Big brother gone nuts Set short-term goals

How outrageous that the cops have banned 14-year-old entrepreneur Johnny O’Neill from riding his lawnmower on the road towing his trailer with his equipment (Nov 9). He is not in the middle of Lambton Quay – it is in a country town in the South Island.

Here he is, showing how kids can be successful at a young age.

What sort of a message does this send to anyone, let alone a youngster – that the powers of be will stop you earning an honest, hard-earned dollar and make life difficult right from the outset.

Look at Lime scooters, e-bikes, skateboard riders and many others on the road and footpaths. How many millions of dollars is ACC paying for their injuries! When did you hear of an injury from a ride-on mower on a road in a country town?

It’s big brother going nuts again and coming down heavy on an inspirational, ambitious, young man.

Maybe they will be happier if he gave up his business and, when he finishes school, goes on the dole or gets into crime.

Is it any wonder kids are seeing no hope, committing suicide, dealing in drugs etc, when this is what they witness.

I wish him the very best in life.

John Baylis, Wainuiomata [abridged]

I feel sorry for Johnny O’Neill . . . but have some advice for him. Disguise the mower as an NZ Post buggy and stick to the footpath. If it’s good enough for them to get away with it, it’s good enough for you. And good on you.

Roger Wright, Hastings

GE caution sensible

Peter Griffin (Greens cherry-pick science to suit needs, Nov 4) in his grumble about the Greens’ caution toward the new gene modification technologies compares it to the enthusiasm the Greens show toward climate science. But he ignores the differences between the two situations, which is primarily ethical.

The relationship between atmospheric CO2 and global warming is not a complicated science. It’s been known for 150 years that a higher concentration of CO2 will warm the Earth.

To understand how this will play out in terms of climate and weather is less specifically known and climate scientists have proven to have been overly cautious in their warnings. The ‘‘post truth’’ denial of human-induced climate change arises out of the realisation that humanity’s exploitive relationship with the planet is to blame and requires fundamental changes which may not be acceptable ideologically.

By contrast, unknowns of long-term or unexpected effects of the human invention of gene modification technologies are much greater. Ethically, caution is required. The Greens are cautious of the human impact in both cases. The ‘‘cherry-picking’’ Griffin sees is an illusion and is ideologically based. Richard Keller, Wellington

It’s not OK

In just two words – ‘‘OK Boomer’’ – 25-year-old millennial superstar Chlo¨ e Swarbrick put down whichever opposition MP was foolish enough to interrupt her. She made that person’s views, experience, arguments and analysis look silly, irrelevant and foolish.

Clearly whatever they, the older generation, had to say was wrong, out of date and just not up with the woke generation that she represents. Well done, Chlo¨ e. Quite an achievement in just two words, which were not even original.

Consider the other point of view: in two words she also showed how facile, trite and intellectually shallow her thinking is, and the enthusiastic response from her millennial colleagues confirms that the inter-generational issues are not about reasoned factual debate. On the contrary, it is about finding ways to trumpet their own self-declared intellectual superiority.

The millennials are so, so right and the baby-boomer generation is so, so wrong about everything. What a breathtaking piece of arrogance, but quite typical. This is why so many baby boomers (and I am one of them) dislike, and even despise, what passes for argument these days.

Denigration is easy. Finding enduring solutions is not. Chlo¨ e hasn’t learned that yet. A pity.

John Bishop, Karori

In primary schools, we teach students to make S.M.A.R.T goals: specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and timebound. What about our new zero emissions by 2050 ‘‘goal’’ is SMART? The proposed climate change commission’s five-yearly carbon budget ‘‘advice’’ is the usual non-binding wet paper.

Our governments need to set shortterm milestones when they make longterm promises. These need to be triennial and clearly stated by the current government, so the public knows before the next election if the government is doing enough.

All we have now is a system that allows governments to tell voters what they want to hear without actually doing anything that will hurt parts of their voter base or our economy in the short term.

Later generations of politicians (and the New Zealand public) will have to face the consequences when we fail to meet these goals. Let us start holding our ministers to the same standard we expect from schoolchildren . . . at the very least. Matthew Shepherd, Woburn

Being carbon neutral will be wonderful but Kiwis will buy electric cars, install solar and batteries when it’s economic to do so and not because politicians say they want it.

The latest legislation is unlikely to have any effect even if Europe and the US go carbon neutral as Asia and Africa will be having large population increases and using coal to generate electricity. In other words the legislation is a waste of time and our money.

Doug Brennan, Brooklyn

Fiery plantation risk

l see the fallout of foreign ownership of our land to plant pine forests in large numbers but has the Government considered the threat of forest fires, which has occurred in other countries.

The real worry is we have not the infrastructure to cope with large-scale fires, such as aircraft thats used overseas. You only had to see the trouble they had last year in the hills of Christchurch – it took days to put out a small fire compared to the ones in Australia.

Leonard F Rumbold, Paparangi

New model needed

Karl du Fresne wrote in defence of capitalism (Doco ignores inconvenient facts, Oct 31). Since the 1980s the prevailing model of capitalism has been neo-liberalism which deliberately puts private interests ahead of public.

The philosophy was developed by economists like Hayek, Friedman and Popper and found fertile ground in the excessive and centrally controlled economies of the 1960s and ’70s.

In New Zealand central control reached its apotheosis under the Muldoon governments of 1975-84. The country had had enough and voted Muldoon into history. The Lange/Douglas revolution ushered in a new era.

But at the interface of people and economics today’s solution will always carry the seeds of tomorrow’s problems.

The neo-liberal revolution of the 1980s led inexorably to an increasing gap between rich and poor and the privatisation of so much of the public domain, from the Amazon basin to Canterbury’s water resources.

Faced with existential threats of climate change, a population explosion, the delusion of endless growth and a highly combustible gulf between rich and poor there is an obvious need for a new model.

The good news is that many good minds are working on this. The bad news is that those who benefit so greatly from the present model will resist all the way. Geoff Prickett, Waikanae

Russell Armitage (Letters, Nov 11) thinks we need a new reformed capitalism, in the name of fairness. Everywhere the fairness bait has been accepted, it’s ended with everyone being equally poor.

Capitalism works even when some see it as unfair. China adopted capitalism and it has dragged its people out of poverty, creating as it has done so, a devide between rich and poor, but the poor, not as poor as they were before.

This process has greatly raised the percentage of wealthy, and decreased the percentage of poor. No other system has done this.

If China also adopted democracy the people would have the pleasure that freedom bestows – freedom that makes people more happy than money does. Garth Scown, Whanganui