One of the things we’ve learnt about climate change politics over the years is that their predictions are always wrong.
Remember Al Gore’s 2006 film “An Inconvenient Truth” which frightened audiences worldwide with apocalyptic predictions that rising seas would inundate low-lying nations creating millions of climate refugees, that melting sea ice would lead to mass polar-bear drownings, that Lake Chad would completely dry up, and all the snow on Mount Kilimanjaro would disappear? None materialised.
Or what about the foundational claim that reducing human emissions of greenhouse gases would lower carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere – only to find that when man-made emissions plunged by almost 10 percent during the world-wide Covid lockdowns, total CO2 rose!
What that highlighted, of course, is that at around four percent of atmospheric carbon dioxide, man-made emissions are dwarfed by nature with the vast majority of CO2 coming from natural sources: released by oceans that are still warming from the Little Ice Age, created by animals and plants from respiration and photosynthesis, and produced by volcanic eruptions, rock weathering, and other natural processes.
The Covid result effectively disproved the central premise of Net Zero – that reducing human emissions will lower atmospheric CO2 and bring down global temperatures. But in spite of real-world evidence that alarmist climate predictions and theories are wrong, Net Zero, the Paris Agreement, and Armageddon claims of a man-made climate emergency, live on.
Perhaps expecting enlightenment on such a cult-like issue as climate change is expecting too much, given it took half a century for scientists — and over three centuries for religious leaders — to concede that Galileo was right and the earth does orbit the sun. One can’t help but wonder how long it will be before the modern-day climate obsession is put to rest.
Fortunately, the cracks are already appearing.
Microsoft Chairman and former leading climate advocate Bill Gates has warned that climate change may not pose the existential threat to humanity that has long been claimed.
Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair is echoing the same message, urging the UK Government to prioritise cheap energy over Net Zero. While Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch and Reform’s Nigel Farage have promised to scrap Net Zero, whether new Prime Minister Andy Burnham follows suit, remains to be seen.
Even the European Union is now changing its tune: instead of treating livestock farming as a major threat to EU emissions goals, it is now describing farming as an “essential industry”, “critical infrastructure” and the basis of “food security” – small steps towards rationality admittedly, but progress, nevertheless.
Then there’s the Paris Agreement. While President Trump’s withdrawal of the US has prompted Argentina, Brazil, and others to consider following suit, the reality is that since the agreement is non-binding, most countries find it easier to stay in it and do little or nothing.
Except, of course, New Zealand — where former Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, declaring climate change her “nuclear‑free moment” and eager to be seen as a “global leader”, embedded extremist climate projections into our legislative and regulatory framework.
By turning a non‑binding international accord into punitive domestic law through the Zero Carbon Act – and handing its implementation to the Ministry for the Environment (MfE), the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA), the Climate Change Commission, local authorities, and other agencies, New Zealand entrenched radical climate policy throughout the machinery of government. As a result, worst‑case climate scenarios now shape hazard maps, infrastructure standards, district plans, and long‑term strategies.
The bureaucratic architecture driving New Zealand’s climate compliance is, in effect, “gold plated”, not because the Paris Agreement requires such an approach, but because government institutions were directed to internalise extreme modelling assumptions into every level of decision-making, regardless of global realities or economic consequences.
The main culprit, of course, is Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5 — one of a set of emissions scenarios developed for the United Nations International Governmental Panel on Climate Change as modelling tools, to help scientists ‘stress-test’ climate systems, to see how they might respond under various levels of greenhouse‑gas concentrations.
RCP8.5 is an apocalyptic scenario that assumes a runaway global population totally reliant on coal for energy – including to fuel ships, planes, cars and trucks – with minimal technological progress and no climate policy anywhere in the world.
Yet somehow – and this is the real scandal – this doomsday measure was labelled “business as usual” and used in climate management worldwide.
That, of course, includes New Zealand, where guidance incorporating RCP8.5, SSP5-8.5, and associated scenarios – predicting global temperature increases of up to 4.4 degrees Celsius by 2100, along with massive sea level rise of well over a metre – was issued by MfE and NIWA for local authorities. This dramatically affected council zoning, building consents, and infrastructure costs – and, when picked up by banks and insurance companies, lending decisions and insurance levies as well.
