Thursday, September 24, 2009

Climate change: The reality of subsidised pollution

In the debate over the ETS, I've talked about subsidised pollution a lot. What does this mean? Well, to give one example, it means paying Methanex a billion dollars over ten years to increase our emissions by 5%. That's money that could be used to pay for schools, hospitals, and decent public services. And it comes straight out of your pocket and into the pockets of Methanex's foreign shareholders. Except its worse than that, because on the current fiscal pathway, summarised by Bill English as "a decade of deficits", its money we have to borrow. So, under National's scheme, we're not just paying companies to despoil our environment - we're loading ourselves with debt to do so.

This is simply madness, utter madness.