CLIMATE CHANGE
should Polluters Pay? |
|
| LISA |
If New Zealand is to achieve the government's long term aim of becoming carbon neutral then decisions must be made now about how to best to reduce our carbon footprints. This week the Green Party proposed that polluters should pay, in particular the Energy and Agricultural sectors, but is this financially sustainable and won't taxpayers just end up footing the bill. We're joined now by Minister for Climate Change Issues, David Parker, Greens Co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons and National Spokesman for the Climate Change, Nick Smith. Welcome to you all. |
|
|
Going first to David Parker, Mr Parker can you tell us do you think polluters should pay? |
|
| DAVID PARKER - Minister for Climate Change Issues |
|
Well at one level that seems inevitable, climate change policy at its heart is very simple, we have to reduce our emissions and that implies doing something different tomorrow to that which we did yesterday and that transition does cause a small cost, and it's important that that cost be seen in the economy so that people will make low emission investment decisions. So yes at one level over the longer term you'll see a transition to the costs of greenhouse gas emissions being devolved down into the economy. |
|
| LISA |
So in broad brush strokes then what's Labour's position on this issue insomuch as how much should they pay and who should pay, at what level? |
|
| DAVID |
We've enunciated some principles, we say it's cheaper and easier to stop emissions growing than it is to deal with base levels of emissions and we propose for example in the electricity sector that we think that some form of emissions trading is likely to be necessary to encourage the extra generation that's built to be renewable rather than thermal producing greenhouse gas emissions. |
|
| LISA |
But for example with the Greens' policy it's been suggested that it would be the processor not the dairy farmer on the farm, it would be the likes of Fonterra who would pay so at what level do you see that payment being extracted? |
|
| DAVID |
Yes I think that the Greens are right that it's likely that emissions trading will be the point of obligation will be reasonably high in the supply chain so that in the example of electricity it's likely to be the electricity generators. |
|
| LISA |
Alright well you did mention a small cost in the economy how much do you think it is going to cost Joe and Jill Public when they go down to the dairy buy their pint of milk or flick on the light switch what cost is going to come back to them? |
|
| DAVID |
Well in the case of electricity the cost might not be very high at all, indeed because 70% of our electricity already comes from renewables this points to New Zealand actually having relative advantage around the world because the world has an ambition to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and therefore the world is facing these transitional costs and if we compare ourselves with Australia for example, I thought there was a very good article in this week's Independent which effectively said what I've been saying for a while is that the costs in New Zealand are going to be actually marginal in the electricity area and far far lower than are going to be experienced in Australia across the ditch. |
|
| LISA |
When can we expect to see a full policy from Labour on climate change are we gonna see it before the election? |
|
| DAVID |
Well you've already seen quite a bit we've already devolved permanent forest credits, we've proposed that there be full devolution for new forests, we're proposing to introduce pricing in the electricity sector. I think one of the really interesting debates in the next couple of months, it's already apparent from the many submissions we've had on these discussion documents submissions for which closed yesterday that the issue is going to be achieving fairness across the economy. |
|
| LISA |
So will we see a full policy before the election? |
|
| DAVID |
Oh absolutely I expect that you'll see full policy by the end of this year. |
|
| LISA |
Alright let's bring Jeanette Fitzsimons into the discussion. How can you really shift the cost, polluter pays, how can you shift that on to the corporates, isn't the individual going to end up paying in the end down at the local dairy? |
|
| JEANETTE FITZSIMONS - Co-leader, Green Party |
|
Of course the individual will pay that is the whole point of it, if it doesn't cost more to fill the tank of your car you're not going to be more careful in how you use it, how often you use it and what kind of car you buy, so the whole purpose of it is that it does affect prices but that then produces a substantial revenue to government which can go back into making it easier for us to be energy efficient, for example electricity would cost a little more under our policy but it would give government the resources to insulate all the old homes which are currently cold and damp and uninsulated and to do a lot of other energy efficient things in the economy. Petrol would cost a bit more but it would give the opportunity for example to electrify the Auckland rail system which government won't put money into at the moment and I mean people may notice the ad in today's paper asking people to a meeting on Monday night to talk about this because it is so urgent in Auckland and the money doesn't seem to be there. |
|
| LISA |
When you say the consumer the everyday person is going to end up paying more, a little bit more you say, but how much is a little bit more? |
|
| JEANETTE |
