into the same header.

Mrfebruary, I agree with that. Seems to be that the Climate Change Response Act stuff could just be folded into the Background section. That section should have a {{main}} link at the top pointing to the actual article, and then a quick explanation how the Act led to the creation of the ETS. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

HelloAnnyong, sure. History would contain a brief history of policy, how we got to where we are now with out going over every detail of historical schemes. Background would be a background to the reasons for policy. This would follow the technological details section. This would be more analytical, ie explain to readers the intricacies of trading schemes and why certain things are needed. What aspects are disputed. Etc. I think it is better to do this in this section than to merge it with the Labour ETS and current ETS sections as then it becomes a political article. Each section reading like a political page selling the policy.

So Background = background to ETSs, History = history of the NEW ZEALAND ETS. Catonz (talk) 10:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

On the basis of this discussion I will change the section order into chronological. Mrfebruary (talk) 11:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. But I think given we have a grand panel of 3 people, the discussion remain open to new respondents. Until new respondents materialise, then the change is fine with me. Catonz (talk) 09:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I have changed the title of the section on the current ETS from "The 2009 New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme", back to "The Current.....". Yes, the current scheme was legislated in 2009. But the reader can see this by reading the article. What should stand out, as it is now section 5 of the article, is that it is the CURRENT SCHEME.

I think most readers who come on this page will be after detail of current ETS, and it will help if they can be easily directed to it rather than having to read the history of the Labour ETS and then the "2009 ETS" (not all readers will know from these titles which is the current by scanning the contents). Catonz (talk) 11:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Issue 2 section Basis for Allocation

This section is problematic for lack of neutrality and synthesis of arguments under WP:NPOV, WP:YESPOV, WP:STRUCTURE, and WP:SYN.

It is a synthesis of ideas pushing a non-neutral point of view that the best method for issuing emissions permits (under an ETS and the NZETS in particular) is to freely allocate them to existing and potential new-entrant emitters according to their intensity of production. It gives no weight to contrary views which favour auctioning of emissions permits. It is not consistent with WP:STRUCTURE as the section is strategically placed early in the article at the third paragraph. Intensity-based allocation is a key part of the current NZETS whereas the 2008 NZETS proposed capped historic allocation. The section structure (and content) gives only the viewpoint that there is only one credible view which is that free intensity-based allocation to emitters is best.

I am not even sure if this mini-essay should even be in the NZETS article. The articles European_Union_Emission_Trading_Scheme#Allocation and Emissions_trading_scheme do not go to the level of detail of mentioning methods of issuing permits (auction vs gifting), let alone historic allocation vs intensity-based allocation. Perhaps the section should be moved to Emissions_trading_scheme?

Also the Garnaut Report and the Stern Review do not support the assertions they are referenced to.

"The economist Ross Garnaut states that allocations are needed to trade-exposed and emissions-intensive industries not to compensate for the fact the host nation has an ETS, but rather to compensate for the fact that other nations do not have ETSs"

This is not correct. Which should be obvious from the Garnaut quote that follows it in the article.

Garnaut at http://www.garnautreview.org.au/chp14.htm#14_3 states "The Review concludes that there are no identifiable circumstances that would justify the free allocation of permits." He explains "Free permits are not free. Although they may be allocated freely, their cost is borne elsewhere in the economy—typically, by those who cannot pass on the cost to others (most notably, households)" and "Revenue from the auction of permits will provide government with a tool to address market failures in the development of new, low-emissions technologies and to address the scheme’s income distribution effects". Garnaut favours auctioning permits over free allocation to emitters because "Free permit allocation would be highly complex, generate high transaction costs, and require value-based judgments regarding who is most deserving". His view is that IF there are to be free allocations to emitters then they should be calculated on "average emissions per unit of production, based on installed technology in a base year; average emissions per unit of production based on best practice technology". See http://www.garnautreview.org.au/chp14.htm#n6.

This statement "Economic assessment is heavily in favour of intensity based allocations for emissions trading schemes rather than allocations based on historical emissions" is not neutral. It now has 5 in-line citations. One is the Garnaut Report. As above, this is not what the Garnaut Report says.

A second is the Stern Review. But the Stern Review also does not favour intensity-based allocations. Chapter 14 p 319 http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/Chapter14_Harnessing_markets.pdf, Stern states "..if quotas are allocated for free, then the asset is passed to the private sector and the benefits ultimately accrue to the owners and shareholders of the firms involved. In the short term, there may be reasons for introducing auctioning slowly – to ease the transition to a new policy environment...In the long term, however, there is little economic justification for such transfers from the public sector to individual firms and their shareholders."

In Chapter 15 p 334 http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/Chapter_15_Carbon_Pricing_and_Emissions_Markets_in_Practice.pdf Stern notes that free allocations can distort incentives, incentivise "dirty infrastructure" and (p 334) may reward high-carbon technology for new entrants. Stern notes (5th para, p 334) "Benchmarking the emissions...is an alternative basis for issuing free allocations...by developing an average ‘rate’ of emissions.." On p 335, paras 1 & 2, Stern notes that free allocation (of unspecified design) may be used as a 'subsidy' to maintain competitiveness of some firms in the transition though this risks windfall profits. On p 336. Stern concludes "it is important that free allocations are only temporary. They may be necessary to manage a transition, but if permanently used, they would distort competition and emission reductions will be below their efficient levels."

Therefore this assertion. "Two economic reports, The Stern Review and The Garnaut Report, evaluate the issue in depth and both conclude that allocations should be based on current output (intensity based)" should be deleted. As above, this is not what either the Garnaut Report or the Stern Review in fact say. Mrfebruary (talk) 00:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

You raise a number of issues

1:Inclusion of section

I included this section in the article because there was a lot of notes in the article from media and NGO's criticising the allocation of units as it supposedly has a cost to tax payers. I think the article could take two form. Simply stating the facts of what is in the NZ ETS and directing readers to different articles for discussion on the reasons behind policy, or contain commentary on the reasons for each of the details and attempt to giver the reader an understanding of how an ETS works. In my view this article had gone down the path of giving commentary long before I came on the scene and added this section. However that commentary was one sided.

In the original article there were:

> 5 references to the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, the independent advisor to the committee on environmental issues, but no references to the NZIER Informetrics report, the independent paper that was produced to advise the committee and the House on the economics of the scheme (there was a reference to Suzi Kerr, who provided qualitative assessment)

> 5 references to environmental NGO's (WWF, GreenPeace, Environmental Defense Society, Sustainability Council, Environment and Conservation Organisations of Aotearoa New Zealand), but the only reference to a business NGO was to the Business Council for Sustainable Development, which is arguably a dual enviro NGO / bus NGO

> About a dozen newspaper clippings, with only one mentioning the business concerns. However this one article mis represented business views and was used to paint the revised ETS as business friendly. None suggested allocations were justified. I have now added in one that does this and a few other newspaper references. The article is still unbalanced.

> No references to robust economic work. The only quantitative economic assessment included was from the Sustainability Council (or Bertram from Vic uni who works with both Vic uni and the Sustainability Council ).

> 1 reference critical of an ETS altogether. However the reference is to an Act Party demonstartion where a which whipped a farmer. Hardly a fair representation of opposition.

> No references to commentators or research supportive of an ETS but not supportive of the Labour ETS.

I think this inclusion is vital while this commentary remains. If commentary is to be included a background is needed to ensure readers are equipped to properly scrutinize criticism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Zealand_Emissions_Trading_Scheme&oldid=351944173

Catonz (talk) 10:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

2.Basis for allocation vs form of allocation

I think the section is mis-titled. The section covers the form of allocation. A new section should be added above this section titled 'basis of allocation', and cover the arguments suggesting allocation is needed to prevent leakage, allocation is needed to compensate for loss of property right, border adjustments, and that allocations is not needed at all (Nordhaus). Catonz (talk) 10:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

3. allocation to EITE vs allocation to all

I disagree that the Garnaut report does not support allocation to emissions intensive trade exposed firms. The quote you highlight is saying allocations should not be made to all. Garnaut goes on to say it would be easier to just allocate to consumers than to all producers.

So, yes Garnaut does not think allocations should be made to all firms. But this is not an issue of auction vs allocation as you seem to suggest. All schemes legislated and proposed by governing political parties have included allocations to some units and auctioning of some units.

Garnaut then goes on to say that while other nations do not have an ETS payments are needed to firms who are trade exposed:

"In the meantime, a domestic transitional assistance arrangement for Australia’s most exposed industries is required." 14.5.2

"The rationale for payments to trade-exposed, emissions-intensive industries is different and sound. It is to avoid the economic and environmental costs of having firms in these industries contracting more than, and failing to expand as much as, they would in a world in which all countries were applying carbon constraints involving similar costs to ours." 14.5.4

"For every unit of production, eligible firms receive a credit against their permit obligations equivalent to the expected uplift in world product prices that would eventuate if our trading competitors had policies similar to our own."14.5.4

So he is saying that to protect competitiveness a firm should be given a subsidy to lift the price of there output based on the expected increase in costs/world prices (marginal cost = supply, in a world market the supply curve is horizontal).

Now this expected increase will depend on the world price of emissions units. So the subsidy would have to change every day based on the price of units. So once this policy advice is implemented in practice rather than giving cash a government would find it easier to just give units. For example, under the ETS EITE industries receive an allocation of units for increases in electricity costs, even though they are not the point of obligation for electricity emissions. So these units are to sell rather than surrender. These are based on production under an intensity scheme, so they are essentially the policy prescription that Garnaut has advised.

Catonz (talk) 10:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for Catonz's 'Easter' edits starting 2 April 2010

I propose that the edits by user Catonz starting 2 April 2010 be reverted back to the version of 25 March 2010. I have communicated these points politely to Catonz. See Talk:New_Zealand_Emissions_Trading_Scheme#12.

Reasons.

• The edits are pushing a POV contrary to WP:NPOV policy. See New_Zealand_Emissions_Trading_Scheme#Allocation_of_Units_to_Trade-Exposed_Activities in particular. Catonz gives these reasons justifying his edits: "It appears the previous version was more or less written by a member of the Green Party"..."in my opinion the article was biased", "I was alarmed by the half truths contained", "yes it was someone who came from an environmentally minded background", "Previous version was full of irrelevant half truths". These statements are consistent with a lack of neutrality.

