Building more coal-fired power stations is unthinkable in the face of global climate change, a reader writes. Photo / Danielle Zollickhofer
Genie’s out of the bottle
Several letters to the Herald have supported the notion that the “gentailers” could be renationalised.
While most commentators support the notion that the recurring problems in the energy sector have been caused by the botched privatisation in the first place, suggesting we should now spend huge amounts of capital we don’t have renationalising an industry where the genie is already out of the bottle is just plain bonkers.
Mind you, it is not the only bonkers idea in Shane Jones’ ill-considered thoughts on the energy industry.
Equally bonkers is the idea we should build a new coal-fired power station.
How mad is that in a world that is drowning and burning from climate change?
So, hopefully, the coalition Government, which claims it is struggling with insufficient revenue and capital to deal with many services, including healthcare, makes sure Jones is nowhere near that with his flawed thinking.
Already in healthcare, we have a pseudo privatisation with significant amounts of public care and services moving into the hands of the private sector as we don’t appear to have sufficient capital or cash to properly fund the system, let alone the infrastructure upgrades the health industry needs.
Sounds like a “gentailers” debacle all over again.
Neil Anderson, Algies Bay.
Comparing footy styles
It is intriguing to compare Southern Hemisphere rugby teams, using as a measure their countries of origin and the widely varying styles of the games that each brings.
South Africa play a game totally in sync with their national character and circumstances – hard, uncompromising and with no beg-your-pardons.
Australia have yet to show definite style lines but they are moving towards a game that showcases their natural brashness and never-say-die attitudes.
New Zealand’s All Blacks, with their strip colours and their confident demeanor, project high impact, strength and cohesion applied to the play of both their forwards and backs.
The Argentinians, particularly with recent successes and for a country that have won the football World Cup three times, are displaying a rising confidence and panache with each test win they bag.
Given this potent mix of four “southern” champion teams, one or other of them can and likely will win the Rugby World Cup in mid-November 2027.
Larry Mitchell, Rothesay Bay.
Safeguarding free speech
I agree with Jonathan Ayling (Herald, September 12) that free speech is vitally important, especially in maintaining a free and democratic society. However, he appeared to set up a binary opposition between preserving free speech even when “messy, controversial and unsettling” against a situation “where violence becomes the answer to free speech”.
Unfortunately, the situation is not that simple. Some instances of free speech give rise to supporters who troll, abuse and even threaten with violence those who appear to be or are on the other side of the debate.
Perhaps Mr Ayling would comment on how to safeguard free speech in a context where it seems that increasingly discourse is carried on in an uncivil and even violent (if only verbally violent) manner?
Derek Tovey, Glen Eden.
A biased view?
As usual (September 13), Bruce Cotterill manages to slag off something in New Zealand in his column.
This time, it is roads based on his experience in Australia. Clearly, he did not travel on the roads I have used in South Australia, the Northern Territory and Queensland in the last two months.
In South Australia, potholes were the norm and patchwork repairs were everywhere. The other two areas had more than their fair share compared to New Zealand.
Bruce needs to take off his negative glasses and start to see the many wonderful things happening in New Zealand or perhaps leave the country, which would certainly be a morale boost for Aotearoa.
Gil Laurenson, Eastern Beach.
Holding people accountable
Is free speech really threatened?
Well, to start with, societies have never, ever, had absolutely free speech. Profanity, advocacy of illegality or slander are proscribed both here and elsewhere – and these examples are not exhaustive.
So, what is the issue? To me, a lack of safety arises from the untrammelled amplification and algorithmic channelling of opinions via social media. Standing on a soapbox to advocate an opinion is a vastly different proposition from what we see today with the ruthless commercialisation of opinions (truth optional) that become sufficiently controversial to merit amplification and channelling.
Yes, Facebook, X/Twitter and “influencers” praise free speech – not for the noble arguments raised by Mr Ayling (Herald, September 12) – but for unashamed enrichment.
Unfortunately, people don’t always possess discernment and restraint in the face of directed or amplified opinions. The origin of WWII and the anti-democratic and violent behaviours exhibited within the USA today exemplify the unsafe nature of unrestrained amplification and channelling of odium – all under the guise of free speech.
I’d be much happier with the arguments raised by absolutist free-speech advocates if today’s social media channels and their influencers were held liable for the damage they clearly cause.
John P. Moriarty, Paraparaumu.