I agree, I think alot of people feel this way. The only way to justify it is to appeal to a “moral responsibility” or some such thing.

“maybe we should send you to the WTO, you’re a straight shooter”

I don’t think that killing everyone at the WTO would solve anything – those sorts of organisations require diplomats, not psychopaths 😉 . I think the best way to solve it would be to make a global government.

Given how small we are I don’t think being early adopters is such a good idea, sure the greens will feel great about being trail blazers in the global community, but we could end up a clean but poor country. I think effort is best spent getting our competitors to agree to implement these kind of measures, maybe we should send you to the WTO, you’re a straight shooter;)

The counter argument to that comes from carbon leakage. As we are internalising the externality but our competitors aren’t, and as our methods are more carbon efficient then our competitors it is possible that cutting production in New Zealand could lead to higher global emissions – as overseas production increases.

Of course, we then have to ask, why aren’t other nations paying for it – is it fair that they are doing that? If only the WTO had bigger balls!

your point concerning dairy is interesting. I agree with your point that fonterra has market power and thus would be able to pass thorugh some of any cost increaeses. The mechanism by which they would do this is itneresting. Fonterra is moving to an auction model for it’s exporting so in thie sense they wouldn’t be able to demand a higher price. They could however increase the reserve price for their auctions. That said a large proportion of their milk sales will still likely be bilaterally contracted and thus they will be able to throw their weight around.

without trying to mix up words, would it not also be efficient if those who are polluting have to pay the cost? That way the externality becomes interenalised and hopefully behvaiour adjusts? If polutting firms get to share the cost of polluting with the general population that gives them much less incentive to change their behaviour then if they bore the cost themselves. It the long run it may cost more money, but that may be offset by the warm fuzzies we get from saving the planet.

but then again warm fuzzies in the long run don’t really matter if we aren’t around to enjoy them. “we are all dead in the long run”!