Gareth’s post on James Hansen’s talk at the University of Canterbury carried a link to a recent report that the Prime Minister supports the intentions of Solid Energy to develop the Southland lignite fields. The contrast between the warnings of Hansen and the bland assumptions of Key was painful.
Key speaks straight business as usual:
“At the moment companies like Solid Energy are growth companies and we want them to expand in areas like lignite conversion.”
“We know there is lots of resource there and we know they potentially have the capability [to convert lignite to urea or diesel] and so we will see how that progresses, but the briquette plant is a good starting point.”
There is a nod in the direction of environmental concerns, but only in vague general and reassuring terms.
“Mr Key said companies were controlled by Government regulations and so there were always environmental obligations that needed to be met.”
His words repeat the balance mantra which has long been used to sanctify government determination to carry on exploiting fossil fuels:
“We do actually think we can grow the economy and look after the environment, but obviously it is incumbent on us to have the right rules to follow that … I’ve always believed we can balance our environmental responsibilities with our economic opportunities.”
What regulations and rules is the Prime Minister talking about? Presumably he is referring to the Emissions Trading Scheme, and it seems pretty clear that there is nothing in the ETS which will stand seriously in the way of the lignite development.
He speaks of environmental responsibilities. In relation to climate change the nearest responsibility the government has accepted is the 2020 target for greenhouse gas reductions. Woefully inadequate though it is at between 10 and 20 percent below 1990 levels, one might assume that it would certainly rule out a major new emissions source such as the lignite development. But apparently not.
Why not? A look at the explanation offered on the Ministry for the Environment website suggests there are ways to accommodate the new source of emissions.
“A ‘responsibility target’ means that it is expected that New Zealand will meet its target through a mixture of domestic emission reductions, the storage of carbon in forests, and the purchase of emission reduction units in other countries.”
In other words, the lignite development would simply reduce the size of the domestic emissions reductions contribution to the target, leaving more to be taken up by the other two in the mix.
It sounds reasonable and obviously satisfies the government. But it’s smoke and mirrors. There is no way in which the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the continuing exploitation of fossil fuels can be compensated for by tree planting. A carbon price set at an appropriate level would underline this reality. But New Zealand’s current ETS is designed to make it impossible for carbon to be priced at a level appropriate to the dangers it poses.
Jim Hansen says if we hope to keep the global temperature within a range similar to that in which human civilisation has developed we must phase out coal quickly, not exploit unconventional fossil fuels such as tar sands, shale oil and methane hydrates, and not pursue the last drops of conventional oil in polar regions, the deep ocean or pristine land. John Key looks forward to development of the lignite fields and his Minister of Energy sees great potential in deep ocean drilling, possible methane hydrate exploitation, and coal mining on conservation land if he can get it.
The two positions are far apart. Yet the government doesn’t actively deny the science of climate change. It acknowledges it in broad terms, and takes part in international discussions to reach a global agreement to tackle it. But, in a classic tragedy of the commons scenario, it also continues to pursue what it sees as its own economic advantage in the exploitation of its fossil fuel resources. The ethical contradiction is manifest.
New Zealand is not alone in its position, which is no comfort. Rich countries like the US, Canada and Australia follow much the same line. Maybe it will be less well off countries who in the end jolt them out of their selfishness. In international discussions one of the arguments for inaction has been that the developing countries are not prepared to pull their weight. However Oxfam has this week reported that, according to a survey they commissioned from the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI), developing countries have pledged to make bigger 2020 cuts in their greenhouse gas emissions than industrialized countries, compared to a business as usual scenario. If that is the case then it is clearly the rich countries that are not pulling their weight. The SEI survey shows that in terms of pledges the emissions reductions of developing countries could be three times greater than those of the EU and the emission reductions of China, India, South Africa and Brazil – the BASIC countries – could be slightly greater than the combined efforts of the 7 biggest developed countries – the US, Europe, Japan, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Russia by 2020.
