If this is how we debate intertemporal costs, we're doomed

When it comes to debates, most of us aren't experts in a particular enterprise, line of thinking or ideology. So, to get the views of the masses, things must be simplified. Presenting things as a zero sum game (someone wins, someone else loses) is a common technique for this. And so it's always "the economy" vs. "the environment"

So when the NZ Herald asks "Will [New Zealand's proposed] emissions trading scheme have an effect on the economy?", it's a leading question pointing to a fictitious zero sum game.

The "correct" answer is "of course!". But the answer to the opposite question "Will a scrapping of NZ's proposed emissions scheme have an effect on the economy?" is also "of course!". The whole point of an emissions trading scheme (or carbon tax) - or lack of either - is to affect the economy.

Therefore, the conflict is the effect on today's economy vs. the economy of future generations -- and this is not a zero sum game. Much of the economic argument for closing externalities (via ETS or taxes) from greenhouse gas emissions is because future costs of doing nothing (e.g. international treaty liabilities or other more indirect costs like loss of ecological services, increased environmental refugees or adaptation costs) are much higher than the costs of reducing emissions today. This was the main conclusion of the often-cited Stern Review from the UK. Politicians (who do not balance short-term and long-term needs very efficiently) score points by pushing these costs onto future generations because today's citizens are their bosses.

The real danger is what is shaping up to be the worst outcome, wherein politicans compromise and increase short-term costs in order to gain small reductions in greenhouse gases today (e.g. the 10-20% reduction on 2005 that the NZ government appears willing to agree) that will have negligible effect on reducing the future costs of climate change (the IPCC, an extraordinary collaboration bringing together the best science availiable, says we need 50 to 80% reductions on 1990 levels). So it looks like politics-as-usual is going to deliver a lose-lose scenario for both today and the future.