Cathedrals of nothing

It is all too easy, when single-minded purpose is the imperative, to forget, or overlook, what appear to be peripheral concerns, but which on closer inspection are actually very important.

I refer to the monocultures of trees, most likely Pinus radiata, that will be needed to offset New Zealand’s carbon footprint (Sea of pines to balance carbon budget, Oct 12).

Monocultures, are, in reality, devoid of biodiversity. They are mostly unsuitable for the lives of pollinating insects; bees, beetles, moths, butterflies, and flies, as well as pollinating birds. Where is the nectar for tu¯ ı¯ in a pine tree flower? How many honey bees or bumble bees are seen in pine forests? They are cool, dark cathedrals of nothing but pine needles, and a source of suffering to thousands of humans allergic to their pollen.

It is bad enough now, but what will be the result when the area planted could be more than five times the current land cover?

This planet is full of interacting complexities and feed-back loops. Shortsighted concerns for whatever moral or financial reasons ride roughshod over biological diversity with potentially disastrous consequences. It behoves the Government to think carefully before committing New Zealand to ecological poverty.

Allen Heath, Woburn

No to extra tax

Re Should wealthy pensioners pay more tax? (Oct 9), no, why should they? Many ‘‘wealthy’’ pensioners are in that position because they have worked hard, not squandered their money (because a lot feel a duty to leave an inheritance to their family) and saved for their old age.

If they were high earners they have probably already paid high taxes.

Whilst I appreciate that not all ‘‘poor’’ people are in that position by their own design, there are many who don’t give a thought to what they spend and expect to get welfare support if they run out.

Working in a bank I discovered that a lot of people on a benefit – and I say a lot, not all – refer to it as their pay. For most of those the funds are usually spent within two or three days of receiving it and it’s everyone else’s fault when they run out.

This behaviour is inevitably transferred to older life. I have seen so many parents in their 80s and 90s bailing out ‘‘children’’ in their 60s and 70s, even if they don’t have a lot to spare themselves.

Invariably those in older age, who realise they do not need all the money they have, support charitable causes. The

‘‘wealthy’’ who need care are already penalised; if they have money they have to pay thousands of dollars every month to be looked after, whereas those without will get the same level of care and are funded by the state.

This already encourages people to spend all they have and taxing the ‘‘wealthy’’ will encourage more of this behaviour. There must be other ways of funding the superannuation scheme.

Look at it this way, when a wealthy person dies, others benefit from their estate and they, in turn, become less of a burden on the state.

Julie Course, O¯ taki

Perhaps wealthy pensioners should pay more tax, but only along with the rest of wealthy New Zealanders.

The first thing the last National government did was to lower the tax rate for the wealthy, promising everyone else would get tax cuts as well, which never eventuated in the nine years it was in power. The top tax rate has never been so low in my 74 years.

It is obvious this is not going to work given that the social framework of New Zealand is rapidly disintegrating and more money needs to be allotted to health, education and vital social services.

The ever sensible Scandinavian countries have very high tax rates for the wealthy to ensure everybody, including the wealthy, has free access to good healthcare, education, social welfare and much more besides. This makes for a much more homogenous society, without the divisive, but understandable, complaining from the wealthy that we get here that they pay for everybody else’s social needs while still being made to fork out for their own.

Stephen McCarthy, Nelson

Facile runway argument

I am surprised at the naivety of the climate argument against the extension of the Wellington runway (Oct 11). It seems to be: more long-haul flights, therefore more carbon emissions, therefore bad, therefore don’t.

A new, higher level of carbon emissions is not related to the length of our runway. It is related to the overall demand for travel. If Wellington keeps its short runway then travellers can keep flying to Auckland (as they do now) and on to Asia. We can keep emitting more carbon to fly to Asia because we are flying further.

The number of passenger departures across the globe increased by 38 million in 2018, a total of 4.3 billion compared with 4b in 2017, according to the International Civil Aviation Organization.

Flying is here to stay. There is no point sticking our heads into the short-runway sand and hoping problems will go away.

If we are to halt global warming then it will be by technological means not by restricting business and trying to shame people with flawed, facile arguments. Keith Thomas, Silverstream

Leave the ‘old’ alone

Two articles on Friday, which, had they appeared on the same page, would have obviated the need for this letter.

The first was the ever-bitter Verity Johnson’s standard diet of attacking people older than her. This time, it was because ‘‘anyone over 30’’ apparently reacted incorrectly towards the mostly young people protesting about climate change.

The second article concerned the awarding of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry to, wait for it . . . three old men, the youngest of whom is 71, the oldest 97.

Does Johnson have any idea how much these three old men have contributed towards combating climate change? Their work on lithium-ion batteries has contributed far more than all the world’s protesters put together.

Don’t get me wrong, like millions of other ‘‘old’’ people, I hold Greta Thunberg in very high esteem for the magnificent manner in which she has brought the urgency of climate change to the fore.

However, we need to understand that attacking ‘‘old’’ people is retrogressive and we would gain far more with the carrot than we would with the stick.

Bill Murray, Tawa

Power imbalance

Re Joy Cowley’s comments on clergy relationships with young women (Oct 12), I beg to differ. It seems she has not taken into account the power dynamics involved in the abuse of adults by clergy.

The power differential comprises, among other things, the discrepancy in ages, in gender, in role and in status. Another layer of power is added if there has been a specific pastoral care situation.

Where there is greater power, there is greater responsibility for keeping interactions safe for both parties. It is these factors which have appropriately influenced the Catholic response to the cases currently in the spotlight.

Trish McBride, Broadmeadows

Lester wrong

Justin Lester believes he lost the Wellington mayoralty because voters mistakenly believed that his council was responsible for the bus fiasco. Politicians of any ilk are likely to lose when they become arrogant.

Wellington voters are well aware that it is the regional council which has responsibility for public transport, not the city council. Lester would do well to credit voters with some intelligence. Marris Weight, Ngaio

Awful to contemplate

Re online voting, there must be vastly more experience in this area, both in New Zealand and around the world, before that way of voting can be rationally attempted. The creative skill of hackers will be immensely stimulated in trying to wreck such a procedure. Hackers achieving success in wrecking any election anywhere is too dreadful to contemplate. And the real reasons for low turnout don’t have much to do with the way of voting. John Morgan, Mt Cook