KEY POINTS:
When the latest United Nations-nominated "Champions of the Earth" were honoured at a gala dinner in Singapore three weeks ago, there was one notable absentee.
Despite winning the special prize for making carbon neutrality New Zealand's goal, Helen Clark was not present to rub shoulders with Prince Albert of Monaco and other fellow award winners, including a former Minister of the Environment from Barbados and a climate change scientist from Sudan.
"Diary constraints" was the official reason for Clark's no-show. Just as well, perhaps. The award's organisers praised New Zealand's Prime Minister for "blazing new trails" in the fight against climate change and singled out Labour's emissions trading scheme for special mention.
Clark would subsequently have faced awkward questions about having gone to Singapore to pick up the award at the very time her Government was contemplating delaying the introduction of petrol and diesel into its landmark emissions trading scheme for two years.
As it is, Clark's confirmation this week of that delay raises questions aplenty about Labour's rhetoric surrounding carbon neutrality - which requires as much carbon be extracted from the atmosphere as is being pumped into it - and the Government's actual record.
The rhetoric had New Zealand becoming the first country which functions on a truly sustainable basis - "not by sacrificing our living standards, but by being smart and determined".
Such language offers the illusion that meaningful reductions in greenhouse gas emissions can be achieved relatively painlessly without changing lifestyles. It is a nonsense, of course. But it is politically appetising nonsense, nonetheless.
In his book Heat, the Guardian's ardent climate change columnist George Monbiot explains how political parties have worked out that while their citizens may be demanding action on climate change, they actually hope their governments don't take action because that will mean discomfort for them.
The result is a charade in which governments assuage voters' guilt about climate change by pretending to set tough-to-meet targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions which they have no intention of meeting because the same voters don't really want them to do so.
The voters may grumble at the failure to reach such targets, but they don't really care. As Monbiot concludes, no one ever rioted in favour of austerity.
Political parties happily play along with this charade because it enables them to look like they care about the planet and have bold plans for tackling climate change. They also play along because governments have no real incentive to take tough action in the short-term when the political payoff for curbing emissions is so far down the track.
If they back-track on their targets - as Labour did here this week - no one is too surprised or upset. Apart from the Greens, that is. No one votes in favour of a petrol price rise - although the Greens seem to find some perverse enjoyment in watching Brent crude reach yet another high.
The Labour Party would argue it is as genuine in its attachment to carbon neutrality as it is to its anti-nuclear policy. But there is no doubt it was equally motivated by the potential electoral spinoff.
New Zealanders are suckers for achieving "world firsts" and Clark consequently included carbon neutrality as part of the Government's promotion of national identity.
Unfortunately for Labour, this week's postponement of the 6c to 8c petrol price rise which would have followed the transport sector's inclusion in the emissions trading scheme has taken much of the shine off carbon neutrality as an election plank.
Labour cannot expect such a visionary policy to be taken seriously when it has capitulated at the first sign of the policy cutting living standards.
Clark can argue the soaring price of oil is doing the job of cutting emissions that the emissions trading system would have done. If the price keeps rising, it may do that job even better. But Labour has simply postponed the day when fuel taxes will have to be introduced. That is now scheduled for the start of 2011 - another election year - when it will not be any easier to do than now politically.
Any further postponement will undermine the integrity of the emissions trading system as transport would effectively be exempt, something that would provoke howls of protest from other sectors of the economy.
The transport sector's emissions have jumped by 64 per cent on 1990 levels - the levels to which New Zealand is obliged to reduce its overall average net emissions under the Kyoto Protocol or otherwise face substantial financial penalties. The jump in fuel prices means fuel use is expected to remain at current levels. But that does not mean a reduction in emissions.
Meeting New Zealand's Kyoto obligations is daunting enough. Carbon neutrality is another quantum leap. Talk of attaining such a goal now seems hollow when the emissions trading scheme may be watered down to get it through Parliament.
After Tuesday's announcement and trenchant lobby groups pressure for the scheme to be weakened, Helen Clark this week was in desperate search of a parliamentary consensus to save the enabling legislation.
That consensus should have been established before the legislation was brought before Parliament, not least because the scheme is going to have to be robust enough to survive countless changes of government over coming decades.
Labour is now paying the price for hogging all the political kudos on offer from being seen to act on climate change. As it did with the national superannuation fund, Labour unilaterally sought to impose consensus. The difference is the setting up of the state pension followed by years of failure to get a political consensus on retirement policy in advance of the baby-boom generation leaving the workforce.
In that case, Labour was justified in forging ahead alone. With climate change, Labour did not even bother to seek a consensus through multi-party talks. Not surprisingly, other parties are now reluctant to help it out, although the charade whereby voters expect parties to play along with climate change policy means National cannot be aloof.
It is notable that in Norway - which, with Iceland and Costa Rica, also has a target of carbon neutrality - a broad political consensus has been secured on climate change policies. That is one reason why Norway has advanced its target date for carbon neutrality from 2050 to 2030.
Among a number of measures, it already imposes heavy taxes on fuel consumption and gas-guzzling SUVs.
With Iceland, which has huge geothermal power resources, it is sprinting towards the target of carbon neutrality. New Zealand is barely out of the starting blocks. Clark no longer says much about carbon neutrality.
What was going to be a major plank of Labour's re-election campaign is now gathering dust - just like the "Champions of the Earth" award now sitting on some shelf in the Prime Minister's office.
