Well, Rob Emmerson correctly predicted how the ineffectual Emissions Trading Scheme amendments by NACT did wind up. Taxpayers pay almost all of the cost, our kids pay even more, and polluters have no incentive to reduce emissions.
Now imagine what happens when an effective binding agreement happens during or after Copenhagen.
Based on the science since December 1997, an effective agreement would require even more from the high emissions per capita states like NZ. Will John Key get the polluters to start paying the cost so there is a price signal towards changing consumption patterns. There will be some real economic benefits in both shifting towards a lower emissions economy and in selling the land-use technology to do so.
Or will John will simply stiff taxpayers with an even bigger bill? Based on past experience, we’ll just have more of the NACTs vespa moments of removing sensible policies to adjust for change, and stupid short-sighted ones substituted for their polluting contributors.
What is the bet that NACT will stiff taxpayers with a even bigger bill to allow the polluters to avoid reality for longer? After all, we didn’t help fill the Waitemata trust for their campaigning.
* Now there is an ugly thought.