Letters to the Editor - share your letters here

Submitted by Gareth Hughes on Wed, 15/07/2009 - 14:36

The Government's public consultation over an emissions reduction target for NZ wraps up on Friday. The Government then scurries behind closed doors to make its decision on how much we should cut our emissions by by 2020.

This decision is obviously crucially important!

And we need to continue to make our voices heard.

The letters to the editor pages are one of the most widely read sections of the paper. With the Government about to make a call, we need a letters blitz.

Please, if you do one thing for the planet this week, take fifteen minutes out and pen a letter to your local paper. Whatever way you want to call for 40 by 2020 is great, but below are some tips:

Letter Writing Tips:

* Keep it Short and Simple. Maximum 200 words and use short sentences.
* Funny/clever letters are more likely to be published and to stick in people's minds.
* Your letter is most likely to get published if the letter is REACTING to articles or letters in the paper (Like Jim’s article)
* Check your spelling, for grammar and clarity in your ideas.
* You must include the date, your name and address and day-time phone number, in case the newspaper wants to verify that you are the real author of the letter or wants to check detail/s (usually they don't).

The points you want to stress are:

* NZ needs John key to sign on at Copenhagen to 40% emission reduction targets by 2020. It's now or never.
* Time is running out to avoid catastrophic climate change, but we do still have a chance. This is the year we must do it and Copenhagen is the place. It’s now or never.
* Per capita New Zealand is one of the five worst carbon emitters in the developed world and has increased it’s emissions since 1990.
* NZ must do the right thing – the only way we’ll deal with climate change is every country doing its bit.
* NZ’s clean green reputation is at risk – the way we deal with climate change will make or break our clean green reputation.
* Solving the climate crisis will help solve the economic crisis
* There is a Global Green Revolution that’s transforming the economy with clean energy and green jobs – lets not let that pass NZ by

‹ 1 MILLION TONNES OF CARBON SAVED PER ANNUM... BUT IS THE TURITEA WIND FARM A GOOD IDEA? Twenty ideas that could save the world ›

John from Taupo's letter

pic
Submitted by Gareth Hughes on Fri, 31/07/2009 - 11:41.

Taupo Times Article - 28 July 09

Greenpeace believes that developed countries like New Zealand need to be signing on to a 40% by 2020 emissions reduction target at Copenhagen. This matter is being debated at the moment by the Minister of the Environment in preparation for the UN conference later in the year.

A NZIER-Infometrics report on the macro-economic impacts of climate change policy states if the target is 40% it would cost $3000 per capita per year, while if the target is 15% the cost is $1400. This advice is meant to guide us on the costs to the economy of different targets.

I am not sure that this economic analysis is comparing the right things. The science says that unabated emissions will produce certain consequences to the climate, such as more frequent extreme weather events. Such events might be more Cyclone Bolas, extreme and more frequent floods and the like. We can picture a state of the world with unabated climate impacts, but I think it is extremely difficult to cost that out except in broad economic terms. The valid comparison is to then compare that state of the future with abated impacts, where we attempt to minimise the adverse consequences through preventive actions we take now.

I am not at all convinced that the economic reports are comparing these future states. I do wonder whether economists have the tools to do such comparisons. It was reported this week that a group of economists have apologized to the Queen for not predicting the current economic recession. Given the difficulty of analyzing current trends in the economy, it follows we need a great deal of skepticism about economic predictions for 2020 or 2050.

The economist Nicholas Stern, among other things noted:
• The benefits of strong, early action considerably outweigh the costs.
• What we do now can have only a limited effect on the climate over the next 40 or 50 years, but what we do in the next 10-20 years can have a profound effect on the climate in the second half of this century.

My conclusion is to give greater weight and prominence to the science and ethics of climate change, and very little weight to the economic models. Christians start with a commitment to care for the creation.

John Howell
Minister, St Paul’s Union Church (Methodist – Presbyterian)

Letter to John Key re. Keish Castle-Hughes comment 8.Aug.09

pic
Submitted by Robert Lawton on Wed, 05/08/2009 - 14:15.

Hon John Key
Prime Minister

Dear Prime Minister,

I was disappointed to find an article in today’s NZ Herald where you are quoted as saying "My advice to Keisha is this: Stick to acting" in regards to her involvement with the 40% by 2020 Sign On campaign. The quote is said to have come from a recent public address to business people in Brisbane.

I do not believe this is a fair comment to make. I do not understand why you consider her personal position on carbon emission targets as out-of-place. Your comment seems to imply that she is getting involved in something that she has no place to be involved in. I do not believe this to be the case. She is not claiming to be a scientist or an expert, she is simply claiming to care.

Like Ms Castle-Hughes, I support the Sign On campaign. I appreciate that there are many difficulties associated with a 40% reduction target but I believe that our country should commit to it. It would be a sad event if we do not do as much as we can now in the attempt to reduce the effects of climate change for future generations.

Thank you for your time.

Yours sincerely,

Robbie Lawton

Here's my letter to Southland Times

pic
Submitted by Gareth Hughes on Wed, 19/08/2009 - 15:54.

Here's my letter to Southland Times

Eric Roy makes a ridiculous suggestion in his 19 August article that to achieve a 40% emissions reduction target by 2020 we would need to ‘essentially stop driving all vehicles, euthanise ruminant animals and stop using electricity.’ No wonder the Government has set a disappointing and highly conditional 10-20% target for the Copenhagen climate talks with blatant scaremongering like this. The fact is Kiwis are a can-do nation with ample emission reduction options, many at profit for individuals, businesses, and farmers (without resorting to Roy’s methods). 100% renewable electricity is achievable by 2020 and coupled with energy efficiency initiatives (that save households money) the emissions that come from the electricity sector could be substantially reduced. Low emissions ‘smart farming’ can reduce agricultural emissions by up to 30 per cent and give NZ farming new profitable markets for climate conscious global consumers. Integrated public transport solutions and road vehicle fuel efficiency can reduce transport emissions by 50 per cent by 2020 and make our towns and cities healthier and safer. The options are there. We just need leadership from John Key to do what the science says is needed and adopt a 40% target to give us a chance to avoid catastrophic climate change and protect our valuable clean and green brand.

This Sums Up any Argument

Submitted by Dale Williams on Sun, 06/12/2009 - 00:50.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ&feature=fvw

Home › Forums › General ›