However, last month, the UN committee responsible for the measurements used in climate modelling by the IPCC rejected this most extreme scenario as “implausible” and retired the RCP8.5 and the SSP5-8.5 pathways.
This week’s NZCPR Guest Commentator Professor Roger Pielke of Colorado University – a leading critic of RCP 8.5 extremism – outlines the situation:
“Using RCP8.5 to predict coastal hazards in New Zealand — or anywhere else — and thus serve as the basis for home pricing and insurance is simply a misapplication of science.
“Climate policy analyses, including cost-benefit studies, typically start with a baseline scenario as a representation of where-we-are-headed and then compare that to other scenarios in which policy is introduced within the scenario. Such scenarios are typically called policy – or mitigation – scenarios.
“Such a comparison, in principle, allows decision makers to evaluate the expected effects of implementing a policy versus not implementing that policy.
“Based on the IPCC’s official AR6 baseline scenarios — RCP8.5, SSP5-8.5, SSP3-7.0 — New Zealand councils had drawn hazard lines across property titles, adjusted infrastructure plans, and shifted insurance and lending exposure, with real economic consequences for New Zealanders.
“Thanks to the correct decision by the CMIP7 scenario committee, we now know that all of these decisions and consequences have been based on a scenario now officially recognized as implausible.”
As Professor Pielke explains, reliance on the “fatally flawed” RCP8.5 scenario provided climate activists within local government with the justification for applying extremist policies. The consequences are evident: climate risk notations on LIM reports, absurd proposals to relocate entire coastal communities, escalating insurance premiums, banks refusing mortgages on coastal properties, and planning requirements so restrictive that worthwhile developments – together with the jobs, investment, and economic benefits they would have delivered – are simply abandoned.
The financial consequences are significant as climate strategies, consultants, emissions‑tracking tools, hazard maps, adaptation plans, and “resilience” programmes all require substantial funding.
Infrastructure priorities have also shifted as roads, stormwater systems, and coastal defences are redesigned based on unrealistic climate scenarios, and transport policy becomes ideological, with councils choosing cycleways, EV infrastructure, and emissions‑reduction projects over core services.
Within councils, climate activism expands the bureaucracy as staff are encouraged to treat climate as the overriding lens for decision‑making – regardless of cost – through the emergence of new climate units, managers, advisors, and reporting systems, with emissions dashboards, sustainability frameworks, and climate‑aligned procurement rules.
The good news is that the Coalition has been listening to the growing concerns over the use of RCP8.5 by local authorities, and last month, the Minister of Climate Change, Simon Watts, took action by writing to Councils:
Dear Mayors, Chairs and Chief Executives,
I am writing regarding the use of climate change assumptions in council planning, infrastructure investment, asset management, and regulatory decision-making.
The Government expects councils to continue planning for climate risks and ensuring communities are resilient to future climate impacts. Climate adaptation remains an important responsibility of local government.
However, the Government is increasingly concerned that some climate-related planning and investment decisions may be relying on high-end emissions scenarios in a way that results in unnecessary costs being imposed on ratepayers, businesses, and communities.
Recent international assessments indicate that SSPS-8.5 and its predecessor RCP8.5 are best regarded as less likely, high-impact emissions scenarios that are useful for stress testing and contingency planning. They should not automatically be treated as the central or most likely future when making decisions that affect infrastructure investment, land use, property rights, or rates.
New Zealand faces significant infrastructure challenges. Every dollar spent on resilience measures is a dollar that cannot be spent on fixing roads, upgrading water infrastructure, improving community facilities, or reducing pressure on rates. Councils must therefore ensure climate-related decisions are proportionate, evidence-based, and represent value for money.
Accordingly, the Government expects councils to:
• Use a range of credible climate scenarios when assessing infrastructure and planning decisions, including medium and high-end scenarios.
• Clearly identify which scenario has been adopted as the primary planning assumption and explain why.