Well our policy links the obligation to the world price of carbon because there will be a carbon market from next year where carbon emissions will be trading internationally and we say that is the price New Zealand should face. So it'll be between say four and eight cents a litre on petrol. Now that is insignificant compared with the price fluctuations in petrol last year as a result of the international oil price, but unlike last year that money doesn't disappear into a black hole in the oil companies' pockets, that money comes back to government to invest in making our transport more efficient. On electricity it would be much less than that, probably less than a cent a unit. |
|
| LISA |
In the policy that you unveiled this week the Greens indicated that financial rewards from planting forests that soak up carbon would be ring fenced and that the government would spend that on initiatives. Isn't that a private investment why should that go back to government, why should government be able to snatch it back? |
|
| JEANETTE |
The government doesn't snatch it back. The forest credits only exist first because government entered a contract which puts an obligation on the whole New Zealand economy by 2012 that if we haven't reduced our emissions we have to pay, and secondly they only exist if the New Zealand forest estate is expanding. So if the pre 1990 forests deforest then we don't get credits for those who have planted since 1990, it is not a property right that attaches to those particular forests. |
|
| LISA |
Let's bring Nick Smith in here, do you agree with that? |
|
| NICK SMITH - National MP |
|
Oh certainly I have the view that the single top priority for New Zealand around climate change policy has got to be to stop the deforestation, and the figure I'd draw to your attention is the Prime Minister made a big deal out of Treasury, the officials down in Wellington going carbon neutral, that will save two tonne of emissions per day, the level of deforestation taking place is adding 20,000 tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere each day. For the last three years we're seeing a chainsaw massacre, where the first time since records began we're losing forest area, the reason that is occurring is because the government initially said foresters you'll get some of the credits, they changed their mind when the going got tough and the Kyoto policy started to fall apart, and as a consequence we've got this huge loss of forest area, that has gotta be stopped as a number one priority and my concern is the way to do that is to restore investor confidence in that forestry sector and what the government's doing right now where they're having a war with the forest sector is achieving exactly the opposite of what's required. |
|
| LISA |
Okay the Greens this week have declared very clearly where they stand on the dairy sector on farmers, what about National what's your…? |
|
| NICK |
Well the key difficulty and where we do have some difference with the Greens is that if you are going to impose a cost on farming and it's a huge portion of New Zealand's export income that you are going to undermine the competitiveness of key industries like dairy. Now if you've got the Europeans or the North Americans whacking a charge on their cows and sheep for the emissions that they produce yes it would be time for New Zealand to do so, but given the level at which those industries are subsidised internationally to whack that cost on to New Zealand farmers, and look it's academic whether you hit the meat company and the dairy company or the farmers directly, it has exactly the same impact, we're saying that would be unwise. Furthermore there currently is no technology by which the farmers can reduce those methane emissions, the only way they can do so is to reduce their stock numbers. Now with respect to the nitrous oxide that comes from the use of nitrogen fertiliser there are technologies available and National would be supportive of providing some economic incentive for farmers to use the nitrogen inhibitors that will reduce the emissions on that area, so do the smart stuff where we can make a difference, but let's not go out naked in some sort of pure world where all we do is harm New Zealand economically. |
|
| LISA |
Nick Smith before the break you were pointing out some differences between yourselves and the Greens so do you really expect the Greens to be able to support a National government? |
|
| NICK |
Well that's a question for people beyond myself, but I do say that there is actually a growing consensus around some key elements of policy. National has advocated for a long time an emissions trading system where there are costs that have carried on through. We're pleased to see that the Greens in their announcements on Monday have made progress on that. I think there's a pretty common view round improving insulation, around the labelling to make sure that people know that the vehicles they're buying are less fuel efficient. There is actually a lot stronger level of agreement and my greatest frustration of which I think Jeanette shares is that we are now almost eight years into this government, we've got emissions growing at faster than any other country in the western world and both National and the Greens want to see some concrete progress that sees New Zealand emissions at least starting to stabilise rather than the huge growth that's there, so there are some areas where there is commonality of policy. |
|
| LISA |
Jeanette, enough common ground to support a National government. |
|
| JEANETTE |
Oh look it's far too soon to talk about the next election, what I'm trying to achieve is an increasing level of agreement across the parties in parliament because if we don't have some level of cross party consensus we'll flip flop after every election and the consumer and business cannot exist in that environment, that would be a disaster. |
|
| LISA |
Right, let's bring our panel in here going first to Brian, you've got some questions? |
|
| BRIAN FALLOW - Ecconomics Editor, NZ Herald |
|
Well I'd like to ask the Minister, I mean he talks about the need for fairness across the economy, clearly with agriculture being half of our emissions when will the agriculture sector see a price on carbon and how would you imagine that being imposed? |
|
| DAVID |
Well the first point I'd make Brian is that no government is going to be so stringent on the agricultural sector that they would put their competitiveness at risk, but fairness, we're hearing calls from the electricity industry, from the major energy users saying that look they agree that emissions trading is sensible, it's economically efficient but they call for fairness across sectors and we have to do fairness to the forestry sector as well, we're hearing clear calls to that end, and in order to achieve fairness across sectors I think we actually have to have all sectors doing their bit and I think we need to get past the point where we say agriculture should be completely shielded which in my assessment is effectively the position of the National Party. But we have concede that the agricultural sector can't do as much, it wouldn't be fair to expect them to do as much but they have to do more than nothing. |
|
| LISA |
Let's get Nick Smith's response to that. |
|
| NICK |
I've already said that for instance in the area of nitrous oxide where there is some progress being made we would support some economic instrument to attack it, where we say on the methane emissions there is no technology currently available except by reducing stock numbers and to impose a cost for that purpose would be counter productive in New Zealand. |
|
| DAVID |
Well I actually don't agree with that I think that's too simplistic, we already know that certain types of high sugar rye grasses actually have lower rates of methane emissions, we know that breeding efficiency has reduced methane emissions per unit of output by about 20% in the last 20 years and we know that good progress is being made in the research that being funded by industry and government. So I don't actually accept the proposition that for example the dairy industry can't do more and I also think the Greens made a very good point this week when they emphasised that already sheep and beef emissions are no higher than they were and that really when we're talking about agriculture we are actually talking about increasing emissions from dairying, and the cost of emissions reduction in this area or responsibility for some of their increasing emissions is actually far lower than the increases in profitability that we're seeing even this year in that sector. So I don't actually accept that there is nothing that that sector can do and I think that's a debate that has to be had in the next couple of months is what is fair across sectors. |
|
| BRIAN |
Well perhaps I could ask Jeanette, you propose to attack the dairy industry through the processes but it's not really their behaviour that needs to change is it? Shouldn't a measure be directed at the dairy farmers themselves, isn't it a kind of collective punishment sort of that you're proposing? |
|
| JEANETTE |
Can I start by saying that our policy lets dairying off very lightly because it only requires them to take responsibility for the increase in their emissions not for the whole lot unlike energy where it's the whole lot, but secondly I think that Fonterra is best placed to require the farmers to change their behaviour. I don't think you can have individual farmers trying to engage with the world carbon market coming in after milking at night and calculating their emissions and trading in emissions units, it's just not feasible. Fonterra's big enough to do that at least cost and then to impose some requirements on their suppliers to reduce their emissions so that they don't have to purchase so many units. I just think it's the most practical and efficient way to do it. |
|
| BRIAN |
And how are they supposed to reduce their emissions except at the moment by having fewer cattle? |
|
| JEANETTE |
Well they could change the milk solids payout according to whether they had a low emissions herd and low emissions feed on their farm, that technology is evolving to the point where you might be able to do that. Fonterra could plant forests on those corners of their suppliers' land that are not high producing dairy and get some credits that way. They can engage with the world market at the cheapest price and I think they've got quite a lot of options, and remember this is only for 20% of their emissions only for the growth not for the total. |
|
| NICK |
Let's just be practical, the cost per animal of the emissions measuring technology is over 50,000 dollars per cattle… |
|
| JEANETTE |
I'm not suggesting that… |
|
| NICK |
The idea that you're going to be able to measure the emissions… |
|
| JEANETTE |
No! |
|
| NICK |
That come from farm animals is really out into cuckoo land. |
|
| DAVID |
That's not fair because Jeanette's not proposing that. |
|
| NICK |
If you're going to reward farmers that are going to have low emissions from their animals you have to be able to measure it and currently the technologies around that are extremely expensive and it's impractical. |
