There’s a new campaign out there, which has a certain category written all over it.
The facebook group has 175 members so far. If even half of them actually write a letter, then it will be enough to seriously register on the government’s radar.
Something tells me that John’s not going to pay much attention to letters from people who hate his guts in the first place. And, last I checked, 175 was a very small proportion of hose who voted for the Labour/Green side of the political spectrum.
Loved this paragraph though.
In particular, I am concerned about the draft terms of reference for the select committee, which include a review of the science and a wide-ranging inquiry into every aspect of climate change policy. In my view, this is a mistake. The science is clear: climate change is happening. Rather than questioning that, we should be worrying about how to minimise its impacts on New Zealand and the world.
Here’s where the weasel words kick in: the climate is always changing.
That’s not the question. The real questions are:
1. is it serious (and the science suggesting that sea level will rise by a few cm over 100 years suggests not)
2. is it caused by humans? (maybe it is, that’s possible)
3. if it is, can the international community do anything about it? (um, not really)
4. if we in New Zealand can do anything about it, will we be able to implement those things in time (no!)
5. and finally, will trying to implement “fixes” destroy our way of life. Meaning, will we actually be better off in the balance?
And the answer to that last question is again, a most emphatic no.
I understand that your agreement with ACT commits you to a select committee inquiry. But you don’t have to be a Rodney about it! A review of the science by untrained politicians is simply laughable – not to mention embarrassing. So, I’m asking you to exclude that review from the committee’s terms of reference.
Actually, here I agree. The committee should not review the science.
The scientists have settled the matter. Now, the fact is they’ve settled the matter by shouting down the dissenters, but regardless, they have settled it. They may have settled the matter incorrectly, but now the debate moves to the next question.
That is, what should we do? That is a political question.
I suggest that all the money being spent on the matter be terminated immediately, and half put in a fund to be accessed the day we begin to feel effects of this scientific phenomena, that cannot be explained by variations or bad reporting.
Like, a 1m rise in sea level.
And for Pete’s sake, get some engineers over to Holland already!