More unintended consequences from womble ministers

Electric vehicles, virtue-signalling and living green are pretty much the preserve of the urban elite, and load disproportionate costs onto the poor. But green wombles don’t care: they are saving us from ourselves, don’t you know.

Now there is some evidence that this left wing, protect the poor, party is actually passing laws that will hurt the poor: Quote:

Fighting climate change could slow economic growth, but it wouldn’t stop it, economic modelling commissioned by the Government shows.

Low-income families could be some of the worst hit, leading Climate Change Minister James Shaw to say Government help for those families would be key during any transition.

He said any possible “marginal” cost to the economy would “an entirely reasonable price to pay for the continued existence of human civilisation.”

“The difference between our existing 2050 target and a net zero emissions target could be in the range of 0.2 per cent GDP – a pretty marginal difference.”

The New Zealand Institute of Economic Research (NZIER) modelling is part of four different analyses released by the Government today as it consults on a proposed Zero Carbon bill.

It is the most pessimistic of the models and doesn’t look at any adverse effects climate change itself will have on the New Zealand economy, as no change the country could make alone would have a serious effect on those.

Greenhouse gases are the primary cause of human-influenced climate change, which is likely to cause drastic damage to food production, coastlines, and weather in coming decades.

The NZIER modelling compares a “do nothing” approach – which would require New Zealand pulling out of the Paris Accord – to three different 2050 targets the Government is considering.

In the most ambitious target of net zero Greenhouse Gas emissions household income would increase by 40 per cent by 2050, compared to the 55 per cent in the “do-nothing” model.

Under the “do-nothing” model, the NZIER assumes the economy ticks along with an average of 2.1 per cent GDP growth ever year between now and 2050. It notes it seems very unlikely New Zealand would do nothing to reduce emissions between now and 2050, particularly as that would require us breaking our international commitments.

Under the current Paris climate agreement target New Zealand signed up to in 2015, that would tick down to between 1.8 per cent and 2.1 per cent per year – depending on the level of innovation. Under a middle target of net zero carbon but stabilised agricultural emissions growth would average between 1.6 per cent and 1.9 per cent. Finally under a full net zero Greenhouse Gas emissions target growth would average between 1.5 per cent and 1.9.

Shaw made the point that even this pessimistic modelling showed the economy would still be growing, and any kind of economic prediction this far out was not an exact science.

Modelling the whole economy 30 years into the future is a huge challenge and, while we’ve asked the economists to keep working to sharpen their findings, we wanted to publish what they’d done so far so people could see it,” Shaw said.?End quote.

And what about modelling for climate change? Is that an exact science or are all these changes that will materially affect the poor also based on models that aren’t an exact science? Climate fraudster scientists, along with green wombles, don’t seem to have any trouble at all imposing their views on us based on projections modelling how the climate will be in 30 years time.?Quote:

The modelling suggested the poorest 20 per cent of households could be twice as worse-off thanks to climate action as their counterparts on the average income, thanks to them spending a higher proportion of their income on products likely to increase in cost.

Shaw said any change would be gradual and Government interventions such as the Families Package would be key. The Families Package greatly increased the amount of money the poorest families gain from Working For Families and other benefits.

More sunny modelling from Vivid Economics and the Ministry for the Environment noted the possibility of huge “co-benefits” from climate change action across the economy not looked at within the NZIER modelling – for example, reduced congestion from more low-emissions public transport systems, or the positive health effects brought on by insulating homes.

Projections show every $1 spent on the Warm Up New Zealand scheme should save the Government $4 in health spending.

The “synthesis report” suggests the actual impact will be somewhere in between the pessimistic NZIER model and the sunnier impacts.

Shaw said the Government would be cautious to make sure industries who might find their commodities rendered uncompetitive by NZ climate action that didn’t apply to foreign competitors – such as steelmakers – would have some protection, although he noted this kind of risk was far from certain.

The risk exists and needs to be carefully managed – and also it is not a guaranteed risk.”

He would not be drawn on which of the targets he personally supported. End quote.

If risks aren’t guaranteed and economic predictions are not an exact science, then why are we doing this? Why are we making catastrophic changes to the economy based on the “certainity” of climate modelling?

You know, that modelling that hasn’t even come close to matching reality. What about all the predictions of climate scientists that have never come true either? Why do we believe these people but not economists?

James Shaw and his band of useless idiots are complete wombles.