I think that you have things arse about face. If there are no reasons to improve, industries don’t. The extreme case was when industry in NZ was hiding behind tariff barriers. We wound up with most of our industry being horribly inefficient. A lot of them simply collapsed when the protection was dropped, the remainder got markedly more efficient at every level from inventory control to purchasing. This included changing equipment, materials, and people management. We also spawned a lot more appropriate industries for our skills and economy.

Without a price or some other strong economic signal, most industries won’t bother to investigate more than you do. I’d suggest that you learn to use the web and some imagination. It has all been done before….

I am in manufacturing and we have some very smart technology and good materials usage, so what exactly are these “new green technologies, new materials, new processes and fully implementing complete life-cycle systems to fully manage products from cradle to grave”.

I don’t actually think you know, I think you just regurgitate a few words you heard at some conference.

Unfortunatly Jabba’s point is more of indication of what the true position actually is rather than your wank words.

The costs to the country are the same in the first year as they would be under the other ETS, and any other (because our external liabilities aren’t changed). However, more of these are paid by the taxpayer because we are subsidising business.

In later years it gets worse, because businesses shielded from costs are less incentivised to change, and farmers will be shielded 90% in perpetuity, no matter what the carbon price (and by 2020 it will almost certainly be above the current $25).

Thanks for the tip, mate.

At current prices. They rise and we could easily be paying billions to polluters.

It is up to the Maori Party to put it together . . . It is there if they care to see it. A younger Pita Sharples would have by now

This isn’t really an attempt to elaborate, it’s a restatement of the allegation. Some specifics please, this is serious stuff. It’s only hearsay as you spin it.

The whole point of Kyoto (modest as it was) was to provide a market signal incentivising carbon users to shift or mitigate their consumption.

All this ETS is going to do is socialise much of that signal away from the public, and onto the taxpayer. As a card-carrying ACToid surely you get the irony burt.