Can we trust our government to make decisions about Climate Change?

Can we trust even Greenpeace to inform us correctly?

A few weeks ago, I received an email from Greenpeace saying they are missing my name (signature) on their most recent plea to the Government to take more action on Climate change. Here is my response. 

 Dear Greenpeace, you are missing my name for a reason. 

I wish you would examine some of the solutions being presented by government and mainstream media and ascertain whether they are indeed in any way effective.  And examine more closely the causes of the so-called extreme climate crisis.

“Solutions” that have been offered are those that now prove to be just as polluting in their manufacture and NOT renewables at all. Ones that also offer more profits for the giant corporations that are virtually singlehandedly destroying our natural world. For example, electric cars whose manufacturing is worse for climate change than if we kept driving old cars, and the glaring problem with lithium for their batteries. The mining pollution to get lithium for electric cars, and the exploitative use of child labour is shocking. A crime against the environment and people. The hypocrisy is terrible.

Also, even electricity required for electric vehicles itself generates more pollution. I remind you we are still importing coal, and it’s likely to accelerate as we need to generate a lot more electricity.  Yet …. it’s still hailed globally as a solution!!

This pushing of poorly thought through solutions would not happen if broad scientific debate happened BEFORE power hungry big businesses and their supporters rushed to monetise climate change. Same old same old. Many great ideas have been silenced – or not received monetary backing because they compete with the polluters who are greedy beyond sanity.

If an organisation like you wants to encourage us to demand our government to “keep us safe” – when none of their policies acknowledge the role of huge corporates polluters – then it’s disturbing. In whom do we trust?  You could stand up more for exploration of true facts and solutions.  Then we can be sure that any action has been thoroughly scrutinised and informed by independent experts – not just a few favoured government advisors. Major policy solutions – if the impending climate apocalypse is at all true – cannot be made based on computer modelling which have so many shortcomings.

If you go back to the 1980’s – the first computer modelled warnings of climate change were that we were approaching another Ice Age, not global warming. The gap between the real world and the modelled world tells us that we are far from understanding climate change – and really just tossing around various ideologies rather than actual climate science. A group of 1501 scientists in a recent report, World Climate Declaration, said this:

“Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. Scientists should openly address uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of their policy measures.”

15-minute C0₂ zero cities, for example, is not a solution that should not be supported without extensive public and scientific debate. It’s being snuck in so quietly that the average person who doesn’t read local council websites (just about everyone!) do not realise that it’s underway.

If 15-minute cities (smart cities) are being designed to lead to zero C0₂ emissions – then let’s talk about that for starters – the C0₂ claim.   Many scientists conclude C0₂ levels have not changed in any way differently from how they have fluctuated in thousands and thousands of years. Climate models currently blow up the effect of greenhouse gases such as C0₂. In addition, they ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with C0₂ is beneficial. It’s plant food. Not poison.  I don’t know who is correct, but it is seriously worthy of debate from a broad range of experts if Zero C0₂ is the goal of these proposed 15-minute smart cities.

Unless such a debate takes place, increasing surveillance and lockdown in the name of climate change is an unacceptable risk. Smart cities are surveillance cities.

The potentials for the erosion of privacy and democracy must be examined. Otherwise, the climate change agenda can be used in harmful ways without having any real relationship with saving us from climate change and the end of the world.

Only people who are encouraged to think they are helpless and need govt to invent the solutions, – would allow excessive control measures to evolve in the quiet. Where are you on that Greenpeace? Can you help us here? Can you ask the necessary questions?

I am not an anti-climate change theorist but most of our ecosystem damage is done on a gigantic level by huge corporates who rape the earth as if they are above the law. And they are above the law. There is no disputing this but so little said of it …like the proverbial elephant in the room. Mainstream media barely touch on other scientific thinking and the conflicting history of the climate change narrative. Other than call it a myth. How can we know this is a true crisis – and if not why all this incredible hype that is not based on fully debated science?

If people are being censored, and the current narrative is being desperately clung to – this does not give me hope. Normally, if there is nothing underhand going on, scientists, and politicians, are happy to be challenged.  Rather than increase censorship, and call questioners “climate deniers” surely the powers that be should focus on promoting good climate science debate rather than just removing content they do not like.  It’s happening big time like it did during Covid. There is something not right going on – and I would hope Greenpeace would ask the important questions.

Your current campaign supports a false belief that the government can help fix this when thousands of independent climate scientists are being ignored. Conflicting data exists and must be talked to. Our government clearly does not want to address this.  It seems it is less about climate change than political and capitalist greed of entities so large that can easily cover their arses. How? By perpetuating the idea that only personal at home responsibility will make a profound difference, and the falsehood that government knows best, and are a reliable benign source of critical data and solutions.

I do not want to support the belief that the goverment will do anything truly meaningful without open thorough debate, and I do not support the idea that we are helpless.

