At a 'Meet the Candidates' evening, just prior to the last election, I asked a question of all the current councillors attending, and those putting their names forward, as to who would back a then rumoured cost escalation of up to $50 million for the Sarjeant rebuild. I asked if that cost was going to be passed on to local ratepayers. Only three of the around 20 candidates present voted yes.
Now, in March 2022, the new estimated cost is $64.4 million - just over double the original estimate. [Editor's note: the current council contribution to the redevelopment stands at $5 million, but the mayor has said council will have to look at covering some of the $9.4 million increase in costs]
Currently the costs are escalating by $500,000 per month. There is a real possibility of the final cost being in the vicinity of $77 million to $100 million.
It's certainly a magnificent building, but at a huge cost to ratepayers, resulting in higher debt, higher rates and less money to spend on other local infrastructure.
This council needs more transparency and accountability. And a reminder - it is election year this year.
Dave Hill
Whanganui
It's been wild
It's good to see Rob Rattenbury (Monday, January 31) reminding us that while our attention has been on dealing with Covid-19, climate change has not taken time off and, in case you hadn't noticed, there have been a number of extraordinary weather events.
From huge tornadoes out of season in the US, major flooding in the UK and, by the way, two intense rain events on the West Coast of New Zeland within six months.
Turn the page and there is an opinion piece by Paul Catmur about cryptocurrency. Forget the pyramid overtones, the process of creating Bitcoin to spend or trade consumes around 91 terawatt-hours of electricity annually, more than is used by Finland, a nation of about 5.5 million.
This is a good reason not to "mine" Bitcoin - much of it uses coal-fired electricity, but, even if, as they claim, a good portion of this power comes from renewables, hydro and wind, for example, this electricity should be replacing fossil-fueled electricity, not creating useless wealth for some. Useless because climate change will continue to depreciate the "economy".
John Milnes
Aramoho
Less accusatory, please
Yet another 'sustainability consultant', Gord Stewart, takes aim at the New Zealand farming industry for its methane contribution to climate change (Chronicle, February 25).
That's always a cheap shot when one has much less skin in the game than our nation's food producers.
It's an approach that our Government also takes. I accept that we farmers must reduce methane emissions but I also say we need a less accusatory approach, along with full recognition of all significant sources.
Let us acknowledge, for example, that the so-called 'renewable and clean' hydroelectric industry is the single largest global anthropogenic source of methane (23 per cent, with estimates rising).
This source has been conveniently codified as 'carbon-free energy' into the Kyoto Protocol and United Nations Agreements on Climate Change ("Bright Green Lies", Jensen, Keith and Wilbert, 2021).
That suits governments. It is a convenient deception and is dishonest.
What portion of our nation's anthropogenic methane is attributable to hydroelectric sources, given its very large slice of our total electricity production?
This is to say nothing of the greenhouse gases (mostly carbon dioxide) produced in the construction of dams and their associated transmission lines.
We sorely need the full truth and some balance in this debate.
Alan Taylor
Westmere