• Demonstrate the additional costs associated with higher-end climate assumptions and disclose the impact on rates, debt, and long-term affordability.
• Prioritise adaptive pathways and staged investment approaches wherever practical, rather than defaulting to immediate construction of infrastructure designed solely around worst-case assumptions.
• Ensure that regulatory decisions affecting landowners, businesses, and communities are supported by robust evidence and are proportionate to the risks being managed.
• Subject major climate-driven capital expenditure proposals to rigorous cost-benefit analysis and independent challenge.
The Government’s expectation is clear: councils should plan for climate risks, but they must also plan for affordability.
High-end scenarios such as SSP5-8.5 remain useful for testing resilience and understanding extreme risks. However, the Government does not consider it appropriate for worst-case assumptions to become the default basis for investment decisions that impose significant costs on current and future ratepayers.
Councils should be able to demonstrate that climate-related investments are necessary, proportionate, and represent the best use of scarce public resources.
The Government will work with the sector to improve consistency and transparency in climate-related planning and infrastructure decisions. I have directed officials to undertake a stocktake of current council practices and provide advice on whether additional national direction, reporting requirements, or legislative changes are required to ensure climate-related decisions appropriately balance resilience, affordability, and value for money for ratepayers.
New Zealanders rightly expect councils to prepare for future risks. They also expect councils to avoid unnecessary gold-plating, focus on practical solutions, and exercise discipline when spending ratepayer money.
I encourage elected members and council executives to review their current planning assumptions and decision-making frameworks considering these expectations.
Yours sincerely,
Hon Simon Watts
Minister of Climate Change
While the Minister should be congratulated for his initiative, the response of the Greater Wellington Regional Council to his letter shows that he has not gone far enough:
“Greater Wellington uses a range of scenarios as part of its risk and mitigation planning. Where it has used high-emissions scenarios, this reflects long-standing central government guidance and established climate risk assessment practice. While these scenarios are now increasingly regarded as less likely, they remain useful for stress testing and understanding long-term climate risks. At Greater Wellington, their primary application has been in risk assessment and hazard modelling. Based on current information, there is no evidence that their use has led to disproportionate or ‘gold-plated’ investment decisions. Rather, they have helped ensure that the resilience of long-lived assets and services is considered under a range of possible future climate conditions.”
In other words, the council intends doing nothing!
Clearly the Minister needs to do more than merely suggest that councils abandon their extremist pathways.
If his letter is to have any effect, he must now issue formal directives to MfE and NIWA requiring them to retire RCP8.5 and related pathways and update all official guidance accordingly. Every other government agency operating under climate‑policy settings should likewise be instructed to replace their extreme modelling assumptions with realistic ones.
But the Minister needs to go further. Since local and central government bureaucracies are prone to capture by climate extremism, advice, warnings, and expectations are unlikely to shift them – only legislation will do so.
Accordingly, to ensure his directives carry clear legislative force, he should embed the requirement to remove RCP8.5 and associated pathways from climate‑planning frameworks through an amendment to the Climate Change Response Amendment Bill that is currently on Parliament’s Order Paper awaiting its first reading.
However, since that Bill is unlikely to pass before the election – and only after the election if the Coalition secures a second term – concerned ratepayers should consider direct action.
Anyone who supports the Minister’s effort to rein in worst‑case climate modelling should contact their councils directly.
Without public pressure many councils will – like Greater Wellington – treat the Minister’s guidance as optional and do nothing.
But if ratepayers write directly to their council CEO, the Mayor, and councillors asking for details of their timetable to remove the extremist RCP8.5 and associated scenarios from their climate requirements, they will help to force action.
A link to all local body Chief Executives, Mayors and Councillors can be found HERE. Below is a draft letter that can adapted. And if you know other locals who share your concerns about the climate obsession of your council, encouraging them to write as well, will strengthen the impact.
Good luck!
*Suggested Letter (copy and paste into an email using your own words to adapt it) – and send individually to the CEO, the Mayor and each Councillor with the Minister’s letter attached at the end.
