... personal wiki, blog and notes
stuff is reporting a Dominion-Post article which reports an economist as in part debunking a self-serving analysis a bunch of kiwi companies have done on the impacts of a carbon tax on their bottom lines.
The article was depressing for a number of reasons, even though ostensibly it shouldn't have been: the headline point was that an economist was arguing that the carbon tax might not have negative implications. But somehow, the reporter involved managed to finish with this as a concluding paragraph:
The case studies should be a warning that the carbon tax, like any unnecessary tax, was unhelpful to New Zealand companies.
As a conclusion, it didn't reflect the message the headline suggested, nor reality. Who decided (the reporter, or the Business New Zealand chief executive, Phil O'Reilly who was quoted in the previous paragraph) that the tax is unnecessary?
Actually, O'Reilly, like his predecessors, seems like a bit of a plonker, he was quoted as saying:
a carbon tax would make business less competitive and less able to afford energy efficient technology.
Surely the way to avoid the carbon tax is to use energy efficient technology?
Someone (who knows whether it was O'Reilly or the reporter?) made the point also that carbon taxes in Kyoto-respecting-economies could damage company effectiveness against Australian, US and Chinese goods. Well, that's certainly true if one is paying for emitting carbon, but when one changes to more energy efficient tooling, there ought to be a competitive advantage against them ...
Like I say, a depressing article, both because of the content, and the quality of the reporting itself ...