The argument that we didn’t create the problem and only contribute a minor amount to it is a moral one and not really valid. Kiwis are the 12th worst polluters on the planet per capita and our emissions are rising faster than that of the US. Saying “why should we stop” is akin to saying “we didn’t create slavery, and don’t practice it too much, so it’s OK”. Besides, taking action is about cleaning up our own environment as well, not just trying to reduce world emissions.

India and China are under pressure to reign in their emissions, and despite trying to pull such huge populations out of poverty they are quite willing to do it provided they aren’t the only ones. The problem is getting the US on board, and to do that as many other countries as possible will have to move first to up the pressure. New Zealand has been a world leading many times in the past, such as with the Nuclear issue. If we can’t be a leader now how can we expect anyone else, especially countries with developing economies to do what we will not?

We shouldn’t see New Zealand as a tiny martyr, killing itself to set an example. We should be seeing it as a mighty example to the rest of the world that punches well above its weight when the going gets tough.

Greg - you make more sense, but again it is the small business/consumer that picks up the tab. I would just even like it if we’re all on a level playing field to start with. Where’s the pressure on China and India to stop subsiding business to make more pollution? Those countries, amongst many others, subsidise petrol, tear down natural resources with no management plans and provide local tax incentives to help send waste to poorer countries. Hmmmm… note to self… must get free-trade deal and move company to red asian country that allows cheap labour, endless pollution and the ability to export back to dumb country in south pacific… oh tick, done that already!

So, it’s up to little old New Zealand, to lead the way and to make our politicians look good on the international stage. No worries about the cost and the fact that the four main polluting countries have already, and will continue to, give us the finger at every opportunity. My point from the start has been the average New Zealander will pay more than our fair share for pollution we didn’t create in the first place!

And George, I don’t mind paying for the seat belt if it’s the same cost as it always has been… but what’s the point if I have no car left to put the damn thing in???!!!

But that’s like saying you’ll only wear a seatbelt if it doesn’t cost you anything.

Some of these costs will of course be ultimately passed on to the average citizen in the form of more expensive products and services, however, this is at least a little bit more transparent than giving away free carbon credits, for which the tab will eventually be passed to citizens anyway via higher taxes and lower investment in public services.

One way or another, costs are going to rise for everyone, but by cleaning up industry and investing heavily in renewables, energy efficiency and real sustainability initiatives we can more effectively manage rising costs and environmental problems than we can by going down the business-as-usual road.

As far as I can see, pollution problems go back many decades, a long time before I was born. I smell another rort happening perpetrated by the baby-boomer generation, who let’s be honest have had everything for free and have now suddenly got a conscience over the past decade or two about all the crap they’ve been putting into the environment.

I have yet to read anywhere about a fair way for paying for this mess. I only see short-term expensive political solutions that will have to be paid up front with no tangible benefits and in fact may make the situation worse (carbon credits anyone???!!!). You may be able to make intangible benefit arguments and use the hoary old chestnut about “If we do nothing…”, but that, to me, gets back to the debate about risk management and insurance.

Show me a common sense way of paying for this so that generation x, y and .com don’t have pay through the nose, while still paying the increasing baby-boomer health costs that are also only going to get worse.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/may/28/climatechange.fossilfuels

This is a ridiculous statement.

Do you not see that being “on the environment’s side” is in your interest?

Believe it or not you are dependent on and part of the environment and therefore it is in your interests to have it healthy.

As for you statement about environmentalists having a vested interest? Of course they do! Not all environmentalists are pure environmentalists - there are a broad spectrum, involving anti-globalisation proponents, disenfranchised youth and those who have a vested interest in environmental friendly businesses looking for government help to make their business more profitable (to just name a few). Everyone (including me) involved in this debate has their own point of view and vested interest. I just wish all those involved would be more upfront about it.

I also believe the swindle documentary is a load of rubbish, just as much as an Inconvenient Truth is. Where is the truth? Like most things, probably somewhere in the middle. And I wish both sides would just call it what it is - pollution. It’s not global warming, climate change or any other fancy PC-speak – it is crap in the ground, sea and air. My problem is not whether there are going to be issues from too much pollution – that’s a given. My problem is who pays.

So we go down the risk management argument. I’d like to agree with that and the analogy of insurance sounds like a good one. Unfortunately the risk-management argument has a major flaw - we don’t all pay our fair share of the “insurance”. Like insurance for your car, responsible users keep paying through the nose for no benefit, while those who aren’t responsible get all the financial benefits. This is the same when it comes to pollution risk management. As a big responsible group we’ll all have to pay (either though government taxes or increased costs of goods and services), to plan/reduce the likelihood of a catastrophe, while those who are really responsible don’t have to pay their fair share. Carbon trading is a classic example of this.

As I said before, I’m happy to be on the environmental side of the issue, if it doesn’t hurt my back pocket. Otherwise I’m just as happy to go with the other side of the argument. I repeat, therein lies the challenge for those wanting to make significant change – the argument has not focussed on the true direct costs.

Convince me that I and small business won’t be paying through the nose in the foreseeable future, while big corporations get away with little or no cost. Convince me that environmental groups like Greenpeace are transparent and honest in their environmental argument and are just not conveniently pushing an anti-globalisation stance at the same time. Convince me that making changes via the Kyoto protocol for New Zealand will have any effect on the major pollution producing countries in the world. Convince me of these and I might be more inclined to make a sound investment in our future