Subject: Extreme climate scenarios in council planning
Dear [Name],
I am writing as a ratepayer regarding the council’s use of extreme climate scenarios in planning and infrastructure decisions.
I’m aware that the Minister for Climate Change, Simon Watts, has written to all councils expressing concern about the over-reliance on RCP8.5 and similar worst‑case scenarios. These pathways have been deemed implausible by the UN body that sets the framework for climate modelling, and have been retired.
The use of these extreme scenarios has resulted in inflated infrastructure costs, unnecessary restrictions on development and housing, higher rates and debt, to name but a few.
I therefore request advice on when the Council intends to retire these measures and replace them with more reasonable, evidence‑based alternatives.
Below is the Minister’s letter – for your information.
Thank you for your attention.
Yours sincerely,
[Name]
[Address]
[Phone]
[Copy and paste the Minister’s letter here]
Please note: To register for our free weekly newsletter please click HERE.
THIS WEEK’S POLL ASKS:
*Did Minister Simon Watts go far enough in his letter instructing councils on the use of extreme climate scenarios like RCP8.5?
*Poll comments are posted below.
*All NZCPR poll results can be seen in the Archive.
THIS WEEK’S POLL COMMENTS
| Ban UN crap outright and ban the UN. Pull out of Paris agreement. | Peter |
| The climate change religion is an excuse for a power grab by the ideologists of the left. One weak letter will not convince them to abandon their underlying mission of destroying society as we know it. | Frank |
| ASAP | Robert |
| Minister should have gone harder as most councils are full of climate activists and do there own thing. Councils need to be treaded like kids and told what to do. | Roger |
| It’s a farce for which we are be robbed outright | tony |
| He certainly got a reaction from Wellington, so that is a pretty good indication! | DICK |
| He has the power to act if councils refuse | Chris |
| Just stop this grandstanding and waste of rate payers money. If the don’t then dismiss them. | Rod |
| RCP8.5 has been widely discredited by many climate experts around the World | Malcolm |
| Jacinda Adern should be be in a court room | Stanley |
| It’s time to have all this Climate Change fear squashed. The Earth’s climate will always change in some way and always has. It has nothing to do with human using fossil fuels or farming. Al Gore should be held accountable for his scaremongering. So should Jacinda Ardern. | Gifford |
| He should legislate to ban 8.5 use. | Jeremy |
| Cost, cost and more cost to Ratepayers based on a flawed model. Be clear and direct with Councils or they will ignore | Glenn |
| An emphatic no to RCP8.5 is required because, as we know, both central and local government happily thumb their noses at government advice. | Martin |
| Even in the face of the extreme scenarios being refuted, our “decision makers” do not want to accept their “rules” are out of phase with reality, so the rort goes on… | Roy |
| He is too soft on the councils. | Terry |
| Climate change has been happening for billions of years and what we do does not make any difference whatsoever. ETS, Net Zero and the Paris Climate Accord are all global scame designed to reduce countries who adopt them to future abject poverty for the country and its people. When will enough people pressure the government of this country to drop all of these global scams. | Alastair |
| an outright ban and NZ be removed from the Paris Accord et al | Mark |
| Climate alarmism is another form of activism purely designed to force people to align with their views. No different than extreme religious views. | Brad |
| Councils are controlled by unaccountable bureaucrats who give the finger to democracy. Slash council bureaucracy numbers to the minimum people required to provide only essential services. | Richard |
| We cannot leave decisions on which climate scenario to apply to local bodies. This is a matter of national policy. It is clear these extreme scenarios should have never been considered. Even the IPCC has abandoned them. We must too. | Juliet |
| This is usual National Party philosophy. Do a little and hope that keeps the voters happy. NOT ME. | Denis |
| It was too weak, almost apologetic, and should have been far more forceful. After all it was directed at bureaucrats who now please themselves regardless of a ministers instructions. | David |
| The whole “climate” industry is pernicious nonsense. | Trevor |
