Wall Street Journal Lambasts NZs Carbon 'Policy' | Use Celsias.co.nz - New Zealand's guide to sustainable business

Well - I was sent a link to this piece this morning. It is a worry. Irrespective of where you sit - believer/ non-believer - the reality is that the world is starting to converge on a view about NZ and it's position in the emerging carbon economy.

we seem to have forgotten that economics is actually a discipline that falls under the social sciences - what this means is that if everyone in London wakes up one morning and decides (whether it is true or not) that KIWI products are carbon ineffcient and stop purchasing - then that becomes the reality that will work its way right back THROUGH the farm gate......well, it might even be the same with Americans reading the WSJ today....

The BIG risk here is that the markets switch away from NZ produce. This is time for TEAM NZ to step up - not dither around....understand exactly what the dimensions are here - and one would assume that this should be right at the top of the Governments 'Political Risk' analysis......I mean of course the WORLD IS FLAT!

KIWI's we don't have time to muck around on this issue.

In September 2009 in Economics

6 replies

Tim M. 60°

You are so right . We are living and trading on borrowed time on this .

Written in September 2009

Roger K. 77°

Totally agree Nick. New Zealand fought off the food miles debate well with Caroline Saunders research in 2006 - time has moved on and product carbon footprinting is here and about to go mainstream over the next few years - we need to prove (imporve) our efficiency all over again.

At the end of the day the ETS will not provoke behaviour change and it is purely a stealth tax - we are committed to pay an amount under Kyoto and potentially beyond and the money has to come out of the economy somehow - my thoughts are it would have been a lot cheaper in compliance to just call it a tax and be done with it.

What really is the worry is the market perception - the US are already looking at putting import tariffs on products from countries that don't take climate change seriously (rightly or wrongly) - we should out proving our efficiency, or proving that we are innovators in reduction.......instead we are putting our heads in the sand of hoping nothing hits us. If we actually thought like an added value economy it might be different!

Written in September 2009

Nigel B. 237°

Theres two major things that drive economic growth in NZ - feeding the wealthy with our premium products (wine, dairy etc), and entertaining the weathly when they visit (tourism).

If the precption that we are not 100% Pure (which has recently been celebrated as one of the most successful country focused marketing campaigns in the world) grows we are in big trouble.

Written in October 2009

Grace T. 10°

Actually i think this is very worrying .We are so dependent on trade and perception and we are now seen also by the developing world as not pulling our weight . Its bad news from a trade perspective cos it places us at real risk , but its even worse that we are one of the highest per capita GHG emitters in the world and don't seem to care enough to do anything about it

Written in October 2009

David Van der Leden 76°

It is a matter of time before our importing mega country trade partner countries realise what we all know. We are NOT green. What is green about Milk production the colour of the artificially fertilised grass perhaps. Our export miles are bigger than anyone. The reality is to we have to hide.

Written in June 2010

G 10°

NZ is a small but very efficient and productive bread basket. This is a real benefit. The technical leap to step up to a hard sustainable type model is pretty much available now... once the old school thinking is out of the way. Trade as we play the game now is gonna have ta change big time though.

Written in June 2010

Add a reply