Wrong answer from wrong question

If the answer involves more bureaucrats, consultants, lawyers and the potential for third parties to make most of the money, you’ve asked the wrong question.

That is at the root of the problem with the proposed Emissions Trading Scheme which parliament is considering.

The bureaucrats, consultants, lawyers and brokers will do well out of the ETS. But it is doubtful if the scheme will have a measurable impact on domestic emissions and, if businesses move out of New Zealand, it may well increase global emissions.

The ODT  has a contrary view:

The Bill that is now proceeding through the House is a compromise, but one with much to commend it, although in itself the immediate effect of the legislation amounts to little enough.

But it also says:

The Bill can only be regarded as a starting mechanism, a small beginning for what will become a highly complicated and probably very expensive response to a scientific theory, and one that will have an economic impact on every household and business in the land, although it will have very little impact in reducing global warming.

 So what’s the point if it’s going to do so much harm and very little good? Shouldn’t we, as Tariana Turia said last week, be aiming at emissions reduction rather than emissions trading?

It is folly to sabotage the economy at a high social cost for little or no environmental gain but that’s the ridiculous answer Labour and its allies are imposing on us because they started by asking the wrong question.

One Response to Wrong answer from wrong question

  1. UK Voter says:

    I completely agree with your observations and would just like to add one of my own. If someone had told you 5 years ago, that we could simply create a ‘commodity’ from thin air (excuse the pun), which would be taken so seriously that it could be traded like anything that is tangible, the chances are you would have questioned their sanity. Yet this is precisely what has been done.

    The reality is, the profits from the ETS will be seen, for the most part by traders and the costs will inevitably be passed on to the consumer in the way of higher prices, which will be dressed up as raw material costs. In other words, it is a very slick way of enriching the few at the expense of the masses. In other words, a very well disguised form of tax.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: