David Farrar's link to my post no 2 on this topic drew my attention to his equally sobering figures posted on 2 February.

But what I'd most like to know from David is whether he's hearing the same kind of government realism I'm detecting, about the (short) long term future of our ETS, at least as it may affect agriculture and forestry.

There are some fascinating dynamics in a situation where an expensive law may, or may not, be suspended or repealed. Could New Zealand's apparent carbon performance get a short term boost as people wait to cut trees till after it goes, or will that be more than countered by those for whom the reduced likelihood of credits from sequestration makes it easier to clear unprofitable post-1990 planting now?