|
| DAVID |
Well I think that misrepresents Jeanette's position, Jeeanette's position is that we should have a cap in trade scheme which is what National's saying they support too, but unlike National who say that we shouldn't cap agriculture, we shouldn't cap deforestation, we shouldn't cap transport emissions, we shouldn't cap major industrial emissions and we should cap electricity emissions where they currently are, actually the Greens' version of emissions trading would work. So you know I think actually think we have to have a serious debate about what are the finer definition of emissions trading if it's going to work as an instrument because at its heart it has to reduce emissions cos climate change policy is really simple, you have to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to stop climate change getting worse. |
|
| LISA |
Let's bring Nevil Gibson in here, I mean Fonterra obviously I presume we can all agree is a big contributor to the economy. |
|
| NEVIL GIBSON - Editor, National Busines Review |
|
I think as the debate's going on it actually throws up the nonsense of talking about this sort of thing, the technology in agriculture isn't there, it's a long way away and we've run an article this week that outlines the difficulties there and the costs that Nick's mentioned and I think looking at it from Mr Parker's point of view he's very wise to take the heat out of this debate, slow it right down, I mean there's not even a world trading market in carbon, no one knows what the prices are, they're going to be completely arbitrary fixed by governments and that sort of thing and I'd like to ask Mr Parker what he really thinks about the emissions trading environment as it is at the moment and how you can actually lay down some of the costs here. |
|
| DAVID |
Well the emissions trading is taking off in Europe as we know, but there's quite broad agreement within New Zealand industry that the most economically efficient way to reduce emissions is to actually stop emissions growing by preventing long lived capital assets being invested in that are emissions intensive when there are low emissions alternatives and that's what emission trading achieves. Now I actually - I do agree that - no one's talking about a level of stringency in sectors of the economy like agriculture that are unaffordable for agriculture or as stringent as they might be in electricity where we have some cost effective choices in terms of renewable electricity instead of thermal, but the idea that we should have some sort of let central government pick winners through regulatory measures rather than having just - and have only that and not have a cross economy economically efficient measures is something that the economists disagree with and the economists are right here and I think this is an area which is going to be important internationally and it's important that New Zealand makes some principle decisions which are economically efficient rather than just pander to individual sectoral interest. |
|
| JEANETTE |
In terms of the global market in 2012 countries will be buying and selling emissions units in order to comply with their obligation, there will be a global price for that, it's likely to be there long before 2012 as they start to prepare for that but will go up and down a little bit during the period. That is the price that we should be connecting with because it's absolutely not set by governments, it's set by the market between nations and it's driven by the cap obligation that we have under Kyoto. |
|
| LISA |
But will Kyoto survive beyond 2012? |
|
| JEANETTE |
Well something will survive beyond 2012 because the science signs now that we are heading for very deep trouble are getting more and more intense. |
|
| LISA |
And how useful will it be if you don't have the big players fully participating in it like China, America, Australia? |
|
| JEANETTE |
Let's be clear that Kyoto was formed on the basis that only developed OECD countries would have to take part in the first round and the others would come in later if they'd done their bit, so America and Australia have wimped out and that's really bad, China was never meant to be in, China's still only emits a tiny amount of carbon per person of what New Zealand does, it just happens to be a very large country and they will be in next time round. |
|
| DAVID |
It is nonetheless a fair point that New Zealand ought not to get too far ahead of the crowd, you know we do have an eye on our international competitiveness. |
|
| JEANETTE |
We're way behind it at the moment. |
|
| NICK |
New Zealand's in an awful pickle. |
|
| DAVID |
And that's true too, that's true too because you know I think the debate in New Zealand has somewhat been skewed by what the Australian's have done but the Australians have been out of step with the world it isn't New Zealand that's been out of step with the world it's been Australia, but Australia's paying the economic price now, the government's reviewing the ministerial fleet of cars, we've traditionally bought our cars from Australia, none of the Australian cars are in the running because they're too inefficient, because they haven't been paying sufficient attention to where the world's going on emission. |
|
| NICK |
Look we're in enormous pickle over Kyoto, we are already going to be down 600 million, the latest figures suggest one and a half billion dollars, there's nothing in the government's package that see us meeting our Kyoto targets and while we can criticise Australia, Australia is actually doing far more practically to constrain their emissions, New Zealand's emissions have been growing faster than Australia, they're achieving reforestation … |