| In AUS this madness has brought forth a policy that recommends power blackouts as a means to bring down electricity prices. The politicians and bureaucrats have not worked out that consumers could exercise the same policy themselves by simply switching of the light switches! So by having no power on one could achieve great savings! It all started with CO2 being a toxic gas. When in fact it was always a gentle, microscopic gas that is harmless to mankind and vital for our existence. It was and is the greatest fraud in the 21st century. Now placing us on the brink of economic collapse. | Frederick |
| NZ should have left the Paris Accord Scam years ago. | Peter |
| Far too much playing with it | Ken |
| It is time this Govt found a spine and used some common sense and listened to the people,who actually live in the country, not some airy fairy ideal that was dreamt up in Europe !! | Elizabeth |
| Total ban please on all councils. If they got rid of all the climate bullshit our rates would not have to go up every year. All Kiwis would be better off. National is gutless and if labour and greens get in it will continue down the current path on steroids. Vote NZ first or Act. | Kevan |
| My thoughts are heaven help us if we ever end up with a coalition of Labour / Greens. They will do more than entrench what we already have. | Lawrie |
| Typical weak knee reaction by National! | Rex |
| The NZ contribution to Global weather is so tiny, yet we are being made to follow what a MEGA polluting country should do! | Peter |
| It’s about time the government showed some leadership in this regard and while they’re at it put someone else in charge; Minister Watts calling RCP8.5 “less likely” when IPCC called it “implausible” shows he doesn’t have the right stuff for the task | Terry |
| Simon Watts’s approach was a fair start. Wellington City Council’s response and any other Councils’ similar response should be met with a more precise and pointed directive | Mark |
| At last some offical movement to stop crippling ourselves based on wild doom fantasies | Dan |
| More positive action required | Grant |
| Watts is like Luxon and Goldsmith, no spine to do anything meaningful. Dump all the Climate BS and let us prosper. | Carole |
| In this instance, I would agree that a direction to ban outright from the minister would be appropriate. This will halt any further damage and costs to the rate payers by halting and defunding existing programs. | neil |
| The whole climate change hysteria has cost millions for councils and central govt and therefore tax and ratepayers. Finally it is being challenged. Thank goodness . | Anne |
| GOVT IS DODGING THE ISSUE NEED TO PASS LEGISATION URGENTLY | LEO |
| Simon Watts is nothing but a useful idiot – if ACTS Cameron Luxton wasn’t pushing him all the way he would be totally useless along with his ignorant greenie mate Chris Luxon , they have one small brain between them. | Mike |
| Yes, is about as far as Minister Watts should go at this stage and then monitor the responses nationwide. More robust action might be justified if more councils adopt the lame duck approach as in Wellington | Peter |
| All climate alarmists should be shot!!!!! The damage that their lies have caused will take years to unravel. Abandon the Paris accord now | Brian |
| Cowardly approach. | Caren |
| Most councils and councillors have been brainwashed into believing the human cause of climate change. They won’t accept suggestions. It has to be a directive – strong directive. | Anne |
| It is all pretty hopeless when the same old suspects just keep giving power back to people like the greens. I really did not realize that my fellow man was quite so stupid. Lets brain wash the kids in the schools and have them out on the street protesting about the horrors of climate change, what will they think to do next to make sure they keep on swinging the narrative their way, l really hardly care much anymore. | Paul |
| The Minister’s letter was just the usual polite weasel words. These councils need to dragged kicking and screaming into reality because they are arrogant and ideologically captured. They need to be told drop the nonsense or else. That’s all these dopes will understand. Arrogance and intransigence on Maori issues should have shown them that. | John |
| We need to have our rights to be equal and we need all communication road sign departments health areas lab testing placing etc all in English it’s a nightmare no one know what things are | JA |
| The Minister must be far more assertive. | Michael |
| I support NZCPR’s Guest Commentator’s climate scenarios regarding the Political climate change projections – now rejected by the Paris Accord – as ‘implausible’ and ‘extreme climate projections’ indicating this appears to be yet another politically introduced ‘softening up of citizens’ !!! | Stuart |
