ration to spend as they wished. Each time a person filled the car with fossil fuels, their total would be reduced. Want an overseas trip? Fine, but a person may have to go easy on car use to save enough carbon credits to cover the air travel. Freight companies would also have a carbon quota. We may see newer more fuelefficient trucks on the road and more rail freight as they have to adapt. Air freighting food would probably end.
Forget planting trees as carbon sinks, and other feel-good projects, carbon emissions will only be reduced by direct limits on emissions by each citizen, and then market forces will determine the technologies to cope with the new environment. Alan Dickson Tauranga
Peter Williams’ piece in Saturday’s
(Opinion, December 1) reiterates a few known facts about the redevelopment of the old Phoenix carpark site: there wasn’t a problem that needed to be solved, the budget was poorly managed, other parking projects will have to be cut to cover the 25 per cent cost over-run, the suggested name is not suitable, and only lip service has been paid to the interests of the city stakeholders – the ratepayers and business people.
Displeased ratepayers can vote out badly-performing councillors at the next election and vote in people who have the proper skills.
However, to be sure the same mistake isn’t made all over again, it would be good to know what the candidates truly stand for, and to find that out they should be asked to provide answers to a set of specific questions about topics such as; how they would ensure that adequate time and opportunity would be given for open consultation with ratepayers and other stakeholders before projects were ticked off as ready to go.
Maybe the could provide a list of questions to every candidate and publish their replies. That would help voters make up their minds. Barry Scott Papamoa Beach
The site of the Phoenix carpark development.