|
| DAVID |
I disagree with that too, clearly disagree. |
|
| NICK |
…at record rates. |
|
| LISA |
Well I'm sorry but we're gonna have to leave it there, thank you all very much for joining us this morning. |
|
|
| MUSIC DOWNLOAD |
| Local Musicians Strapped for Cash |
|
| LISA |
Well downloading music over the Internet is a common pastime but when it's illegal it hurts the very people who make it, and in New Zealand times have never been this tough. Many established artists now need second jobs to supplement an income decimated by lost earnings. Andrew Fagan is the former front man for the successful 80's band the Mockers, a strong supporter of local artists Fagan is a radio host for Kiwi FM, a station which plays 100% New Zealand music, welcome to the programme. Have you had any problems yourself with your music being downloaded have you noticed any change in money coming in that you think could be attributed to that? |
|
| ANDREW FAGAN - Kiwi FM Radio Host |
|
Well I was quite shocked a few years ago for one of my nephews to point out that our two most popular songs were available and they had them on their computer and it certainly hadn't sort of gone through the books so to speak, so it was you know that's sort of people listening to stuff without actually paying for it, but that's all really. It's obviously a huge problem now, I mean the example that's been bandied about recently was the Bec Runga album where apparently there were 920 sites that you can actually get that album on. I don't think it's for free for the person who downloads it but the thing is that the royalties, traditional royalties as we know them in the industry, don't go back to the artist or to the record company that has invested a lot of money into making that album, which is obviously great for the industry. |
|
| LISA |
Why do you think people feel so relaxed about pinching stuff in cyberspace though you know they wouldn't walk into a CD store and put it in their back pocket. |
|
| ANDREW |
Well it's just so easy isn't it, it's like this is - it's the nature of the game now, I mean downloads themselves there's nothing evil in that at all, I mean we work at Kiwi FM we broadcast to the world, we have people all over the world who actually listen to us and say hey I like that song and then they go to amplifier.co.nz and they download it, they pay a fee and the royalties go back to the artist and it's all ridgy didge you know it's the way it should be, it's unfortunate that with digital copying now there's lots of other sites, apparently there's what is it the illegal sites apparently well globally it's estimated outnumber legal sites 42 to 1, so essentially you know that potential income isn't going back to the artists which is damaging all round. |
|
| LISA |
Well is that the problem of the music industry here, record companies etc not being geared up for a change in the landscape? |
|
| ANDREW |
I don't think so they're all geared up, I mean you can download officially a song you like and the royalties will go through the right channels and back to the artist, it's just that there's this illegal thing going on. |
|
| LISA |
So does it still pay to be a musician full time, or are you better off writing books about yachting and becoming a radio host? |
|
| ANDREW |
Well I don't think it's ever really paid in New Zealand to be a musician full time and that's never been the incentive I think for most musicians. I think the thing's become quite fragmented you know there's a lot of people making music and in a way it's - I think it's emotionally or artistically quite healthy that they don't really have expectations of becoming huge and you know being millionaires living in mansions, but it's not healthy all round in terms of you know if you want to point to an album or point to an artist you do have to spend sort of money to do that, I mean the advent of My Space is very good but you know there's so many artists on My Space they don't all get a look in, you know I mean they all have friends and so forth but if you really want to point to someone you've got to sort of advertise them and traditionally that has been the big money record companies have spent you know to go the billboards and things. |
|
| BRIAN |
I just wondered if there was a technological fix to this problem that you're aware of? |
|
| ANDREW |
Well apparently those sort of details I'm not au fait with but apparently this is what the recording industry is asking of government. |
|
| LISA |
They want them to be able to take down sites immediately if they're making money out of doing something illegal. |
|
| ANDREW |
But it's not going back to where it should be, notice in take down which seems to make sense to me, I think it may be idealistic it may be far more difficult in reality to actually do that especially when the whole thing cyberspace and global. |
|
| BRIAN |
It's the world wide web. |
|
| LISA |
But does it raise a question about whether Internet service providers who are obviously when people download they're making money from that, should they be the ones who are coughing up for royalties? |
|
| NEVIL |
