Friday, June 21, 2019

IS IT RESPONSIBLE?


Started by wannabe pollies in Canterbury Regional Council and Nelson City Council, a new divergence from the traditional understanding of the word "emergency" in local body governance has become ever more attractive to radical elements of the Church of Climate Change as a tactical weapon.

That the climate is changing, no argument. Causes, many not fully discovered. But that man will end the planet in short order? Utter bovine male (entire) excrement. The world continues to emerge from the last "Ice Age". Were it not so, there would be nothing like the wonderful, diverse world we have -   now almost able to feed a still-expanding population, in an outstanding accomplishment of man harnessing his intelligence. Substantial  progress that has - since Agincourt, when that hail of arrows from English archers signalled the end of the world as then known - fuelled almost endless predictions that the world was doomed.

As a child of the 1940s I can say that famine was a very real problem for much of the then world. It was almost inevitable for much of  Africa and some of Asia. Communist revolutions managed to perpetrate horrific famines by fiat on their large rural communities in demanding increased levy of produce for the then expanding urbanisation, as a part of the centralised master plan. Famine is something that can be called an "emergency", especially for those starving to death, not so much for the ruling elite.

The recent earthquakes were for many another emergency, as were the localised flooding events  in South Westland, and the fires in Nelson last summer.

Normally declaring an emergency is a step a Mayor and his council can take to deal with an unfolding situation where extraordinary powers to ensure order, safety and security can be invoked, powers that can be quite draconian. The scope of those powers and some ramifications that ensue, lead to a degree of reluctance in coming to such a declaration, for those so charged with the responsibility.

In my ever-humble opinion, the employment of the term 'emergency' recently embarked upon by some elected representatives of the citizenry as a virtual-signalling, attention-grabbing exercise around "climate change" is very irresponsible.

There is a serious threat to the community understanding of when circumstances require a real emergency. Ho hum - might delay with fatal consequences a call to action that declaring a "State of Emergency" involves.

Some of us are old enough to recall a popular children's fable about the "Boy Who Cried Wolf". The guts of that Aesop fable had a boy looking after sheep falsely crying Wolf" just to see the frantic reactions of the villagers. Of course when a real wolf came calling and ate the sheep those same villagers ignored his cries, and in some versions - added as a better illustration of the Boy's stupidity -    the wolf ate the little shepherd boy also. Now that made for a lesson to be learned. All-in-all, just like the other fables of Aesop, there was a vital bit of wisdom for all children.

There have also been in recent times, images of impressionable youngsters being employed as props and participants  in street demonstrations by adherents of The Church of Climate Change - even to the point of being terrified of the impending death of the planet with tears and palpable fear in abundance.

At a point in time where a bunch of manipulative unscrupulous politicians have embarked on a policy target including kindness, honesty and transparency, and also highlighting the recent "wellbeing Budget" towards "solving" the mental health epidemic they claim is crippling so many citizens, is it not just a wee bit stupid to be scaring the bejezus out of "vunerable" "kids"? As if giving clear signals that increased use of Weed will not do enough to give sufficient problems going forward in mental health activities.

Carbon, element number six on the periodic table, has been front-and-centre of almost all the massive advances in human development since the Ice retreated, and it will remain so for as far as most thinking people understand. Plant growth, plastics, fuel for vehicular transport of people and goods, clothing, chemicals for fertilizers and pest control, energy for cooking, heating and life itself, just would not exist without Carbon and its many compounds. Facts that man has successfully embraced and employed as an adjunct to what nature has been delivering since the dawn of time.

My response to the post header is a resounding "NO'

3 comments:

Paulus said...

Agree entirely - up tick.

Tom Hunter said...

I wouldn't worry about it too much Gravedodger.

Ordinary people understand the true meaning of the word, even after it gets hijacked for something like this. They'll still listen and react when a real emergency is announced by the powers that be. In the meantime they'll just roll their eyes.

And they'll be aided by this in observing that these "Climate Emergencies" will run out breath as soon as the next election has passed and as soon as the politicians realise how bad the backlash would be if they actually treated it as an emergency, with things like the rationing of petrol, gas and electricity, as in wartime.

Hell, I'm still waiting for all those passionate, committed children to follow up their "Climate Change Strike" with a public campaign to dial the clock back 70 years and commit to getting to school by foot, bike, horse or any means other than private car. But somehow I can't see the likes of the EGGS darlings forgoing Mummy and her Remuera tractor.

So it will be with the rest of this. So it is with the rest of the world. I hear talk of a World War II-type effort: I see little evidence beyond tinkering with subsidies, taxes and regulations. Local government in NZ will not even reach that level of free-enterprise nudging, even as we're told it's an emergency.

I'll treat it as a crisis when people calling it a crisis start acting like it's a crisis.

The Veteran said...

Just another reason why local government rates just below used car salesmen in peoples estimation.