| Future generations will look back and compare Climate Change to the Earth is Flat nonsense. | Grant |
| follow the science | Michael |
| It is plainly nonsensical to think there is anything we can do in New Zealand to affect future climate change. Why don’t people get this? | John |
| FAr fAr too many too much spent Hey please put numbers om your pah ges as hard to sort when printed- | Maxwell |
| It’s high time this scam was stopped. Only idiotic lefties believe it’s real and when our economy is broken because of the punitive effects of this cultist ideology, it’s imperative that the government abandons net zero. Besides the biggest emitters, namely China, India and USA are not signing up to climate accords. | John |
| It’s high time to get real and be rid of Ardern’s stupid nonsense. | Don |
| Pull out of Paris accord. Also UN, WEF, WHO | Claire |
| All restrictions should be removed. despite the major emitters (particularly China) paying lip service to reducing emissions the world out put (agian partic China)continues to increase. Why should our tiny output even be considered it is a Galileo situation – the whole CO2/climate relationship is very complex and has never been openly and fully debated. | Steve |
| We have had years of children following the lead of climate change fanatics, taking the lead with a single message blaming their forefathers of danger they have put the world in, however offer no useful solution | malcolm |
| NZ geologically is a very young country and still growing, towards Australia! | Neville |
| Change the law on this subject along with many other examples. | Graham |
| There are alternative scenarios available and already in use that are far more appropriate. | Ian |
| They are only theoretical anyway so should never been believed as fact! | Robin |
| im not sure that climate change is a reality beyond natural waring and cooling of the earth cyclic over thousands of years .. Sure people are not so blind they havent considered this | alex |
| Goverment departments DONT listen to us voters so you NEED TO MAKE IT VERY CLEAR YOU WILL NOT EVER VOTE FOR THEM AGAIN.They NEED to ask for people to vote for ANYTHING they want to change & ONLY people ELECTED can have ANY SAY ABOUT ANYTHING & unelected people NEED to be CANCELLED from anything in council NOW IWI HAVE NO MORE RIGHT THAN ANYONE & THEY WERE NOT VOTED FOR SO NEED TO BE DISMISSED NOW. | Cindy |
| councils need to be told what to do in very clear terms they should not have any leeway as there are too many green councillors. | Andrew |
| councils should not be in control. the government should. and ONLY clear & accurate climate info should be used. | Chris |
| Absolutely necessary to correct the use of discredited worse case scenarios in coastal planning policies, both at Council and central government levels. | Richard |
| New Zealand has not been a sovereign country for decades. That we have a so-called Climate change minister is a farce pandering to the UN and its cronies. If our politicians in charge had any guts, they would have bailed out of this Paris agreement in 2023 and get on with rebuilding the damage done. | Michael |
| IPCC is a “crock”. | alan |
| Minister Watts has failed to rein in councils gross spending; “climate change” recklessness or unelected Maori representation. A new stronger minister is required to DIRECT local misgovernment. | Peter |
| This is critical to addressing the cost of living as once the council removes all references to the climate crisis then the amount demanded for rates must decrease. | Kathryn |
| It is being used to tax everyone unnecessarily | Anne |
| They should be scrapped totally as they are completely wrong | David |
| Simon Watts hasn’t gone any where far enough. Too timid | Geoff |
| It’s time the whole climate change BS was scrapped, Luxon grew some b%u2014-s and stood for something | Laurie |
| The public needs to be educated about political climate change, otherwise known as as tax and control, and planetary climate change, something that happens as part of the planet’s normal operation. | Hugh |
| No, but nowhere near far enough. The climate has always changed and will continue to do so, irrespective of human activity. We ( councils) just need to be more resilient and adaptive. | Stuart |
| Given the IPCC has officially retired RCP8.5, any council still using this is at best disingenuous. So yes the Minister should make it abundantly clear to the Councils RCP8.5 & the other overly extreme models should not be used & any decisions based on these Must be retracted. | John |