I think you've just outlined a little bit earlier that in fact this whole new way of listening to music and obtaining has opened New Zealand to the world, cos you pay royalties on your radio station, it goes all round the world, people can go to a legal site and buy it albeit for many of them may go somewhere else, and the real pain is being suffered at the top by the major record companies which are basically imploding, and all that excess of all that money going to the Beatles and so that'll be the end of it won't it? Steve Job says it's gonna be free from now on. |
|
| ANDREW |
What's gonna be free? Music's gonna be free? |
|
| NEVIL |
The music will be free and like newspapers it's happened to us, there'll have to be other sources of revenue like advertising or something like that. |
|
| ANDREW |
Well perhaps but at the same time it does still cost to make a record and especially costs, the thing that's expensive and it's a big marketing tool these days obviously are videos you know, and that's way up there you know in terms - you've gotta find some consortium to actually get the funds to make a video and that's a major sort of marketing tool, so it's not good that these record companies are imploding I don't think you know, and also we're talking about distributors not just record companies, you know it's trying to find a way of actually being able to keep the whole thing being funded. |
|
| LISA |
Is the money then gonna come from more live gigs and more paraphernalia that goes with it? |
|
| ANDREW |
Well that's the way it works in the what I might call the over populated real world you know where you know you can get - it's lovely to have a bit of attention and a band like the Arctic Monkeys in England actually that's where it all sort of started with downloads and they built a following, there's a lot of people out there who can fund a tour and you can make money from that, in New Zealand with only four million people you know it's a finite game, there is only so many times that you can keep on going round and round this country, I mean I've experienced that you know you just can't keep doing it every two weeks and expect the people to be coming out in Timaru to see you. |
|
| LISA |
Thank you very much for joining us this morning Andrew Fagan. |
|
|
| FINAL THOUGHTS - GUEST COMMENTATORS |
|
| LISA |
Turning to our panel for their final thoughts for the day climate change, are we moving towards some kind of consensus can everybody get it together? |
|
| BRIAN |
Well I would certainly hope so, I think we're still seeing a little bit of partisan pushing and shoving but the most encouraging thing over the last six months or more has been increasing signs of convergence between the parties and that's what we need to see, I mean there's always going to be disagreement about exactly where you draw the line where doing our bit ends and futile self sacrifice begins but it is an issue like superannuation that it's a long term issue, we need to ensure that it isn't a party political football and that does seem to be the tendency from our leaders at the moment. |
|
| LISA |
Do you think everyone can play nicely? |
|
| NEVIL |
Well I think the Greens this week are being thoroughly irresponsible and pushing the panic button which of course is what they're all about and we've got to say is this really sensible, they're talking about world trading emissions which is not going on at all and I think we heard this morning quite a lot of sensible discussion round a cure rather than prevention. They want to do the other way round, they see a huge problem a world wide one but the fact is a lot of that's beyond our reach and we have to do practical things that we can do and can afford it. |
|
| LISA |
Raised eyebrow there Brian. Are they pushing the panic button, are the Greens pushing the panic button? |
|
| BRIAN |
They're just addressing the absurd situation that we're in a the moment where all of the costs are being born by taxpayers and none by emitters and the industry that can do most good feels thoroughly aggrieved, mainly the forestry industry. |
|
| NEVIL |
But Brian we all benefit from pollution of one sort or another and even the use of the term pollution is overdoing it I think and therefore it has to be - you've gotta spread the burden as widely as possible not pick on particular industries or activities. |
|
| BRIAN |
Well I think the IPCC stuff in the Herald this morning indicates that the burden is already out there it is going to be borne by us one way or the other, and the sooner people start basing a financial incentive not to add to the problem the better off we'll all be. |
|
| LISA |
How do we get round the curly one though of the dairy farming industry when it is such a big earner for us? |
|
| BRIAN |
I think that one is probably the last in the queue isn't it Dr Smith but exempting half of our emissions isn't something that we can afford to do indefinitely, so I spose the pressure has to be on coming up with the technical fixes. |
|
| NEVIL |
Well you've gotta ask yourself if the only cure is killing all the animals I mean how bad is the problem, that's how ridiculous it can get because we know that methane is far more dangerous than carbon dioxide, and carbon dioxide as with methane are essential to the living system anyway. |
|
| LISA |
So you think we would place ourselves at a greater disadvantage on the world stage business wise, economically? |
|
| NEVIL |
Every way, yeah there's no need for us to be a leader in this aspect. |
|
| BRIAN |
There's a risk the other way too if the rest of the world starts pricing carbon and we are behind the curve not ahead of it then that could cost us too, it costs us our national brand of being clean and green for one thing. |
|
| LISA |
Alright thank you very much to our panel who have differing views on that one that's for sure. |
