John Key spoke to the Hutt Valley Rotary last week. As reported by the Hutt News, one of the things he said was there was no way of getting out of our Kyoto commitments. To do so would make us "international trading pariahs".
I was under the impression our biggest trading partner is Australia followed by the US.
Neither have ratified Kyoto.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Consider John Key as Helen Clark in drag (which sounds semi-redundant). The difference is not in principles which they basically share. They both certain like stabbing people in the back. Don Brash is still pulling out the daggers.
If you are still in "number crunching" mode" Lindsay, try and view NZ's market prospects as away from comodity towards retail products.
That being the case then our trading prospects are influenced by the retailer perception of Kyoto and what it stands for.
It does not matter which export market the NZ goods are going to if the individual customers have a "Green and environment conserving persuasion" because a choice of competing products is made by that customer, not the importer.
I personally believe that the "Greenhouse Gases" fiction is just surviving because of incomplete thought by well meaning people.
I believe the Kyoto Carbon Value is just another taxation imposition ON THE INDIVIDAL.
You know that the government will arrange it but you will pay it.
You may not like John Key as a person but you cannot deny that he has real world trading experience and understanding the consequences of Kyoto would be second nature to him.
Did you notice how when first asked if he was a "Green house gas" believer he fudged the answer but later when asked about Kyoto in principle he made what many thought was a flip/flop and supported it strongly.
They are two quite distinct things.
The "Green house gas" is 95% water vapour, with carbon dioxide and methane as of little consequence.
However trading in carbon credits is second nature to Key, and conserving all forms of fossil fuel is just plain common sense.
Dear Lindsay
Thanks for your comment on my blog. You claim to prefer 'neutrality' but I see nothing neutral in the statement on your own blog's banner line, and further your comment that "Social policy is supposed to fix people's problems but often worsens them by alleviating the need for the individual to do his own damage control" is very politically loaded. There may be a kernel of truth there, but it is hardly 'neutral'.
Grant
Hi Grant
Interesting blog it is too.
One of the examples you used of the 'right' becoming the 'victims' is fathers claiming social policy prevents them from seeing their children.
In many cases, I believe that to be true. The state should be neutral in it's approach to families. Stay out where possible.
People like Steve Maharey say that the state does not 'reinforce' any particular family form. Yet it broadly subsidises single parents and taxes those who stay together.
Subsidising sole parenthood is a social policy that is not neutral.
David, I don't find John Key unlikeable, especially when he isn't letting John Campbell walk all over him. But I don't like what he stands for which is centrist, redistributionist policies.
or, Centrist Pragmatist policies.?
You know what numbers mean but Act does not have the numbers.. yet.
There is lots of room to the right.
There is lots of policy for National to float when it is safe from copy theft.
If you personally were an Act party candidate I will pledge my party vote to Act.
Not only should Lindsay be an ACT candidate but the official spokeswoman on welfare issues. I think she should be #3 on the party list myself.
Post a Comment