The Emissions Trading Scheme will only reduce emissions by 2 percent. So a reader writes asking a query about the following John Key statement:
I told the group that while we must play our part in the fight against climate change, we shouldn’t be the world leader, because that will come at the expense of our economy.
That’s why we will amend Labour’s emissions trading scheme (ETS) so that we balance our environmental responsibilities with our economic opportunities.
As Key’s own party has previously pointed out we’re already not a world leader in fighting climate change, thanks partly to Labour, and never will be with our current policies.
So how much less than 2 percent does Key want to help balance economic opportunities? A reduction of 1 percent maybe, or are we talking even smaller. Maybe he wants our emissions to grow, but not quite so fast as under Labour? How does this square with scientific opinion that we need an 80 percent reduction in emissions? So many questions.
Of course his answer wouldn’t really matter because there are no sustainable economic opportunities from reneging on our Kyoto climate change responsibilities. We’re already signed up and either have to reduce our emissions or pay for them. The only economic opportunities for a country whose two biggest industries are farming and tourism are ones that protect our environment and climate. It’s amazing that parties that claim to be good at the economy can’t see that.