Concern over title of ‘Climate Change’
The Climate Change Commission recently released its initial report on climate change, and a summary of options for New Zealand to deal with it. I have concerns over several areas with one such concern being the expression, “Climate Change”.
Climate has always changed and always will. Sea levels, CO2 levels, and temperatures always change, and our polar system has been in turmoil many times. These changes have affected our world such that approximately 99.9999% of all living things that have existed on earth are now extinct. “Climate Change” is a normal process.
Anecdotal accounts on “Causes” of this are of no use whatsoever. There have been newspaper stories going back over a century warning about the effects of climate change. To date none have come to bear. So, we must distance ourselves from opinions and focus our attention on quality research to make sure our focus is on what we humans are causing and differentiate from the background blur of panic. We need factual research to make sure we turn our attention to only those matters which we humans are influencing, and then in turn ensure we manage the worst offenders.
My background is in forestry. It has always amused me that government has viewed forestry as part of the “Management of Climate Change.” ETS, in relation to forestry, is a waste of resources which has merely lined the pockets of forest owners with zero benefit or gain in relation to climate change. Forestry is 100% neutral. Carbon in equals carbon out. Native forestry is a great sop to the environmentalists but is in the same category as plantation forestry. Agriculture falls into this same area, carbon in equals carbon out. My point is that if we go down the road of managing CO2 emissions, then we must be sure we have chosen the best areas to focus on to achieve the best gains and ignore the anecdotal nonsense.
Governments have decided that we will be spending a considerable sum of taxpayer money on managing human caused climate change. We are extremely fortunate to live in a country where we have got an extremely high level of sustainable low carbon cost electricity. However, what we have currently is just enough to provide for how we supply it, and how we use it up. Management by conservation of energy (insulation on homes) must become a high priority.
The Climate Change Commission must analyse the recommendations by type to show what the cost per ton of carbon saved will be. They must also consider the effect of future technology changes so we can see how anticipated technology shifts in the future will affect costings.
All too often in the past we have seen decisions made which in hindsight were ill conceived. For example, simply changing all transport energy requirements to electricity means we need an enormous increase in electricity production – not from coal or gas and we know from international experience that solar and wind cannot provide enough. Perhaps nuclear energy?
Peter Bould, Whitianga
Auckland’s Super City mistake
Coromandel deserves better. The Government has given Thames-Coromandel District Council until 9 August – 12 weeks – to submit a reorganisation proposal, with Waikato Regional Council openly pushing for a single Hamilton-centred unitary authority stretching from Taupō to Thames. Before our Mayor signs us up, ratepayers should look hard at the Auckland evidence the Government is hoping we won’t read.
Auckland Council claims $2.4 billion in savings since 2010. The reality is less flattering. Household rates have risen 85 percent. Staff numbers are higher than before amalgamation. Just 18 percent of Aucklanders are satisfied with their Council’s performance and twice as many are dissatisfied, on Auckland Council’s own latest survey. S&P downgraded the Council’s credit rating from AA to AA- in 2023. And in 2022 the Infrastructure Commission found that council size has no bearing on cost efficiency – bigger is not cheaper.
That is the model being held up as our future. A Waikato super-council would govern the Coromandel Peninsula from Hamilton, with our catchments, our coastline and our economy reduced to a peripheral ward in someone else’s planning document. The Coromandel’s geography, environment, and community of interest have never fitted a Hamilton-centric structure. Nothing has changed since TCDC said so in 2013.
There is a better path. Thames-Coromandel can submit a stand-alone proposal – or a sub-regional one with Hauraki – built around the Peninsula’s actual catchments and communities or possibly a closer relationship with the greater eastern seaboard – Western Bay of Plenty and possibly Tauranga. The Head Start rules explicitly allow proposals that don’t cover an entire region. Smaller, accountable, locally answerable government is what residents have consistently said they want.
Three months is barely enough to consult, let alone be railroaded. Mayor Revell and our ward councillors need to hear from us now. The question is simple: will TCDC stand up for the Coromandel, or quietly sign us into the next Auckland?
