Three questions:

1.Why does the carbon liability for oil falls on consumers when the liability for food falls on producers?

2. Why is New Zealand criticised for our per capita emissions when we export most of what we produce form the animals that produce the bulk of our emissions?

3. Why action which reduces emissions in one place is deemed to be good, even if it leads to an increase in emissions in another place?

6 Responses to Three questions:

  1. dimmocrazy says:

    The answers to these questions are simple:
    because your good friends in the National Party are either disingenuous or stupid, possibly both.


  2. homepaddock says:

    Dimmocrazy – all those questions refer to the Kyoto protocol in general not NZ’s response to it in particular.


  3. Andrei says:

    The real answer, Ele, is that Rich Western Nations are the source of all the worlds problems and that Kyoto is designed to transfer wealth from them to the poorer ones to raise them up or so it is claimed.

    As is the way with all such things the fundamental premises are invalid and the wealth transfer will be from the poor of the First World to the rich of both the First and Third world.

    The poor of the third world will remain poor and if the damage caused by this parasitism is great enough the poor of the first world will become as the poor of the third world.


  4. Why is carbon dioxide supposedly at record levels but temperatures are not?


  5. Lawrence of Otago says:

    There is no rational answer, because “kyoto protocol” and NZ’s “ETS” are not rational.

    Do not accept the unearned guilt.



  6. Ed Snack says:

    Actually whatever mechanism is used, consumers will ultimately pay the price regardless, to attempt to bluster otherwise is foolish.

    To answer more directly, because Kyoto was a lash-up, designed by fools (cunning fools, but fools) for fools (of the not so cunning, or “we trusted our representatives” types). One has to ask why so many governments are so short sighted.

    As is often quoted, NZ’s “emissions” are around 50% CH4 based, and that because farming only counts outputs, not inputs. Farming is, apart from fuel usage and associated added items, a zero sum carbon game, but in Kyoto it is not.


Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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: