‘Cash for clunkers’ under fire
The Act party has described the “cash for clunkers” proposals as a waste of money.
A clean car upgrade and a scrap-and-replace trial were among initiatives the government announced in its emissions reduction plan (ERP) on May 16.
But Simon Court, Act’s spokesman for climate change, has attacked Labour for “rolling out failed Obama-era policies that are going to cost New Zealanders during a cost-of-living crisis”.
Court, pictured, adds: “Cash for clunkers was trialled in the US and was a total disaster. It cost a fortune and effectively just subsidised expensive vehicle purchases that were likely to happen anyway.
“It cost up to US$288 to reduce a tonne of emissions back then when carbon prices were far lower. Labour’s proposal refers to similar schemes in California where their budgeting shows US$920 per tonne of reductions.
“It’s a pointless waste of money when transport is already within the emissions trading scheme [ETS].
“Given New Zealand’s ETS price is US$48.16, you could buy 19 tonnes of emissions credits for the same cost and shred them so no one can use them for the same cost of a one tonne reduction from cash for clunkers.
“The government wants you to accept a policy that’s 19 times less efficient just because they want to be seen as doing something.”
Court adds that in the US, the scrappage scheme also raised the price of used cars on the open market.
“Once again Labour are subsidising vehicles for the wealthy while making it harder for poorer Kiwis to get vehicles,” he says.
“Rather than subsidising the global automobile industry during a cost-of-living crisis, the government could help out Kiwis by giving them a carbon-tax refund.
“The social justice wing of the Green Party should ask why the party is prepared to raise the price of cars for people on lower incomes just so the well-off environmental wing can buy a subsidised Tesla.”
Meanwhile Act’s leader David Seymour has described the ERP as a “bonanza for bureaucrats and travesty for taxpayers”.
He says: “All the government needed to announce was emissions under the ETS would be capped at the same level as our trading partners.
“That would meet our climate commitments and allow consumers to choose how they limit their emissions.
“Instead, the government has chosen the most expensive and bureaucratic possible route to emissions reduction.
“The plan is based around centrally planning the economy, micro-managing which technologies can be used by which industries.
“Any emissions reductions achieved through the ERP will just free up credits for use through the ETS rendering those additional policies useless.
“Some of the policies announced, like the cash for clunkers system, are proven to be dogs and have been tried and failed overseas, while the announcement of a Centre for Climate Action on Agricultural Emissions is another example of bloated bureaucracy.”
“Setting a goal of reducing distance travelled by light vehicles by 20 per cent by 2035 betrays their real intention of lifestyle change. The climate isn’t affected by how often cars are on the road. It’s about emissions already in the ETS.”
Seymour says Labour’s plans to alter the ETS to get “a balance of gross and net emissions targets” flies in the face of science.
“The planet doesn’t care if one less tonne is emitted or one more removed from the atmosphere,” he adds. “So much for ‘trust the science’.
“The climate doesn’t care which country emissions come from, just the overall quantity. Thus, the current law requiring New Zealanders only offset their emissions within New Zealand is nonsensical.
“If Kiwi firms can offset their emissions more affordably offshore, they should be allowed to do so. That’s what Simon Court’s members’ bill would allow.
“The document talks a lot about a ‘just transition’. An actual just transition would be to share ETS revenues with New Zealanders to allow them to adapt. That’s what ACT’s carbon tax refund policy would do.
“This government is only concerned about appearance of environmental progress rather than actual progress.”