The Oxfam climate change policy adviser Tim Gore comments:
“All countries need to do their fair share to tackle climate change. Yet rich industrialized countries which are most responsible for the climate crisis are not pulling their weight.
“It’s time for governments from Europe to the US to stand up to the fossil fuel lobbyists. Their competitors in developing countries – from China to India and Brazil – have pledged to do more to rein in emissions and start building prosperous low carbon economies. Europe and the US risk being left behind.”
Not that the sum total of all the pledges is anywhere near enough to keep us below the 2 degrees target agreed to in Cancún. Oxfam, after declaring that we sink or swim together, rightly points out that the pledges currently on the table mean we are sinking. Which is what Hansen affirms and the New Zealand government presumably denies, if it ever gets as far as thinking about the implications of its actions.
What will happen if some of our largest trading partners refuse to accept our products if we do not reduce our carbon emissions? I can see that happening some time in the next twenty years.
But our largest trading partners are just as culpable as we are, although I wouldn’t put it past the US or Europe to pontificate “do as we say, not as we do” . China is putting the most effort into making the changes necessary…. I didn’t think I would ever say this, but there are advantages to a Totalitarian government, for e.g. the ability to think 20-50 years into the future and not just to the next elections.
Do the advantages of a totalitarian government outweigh the costs?
(That aside, the assumption that a totalitarian government would be benevolent and will aim to do what is best for the long term is very flawed)
“We do actually think we can grow the economy and look after the environment, but obviously it is incumbent on us to have the right rules to follow that … I’ve always believed we can balance our environmental responsibilities with our economic opportunities.”
What regulations and rules is the Prime Minister talking about?…
SLDI suggested “right rules” to “balance our environmental responsibilities with our economic opportunities” — a universal geometrical algorithm that balances the needs of people, planet and profit – The SLDI Code™
http://www.triplepundit.com/author/sldi/
Sustainable Land Development Initiative
http://www.triplepundit.com/2010/09/sldi-project-carbon-negative/
“What regulations and rules is the Prime Minister talking about?…”
Actually he is not talking about any rules and regulations this is a “feel good” soundbite for the “average punter” (to quote his deputy leader). As such, it has no meaning, nor does it imply any intentions of action by government whatsoever.
Yes Macro, that is exactly the point. The Prime Minister IS offering the same triple-bottom-line “feel good soundbite” as many others have done over the past couple of decades. Why not try actually implementing the balanced formula for sustainability instead of just talking about it?
Origin of Sustainability Movement Leads to Current Challenges
http://www.triplepundit.com/2010/08/origin-of-sustainability-movement-leads-to-current-challenges/
“Overall, the effort to define and achieve sustainability [in local government] has involved a significant amount of consciousness-raising about the trade-offs involved in community decision-making. At its best, it is a process for ensuring that otherwise overlooked perspectives and constituencies are not excluded from decisions. But it remains an ill-defined process in which operational results remain elusive…the [SD] process is not deterministic: the end-point is not known in advance. The starting point of the process is not some degree of sustainability because this cannot be known or observed. It is considered that unsustainability – which can be seen – is necessarily the starting point for this process. What is known to be unsustainable will change and evolve with new information and experience, which makes the process dynamic rather than static. Within this evolutionary approach, a sustainable system is one that evolves as a consequence of adaptation to changing circumstances, rather than one that resists all assaults upon it.”
As a comprehensive sustainable development decision model, The SLDI Code™ functions as a completely integrated, fractal matrix which leads decision-makers from the foundation of triple-bottom-line sustainability to sustainable results. This unique model is a result of the input and vetting of numerous sustainable project leaders.
NOTE: The principles embedded in the SLDI Code Sustainable Development Matrix are universal in their application and need not be confined to land development projects. In Pass-It-Forward spirit, the SLDI Code has been gifted on behalf of the land development industry to be used by anyone on any effort in which triple-bottom-line sustainable results are desired.
http://www.triplepundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/THE-FRACTAL-FRONTIER.pdf
“Why not try actually implementing the balanced formula for sustainability instead of just talking about it?”
