There is one key matter we can take some comfort from - a considerable degree of buffering in New Zealand's national position.
When the world starts trading in 2008, if the price of carbon is low, there will be little effect on our cost structure or that of our competitors.
Those in developing countries not facing carbon charges will have little advantage. But equally, the value of our excess emission rights from forest carbon sinks will be small.
If, alternatively, the price of carbon is high, the cost effects will be greater but the value of the sink credits will be high in compensation.
That is the position for New Zealand overall. If the cost of carbon emission is sheeted home to emitters then the effects, industry sector by industry sector, are not all in balance. There are winners and losers.
Should the Government then shield us from any domestic effects? Tempting, but in the long run a big risk.
The international demand for reductions will grow. Pretending that emissions are cost-free does not prepare us for this and puts us at risk of losing sink credits in future negotiations if we seem to be making no domestic effort.
One consequence, though, of not shielding must be some intervention to avoid damage to vulnerable sectors that are vital to our future, such as our animal-based agriculture.
That said, there are still some big issues in the detail of domestic implementation; issues that need a bit more time in working through so the risks we place on parties are manageable. There is time for that.
The argument that cheap energy is our natural advantage is fallacious. It applied in the past when we still had new opportunities for hydro and geothermal power.
The fossil-fuelled stations now favoured by generators do not have any cost advantage on the rest of the world. Our marginal cost of energy is not cheap.
Astonishingly, there seem to be some who think a problem such as global warming should be solved without cost.
There must be a cost. Greenhouse gases in our atmosphere will not stabilise naturally. Runaway greenhouse gas growth will not have benign effects. It cannot be contemplated.
Fostering moderate climate change, as some would have us do - presumably by doing nothing - is not an option. Only action will moderate climate change.
But we need not take drastic action and all wear hair-shirts. The problem has one luxury - time to learn as we go.
If the first commitment period under Kyoto will achieve little in global terms, it at least starts us on a path of finding where the best opportunities for reductions are.
It is as business-friendly as it can be, without being free.
Alasdair Thompson, of the Employers and Manufacturers Association, thinks we should delay ratification. It is not clear why.
There are no negotiations left to happen where that might give us some advantage.
The mechanics of the ratification clause of the protocol mean that it will not come into force without Japan, so it is irrelevant whether we ratify before or after them.
Because of the great deal Australia got at Kyoto, the first commitment period is virtually cost-free to it. As one of our competitors, it doesn't really matter if it ratifies with us, after us, or not.
The United States, though, is a serious issue. The EU, which risks serious uncompetitiveness in its commercial rivalry with the US, has decided Kyoto is the only way to go and the US must ultimately follow.
The proponents of delay are opponents of Kyoto. If they accept the science, what is their alternative?
The negotiations to get a global consensus have been said by observers to be the most difficult the world has undertaken.
New Zealand has not been some messianic maverick. Under this and the last Government, it has worked in close coordination with like nations to protect our interests while seeking a consensus on starting to save the Earth's atmosphere.
The chance for involvement has certainly been there for industry. We have taken it.
Lastly, little New Zealand falls back on the relative size of our emissions, as if that is an excuse for inaction. Perversely, the apologists almost always then cite our dominant animal methane emissions as if we are in some way not responsible for them.
We all contribute to emissions individually, either directly or through what we consume.
The problem will be addressed only through some action required of us by society and which falls equably on us all.
The only mechanism to deal with such a global problem is by the consensus and action of the world's Governments.
Some of them will deal with massive amounts of emissions and some small.
The Kyoto system means that a nation is accountable for no more than it emits. The effort required is proportional to the contribution to the problem.
* Garry Law is an Auckland consulting engineer and spokesman for the Environmental Defence Society on climate change.
nzherald.co.nz/climate
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
United Nations Environment Program
World Meteorological Organisation
Framework Convention on Climate Change
Executive summary: Climate change impacts on NZ
IPCC Summary: Climate Change 2001
