Green Party compromise and contradiction

The Greens' market-based climate 'solutions' have received very little critique or analysis. Yet the party's policy is far from being principled or even terribly coherent. For example, the Greens often trumpet their sound-bite that 'polluters should pay', but the party's finer print shows that they are quite soft (by their own standards) on business and farmers (who actually make a fair portion of their voter base). In terms of farmers, they say 'we are not proposing that farming should cover the cost of all its emissions' - they single out sheep and beef farmers for a total exemption and suggest that dairy farmers should only pay for about 20% of their emissions. Furthermore, the party's greener-than-thou 'Climate Change Score Card' which ranked the parties in February, even contains false claims about their own policies. It suggested that the Greens are better than other parties because it would not let protectionism influence climate policy. The score card tested the parties on the measure that: 'NZ must pull its weight, even if trading partners don't'. However, in their 'Kicking the Carbon Habit' brochure, the Greens claim that 'industries who compete with companies in countries with no price on carbon, and whose survival would be at risk from higher energy prices, should be largely protected from this carbon price until their competitors also face a carbon price'. Is this sort of forked-tongue double-speak why the Greens are only on 4% in the latest poll?