The Government's release of the details of its plan to deal with agricultural emissions through levies on methane emissions on farms puts the National Party into quite a pickle.
Dealing with it is more fraught for National rather than Labour for the simple truth that those crying foul the loudest are those who vote for them rather than Labour: the farmers.
There have been efforts on both sides to turn climate change into one of those rare bipartisan areas, along with trade and foreign affairs.
It was for that reason National was brought into the circle when Climate Change Minister James Shaw developed the Zero Carbon Act and other key architecture of the climate response.
But that consensus was always going to be tested once things got to the farm gates.
This time round, National was not given advance notice of the decisions, nor was its agreement sought in advance to the steps the Government announced on Tuesday.
That would see farmers paying for their farm's methane emissions from 2025 at a price set by Government ministers, with incentives to cut emissions and revenue put into research and technology.
That lack of notice left National scrambling to come up with a response, although it had known an announcement was looming. When it did respond, it was sitting on the farm fence.
Its initial cautious statement did not come from leader Christopher Luxon or Climate Change spokesman Scott Simpson – it was from Agriculture spokeswoman Barbara Kuriger.
It noted concern that the move "puts consensus at risk" and urged the Government to try to find a way to hold on to consensus with the farming sector. It did not set out a view on what should happen.
In short, National is hoping the Government can sort it out during the consultation rather than be forced to take a firmer position on the current proposal itself.
It noted both that National was committed to the emissions reductions targets – including in agriculture – but also that the plan could have a significant impact on rural communities.
It wants to have its cake and eat it too.
The farming sector was far more unequivocal – Federated Farmers' Andrew Hoggard heralded it as akin to an Armageddon moment, issuing a statement titled "say goodbye small-town New Zealand".
It said it would "rip the guts out of small-town New Zealand, putting trees where farms used to be." It pointed to the projections of 20 per cent reductions in sheep and beef farming in New Zealand and five per cent in dairy farming.
National will be trying to assess whether such statements are hyperbolic hot air to strengthen the farmers' position in the consultation before the plan is finalised, or more.
It has other political calculations to make. It represents a farming constituency but it also represents those who do not want it to drag its feet on climate change.
Its current leader, Christopher Luxon, has talked big about climate change and boasted of his own endeavours to turn Air NZ into a more climate-friendly outfit. He will be asked if he can walk that talk onto the farm.
Farmers are not strangers to using their votes to send a message. They are unlikely to head for Labour, but Act was very quick to slap its shingle out again for angry National voters on Tuesday morning with its own very quick rejection of the proposal.
As for Labour, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern is speaking to her constituency rather than farmers when she points to it being a "world-first" to price agricultural emissions.
That is not necessarily a badge of honour farmers would embrace - especially if the price is a big drop in revenue - and if the gap is filled up by international competitors with less compunction on addressing emissions.
The Government's aim will be to make the farming sector's objections seem unreasonable and disproportionate.
It has pointed to its own willingness to compromise: rejecting Green co-leader and Climate Change Minister James Shaw's push for a cap and trade scheme for methane in favour of the farmers' preference of farm-level emissions pricing, with no emissions cap and revenue funding research, technology and "incentives" for farmers. The key difference is that ministers will set the levies, based on what is needed to meet emissions targets.
Farmers had wanted more say over those levies - the projected revenue drops will only reinforce that.
It has not adopted everything farmers wanted, but nor has it ignored them.
The most fundamental question the Government should be asking itself when making decisions on climate change is whether steps to address it will last longer than an election cycle.
On the Goldilocks assessment, the farming sector think the Government has gone too far. The Greens think it doesn't go far enough. As far as Ardern will be concerned, that may mean it is just right.