While the government tries to get the ETS legislation completed in time for Copenhagen the spin cycle has been working overtime, trying to get the lipstick to stay on this pig.
The Greenhouse Policy Coalition and Business NZ have both managed to make crucial errors in their attempts to play down the massive subsidy from taxpayers to large emitters that is embodied in the National/Maori version of the ETS. And the NZ Business Council for Sustainable Development has said nothing since reporting on 2 November that most Kiwis oppose the plan.
Fortunately, there are a few sane voices out there. Here are four:
Labour members of the Select Committee Considering the Bill:
The process adopted in respect of this bill is the worst that any of us have experienced in our time in Parliament.
…
The Treasury, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, our independent expert adviser, and the vast majority of submitters are critical of the bill. We uphold their criticisms. The bill significantly dilutes the effectiveness of the ETS, and will have a significant negative impact on the New Zealand economy and environment for many years to come. The bill ought not to proceed.
Simon Terry & Geoff Bertram: Taxpayers 84% Emitters 16%
Rod Oram: A costly exercise in hypocrisy
Brian Fallow: the ETS will cost our children
There has been a view that NZ should not seek to lead on climate change policy, but instead aim at being a “fast follower” so we don’t compromise our economy. I think this is poor economics. Apart from the deniers, we all expect relative prices to change in ways that reflect carbon (and other emission) constraints. The opportunity is to react now, so we have more time to get good at operating in that world.
Then there are those orange billboards with the jack-bootprints that have been around town for a while. What a cringe this is: a crowd of people demanding stronger legal rights to smack their kids.
Its amazing how mobile phone use differs across countries. Four examples:
A great read, this book is a damning indictment of the way patent law has evolved in the USA. The message for innovators is that unless you are in chemicals or pharmaceuticals, the patent system is a net negative, not just for you but for the whole industry. The authors calculate the net contribution patents make to profit, as a fraction of R&D spending, for several industries. The returns are great for chemicals and pharma, close to 60%. But for all others its -7%.
Lynne and I have been in 
