Let me test my thinking so I can see where I'm going wrong:
- climate change is real
- climate change is bad
- it is caused by carbon and other emissions
- to prevent it getting worse, we need to reduce emissions
- NZ has agreed to emissions reductions targets in a multilateral international forum
- failure to meet those will result in negative diplomatic and trade consequences
- every unit emitted under that cap is one that can't be emitted elsewhere in the country
- agricultural methane emissions are receiving the equivalent of a 95% discount on permits to be responsible for those emissions
- every other sector of the economy and part of society is cross-subsidising those emissions
If your kid is saying "mum I want to be an energy policy analyst when I grow up!" I mean, good for them, it's a great gig. But also maybe consider a child psychologist.
The closest I can get is: I did love building dams on the creek at the beach, but we don't get to build hydroelectric dams anymore, so grid financing is kinna close?
For the record, I'm an not in the "everything is fine, trust Labour" camp. They are currently on track to damn near lose.
But there's a concerted effort to paint these results a certain way. It's not that simple.
And while I'm sub-tweeting: no, local partisan cleavages don't neatly map to nationwide ones.
That doesn't mean they don't exist. If you think can't-we-all-get-along consensus building is real, it's because you're on the side of the dominant status quo.