I started using a research [url=http://www.hound.com] jobs site [/url] called [url=http://www.hound.com]Hound[/url] that I do not think anyone knows about because it is run by a small company that does not advertise. I

All [url=http://www.hound.com] Hound.com [/url] does is show you [url=http://www.hound.com] unadvertised job openings that are not publicly advertised[/url] and are located on employer websites.

Very few people realize that most employers post their job on their own sites and not on job boards like Monster, CareerBuilder, etc. because these sites charge employers up to $500 to post a single job. In my experience (I am getting more interviews that I ever have), your chances of getting interviews and hired are much better when you are applying to jobs that are not advertised that no one knows about.

I have gotten a ton of interviews through the [url=http://www.hound.com]Hound site[/url] . If you are looking for a job I would highly recommend using [url=http://www.hound.com]Hound[/url] . What most people do not realize is that most jobs are found on employer websites and not job boards. [url=http://www.hound.com]Hound[/url] puts all of the jobs it finds from employer websiste (every Fortune 500, Inc. 500 and other company it can locate) on its site.

I hope no one tells anyone about this outside this forum–but the best way to find jobs is to investigate jobs on employer websites. This is where most of the jobs are and I found this far more effective than other means.

I started using a research [url=http://www.hound.com] jobs site [/url] called [url=http://www.hound.com]Hound[/url] that I do not think anyone knows about because it is run by a small company that does not advertise. I

All [url=http://www.hound.com] Hound.com [/url] does is show you [url=http://www.hound.com] unadvertised job openings that are not publicly advertised[/url] and are located on employer websites.

Very few people realize that most employers post their job on their own sites and not on job boards like Monster, CareerBuilder, etc. because these sites charge employers up to $500 to post a single job. In my experience (I am getting more interviews that I ever have), your chances of getting interviews and hired are much better when you are applying to jobs that are not advertised that no one knows about.

I have gotten a ton of interviews through the [url=http://www.hound.com]Hound site[/url] (http://www.Hound.com) . If you are looking for a job I would highly recommend using [url=http://www.hound.com]Hound[/url] . What most people do not realize is that most jobs are found on employer websites and not job boards. [url=http://www.hound.com]Hound[/url] puts all of the jobs it finds from employer websiste (every Fortune 500, Inc. 500 and other company it can locate) on its site.

When you start seeing sites advertise themselves a lot that should be a warning sign of sorts because that means that lots of people will start going and applying to the jobs. I really trust [url=http://www.hound.com]Hound[/url] because it does not advertise.

The prudent response to the accumulated scientific and economic analysis of climate change is a lower amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Uncertainty is part of this: we simply do not yet know whether there are “tipping points” when it comes to emissions, but there might be. Reducing emissions is buying an insurance policy against a catastrophe.

The only way to reduce total concentrations of CO2 to prudent levels is for all countries to make a contribution. The BRIICs (Brazil, Russia, India, Indonesia and China) have to agree to reduce their emissions. The only way that they will agree to this is if the developed world also agrees to make major reductions in its level of emissions.

New Zealand cannot solve the climate change problem itself (it is too small). But this does not mean that it can opt-out and free-ride. The rest of the world will notice. Already, the EU is calling for trade restriction on countries that are not part of world-wide emission reduction efforts.
The United National Framework Convention of Climate Change (the UNFCCC) and its Kyoto Protocol are not perfect. No international treaty is. But the UNFCCC is the only game in town. Australia is now re-engaged with the Kyoto process, and the US President-elect is much more supportive of international efforts.

The Bali Roadmap points to the developing world having greater obligations than under the Kyoto Protocol.

New Zealand’s record on emissions is not good. Our per-capita emissions are high and growing. This fact is known to the rest of the world.
Reducing emissions will have a cost: there are no free lunches. New Zealand’s largest sources of emissions are agriculture and transport. Reducing these emissions, without just reducing GDP, is difficult, but possible.

Doing nothing is not an option.

Given New Zealand’s record and the possibility that future international agreements will be tougher than the Kyoto Protocol, starting now will avoid higher costs in the future.

The ETS, with its links to the Kyoto mechanisms, means that in the short-term, New Zealand can meet its international obligations and have gross emissions at or about current levels. A carbon tax or regulations could lead to lower emissions, but at a higher cost; because neither allows low-cost emissions reductions from overseas to be part of New Zealand efforts.

Let me flesh this out. The “satisfaction” associated with fighting global warming is a discrete variable that is satisfied by staying in the scheme.

Now I agree that if society suddenly believe that “global warming was not there” there would be a lower “benefit” from being in the ETS. However, when the government costed options it didn’t assume some “psychological benefit” from the scheme – it merely looked at the cost of different options.

The government believes the cost of leaving the scheme is greater than the cost of the least cost option from staying in the scheme (the ETS) – and as a result the loss of the “benefit” associated from staying in the scheme does seem completely irrelevant to be.

As this benefit is the only place where the realistic nature of global warming actually falls into the decision problem (at least until 2012 when the scheme is renegotiated) criticising the ETS based on “global warming not happening” is entirely pointless.

Interesting. I think treating the ETS as a mechanism to “prevent global warming” misses the point. My criticism is of the idea that if global warming is not happening the ETS is a stupid idea – as even if global warming is not actually happening we will still have to pay a Kyoto liability until people “discover” it is a fraud or international co-operation breaks down.

I know, I read that and I read what goonix said there and I’m voicing my sympathies with his position across both posts. I realise you’ve stated your position on the issue repeatedly and, having considered your position, I respectfully disagree.

Of course there are potential costs to leaving the Protocol, but suggesting that the ETS has nothing to do with global warming I think misses the point — as goonix said.

Also I have already covered this point repeatedly in the debate that has been going on better the two carbon price posts namely here:

http://tvhe.wordpress.com/2008/11/19/missing-the-point-the-emissions-trading-scheme/#comment-4410

“It can be defaulted on without penalty”

That isn’t how the government has costed it – and I am pretty sure that European nations would be keen for a reason like this to place further tariffs and quantity limits on our meat.

Of course if it can be defaulted on without penalty then that is an attractive option – but this is a choice to compare to our cheapest way of paying for the liability surely.

“That’s why global warming is relevant: it enters into a calculation of the benefits of remaining a part of the Kyoto Protocol. We may not directly affect global warming by being a part of the Protocol, but perhaps we can influence other countries to join by remaining in it despite the cost to us.”

Ok, but that is still about the binary choice to enter the agreement or not enter the agreement.

Once we have determined that we want to stay in the Kyoto protocol, we want to determine the least cost method of paying off our Kyoto liability.

Global warming is relevant for determining whether we enter and stay in the scheme – not the method we use to pay off our liability that comes from being in the scheme.

That’s why global warming is relevant: it enters into a calculation of the benefits of remaining a part of the Kyoto Protocol. We may not directly affect global warming by being a part of the Protocol, but perhaps we can influence other countries to join by remaining in it despite the cost to us.

I completely agree that there is a definite possibility that the scheme may just die in 2012, in fact I thought I had mentioned it as a possibility in one of these two posts (it might have been just from talking to people though 😛 ). However, that is why government has done costings for both the “just up to 2012” case and for the long-run case – and they have determined that an ETS is the cheapest option in both cases.

In Aussie I believe they are talking about putting a tax in first – and then if there is a long-run agreement setting up an ETS, as carbon markets will be more “mature” by then. We may end up with the same sort of thing here with National.