Have you been sceptical of the argument that NZ businesses should reduce their carbon footprints because consumers will punish us if we don’t? Some have seen the argument as the fallback of those who can’t substantiate the climate change justification, but want us all to wear hair shirts anyway.
The Wall Street Journal reports research suggesting consumers will punish companies perceived as unethical, but not much reward those perceived as ethical. So even those who are not persuaded by good citizenship motives should do at least enough to avoid being singled out as baddies.
Doubters may claim that research using consumers’ statements about what they would do is not as good as research of actual buying behaviour. If that is a business’s excuse for doing nothing it could be a poor bet.
RSS feeds available for 
Carbon dioxide is not an essential element. Without it, the planet would die as plants would stop growing.
Alarmists and ecomentalists have blown this all out of proportion.
First, we must ask the hard questions.
What is the cost-benefit ratio for reducing our carbon toe-print? Is it worth it? (Especially if it means businesses here — like Tiwai Point — shift to China and become a 100x more polluting?)
How can we trust a global warming theory that is based on computer models that did not even predict the failure of the global temperatures to rise in the last 10 years?
How can my business buy carbon indulgences when all the land has been planted in trees, and those trees have started to fall over and rot, and release their CO2 back to the atmosphere?
If the Greenies were honest, they would be encouraging nuclear power (no CO2 emissions).
Ask yourself, what is the Ultimate Objective of those promoting the Al Gore dogma?