Look, put it to the common sense test. The atmosphere is a very thin layer, like a skin, around the earth. We’ve been pumping CO2 into it for decades, at a tremendous rate. Do you really think we can do that forever without changing anything? If you do, then you’re pretty stupid.

goonix :
@steve
Arguments can be made from an economic perspective that certain industries need protection but I think it’s pretty clear that most of these decisions are made on a political basis as opposed to being steeped in economic theory.

well the assistance is for trade-exposed and emissions intensive industries. i.e. the industries that are affected greatly by cost (due to being emissions intensive) AND compete with firms who don’t have the same cost increases (i.e. those firms from countries with no ETS).

This sounds like reasonable economic theory to come up with rules about what makes a company sufficiently trade exposed or emissions intensive

Current announced targets for Annex 1 countries like NZ are for maintaining emissions at 1990 levels to cuts of 30%. The average is a reduction of around 15%. In contrast the IPCC recommends aggregage Annex 1 reductions of between 25% and 40% by 2020 to prevent dangerous climate change.

The question is what contribution NZ makes, as different Annex 1 countries will face different targets and different obligations under international agreements.