National's gutless climate change U-turn

Nobody can trust the National Party on climate change, one of the biggest challenges facing New Zealand and the world.

After backing away from climate change scepticism and backing an emissions trading scheme framework for dealing with the problem, National has now decided that the scheme before Parliament does not deserve a second reading debate in the House, and will vote accordingly.

This is actually shocking. The reasons given by John Key are completely spurious. New Zealand's scheme is world-leading, and is being developed in conjunction with what is going on in Australia. It is hardly rushed: the select committee is considering vast numbers of submissions and working through the legislation just as is done with every other major change to public policy.

What this U-turn tells us is that National has become both complacent and arrogant: arrogant enough to believe that they, with their meagre research resources, can have a better view of a scheme they have until now supported than anyone else, and complacent - that because transport has been set aside for a delay, there is no cause for getting the legislation in place. The further arrogance is in assuming that National has an election result in the bag - a very foolish conclusion for anyone to come to, notwithstanding the latest polls.

David Parker has noted that a delay of this nature would cost Kiwi taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. I am not surprised National doesn't care about that, since they have morphed into the Big Debt party (English on Agenda on the weekend didn't deny National plans to raise the public debt by about $9bn in their first term).

But anyone who cares about New Zealand's economic and environmental future should be focusing some energy - negative energy - on the National Party this morning. Their U-turn has only one explanation: that National wishes to see a scheme put in place that accommodates the demands of big business, and that as a result will not deliver on reducing New Zealand's GHG emissions.

The ETS has been generous to a fault to big industry in New Zealand. It has already gone as far down that path as can honestly been tolerated, taking into account the changes likely to arise from the Select Committee process. The gentle transition into the scheme, the free allocation of emissions allowances etc, are all as "big business friendly" as can be done with such a scheme.

This is the sort of gutless decision that will make those who think "National and Labour are much of a muchness, we can change the faces because nothing will really change" think twice and then a third time.
By placing the interests of their big business mates first, and by displaying both arrogance and complacency, National has shown yet again it is not fit even to govern.  The U-turn culture is now so ingrained in Key's leadership and in National's DNA that people must be wondering how severe the U-turns would be in government. All the soft rhetoric and inoculations are meaningless when they can be ditched on a whim.

Comments

[anon]

29%

[sean14]

Jordan

You've been criticising National for practising 'me-too' politics, now you're criticising them for not practising 'me-too' politics.

Can you please make up your mind?

[George Darroch]

There's little I can say about this, other than to add that once again this is an area where Labour has failed to define the agenda (which, admittedly, carries risks of its own), and as a result, National has had room to push its own hare-brained schemes as meaningful.

As Idiot/Savant said at Hot Topic:
"[If National go to the drawing board to write another policy...]
That’s the sixth time. We’re currently on our fifth iteration of climate change policy, and our second attempt to implement emissions trading. If this fails, then you really have to wonder what they’ll try next (you also have to wonder whether any of the staff at MfE will have the stomach for it, or whether they’ll just all resign in disgust)."

Climate change activists are going to have to fight hard for at least the next four years to see any action whatsoever on capping (let alone reducing) emissions. And yes, I am blaming your party, for muddling and muddling for years and years, and backing down whenever faced with a challenge.