Patrick Kerr, Whangamata
A PRACTICAL SOLUTION
With all the doom and gloom in the world, and especially our own country, we must as individuals stay positive and look for opportunities in the future.
One opportunity I would like to promote is to do with the wonderful facility built at the Whitianga Sports Park off Moewai Road. This complex developed by Hopper Bros. and TCDC would have to be the most professional project in the district. Whilst the construction of the site has been finished, it needs much more work to complete the project and make it financially viable.
My practical solution is to provide an area to hold events and concerts, to bring in the people and provide revenue. Imagine, if you will, a permanent soundshell site built to accommodate up to 5000 people. The benefits of this proposal could be huge, both for Whitianga and the whole district.
These benefits would include:
- A site well above flood levels (all towns in our district are low lying).
- Adequate power supply.
- Large parking areas, 150 + car parks.
- Huge viewing area – covering rugby fields.
- Large convenience block – including paraplegic units.
I must state here that the current complex is well maintained by our Council and is a credit to management and staff.
Well, that is my practical solution for the week and if implemented, could give our Council much needed revenue to survive the future.
Noel S. Hewlett, Whitianga
Unitary authority is not the answer
Who stands to gain from a unitary authority? Not the rate payers!
In the past (from which we need to learn), the TCDC area was spilt into several small local bodies. Each had many interpersonal interactions, and their elected members and local staff had detailed knowledge of their area’s infrastructure.
The pressure from the government commission forced our present local body amalgamation with a cost saving as a carrot. But the citizens saw themselves losing the personal representation that so-called growth would allow. To forestall this, Community Boards and a Mayor were added.
The carrot of cost being less did not happen. Our growing population needed more infrastructure and consultants / contractors to replace the knowledgeable council workers; thus, the rates were raised.
Big is not better. It does not lower the changes; it just spreads them over folk who have already fixed their problems. The real problem is an increasing population with its need for water and sewerage. Councils think this is progress. It is not!
Peter H Wood, Whitianga
CHECK WHAREKAHO POLLUTION FACTS
I read with interest an article (Informer 28 April) by Ady Cole-Ewen entitled “Ongoing pollution confirmed at Simpsons Beach” regarding tests done in April on three samples from stormwater drains along the beach which returned disturbingly high E-coli readings.
I hope that no one casts doubt on the validity of these test results as has been done with one I took on 11 February.
We’re talking about pollution that is potentially dangerous here, especially to small children so I feel I must push back against fact-disputing talk and accusations of “propaganda and scaremongering” that have swirled around:
- Hill Laboratories would never issue a Certificate of Analysis if they had any doubts about the accuracy of test results.
- Notes in their Certificate of Analysis referred to the E-coli test sample being slightly above ideal temperature when it was received. The lab people told me that’s not concerning unless it was higher than at the collection point – which it was not.
- It was at the lab for longer than their norm before the test was done – OK if under 48 hours Hill Labs assure me – which it was.
- Sample was taken by an untrained person – the lab people were confident of my understanding about sterility and avoiding contamination.
A simple phone call to Hill Labs would verify the above.
Other misinformation doing the rounds:
- Samples were taken just after flooding – a heavy rain event was on 21 January, the sample was taken on 9 February , a beautiful day fortunately not in holidays or there would have been young children playing in those beach pools being fed by seepage from the dune behind.
- Pollution comes from beachfront septic tanks – actually septic effluent can leach down until it enters groundwater which can then travel laterally for a considerable distance. Effluent can also be found in waterlogged heavy soils – it may not drain away but end up in stormwater flowing onto the beach, as shown in the April stormwater outlet test.
Many families enjoy beautiful Wharekaho Beach. The danger that it may sometimes be polluted with harmful pathogens (Campylobacter is often found with E-coli) should be known. TCDC should do regular tests and erect warning signage.
Helen Vivian, Wharekaho