Yes tmock I agree entirely – but unfortunately until the “average punter” – that is how the electorate is seen by these people – DEMANDS ACTION, nothing will be done, and all that will result is more hot air.
If the atmosphere doesn’t care where emission reductions come from globally, and if the NZ lignite emissions are offset 100% by reductions elsewhere (e.g. Solid Energy buying CER units), what is the issue? Is it not ‘ethically better’ to have that occur, than to have the products be made offshore with no responbility for the emissions that arise?
Who, pray tell, are they planning on buying offset units from? Everyone else is busy with business-as-usual, digging coal and hooning around in SUVs like there was no tomorrow. Apart from massive tree planting what other options are there currently for CO2 sequestration?
The stench of peanuts is coming from the probability that we’ve already released enough CO2 to make it bloody difficult to continue life as we know it, once the planet’s inertia catches up. Every gram of fossil carbon we release is only making things worse. Offsets are a crock of ordure.
You misunderstand me. I wasn’t talk ing about sequestration.
I consider Certified Emission Reduction units and Emission Reduction Units to be adequate offsets, where eligibility is determined through financial additionality (i.e. the projects would not have happened without the finance from the sale of the emission units). Not withstanding concerns about the HFC22-based units of course.
I think there are misunderstandings both ways. I suspect that the situation we are in now, 2011, is so serious that ANY carbon released is too much. If A is allowed to release the carbon that B hasn’t for whatever reason, it’s still carbon that shouldn’t be out there. Of course, I realise the futility of trying to stop the world driving to work and expecting food to magically appear in the supermarket. We’re like Wile E Coyote hurtling toward the edge of the cliff. The question will he stop 2m out in mid-air or 10m? Either way, he/we are going to drop like a brick.
If everybody agreed to turn around, cut expectations to the bone, go without, think carefully about all the alternatives we might be able to stop 1m out, close enough to scrabble back by our fingernails, but with so much denial out there, especially in high places, we’ve as much chance as a rat in a cat factory.
You’re right. That’s completely unrealistic.
I was considering what was practical. That is, what is possible under existing international treaties and our emissions tradng scheme.
PS to follow the current Bonn negotiations see http://www.iisd.ca/climate/sb34/
Hi All,
another video with a clear an concise message from a bunch of highly astute and intelligent individuals.
http://www.thelancet.com/climate-change
Sime
As usual, John Key talks a load of bollocks! The National party currently have their heads firmly planted up their own arses! What domestic emission reductions is he talking about? More oil and coal getting dug out of the ground is not going to reduce emissions. It’s just another National lie in a continuance of dishonesty.
When National won the 2008 election, Nick Smith promised to subsidise electric vehicles, however there has been nothing done. Absolutely nothing. Likewise Labour had proposed sanctions on large vehicles… but did nothing.
The Government is all about making false promises to subdue the masses into believing they give a shit, while continuing to maximise their rich mates profits at the expense of the environment and the people. Can we actually put an effective rate on an ETS, being that climate change threatens the existence of life on earth?
There is no presumption about it; the National Government is in denial. This is shown by their continued promotion of oil subsidies, tax incentives and taxpayer funded exploration. We can only presume that their motivation to make money is as strong as their belief that climate change is not real. Bastards!
As Clive Hamilton points out in Requiem for a Species, our institutions and laws are currently engaged in severely reducing the life expectancy of our children. This is not a statement of blame, its just a reality and reflects our inability with our current arrangements to move quickly enough to meet this threat.
The same point was made a year ago by Ban Ki Moon in Davos when he called our current economic arrangements a suicide pact.
Clive Hamilton says it has become unhelpful to believe that we will avoid 2 degrees of warming (I agree) and the job now is to democractise survival. That is, work for the moment when everyone finally ‘gets’ the urgency of the situation, look for creative new arrangements, and ensure that the governing elites do not simply act to ensure further survival for a small group.