Responsibility just needs be given where responsibility is due. Our changing our habits which most will willingly do will mean nothing if the real wreckers don’t change theirs. Sadly, these giant corporations are in bed with governments, media, and many of our institutions, and have been for a long time.  I have concerns now that this rush on climate change fear is a mere support for governments to control our lives in ways that are not necessary. Prove me wrong, please.

I would like to see Greenpeace explore the habitually “un talked about” more. Great solutions have been bypassed in favour of big business interests – a small one percent who are responsible for 75% of the problem.  They are uniquely able to solve this problem when individuals and governments cannot. And their trillions of profits from wrecking the earth can facilitate it.

Yep, their trillions of dollars of profit could be put to good use solving the issue – as nothing we people can do in 15-minute smart cities will have any effect. (It represents as little 0.0001% of the global problem and a total waste of costly infrastructure limiting people’s movements, when there are far more feasible and democratic ways of addressing it.)

Zero C0₂ is named as an objective – and only a little exploration shows us that it could be a flawed objective. C0₂ is not the sole problem if it is a problem at all – the continued destruction of ecosystems, and monstrous pollution by the 1% is the more obvious problem.  Most kiwis are environmentally aware and do what they can about their own footprint without legislation to do so. The only help we need from governments is for them to stop the greedy lobbyists, and demand limits be made on big corporations who continue to profit by polluting more than ever.

This is what should happen NOW. First.

Let’s not give them more power in this tyranny by asking the government, or any government, to take action in mostly meaningless old narrative ways. We could be one of the most environmentally aware nations on earth, stop having cars, recycle the hell out of everything – whist every day the actions of even one plundering corporation puts a billion times more pollution back into our seas, earth, and sky. Each day they put more pollution than a billion cars exhaust back into the atmosphere. Makes not using cars anymore a tad meaningless.

We are not helpless in taking personal action about living with more respect for the environment – but we don’t focus our efforts on the real roots of this “crisis”. Our government, both Labour and National, have become more undemocratic than ever.  I do not want to sign a campaign that might mean that with little transparency our government will do what they think best, with no debate. I don’t want to say I give them the right to bring on very poorly examined solutions.

We are only helpless in what the government will not do about big businesses role in this so-called crisis.  It’s simple stop the giant polluters – and face up to the fact that electric cars exacerbate the problem, as does solar and wind energy – the making of which also requires fossil fuels and pollutes in a major way. These are poor solutions except for the manufacturers who profit from the Green Revolution.

The great irony is there are even more toxic solutions coming from our government AGAINST both public and expert opinion. This includes polluting our drinking water with chlorine and fluoride despite many local bodies standing up to try and prevent it.  Where do you stand on this Greenpeace?  These enormous issues, including, the fast to market health risks of 5g, make almost any attempt at the usual solutions to live in a clean environment …. null and void.

Hey, while we’re talking about clean healthy living and limiting climate change factors – why not a campaign to investigate the increasing use of chemtrails and weather modification technology.

Concerns about the ignoring of chemtrails and weather manipulation technology are again not being responded to by government, despite it being around for decades. That is long enough for the data from USA alone to clearly be damning. Chemtrails and weather modification, supposedly developed to help climate change, are now revealed to be destroying forests, and the ability of plants (our food) to get the sun for the photosynthesis they need. And the obvious, harming people and animals’ health with the toxins that fall from the air into the land and waterways.  Its madness that such developments are now being used in NZ regularly. One must ask how does that climate interference effect weather patterns? How can mainstream media claim climate change is to blame for Cyclone Gabriella, when no such scientific claim can be made?  It’s not a one-dimensional narrative, even more so when weather modification and its effects are not investigated.  It’s Carbon tunnel vision – and you don’t have to be a scientist to know that the facts and contributions to climate are not complete, the solutions are not anywhere near well thought through – and the debate on all of that is being silenced.  Sound familiar?

I don’t want to believe that Greenpeace is now becoming part of the problem. Your language seems to indicate that you too are not questioning what we have been fed about all this in the last few decades.  You too seem to be turning a blind eye to the other realities of our polluted world. How do you think people feel when they commit to leading a responsible life and care for the environment when the huge corporations are getting away with global ecosystem murder?

In summary, this “Cause” you want me to sign to me misses the point. It’s easier to speak urgently about that narrative than to get to the real roots of it.  That is why I will not sign it. It ignores again the seeds of both real responsibility and real solutions. Why would I want to give my name to this cause when it can be used by an ineffectual government to justify (by the number of people asking for more action) bringing in more ineffectual solutions. Ones that can hugely affect our democratic rights in smart “surveillance” 15-minute cities – perhaps for no real reason at all.

It would be nice to get a reply from you about this.

Sincerely,

Jennie Hatherley

PS. To drive this “cause” you make the unsubstantiated claim that is very popular in mainstream media, that the floods in the North, Auckland and Hawkes Bay were a direct result of climate change. We will always as kiwis, help our fellow kiwis in such events, but to use this hardship as a tool to make people fear when there is not necessarily any correlation shows little integrity, and no exploring other factors. How can we, knowing how the government’s response was so bad, want to call out to them to do what they think is best about climate change? I don’t think so.