• E.g. Many instances of "significant views that have been published by reliable sources" WP:NPOV intro) have been deleted where Catonz does not agree with the view documented. This has the consequence of giving 'undue weight' to Catonz's interpretations.

See Talk:New_Zealand_Emissions_Trading_Scheme#2. See Talk:New_Zealand_Emissions_Trading_Scheme#4. See Talk:New_Zealand_Emissions_Trading_Scheme#5. See Talk:New_Zealand_Emissions_Trading_Scheme#7. See Talk:New_Zealand_Emissions_Trading_Scheme#8. See Talk:New_Zealand_Emissions_Trading_Scheme#10. See Talk:New_Zealand_Emissions_Trading_Scheme#11.

• The paragraph structure, which had been discussed and resolved once, has been changed illogically. The previous structure was 'chronological order' with similar subsection headings for the 2008 ETS and the 2009 ETS. The current structure goes back and forth in time. The sections on the current 2009 ETS are now on either side of the 2008 ETS.

• Two new sections duplicate paragraphs on other pages. E.g. New_Zealand_Emissions_Trading_Scheme#History_of_the_Climate_Change_Response_Act_2002 is unnecessary, as the Climate_Change_Response_Act_2002 has its own page. E.g. New_Zealand_Emissions_Trading_Scheme#Emissions_Profile_of_New_Zealand duplicates Climate_change_in_New_Zealand#Greenhouse_gas_emissions. These paragraphs exist elsewhere on related pages and are unnecessary and so should be removed. Mrfebruary (talk) 01:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree my edits are not perfect and encourage others to improve on them. However I do not think the previous version of the article was acceptable.

Firstly I will address a few of your points.

When I said "It appears the previous version was more or less written by a member of the Green Party" I was not stating an opinion. The previous version was written by Alan Liefting, who is on the Green Party website as a candidate. The next line in my comment read, "Now that by itself does not mean what the wrote is automatically biased, but in my opinion the article was biased". I stand by this comment. I would never say the article is biased because of who it was written by. But in this case I believe the article was biased, and I noted that it was written by a member of the Green Party.

I have removed the many 'reliable sources' from the section that details the content of the current act. I have replaced them with references TO the Act. Why not go strait to the Act rather than through a commentator? The Act is plain text. It is non-interpretable. It does not need to be put through a filter. Sure, for other sections use professional opinion. However for the content of the Act, such as the time frame for removal of allocations, go to the Act.

I have agreed that the section on allocations needs changing. But I don't think you have demonstrated a problem with my any of the other content I have added. Please don't through the baby out with the bath water. Sure, improve where possible. But lets not go all the way back to the original. It was a commentary rather than an encyclopedic article, and a biased one at that.

Yes there are other articles that contain similar content. But are there not also other articles on matters such as New Zealand's emissions profile that you asked me to add back in? Should the NZ info be removed from the Wikipedia page on Emissions Trading? I dont see the harm in containing these short sections.

I also dont see the merit in beginning the article with a detailed breakdown of the Labour scheme. The main topic here is the NZ ETS. There is only one NZ ETS (legislatively speaking).Catonz (talk) 10:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The reasons you give for deleting verifiable sourced material are just a shallow pretence to justify your deletions of material you don't personally agree with. It is just pathetic to even mention Alan Liefting in person, let alone any political affiliation he may have. The identities and affiliations of editors on WP are irrelevant. It is the content that counts. And it is your 'content' that is biased and not adequately sourced via a citation. It is nonsense to say that an Act is non-interpretable. Your one citation to the Climate Change Response Act 2002 is used 24 times ('a' through to 'x' of footnote 1). That makes a mockery of meaningful in-line citations in Wikipedia. Mrfebruary (talk) 12:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh... so when writing an article about the ETS the Act that contains all the detail of the ETS shouldn't be referenced too much? We should just reference opinion pieces that contain factual errors??? That is laughable. It would be possible to write an accurate summary of the ETS legislation with just one reference, the Climate Change Response Act as of December 2009.

Yes I have deleted references to incorrect statements. There is a lot of spin said about the ETS and these have no place in the detail section (from all sides). Yes I have referenced the Act, which is fact, in preference of opinion. Are you suggesting opinion pieces from Environmental NGO's are a better source of information on the legislation the the Act itself??? Or are you just supporting diversity? If any of my statements referenced to the Act are wrong please point them out for me, because so far all you have done is state that it is bad because it is used too often. You have not pointed out a single error.Catonz (talk) 06:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree that the previous version was biased. All opinions were referenced to valid sources. Yet you deleted them, as you disagreed with those viewpoints. Thats contary to WP:NPOV Mrfebruary (talk) 12:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

An article can be biased and referenced, it simply only needs to reference a marginal view point.

On your other point about in-line citations, I have referenced each sentance to an article in many cases. When I look at other wikipedia pages they often leave references until the end of the paragraph. Is this the method I should use? Thanks Catonz (talk) 04:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)