One person who I believe gets this is the UN’s climate chief Christiana Figueres. In a recent statement she said that the UN cannot work to a 2 degree limit as a long term outcome, since this is plainly inequitable and deadly for many smaller, poorer states.
Daniel Hausknost is someone worth watching. He is trying to work out precisely why liberal democracies seem unable to meet this threat. He thinks that the problem is how we use the term ‘choice’:
“… ‘choice’, the mode of agency of the marketplace, is inefficient in bringing about change. It does not eliminate the options not chosen, but keeps them in the game (unless a huge majority would choose not to choose them). What is required for effective change are ‘decisions’, a quite tough mode of agency, because it eliminates the options we do not select in a path-dependent way. Collective decisions can be made only by governments or electorates. Unfortunately, … liberal democracies are structurally ill-equipped to make decisions – they normally try to have ‘change’ made by ‘choice’ (market) or ‘solutions’ (techno-administrative sphere). What is needed, however, is a form of change that inflicts ruptures to our modes of production, consumption and distribution without destabilising the political framework. This, precisely is what liberal (capitalist) democracies are simply unable to provide. Hence …. we seem to be screwed unless we quickly develop new democratic institutions to break that deadlock of agency.”
http://www.earthscan.co.uk/blog/post/Are-we-all-climate-deniers.aspx
Those who regularly imbibe the corporate kool-aid will find this hard to accept, but you only have to look to the behaviour of transnationals in the third world to see the strategies these global oligarchies employ in situations of scarcity and where authoritarian options are available to them.
I’ve long thought the liberal democracies have been relatively democratic precisely because they were so affluent, and growing at a sufficient rate to allow the true elites to gain disproportionately (and hence satisfactorily) while allowing a small portion of the super-expanding wealth to be redistributed to maintain the quiescence of the general population.
And for some time it worked, for those lucky enough to be born in all the right places. But on a finite planet, fantasy aside, this has to end. And once we hit any major walls, just watch how quickly the truly powerful tear up this (implied) social contract!
This is a warning that Naomi Klein has given repeatedly; the elites will attempt to use the forthcoming crises to institutionalise the system of inequitable distribution of both power and resources, deploying all the tools of the global propaganda system – known in polite circles as PR, advertising, and, say, Fox – to persuade us it’s all ‘inevitable’ and ‘for our own good’.
And thanks to the stalwart efforts of the deniers – some of whom are conscious and semi-conscious shock-troops of power, many of whom are simply patsies – in ensuring the democracies don’t make any ‘decisions’ these crises will be that much the worse, and the associated fear will drive many – perhaps most – right into their arms!…
“ensure that the governing elites do not simply act to ensure further survival for a small group”
Alarmingly plausible, but the mystery is how the super-rich imagine how even the vaguest resemblance of their lifestyles can continue without the biological and social infrastructure needed to support them. They are more vulnerable than an Indian peasant. Are they envisaging leaving the planet like the humans in Wall-E?
Thanks for the link Tom. I’ve been off having a read.
Clive Hamilton expresses much of my own feelings on the matter. I particularly like his reference to the analogous situation that Churchill found himself in, in the approach to WW2. The people wanted to believe in peace at all costs, and in doing so were blinded to the impeding threat. It’s much the same today for the majority of voters they desperately want there to be no Warming! – and thus it’s quite feasible for Key, and any other PM (Helen Clark promised NZ would be Carbon Neutral in 2000) to make soothing sounds about respecting the environment etc, and people feel happy and the problem will go away.
As Clive Hamilton says – we cannot consume our way out of this mess! Of course try telling that R2 et al and you will get a lecture on how economically naive you are. Unfortunately our PM, being a money marketeer, is also wedded to the neo-liberal dogma of the market and choice as Lord of All. He is quite happy to get of his aircraft and wave a peace of paper and say “No Warming in Our Time!”. (And Bryan L will cheer!). I do not see any progress in this until world wide Govt’s are elected that puts the whole of the Western World at least on a war footing with combating Global Warming. And by then of course it will be too late, because unlike WW2 the chance to fight back fight has almost gone.
