The MfE led ETS consultation was a sham and an embarrassment to due process. (and if the Nats had half the integrity they profess - arses should be kicked)
When Nick Smith spoke prior to the election at the Canterbury historic "Provincial Chambers" a well known proponent if C&C discreetly asked Nick about National's follow the leader on climate initiatives noting that ^Great Britain and *Australia seemed to be preferred notables.. upon which Nick agreed. (see ^UK Climate Bill and *Garnaut - C&C "adds-up")
So we can look forward to a conservative precautionary "Contraction and Convergence" new deal on climate response getting the a just and equitable evaluation in a fair and considered "select committee" hearing under National. With ACT on board, I can see "property rights" defining the climate solution space, and welcome Rodney's considered input.
United Future's Peter Dunne will no doubt consider the 'constitutional basis' for C&C and see the common revenue neutral merits, (C&C at least provides numerate analysis) and centrist values while Nick has ostensibly, and publicly, agreed "that any framework Australia and Great Britain adopts National should seriously consider...". (see http://www.gci.org.uk)
While I laud this politically inspired reevaluation... questions should be seriously asked as to how we so consistently 'ignored' what Treasury officials described (at the Christchurch ETS consultations)as the "conscience behind the policy". Such overt and exclusionary prejudice to a good idea must be fodder for a good story, as I for one could not support a now former Prime Minister who at the Christchurch launch of ETS still had never heard of C&C.
Consider:Image via Wikipedia
“C&C is supported not only by China, India, and most African nations, but also by the European Commission and the European Parliament, which endorsed it in 1998. I can’t imagine that the developing nations would accept any plan that did not eventually converge on equal per-capita emission rights. Although C&C is the fair solution, it is not “ideological.” It is dictated not only by fairness but also by practicality and realism: The nations of the world will agree on nothing less. ” see American Physical Society – October 2008 http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200810/upload/october08.pdf
The Climate Issue 're-visiting' must be accompanied by a full and unfettered public engagement elsewise any proposed solution will fail to bring onboard those whom it is designed to protect.
/Blair Anderson,Republican Party of New Zealand, Shadow Spokesperson on Environment and Climate Change. cell 027 2657219