If New Zealanders have not been taking climate change legislation seriously, as some politicians have recently implied, they will have little choice but to do so now, although it seems the politicians have themselves now joined the laid-back bandwagon.
Legislation treated hastily and considered recklessly, as has been the Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Bill, is bound to turn out for the worse.
Now, with deadlines on climate-change policy approaching from all sides, our politicians - after a decade of debate, in effect - cannot agree in the cross-party Finance and Expenditure Select Committee consideration on what New Zealand's best course should be. The one saving grace on the horizon is that most of our trading partners are likely to be just as dilatory.
It is irrelevant to argue these days whether greenhouse gas pollution and climate change is occurring because of human intervention, or is a natural phenomenon.
New Zealand has fallen seriously behind targets it legally agreed to meet, and since ours is a trading nation, our trading partners will require conformity with such global agreements, or will impose penalties.
The chorus of our critics is getting larger and growing louder; our claim to be a world leader in climate change is laughable and we need to regain lost ground as a matter of urgency: if we can show the world a credible emissions trading scheme or carbon tax regime to reduce pollution, we may make some headway.
But what have we instead? Proof only that our political system works against expeditious bipartisan resolutions.
National's scheme is supposed to eventually bring every sector of the economy, including the biggest polluter, agriculture, under a carbon trading scheme regime which will have the effect of limiting greenhouse gas emissions, but the great bulk of the costs will be borne by taxpayers, not the polluters.
Labour's scheme, which it brought into the House just before the election, is therefore essentially being amended to a much more modest effort which the Green Party thinks is inadequate, Act New Zealand does not want at all, and the Maori Party wants linked to the Treaty of Waitangi so tribes can have the right to seek compensation, largely for lost opportunity.
The failure of the select committee to agree on anything means the Bill will now be fought over in Parliament, no doubt under urgency, and that what will emerge at the end will be the kind of horse committees are often said to design.
The Government's proposed amendments are designed to have a more modest impact on industry; in effect, industry will be subsidised. National's view is that this will save jobs, and admits the taxpayer will profit less, while opposition parties have been claiming, somewhat misleadingly, that the true cost will be in the billions.
Actually no-one knows, and the matter is impossible to figure out accurately, least of all by the Treasury: its estimate of the cumulative increase in Government debt alone if New Zealand cannot meet its presumed international obligations of around 6%-8% of GDP by 2050 has grown to 13%-17%, a mere $50 billion change.
No-one else knows what the price of carbon will be in 40 years' time, either, let alone what cost-saving, planet-saving technological changes might by then have eventuated.
In the meantime, preferences will be traded for political advantage. First up is the Maori Party, ready to exchange its five votes to ensure the passing of junk legislation for preferential treatment via the Treaty of Waitangi.
The five tribes involved, including Ngai Tahu, argue that although they signed "full and final" settlements, the production of an emissions trading scheme which might alter the value of those agreements meant court action threatened.
It seems deals offering cost-free access to grow trees on so-called "marginal" Department of Conservation land are in the making. That should potentially secure tribes a considerable level of future income from carbon farming. But what next will be sold off by National for political convenience - mining rights to National Parks?
If the Government is pushing this scheme through before the world climate change conference in Copenhagen next month, it is wasting its energies. Even John Key does not believe the conference will produce a legally binding treaty.
That gives the Government another opportunity to actively seek a bipartisan approach to this problem, one that particularly does not impose on taxpayers the cost of industry failing to meeting its obligations, or impose on householders unjustified additional levies such as electricity costs.
The Government argues the scheme is needed before January 1 because on that date the previous government's commitment begins to take effect - but that is no justification to pass poor law in a hurry.