An emissions trading scheme / carbon tax places a price on emissions so that this is considered in production decisions. New Zealand has an ETS. Regardless of the current price, long term projects such as this one will assume no 1-for-2 obligations and no price cap.
Green types have been lobbying for a price on emissions for years. Now there is one. This project is assessed in a world with an ETS and is still feasible. Now green groups say the ETS can’t be strong enough. If the ETS is increased in strength until all new fossil fuel plants become uneconomic the ETS becomes a rather pointless exercise – it would be easier and cheaper to just put a moratorium on new fossil fuel extraction processing etc. But don’t blame National, they have never supported this policy.
Nb. The allocations under the ETS will depend on what Solid Energy produce. Allocations are based on average emissions per unit of production from the period 2005-2007. If SE make urea then they receive allocation based on 90% of the emissions rate at the gas to Urea plant in Kapuni. So the ETS requires SE to pay the difference between coal to urea and gas to urea. Which is fair enough given gas to urea is imported into NZ at present.
“Green types have been lobbying for a price on emissions for years. Now there is one. This project is assessed in a world with an ETS and is still feasible. Now green groups say the ETS can’t be strong enough. If the ETS is increased in strength until all new fossil fuel plants become uneconomic the ETS becomes a rather pointless exercise – it would be easier and cheaper to just put a moratorium on new fossil fuel extraction processing etc.”
Exactly! Much better to put a moratorium on new fossil fuel extraction.
“But don’t blame National, they have never supported this policy.”
Exactly! – And they are trying their very best to undermine it now.
Civilization began under the protection of warrior kings. Even as late as the the 1940’s people looked to their king for leadership. Watch the “King’s Speech” if you think that that is overstating the power of a central figure. Nowadays we have developed our societies to the point that a totalitarian style of leadership is unnecessary, but even 7000 years ago a good king was one who perceived the needs of his people over his own whimsical wants. Generally good kings produced far more wealth and well-being among the population.
Unfortunately in the past 20 odd years Western Countries have as a rule handed over governance to the market. Just today – National announced the handing over of the responsibility for building a medium sized convention centre (for which the PM as Minister for Tourism has been pressing) to a casino with the quid pro quo that more betting facilities will be legislated! The cry from the right is for “less Government” but the downside to that, is that in a time of CRISIS, and we are RAPIDLY approaching one now – if we are not already in it, is an inability to react to the crisis faced.
WE CANNOT CONSUME OUR WAY OUT OF AGW.
““But don’t blame National, they have never supported this policy.”
Exactly! – And they are trying their very best to undermine it now.”
But they were voted in democratically. If you don’t like democracy that is one thing. But you cant really ask that parties abandon their platform they campaigned on after the election because they should know better than the electorate.
“Unfortunately in the past 20 odd years Western Countries have as a rule handed over governance to the market.”
Western countries have handed over the division of resources to the market. This is what is called a market economy rather than a planned economy. The market is not granted governance. Kings didn’t really operate planned economies, a lot of infrastructure is needed. It is only truly possible in the last 200 years. We do have large elements of planning in our economies still, for example the Reserve Bank.
Your going way off topic here R2.
The discussion is the contradictions in Key’s statements vis a vis
the protection of the environment :
” “Mr Key said companies were controlled by Government regulations and so there were always environmental obligations that needed to be met.”
and the perceived need for growth:
“We do actually think we can grow the economy and look after the environment, but obviously it is incumbent on us to have the right rules to follow that … I’ve always believed we can balance our environmental responsibilities with our economic opportunities.”
