Editorial: Cup of tea time for ETS

OPINION: It is fast becoming clear that the Government needs to take time out from its headlong rush to introduce an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) to have the political equivalent of a cup of tea.

The ETS, which will create a market for trading carbon units, will penalise polluters for the carbon they produce and credit foresters and those who reduce their carbon emissions.

It creates a strong market signal to polluters that it is in their business interests to clean up their acts. We have a responsibility to cut emissions as quickly as we can.

But there are also now unmistakable signs that getting an acceptable scheme is proving difficult, and Climate Change Minister Nick Smith is determined to meet a self-imposed deadline of the end of the year to strike a deal.

Dr Smith wants to get an agreement ahead of the world Climate Change conference in Copenhagen next month. He also argues a deal has to be done before Christmas so that foresters have the confidence to go ahead with planting next year.

Neither reason validates the rush. While it would be nice for Dr Smith to trumpet an agreement in Copenhagen, it is better to have a scheme that has widespread support and is workable than simply one that is expedient because it meets a conference deadline.

The planting deadline does not make sense either. Foresters are likely to plant because it makes good business sense. They can be certain of one thing – an ETS scheme is on the way and it is a good time to grow trees.

The ETS is easily the most contentious issue the Government faces, and there are big divides between the support partners the National Party needs to get a workable scheme through.

After Labour and ACT walked away from an agreement, Dr Smith began courting the Maori Party with a number of inducements that will see iwi – already big players in the forestry industry – do well out of the scheme. Dr Smith is looking increasingly like a wallflower at the school disco casting about desperately for a dance partner.

For the public trying to track the arguments, the ETS looks messy. Treasury figures warning of a $50 billion blowout in expected costs to taxpayers have scared some, while those with environmental concerns will suspect National is being far too soft on big polluters and farmers.

With agriculture making up half of the economy, the sector needs careful consideration. Clearly there has to be a balance struck between getting them to lift their game, and being so tough that it undermines the sector's viability.

It is an important issue that should not be rushed. But those with vested interests – and the big polluters in particular – should not be fooled into mistaking a tea break for stalling or being shelved.

Emissions must be cut and the forestry industry needs to be rewarded for its work. Polluters will have to pay.