So we have Golden Bay Cement and we have New Zealand Steel. 

In their own way, both companies that make things we need as a country and would struggle without. 

One of them said they would close because of the ETS cost of producing cement locally, and the other is now making steel with its renewable powered electric furnace. 

Neither paid for their improvements. We did. 

Is this good business? 

In talking to Contact, the power supplier to NZ Steel, they say yes and they say yes because of the jobs; local manufacturing and local jobs and a better climate. 

They also supply the electricity for the furnace, so why wouldn’t they say yes? 

So what is the price of the climate? The odd bit about the cement is imported cement doesn’t attract the same ETS cost as the local sort. That seemed, and seems, odd. 

It doesn't seem like a level playing field. You might remember I asked the Government at the time why we didn’t just carve out the product from the ETS like we carve out farmers. 

The Prime Minister said we didn’t want to mess with the ETS, despite the fact we had messed with the ETS. 

When I asked the bloke at the steel factory whether they would have paid for the furnace themselves he wasn’t keen to be overly clear. So I still don’t know. 

But why would you pay if you can get someone else to? In this case it was $140 million from the previous Labour Government. 

The steel, by the way, reduces this country's overall emissions by 1%. Is that worth it? Is any of it worth it? 

So two stories, two companies, and $200 million of taxpayer's money to allegedly address two pressing climate problems. 

Mind you, they did the same yesterday in New South Wales for an aluminium operation to the tune of $2.5 billion to save 1000 jobs, so clearly it’s a new age thing. 

What is the return on that for any of us? What materially changes apart from the concept? And that is all it is – the concept. 

That we produce cleaner products, which of course is a good thing, but it would also be a cleaner environment if the Government bought me an EV and paid for my solar. But they're not going to, are they? 

If business in the cement case becomes untenable, is the climate worth it? 

Or if business would like to, as in the steel, but won't, why should we? 

Is it now the taxpayer's job and obligation to clean up every business that wants it? 

And if so, how is that good business?