I believe these statements to be merely soothing phases for the average voter who is fed adulterated information via the MSM and who wishes to remain blissfully unaware of the dangerous situation into which they are heading. (If you do not believe that the MSM are adulterating the message from climate science have a look at this analysis in the USA – one perceives that it is a little better here but not I would think by much) http://www.skepticalscience.com/imbalance-us-tv-coverage-ghg-regulation.html.
The monarchy has passed on the role of governance to the parliament and now parliaments with increasing privatization and ppps are handing over the role of governance to corporates. This is not democracy it is corporatocracy (parliaments are merely the puppets of the corporates – vis a vis Warner Bros, Sky City, Solid Energy in NZ for starters. Ultimately, and I predict in the not too distant future, this course will fail when the people of the world come to the realization that a few have grabbed everything and left them with nothing, and they are staring at a massive environmental backlash, the like we have never before witnessed.
Key’s greenwash will have no affect on the crisis at hand. The continuing exploitation of fossil fuels can only have one outcome.
I think you take the conversation off topic by bringing up your theories on kings and ‘corporatocracy’. I am only responding.
On your last para, you cannot deny that National have been elected by people and not companies. Do you claim that they are implementing policies that are ONLY popular with companies and not the people who voted for them, or is this simply a case of people wanting strong companies and the jobs they bring, so they vote for a party that will implement policy that is company friendly?
There is an argument that democracy will react late to threats, and you argue this. But now you are arguing that democracy is in the hands of companies. This is another step again. I don’t see any evidence for this myself (in New Zealand anyway).
I would suggest you stay away from this claim, it makes you look kinda kooky. If you want to convince others of the need to act you would be better served by just focusing on the facts rather than theories and speculation.
_R2D2: The democracy and governance debate can perhaps be paraphrased like this:
The electorate elects the “Intended Government” while the corporate body of the market pushes for an “Enacted Government” that is something else completely again.
Just look at the Sky City example where the intended government should be limiting gambling but caves in to blackmail by Sky City who want to extract as much revenue by way of gambling out of NZ’s people as they possibly can.
In the US with a hyper inflated election spending system the corporations and the wealthy also purchase election results by means of purchasing air time and fancy marketing campaigns designed to deliver the result they want: A situation where neither Democrats nor Republicans have a clear majority and where in the best of worlds (for them) the powers are split between President, Senate and Congress in such a way as to paralyze government. They have honed this to a fine art as can be witnessed. In a state of political paralysis they can then rule the game of the “Enacted Government” as nothing moves without the greased wheels of lobbyism and back room deals mediated through the interests of corporate and wealthy USA…..
As far as climate mitigation and environmental protection: I do not believe that anything would ever be done on its own accord in a competitive short term thinking market economy without planed intervention and legal frameworks.
Again, “Do you claim that they are implementing policies that are ONLY popular with companies and not the people who voted for them”?
“On your last para, you cannot deny that National have been elected by people and not companies.”
Ever read “The Hollow Men”?
Who funds political parties?
Who provides helicoptors?
Who has permanent access to MP’s?:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10731291
http://norightturn.blogspot.com/2011/06/time-for-transparency-on-lobbying-ii.html,
and who are the big donors to the Parties?:
http://theyworkforyou.co.nz/organisations/skycity_entertainment_group
Of course these corporations don’t expect ANYTHING in return! Yeah right!
The electors are essentially voting for the lapdogs of corporates.
Now I’ve said enough on this matter.
The main point I wish to make is simply this:
Key is merely repeating the mantra for “Business as Usual”. It’s not good enough.
But we had a campaign, his policies were clear, he got elected, now hes implementing what many would argue is only a smidgen of those policies. I don’t see where the ‘corporations’ become important. I think its fairly simple in reality. I am one of the majority of people who support these policies, and Im not a ‘corporation’.
_R2D2: Take the example of the US health reform (or lack of it). The insurance corporations and lawyers and pharmaceutical companies have a vested interest in maximizing the cash flow they can drag out of the US economy to line their pockets. The people have a vested interest in an affordable fair and available healthcare system. Guess who is constantly winning and why even 9/11 victims went for treatment to Cuba….
