Well I was going to write my next post about why grannies are going to go green this election cycle, but seeing that it’s ETS all the time round here this weekend, I’ll chip in on that, instead.
Support it, then commit us to go on fighting to make it better and putting forward the best theory and practice to getting emissions down without too many negative environmental and social consequences”….
My main argument. It might be bad, but it will be better than the ETS that National draws up, which has proposed “interim” intensity measures, according to Nick Smith on Sunday 17th’s Natrad insight documentary, as well as all sorts of other weaknesses. National would go back to the country rather than let us use a balance of responsibility to force improvements in an ETS scheme, or maintain the RMA, and tragically, they would shout obstructionism and almost certainly have an increased majority….
My reason for the last pessimistic comment was the tendency of the msm commentators to flow along with the dominant narrative of the time, and the ease with which this is manipulated by the loudest (and richest) voices. I’d love to be proved wrong, but I haven’t seen much comment on “principled Greens” yet . My next feedback comment related to this,
And it’s a minor consideration against the fate of the planet, but I think not supporting it would be spun very badly, a la Chris Trotter, and would be incredibly difficult to stay on message justifying through the election campaign. I think the Greens would be portrayed as petty rather than principled. This shouldn’t trump the negotiating team’s sense of what’s right though.
My final thought was, “sometimes these things have a symbolic value beyond their purported savings (or costs) – I think this is one of these times”.
Like stevedore, I’m happy to be shown to be wrong. OK, next post (grannies can wait)… Why I think that personal emission trading schemes are going to be the answer in the long run.
Hope I’ve got those pesky links sorted out.