A question for DOC - when the 1080 pellets leave the factory - it has on its packaging ‘‘the environment destroying symbol’’ but the Department of Conservation and environment councils remove this symbol from any signage that we the public see - why?
Personally - it should be made very clear to the public, that 1080 is deadly to both humans and animals (with the skull and crossbones) and the eco toxic symbol, that specifically states that 1080 destroys our environment.
Diana Halstead, Te Mata
from around the world on the very serious concerns of potentially catastrophic climate change. I take issue with the damage Brickell and others create. Doubt. Doubt leads to apathy which conveniently lead to inaction.
We don’t have to change or do anything about this.
The jury’s still out. For the vast majority of people, the issues of climate change are simply to complex or challenging to confront.
Getting kids to school, balancing household budgets, dealing with stresses and demands of modern life. Considering 2050 or sooner as a potential tipping point is beyond comprehension.
Brickell’s opinions are at odds with the majority of the current and seriously concerned leaders of our world.
The recent RadioNZ interview with Christina Figueres has expressed a proposition in the 2020 publication, that to enact a change in modern lifestyle to avert serious global consequences of climate change has just a threeyear window.
I feel an intense frustration that people such as Brickell are prepared, whether through ignorance or arrogance, to gamble with such incredibly high stakes.
To claim his knowledge and understanding of such matters is contrary to the consensus of the qualified, global scientific and political community.
The outcomes of inaction from the growing body of evidence, including projections and use of computer models, are concerning for our future and more specifically, for the future of all children.
What is the worst case scenario of adopting a more sustainable way of life if for no other reason than to hedge our bets?
Rick Brown, Thames
Frank Coulter imagines a stoat eating a bird alive. Death by stoat is practically instantaneous, the most ‘‘humane’’ type of death you could imagine, incomparable with the drawn out agony of a 1080 death.
I have witnessed both kinds of dying and I would prefer to accept the evidence of my own eyes than the less-informed imaginings of Frank Coulter.
Coulter ignores the fact that for every stoat killed by aerial 1080 many birds are also poisoned in the same operation.
If you want to kill stoats put out some traps. Traps do not poison birds. Adult bird deaths at this time of year mean the deaths of young ones too.
The adults die a slow, excruciating 1080 death and the young ones die an even slower death from starvation.
John Veysey, Coromandel
dence on facts, provide my sources and have never hypothesised about what may cause those facts to be as they are.
Mr Brickell assumes that I believe that human induced rising CO2 levels are causing the world to warm, but I have never said that.
I have said that the world is warming, and that a warmer world causes ice to melt – these are facts and no debate about their cause will change them.
Mr Brickell refers me to the NOAA website. This site confirms that the world is warming, and their ‘ Global Land and Ocean Temperature Anomalies’ tool shows that, since the late 1970s, temperature rise has been significantly above the long-term trend, and the rate has been increasing.
This is just a fact. My problem with that fact is that higher global temperatures will melt ice and the resulting water will flow into the sea (again a prediction, based on the assumption that gravity will keep on working).
Rather than waxing lyrical about GIGO, Leonardo DiCaprio and a ‘‘gullible media’’, could Mr Brickell explain why he thinks that the increased rate of temperature rise will not melt ice at a faster than historic rate, and that this meltwater will not flow into the sea, raising its level?
David Haynes, Hahei