The system of the so called “free market” democracy is rigged at many corners in the game for the benefit of the wealthy and the powerful. From the blatantly obvious charades in the US to more nuanced ways in NZ.
“But you cant really ask that parties abandon their platform they campaigned on after the election”
eh what? that’s a bit rich seeing as National have done exactly that on a number of issues, e.g. kiwisaver.
Right – now we are back on topic! The primary role of government has always been – as I tried to point out previously – the protection of the people. That may or may not include the protection of corporations. Now Key has access to the most up-to-date information on Global Warming if he so chooses. NOT SO the average voter. (read my link to sceptical science above). Unfortunately he chooses to ignore this advice and continues, along with almost every other leader in the Western World, to pursue an economic policy that will ultimately fail us all. You may say that is what the voters want. You may well be right! But how are they to know if they are not appraised of the situation? Does Key – knowing what he does – not have a responsibility to take some lead? Of course he does! But it is inconvenient to Solid Energy. So again – who runs the country?
So are you saying if it wasn’t for Solid Energy and other evil corporates Key would implement the policies you want?
I don’t think this is what you are saying, and I don’t think it would occur. So it is more likely a coincidence that the policies Key favours, and those the NZ public favour, are also the ones SE favour. I don’t see corporations as being in control of the NZ govt, as you seem to. I think that is flat out a little kooky to be honest.
I suggest you read this:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/5099703/The-rise-and-rise-of-lobbyists
The facts speak for themselves.
Hmmm, I read the article and don’t really see what it proves. Yes it would be good to have more transparency, as that article outlines, but it still doesn’t show Key is in the hands of Solid Energy.
I am not sure how you think a meeting between Don Elder and John Key would go. Lobbying isn’t illegal, conversely, it is needed to make democracy work well.
A lobbyist does not sit down and bribe and threaten a member of parliament. This would be illigal.
It is likely in such a meeting Mr Elder would detail the economics of the plan, the enviromental impact, why he thinks its needed, etc. Basically giving Mr Key information he can’t give in the public due to commercial sensitivity. This then allows Mr Key to, after sense checking the information with officials, make an informed decision on policy.
It doesn’t mean Mr Key is setting policy solely on what Mr Elder wants. It doesn’t mean Mr Key is not listening to environmental interests as well or public opinion polls, he does both these things. It simply means he is gathering all the facts before making a decision. I don’t have a problem with that.
This fantasy of backroom deals is not substantiated in the opinion piece you provided.
Well if I’m kooky (I’ve been called worse than that in the past), at least I’m in good company. I quote from Bryan Gould’s http://www.bryangould.net/ book “Rescuing the New Zealand Economy – what went wrong and how we can fix it” 2008 p 41
“So we find that when it comes to a contest between public opinion or even the wishes of an elected government on the one hand and a powerful investor on the other, there can be only one winner. A classic example flowed from the the decision by New Zealand’s Labour government to sign up to the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Convention on Climate Change. Having committed itself to the Kyoto targets, the government was then obliged to specify the means it would reach those targets. Its first (and perhaps best) idea was to propose, as others would have done, a carbon tax on major emiters of carbon dioxide. This fairly fairly predictable and conventional proposal did not survive long, however: the objections by the major aluminium smelter Comalco (or Rio Tinto Aluminium New Zealand, as it is known), whose South Island smelter uses something like 15 percent of all New Zealand’s electricity, and its threat to decamp elsewhere if a carbon tax were introduced, were enough to kill the proposal stone dead.
The alternative subsequently adopted – a carbon trading scheme – is presumably more to the liking of big business…… Even so it has been attacked by the New Zealand Business Round table and others, on the ground that it threatens economic disadvantage but might not prove effective in controlling emissions. The objectors show little awareness that global warming is a prime example of market failure and that letting the market decide has been shown to be the path to disaster.”