Stop the ETS

Vote now in our poll, below

We’ve given you some assistance in joining our email campaign against the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), and now we ask you to let us know how you vote on the matter.

What do you think? Should the ETS be stopped?

Vote here

If the voting buttons are absent, you have already voted (or someone on that machine has).

To comment on the poll, post a comment below.

What now?

Oppose the madness! Spread word of this poll—we’d appreciate your help with that; please tell people you know and email them this link to the poll to come here to vote.

If you have a web site, please consider using this link to our poll. If you have any questions about handling these links, flick me an email to convenor [at]

Any of that will make a difference. And you’ll be a blimmin’ hero!



9 Thoughts on “Stop the ETS

  1. qfrealist on August 3, 2010 at 4:39 pm said:

    Lets dump at least 10 tons (tonnes for the metric heads) of dry ice (solid CO2) on the grounds of Parliament! It will evaporate of course and all go back into the atmosphere! See the Greens come running out with catch bags! Well the irony of course probably lost on the ludites is the dry ice is usually made from atmospheric CO2.

  2. Right. Well, I don’t know what that might achieve. But you’re right that few people understand that carbon dioxide is constantly moving from one reservoir to another in a great cycle. Marvellous stuff!

  3. Peter Jones on December 19, 2017 at 10:40 am said:

    How do we stop this madness?
    Climate Cult Leader James Shaw:
    “This is a big task and the transition will take decades. Climate change challenges us to make fundamental changes to our economy and we have a moral responsibility to do that in a way that brings people and communities along with us.”

  4. Richard Treadgold on December 19, 2017 at 7:35 pm said:

    Hi Peter, thanks for visiting.

    Yes, it’s madness and someone has to put a stop to it; might as well be us. The way to stop it is straightforward, but we need tenacity. We simply demand evidence of the alarmists’ claims the human activity is causing dangerous global warming. Nothing else. Naturally, they have no evidence, and only widespread demands from the electorate will cause them to admit it, or at least give up their campaign against our industry. It’s useless (I’ve finally learned, after more than ten years) to enter into arguments over temperature, or the measurement of temperature, or coral reefs, or the extent or effects of ocean acidification, or the radiative causes of ocean warming, or the effects of CO2 fertilisation, or how many cities will be flooded by 2050, or the plight of the poor polar bears, or the thousand and one other things the alarmists try to bamboozle us with. By all means offer the true facts on polar bears and the rest, if you know them, but don’t enter an argument, because you’ll just be stuck there for ever. Demand evidence of human culpability and walk away if you don’t (as you won’t) get it. There’s a strong groundswell of sceptical energy moving in this direction, all over the world. You may or may not know that feedback from sceptical scientists and lay sceptics around New Zealand is that the public are fed up with the climate “debate” and generally take the view that it’s all balderdash. It’s time to demand that our institutions acknowledge this. Watch this space.

  5. I generally don’t try to spend too much time reading comments, as it tends to sap the will to live.

    However, as others have pointed out on this blog before, there does seem a bit of a tidal wave of sceptical comments these days

    So, if this is anything to go by, any drastic “climate action” that results in serious economic harm might see a push back in the ballot box.

  6. Just because you’re bamboozled Richard does not mean that the rest of the world is. All bar one country has signed the Paris Agreement. We are not going to meet our commitments to that agreement if something does not happen very quickly. The government has two options, do something to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or pay billions of dollars to purchase overseas credits. The first option can stimulate investment in the economy if done properly. The second is a capital outflow paid for by taxpayers.

  7. Richard Treadgold on December 20, 2017 at 11:06 am said:

    I’m not at all bamboozled. Present the evidence. Just in your own words.

    I think Andy’s right, that scepticism is strengthening.

  8. Re: the Paris Agreement – There’s a 3rd option that all the other countries seem to have adopted, pay lip service to the fraud and renege on the agreement with no consequence. It makes no difference, the Paris Agreement doesn’t achieve anything anyway.

    Interesting to note that the one country that isn’t part of the Paris Agreement (USA) is the one country that seems to have lowered their carbon footprint due to fracking.

  9. On the 60 second journey from my house to the supermarket on Saturday morning, I learned from RNZ that climate change and gender justice were related, and that Trump had “jumped the shark” on climate change

    I stopped listening to RNZ some time ago when they all had the collective Trump Derangement Syndrome Meltdown (TDSM) and this was an accident that my radio was on

    I didn’t know about gender justice and climate before.

    How fascinating, and I am so glad we are going to get more of this thanks to increased funding

    I’l just have to remove the radio from the car, however

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *