[comment caption=What practical measures should the Government be taking to deal with global warming?]The Government's proposed emissions trading scheme (ETS) has become one of the most politicised debates in years. As business reporter Neal Wallace writes, the two sides to the debate cannot even agree whether the public knows how the scheme will work.
The Government appears to have failed to win public support for its emissions trading scheme policy, according to two surveys.
But, equally, those who support the scheme argue they know enough.
A survey of 1000 people, conducted in June by TNS Conversa for the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research (NZIER), revealed less than half those surveyed were aware of the emissions trading scheme (ETS), less than a quarter were aware of the scheme and knew something about it and 13% "strongly supported" the ETS as proposed.
A further June survey by DigiPoll of 514 people, for public relations company Exceltium, found people felt disengaged from the ETS debate and just 9.6% believed New Zealand should lead the world on climate change policies.
Climate Change Minister David Parker attacked both surveys, labelling the TNS research "scaremongering" and the Exceltium survey as "close to push polling", conducted, he said, by National Party strategist Matthew Hooton.
Opinion was divided among business leaders as to whether the public knew enough about the ETS.
It creates a carbon market of New Zealand Units which would be traded, allowing companies and sectors which absorb greenhouse gases to be paid by those who emit greenhouse gases.
Each sector would be brought into the ETS in a staged manner, with forestry first and agriculture last.
Business New Zealand chief executive Phil O'Reilly believed the public did not know enough, while Peter Neilson, the chief executive of the New Zealand Business Council for Sustainable Development, felt the ETS had public support.
Mr O'Reilly believed debate had become so politicised and elitist, it was excluding the general public.
"In this one, I think the public are spectators and they don't know much about it other than it will mean an increase in the price of fuel and electricity, but they don't understand why it [ETS] is happening."
Mr Neilson said polling by his organisation showed the public accepted climate change was real, man-made and needed to be addressed, and he said there was majority support for the ETS.
The key to cementing support was telling the public that the ETS shifted the cost of emissions from the taxpayer to those who generated the emissions and those who bought their goods and services.
The National Party's climate change spokesman, Nick Smith, said people's eyes glazed over with the mention of ETS, but he felt there was a broad understanding "that pricing signals around carbon emissions is the way to go, but it has to be balanced around people's ability to pay".
And that is where the two sides appeared to differ - in what form should it be implemented?
The TNS survey found 7% of respondents felt the ETS should be implemented in its current form, 23% wanted it delayed until more work had been done, 24% felt people should be encouraged to behave in a more environmentally friendly way and 19% that the ETS be changed to reduce negative impacts.
When all respondents were given a summary explanation of the ETS including six benefits and six costs, 77% felt knowledgeable enough to be able to rate their support.
Of these, 8% strongly support the ETS, according to a comment accompanying the survey.
NZIER chief executive Brent Layton said there appeared to be little public support for the scheme as proposed, with the public concerned about its cost and impact on employment.
The survey revealed public concern about potential price rises, the economic and employment impact and the speed with which the scheme was being implemented.
Mr Layton said in an interview he was surprised at the lack of public understanding, which suggested the Government needed to do a better job of explaining and selling the concept.
"It tells me it hasn't been very good at cutting through and explaining it. People haven't got an overall understanding of what the issue or proposal is," he said.
The survey was initially done to help NZIER with its research into climate change policies but Mr Layton said such was the public interest in the results, he decided to release them publicly.
NZIER has previously criticised aspects of the policy including concerns the Government could reap vast amounts of money at the expense of taxpayers and the fact there was no political consensus on the shape of the policy.
"This [political consensus] is really important. Otherwise, as we have found with superannuation, we will go backward and forward."
The DigiPoll survey showed 52% disagreed with the suggestion New Zealand's action on climate change was too slow compared with other countries, while 62% believed New Zealand should wait to see what Australia did and develop policy in tandem.
The Australian Government this week announced a cap and trade system to be introduced from 2010, but appeared to be taking a softer line for business, with up to 30% of carbon permits allocated for free to emissions-intensive and trade-exposed firms.
The Government also proposes cutting fuel taxes to compensate for inevitably high fuel costs.
The Digipoll survey also found over 87% of people were prepared to take action themselves to reduce their impact but just 43% were prepared to pay even $10 a week more for fuel and electricity, with support diminishing as the financial burden increased.
Mr Parker said that despite "scaremongering" in the way the TNS survey questions were asked, there was still a high degree of support for climate change action.
"It's a shame the surveyors did not ask respondents a much more crucial question, and that is whether they thought those who cause a cost for the country through their emissions should help pay that cost or whether taxpayers should pay the lot? If we do not have an ETS, the latter will occur."
Commenting on the DigiPoll survey, Mr Parker said the Government was not a world leader in climate change policy.
Both surveys showed him there was support from New Zealanders for tackling climate change.
United Future leader Peter Dunn said the DigiPoll confirmed his party's stance in not supporting the ETS legislation, saying it did not have public support and on current carbon markets would cost households $30 a week.
"We have been arguing since December last year that New Zealanders' support for the ETS will wane as the likely cost to households increases."
Peter Neilson said his polling showed public resistance would grow if the cost of the ETS exceeded $10 a week.
He said the public needed to know when the ETS-influenced costs would occur and how large they would be.
"The public understood enough about the scheme to think it was better than the alternative."
Mr O'Reilly disagreed.
"The public does not understand very much about it at all and I would include many business people as well."
The debate was being dominated by political groups and what he called "informed elites", which was excluding the public.
The ETS was the most important piece of legislation in a decade, yet Mr O'Reilly said he had never seen an issue so politicised.
He feared the Government would offer deals to the minor parties to get the legislation passed before the general election.
Such an outcome would be a "tragedy", with successive Governments tampering with it.
Nick Smith felt the Government was rushing the legislation and what was proposed would cost the public more than it should.
"It is not that New Zealanders oppose it, it is just that they want the Government to take a considered approach.
Cross-party support was needed.
He said the National Party had offered to enter talks to get consensus, but the offer was not accepted.
Mr Smith said international cement company Holcim (New Zealand) Ltd was an example of how the proposed policy would cost New Zealand companies and ultimately consumers.
The company operates one mid-sized cement works in New Zealand and 150 worldwide, of which 23 were in Europe and would fall under the European Union's ETS scheme.
Mr Smith said Holcim had told him the ETS cost for its one New Zealand plant would exceed the ETS cost for its 23 European plants.
