We already pay for the landfill
I agree with Ian Miller (Letters, July 20) that it is impossible to participate in modern society without generating waste.
I was alarmed at councillor Iona Pannett’s suggestion that what now costs $10 to dump at the landfill could jump to $40 or more. Such an increase will inevitably lead to more illegal dumping.
But there is a more fundamental reason why it should not be imposed. The Happy Valley landfill is a Wellington amenity and exists for the benefit of the Wellington population. It is offensive if we are to be punished for using it when we pay, through our rates, for its operation.
Why not change the system to allow free drop-off of domestic waste at Happy Valley landfill, with waste to be sorted from recycling. The facility would need to be enlarged to cope but would encourage recycling overall, lessen illegal dumping, provide employment and be part of a unified system. Susan Peacock, Thorndon
The council wants to raise the tip charges to an exorbitant amount to stop people using it.
I am not sure what they expect us to do with excess rubbish in that case.
Residents do not create excess rubbish. This is created by industry, retailers and manufacturers with excess packaging. I suggest therefore that we all take our excess packaging back to the retailer to rid of it. That should cause them to rethink their policies. Diane Cope, Island Bay
Fixation on tourism
I am mystified by the Government’s fixation on investment in tourism while professing to want to transform our economy.
Forget that tourism jobs are often lowly paid. Forget that many parts of the country are already questioning whether we’ve reached peak tourism. The flaw with investing in hiking tracks, church renovations and other tourismrelated development is the same as the flaw in many foreign aid projects: it’s easy to invest in capital projects like dams and wind farms but it’s very hard to make the long-term commitment to investments that really make a difference to society.
If the Government is serious about being transformational then it needs to concentrate on the things that will make a difference to our long-term future: an education system that produces people who can design, build, operate and maintain our 21st-century world, and a business environment that encourages investment in those people.
Finally, I find it hard to understand how the Government’s policy of encouraging millions of people to travel to one of the most remote tourist destinations can be reconciled with its goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. At least the Government is consistent – none of its idealistic notions is supported by a plan or has much contact with the real world.
Ray Wood, Wellington
Hardly green
Minister of Conservation Eugenie Sage says (July 21): ‘‘The best moment was the enthusiastic briefing from a DOC pest programme manager talking about being able to organise 1080 drops without having to go cap in hand for the budget each year.’’ Given her partner, Richard Suggate, is a Conservation Department manager, this smacks of nepotism, and a conflict of interest. In my view, Sage’s ‘‘best moment’’ is as antienvironment as her declared worst moment, allowing the Chinese water bottling company Nongfu Spring to expand.
The Green Party cries out for cleaner rivers and waterways, points fingers at farmers, and then endorses the aerial dumping of toxins like 1080 all over our forests and waterways.
Those of us who really care about the environment do not want increased budgets (our taxes) used simply to buy and dump more poison. The biggest threat to our environment is not introduced species (other than us), it’s chemical toxins.
I used to be a Green supporter. Not any more. The only ‘‘green’’ I see on Sage’s – and the Greens’ – agendas is dyed poison pellets.
Susan Thrasher, Paraparaumu Beach
Low bar
If Tranzit ‘‘couldn’t be prouder’’ of the way its team had pulled together’’ (July 23), then it must set its bar for satisfaction very low.
Margaret Dickie, Lyall Bay