Chiefs should keep name... and emblem!
EXETER Chiefs Rugby Club is currently facing its own “Custer’s Last Stand” as 6,000-plus people are petitioning the club to rebrand its name as they feel ‘Chiefs’ demeans the Native American.
What absolute rubbish! The club’s name could in fact be respectful to the Native American people as well as honouring their history.
I hope the famous Exeter Club not only keeps its name and shirt emblem showing its detractors what the club’s real fans feel about any idiotic rebranding of its famous rugby name.
I don’t think that the club should have axed its Big Chief mascot and replaced it with a ridiculous looking bird.
Club chairman “Big Chief ” Tony Rowe must fight off these petitioners who want to rebrand the club’s wellknown name throughout the rugby world.
I for one, whatever happens in the future, will always look upon the Exeter club as the Chiefs. Of course Exeter’s Labour MP Ben Bradshaw doesn’t agree with me. Oh! What a surprise!
I urge the club to keep its name and its emblem... neither can, by any stretch of the imagination, be demeaning or troubling to the Native American. They are not that thin-skinned!
Colin Richey
Tiverton coal mines in India and following it another about the very poor people in villages there whose only source of cooking and heat was wood and coal – how they (and other villages in the world like them) were expected to cope if coal supplies were not available was not answered.
It is all very well for Boris to ‘jump on the climate change bandwagon’ and say that all these forms of coal, gas or oil energy must stop and the UK must be carbon neutral by 2050 but I do wonder if all those who want to get rid of all our present systems have actually considered what it means to do so and what is going to replace it?
It may be fine to say we are going to get rid of all our polluting vehicles and turn to ones powered by battery, but what happens to industry, trains, ships and aircraft, let alone the general public?
Think of the amount of electric power needed just for industry or powering all the railways every single day. What of ships or aircraft? It is all very well to fly a light plane to the Scilly Isles by battery power but quite another to fly a 400 ton + Jumbo or sail a huge container ship across the Atlantic on battery power.
Boris also plans to build hundreds of thousands of new houses in the future, most if not all of which will have at least one electric car which will probably be plugged in every evening as well as the likelihood of having many other electric appliances including lights going on as well, particularly in the winter.
So the question is, where is all this electricity that will be needed to keep the country working going to come from. Are we seriously considering covering the entire countryside in wind farms and solar panels, but what if the wind does not blow or the sun not shine for a while and we have no coal, gas or nuclear power stations to back it up?
I have no doubt that in time another viable form of energy will be found to enable a carbon free world, but at the moment it is in the land of science fiction and (in my uninformed opinion), won’t be available by 2050 or anywhere near that date (it won’t worry me too much unless I’m 105!) but for the present anyway, we cannot afford to get rid of all our present forms of energy just to please the ecoenthusiasts.
One parting shot: we have been told that we will eventually have to give up our oil or gas-fired heating and install electric radiators or expensive heat pumps – which apparently need electricity to operate.
Has anyone considered that by taking away other forms of energy and replacing everything with electric power that not only are we having our choice taken away but are playing into the hands of the electricity companies (many of whom are in Europe) who will have a monopoly on supply which in turn could enable them to charge what they like?
If proof is needed, look at what is happening to gas prices right now. Paul Mercer
Tavistock have made reference to Steven Koonin’s book “Unsettled …” that argues that climate science is not settled. Much is made of the fact that Koonin was an under secretary for science in the Obama administration. Whilst true, this fact could mislead. I read that Koonin was chosen because of his contrarian views to ensure that the conclusions were robustly challenged.
The fact that the USA under Obama was a signatory to the Paris agreement shows that Koonin’s evidence failed to persuade the experts even if it appears compelling to a lay person.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has always addressed the uncertainties within climate science but that does not mean that everything is unsettled which is the main premise of Koonin’s book.
Some things are more certain in the latest IPCC report released after Koonin’s book. This IPCC report states that it is “unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land”. Elsewhere, statements are made with varying levels of confidence. The IPCC is quite used to dealing with, and working to reduce, uncertainty. It is the nature of science, but we know enough already to take action now.
Further, we should not assume the remaining uncertainty implies that the outcome will be better than predicted – it may be worse. I could paint a really grim picture if I cherrypicked different examples to those chosen by Koonin.
Michael Carter,
Exeter