Homepaddock reported this morning how Federated Farmers Dairy Chair, Frank Brenmuhl, said:
"Townies should not expect dairy farmers to donate $15 million so that the price of dairy foods sold in NZ can be reduced.
“They want … and they want … but they do not want to pay.” he said."
Mr. Brenmuhl appears to have no sympathy for Kiwis upset about the volatility of dairy prices, driven by market conditions and political decisions made far from these shores.
Meanwhile, over at the Hive, the very same Frank Brenmuhl is signatory to a letter about the proposed Emissions Trading System (ETS).
[UPDATE1: The Hive has deleted the post containing the letter referred to. I did not make a copy.][UPDATE2: The letter has now been reposted on the Hive and the link repaired.]
The letter makes some good points about the ambitious ETS expressed from a viewpoint that doesn't see any reason at all for New Zealand to provide any leadership on greenhouse gas emissions or be any sort of positive example to the world. Lowest-common denominator is the general tone. Business will abandon New Zealand, disaster, calamity and so on. Oh well. Nothing new there from NZ business when asked to ante up.
Most fun of all, included in this letter, signed by Frank Bremuhl, is this statement:
The reported back Bill fails to provide any safety valve to protect against a high and volatile price of carbon, in an international carbon market that lacks liquidity and where the price of carbon reflects political decisions made in Europe, rather than the least cost emissions abatement.
"lacks Liquidity" means too many people are making too much carbon and there aren't enough CHEAP carbon credits to go around and allow people to continue to do nothing. As more people continue to not do enough to reduce emissions, the price COULD go sky high. But that would only happen if people don't respond to the market signals those carbon prices are sending. That couldn't happen, right? Markets are supposed to be wonderful.....until it's YOU who have to pay, I guess.
Putting these two statements supported by Mr. Brenmuhl alongside each other, he clearly wants to be protected from the volatile price of carbon when the cost is to him, but sees no reason why there should be "any safety valve to protect against a high and volatile price of"......let's say: milk? - when he's the guy raking in the cash.
You'd laugh if it wasn't so pathetic.
"Your price is too high, let the taxpayer pay. My price can be whatever I get can away with and stop your whining!"
Nice one, Frank. I'm thinking maybe I should add a new label to cover stuff like this, but "stupid people" will do for now.
Well spotted. The farming sector has always been extremely good at demanding handouts (do they still get diesel cheap? All have tax lawyers writing off everything from the newspaper up? etc), while parading their virtue as the cource of all our wealth. Yeah, as thought he dairy and meat workers, wharfies and so on never had a part in it.
ReplyDeleteLeopards don't change their spots and nor do out farmers from the sound of it.
This letter isn't an anti-environment rant, it's a polite and request for "the opportunity to provide further written submissions on the vast number of changes proposed in its latest iteration".
ReplyDeleteThat's perfectly reasonable as is the signatories' desire that all parties work together to do what is in the best interests of New Zealand and get the complex legislation right.
That's right as in correct not a political bias :)
jp: Thanks.
ReplyDeletehp: I hear you and understand you're prepared to gloss over the sharp egdes.
I can see hypocrisy in Mr. Brenmuhl castigating townies for seeking price relief from the market on the one hand, then signing a letter complaining about lack of shelter from the market on the other.
The letter isn't terrible, though it highlights a lack of vision wrapped in nice words.
As for Frank B., it's not a pretty picture of him in particular.
The post on The Hive you linked to has gone.
ReplyDeleteBut there is a new post here: http://wellingtonhive.blogspot.com/2008/06/gpc-responds-to-sustainablity-council.html
hp: Thanks. Wonder why? One can speculate.....
ReplyDeleteThe letter is back here:
ReplyDeletehttp://wellingtonhive.blogspot.com/2008/06/industry-speaks-on-ets.html
jafapete, when farmers got their fuel "cheap" it involved them paying the same price as anyone else but making a claim for the refund of road tax. Nowadays they still pay the same price as everyone else. They do not have to buy "road user charge" licences for vehicles which do not use public roads. Nor do fishermen for their diesel fishing boats.
ReplyDeleteIn Australia the price of diesel is greater than the price of petrol.
The Government should press on with its ETS and all "polluters" should be included at full rate from day 1, and starting immediately. Let the true costs fall ultimately where they may, hopefully before the Elections.
ReplyDeleteanon: The problem with putting the full cost of the ETS onto all secotrs on day one is that those business people whose primary allegiance is to their money rather than New Zealand will take their production offshore and import it into NZ (so they claim). Moreover, they will locate in countries without an ETS. In effect, emissions avoidance. Without tarrifs at this end to equalise the difference, it would be the most rational way to both make money and screw the people who remain in NZ, at the same time. I can see emissions becoming a tariff issue, other wise thos who aren't participating in the market can simply opt out by going to their favourite 3rd world country....preferably with some form of dictatorship where workers and wages are controlled.
ReplyDeleteSome business leaders are demonstrably - by their own words - no committed friends of democracy, freedom (other than their own) or New Zealand.
I don't know what other conclusion to draw from their words. I know that most business people are NOT like that. But enough are to be disturbed by their lack of commitment to values we all in theory share.
hp: Thanks for the new link.
ReplyDeletejp: If doctors who serve in rural areas have their student fees forgiven, I wonder what the impact will be on people who might have trained to be surgeons? Their desire to provide advanced clinical care will be competing with the $100K+ debt load they will carry on graduation. That is a HUGE financial DIS-incentive for new doctors to pursue advanced medical training.
ReplyDeleteAnd how would tariffs square with our desire to lead the world in free trade agreements?
ReplyDeleteI don't have a desire to lead the world in free trade agreements. Unilaterally opening up our markets was the stupidest thing we ever did it.
ReplyDeleteNo one else has done it for good reason: It's dumb.
Why? It left us with nothing to bargain with to gain access to other markets. They ALREADY have open access to our market that they would never dream of giving to us in theirs.
I'd rather set an example in reducing green house gas emissions. That will be good for us AND everyone else.