*FROM PAGE 6

Hauraki Herald - - YOUR LOCAL NEWS -

No mat­ter how well-mean­ing the cor­re­spon­dents, for most of us the in­for­ma­tion is untestable or too spe­cialised to fully un­der­stand.

Ar­gu­ing the sci­ence with non­sci­en­tists spreads con­fu­sion, raises anx­i­ety and provokes in­ac­tion.

The TCDC has con­sid­ered its process re­gard­ing com­mu­ni­ties at risk from in­creased storm dam­age, sea level rise, and at­ten­dant ero­sion is­sues.

This is a good thing, al­beit over­due, and the team em­pow­ered to de­velop it are to be com­mended. Still un­known is when prospec­tive pur­chasers and de­vel­op­ers will be alerted to po­ten­tial inun­da­tion dan­ger.

Even now, they could be di­rected to­wards avail­able known data and fail­ure to do so risks fu­ture fi­nan­cial claims un­nec­es­sar­ily di­vert­ing ratepayer money into pri­vate hands.

Per­haps coun­cil re­mains ten­ta­tive re­gards tim­ing and re­view pro­cesses be­cause of po­ten­tial rat­ing im­pli­ca­tions from de­val­ued prop­erty, home­owner re­sis­tance, de­vel­oper pres­sure, or elected mem­bers’ own un­cer­tainty re­gard­ing the sci­ence.

How­ever, res­i­dents re­main un­in­formed about risk, un­set­tled by global events, and un­easy whether the po­si­tion taken by in­sur­ance com­pa­nies will af­fect prop­erty prices.

Proac­tive steps now, in­volv­ing all in­ter­ested par­ties, could help meet coun­cil with ideas rel­e­vant to strength­en­ing our econ­omy, at­tract­ing in­vest­ment and ac­tive res­i­dents, ben­e­fit­ing ev­ery­one.

New Zealand, choos­ing to ac­cept sci­ence’s con­cerns re­gard­ing CO2 emis­sions, joined the global con­ver­sa­tion. Sci­en­tists will con­tinue to de­bate, test and bring con­cerns to the at­ten­tion of politi­cians and po­lit­i­cal staff, ap­pointed to draw con­clu­sions on our be­half.

So­ci­ety ad­dresses such con­cerns through po­lit­i­cal choices and daily be­hav­iour.

Opin­ions do not change sci­ence, and nei­ther do poli­cies prove it. In­formed Coro­man­del com­mu­ni­ties must de­cide prag­mat­i­cally how the pre­cau­tion­ary prin­ci­ple can ex­tend op­por­tu­nity in this bell­wether dis­trict.

Mark Skeld­ing Thames

main­tains his de­nial of the cause and con­se­quences of the Earth’s spi­ralling cli­mate cri­sis.

If he has, con­trary to the views of the sci­en­tific com­mu­nity, de­vel­oped a novel the­ory that CO2 emis­sions are not the prime cause of the ob­served rapid rise in the Earth’s heat bud­get, then he should sub­mit this for peer re­view and pub­li­ca­tion.

It would be a fas­ci­nat­ing read. But he will face a for­mi­da­ble task: He will not only have to ex­plain why our rapidly ris­ing CO2 con­cen­tra­tion would not cause the well un­der­stood and ob­served in­crease of the green­house ef­fect but also, from where else the sig­nif­i­cant amount of heat en­ergy has come from that is melt­ing our glaciers and warm­ing our oceans and the at­mos­phere.

All this dur­ing decades in which the so­lar ac­tiv­ity has in fact slightly de­clined as Alis­tair well knows him­self.

The ris­ing CO2 con­cen­tra­tions are not help­ful for pro­duc­ing food ei­ther.

Re­search has re­peat­edly shown that food grown un­der higher CO2 con­cen­tra­tions is lower on pro­teins and other es­sen­tial el­e­ments.

Plus, CO2 is def­i­nitely not the lim­it­ing fac­tor for hu­man­i­ties food pro­duc­tion: wa­ter and fer­til­is­ing soil min­er­als are, as our farm­ers too well know! Alastair is sadly mis­taken about all this and he should re­con­sider his views based on the ac­tual ev­i­dence and the sci­en­tific lit­er­a­ture be­fore him in­stead of recit­ing ideas from fringe blog sites or the pro­pa­ganda from the fos­sil fuel in­dus­try.

Thomas Everth, Whi­tianga

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from New Zealand

© PressReader. All rights reserved.