QUOTE
In 1999 Tourism New Zealand launched the "100% pure New Zealand campaign. This campaign was hugely successful not only for tourism industry but agriculture industries as well; In 2002 the Prime Minister stated "...government will work with the private sector to develop a consistent brand image of New Zealand across our industry sectors. As well as being seen as clean and green, we need to be more widely perceived as smart and innovative.” Industry has had to make significant sacrifices to maintain the clean green brand for the benefit of the entire New Zealand economy. By not ensuring that new greenhouse polluting developments like Marsden B are properly scrutinised for their climate-changing impacts, New Zealand as at risk from potential international embarrassments and the undoing of previous investment and damaging to the commitment local industry has put into maintaining Helen Clark's projects and could even be seen as a betrayal by parliament.
Climate change is a real concern, the critics of global warming are having more and more trouble insisting that it is a "natural cycle" and lack reasoning on how carbon emissions released from million year old coal and oil deposits will disappear in a matter of years or how the environment will be able to cope with rapidly increasing carbon levels it has not evolved to deal with. There is no evidence to suggest that gaseous carbon structures like carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and methane do not contribute to global warming and there is no evidence to suggest that burning buried carbon products do not produce gaseous carbon structures.
For these reasons I am seriously concerned about climate change and its irreversible effects, and I am also concerned about the effects of holes in New Zealand’s climate change protection regime on the image of New Zealand in the international market and as a potential role model in the Kyoto Protocol negotiations under the lobby group previously called JUSCANZ. I am disappointed that parliament removed the powers of regional councils to consider greenhouse pollution impacts before a national regulation was introduced, and I am in support of the Resource Management (Climate Protection) amendment to allow regional councils to consider and control greenhouse pollution during the Resource Management Act consent process.
Climate change is a real concern, the critics of global warming are having more and more trouble insisting that it is a "natural cycle" and lack reasoning on how carbon emissions released from million year old coal and oil deposits will disappear in a matter of years or how the environment will be able to cope with rapidly increasing carbon levels it has not evolved to deal with. There is no evidence to suggest that gaseous carbon structures like carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and methane do not contribute to global warming and there is no evidence to suggest that burning buried carbon products do not produce gaseous carbon structures.
For these reasons I am seriously concerned about climate change and its irreversible effects, and I am also concerned about the effects of holes in New Zealand’s climate change protection regime on the image of New Zealand in the international market and as a potential role model in the Kyoto Protocol negotiations under the lobby group previously called JUSCANZ. I am disappointed that parliament removed the powers of regional councils to consider greenhouse pollution impacts before a national regulation was introduced, and I am in support of the Resource Management (Climate Protection) amendment to allow regional councils to consider and control greenhouse pollution during the Resource Management Act consent process.
Not sure how formal I was supposed to be because the government submission guide webpage is down so I left it fairly informal guessing that they probably get bunchs of informal nutters sending them submissions all the time, they will be used to it, note I did include formal headings and such but I took them out when posting. I probably should have proof read it but I'm lazy.
