We don't really want to get into a rave but we can't let Rod Oram's article today to pass. It is firstly overtly partisan. Second it is very wrong. Yes, the agriculture and forestry sectors are vulnerable to the way in which the international rules are written. Is it therefore a good idea to introduce a system domestically which is so obviously bad for those sectors prior to our achieving change to those international rules. Lets take forestry. These wonderful rules - written largely by the Europeans - assume that all carbon for forests is released the moment that forest is cut down. So we bear the cost for the cutting down of the forest even though the embedded carbon in the wood will in many cases be exported. The imported country bears no liability. But what about coal or oil? Does the producing country bear the cost of oil or coal it might be producing? No way. The importing country - the end user pays the price for the embedded carbon. Why the inconsistency????
Now lets look at agriculture - is anyone else applying their ETS type schemes agriculture in the same way that New Zealand is proposing? No.