| Simon watts has been captured by the green agenda and needs to stand down. The costs to all nz for this rubbish is crippling | Kelly |
| In June the sea ice above Canada was still frozen. We never hear this through MSM. | Keith |
| climate’s change. Get used to it. | Michael |
| All the climate change nonsense should be abandoned. Children who were wrongly taught about dire aspects of climate change should now be told the truth | Derek |
| Not nearly far enough! The climate change plans the previous government instituted should be abandoned. | Ray |
| what about the rest of the world if we have to get incolved in climate change. | Barbara |
| Who is in control COUNCILS or the GOVERNMENT | ROB |
| The rejection of the 8.5 by those who are responsible for it, is very serious and comes on the back of many serious experienced scientists who have for years making that same claim. I would consider it to be as serious as as the foolishness of believing the world is flat. | Maurice |
| it is about time we went realistic!!! | ARTHUR |
| Goodness me, the scientists abroad are making it very clear what needs to be done to rationalise this problem situ that Adern created in NZ. Stop the BS, kick the bureaucrats out of office and get on with making NZ a safe, efficient country we all aspire to. | Neville |
| The climate modelling here in Kapiti hasn’t even taken note of the actua changes that are occuring in places such as Otaki where I live now. They haven’t factored in the fact that the sea has retreated here and buildings that were close to the sea in the 1930’s are now far further from the sea. I believe the land here rises by about 6mm a year as well which will help. | Barbara |
| Climate change is natural and we cannot change it. IN NZ, STOP ALL WASTEFUL EXPENDITURE TRYING FOR NET ZERO. | David |
| Councils like Nelson went all out to spend many millions on a “climate emergency.” In fact nothing has been achieved except more staff and expensive reports. | Dan |
| All of these ROGUE COUNCILS… SHOULD BE BANNED, AND ALL OF THEM HAVE TO BE INVESTIGATED!! OPPOSITION BEHAVING LIKE THEY HAVE WON THE ELECTION?? I SMELL AWHOLE LOT OF CORRUPTION! | David |
| His letter was far too long and far too full of meaningless nonsense.. In short–it was the writings of man who hasn’t the guts to tell it as it is. | William |
| Simon Watts is attempting to stop a train with a letter. It needs to be derailed. | Mick |
| Absolutely should be banned. | Dianne |
| Banks them outright. | Pamela |
| HOAX for FOOLS by FOOLS | Mike |
| His letter was not much better than useless. | Sydney Harvey James |
| Lets hope that it will be just a matter of time before NZ joins most other nations and pulls out of the Paris Accord which is a great farce of our time | Andy |
| NO- TOTALLY NO- & ABSOLUTELY NO! they can stik ALL their AGW climate change BS where the sun dont shine. | mark |
| The government needs to harden up on this climate BS. | Denis |
| We cannot afford these extreme policies adopted as they were when we knew far less about the influence of CO2 and CH4. We know now they have only marginal effect on our climate. | Peter |
| Minister Simon Watts needs to tell councils to act on his instructions immediately and not leave it to them to decide what to do. | Laurence |
| Climate change is a political fairy tale. Some Islands are sinking not being swamped by rising seas. | David |
| Simon Watts is a big disappointment in all of his portfolios so I doubt he did anything worthwhile in this case. | pdm |
| Watts speech writer is a carryover from Jackboots day and is a diehard fan unfortunately. Watts has no spine to stand up to anyone. | Coral |
| We must vote for | Jim |
| The Paris accord is all b.s.just like Al Gore and his foolish followers.. | Stephen |
| He needs to provide appropriate standards scientifically backed by a credible global authority. | Murray |
| I live on the edge of Tauranga Harboir and if a scenario as in RCP8.5 had presented itself, after being here 22 years the water would have come halfway up my lawn and cut off the right of way affecting two properties. The high tide line has not moved. | Margaret |
| It’s a scam the whole climate fiasco | Mike |
| All proven to be a bloody lie | Francis |
| RCP8.5 should be totally banned and any Council disputing such a ban should be penalised — maybe the woke and ignorant Councillors themselves and not the Council as a whole. | Alan |
| The whole concept should be scrapped and seen as the fraud it is.Biggest rort perpetuated against mankind | John |
| Get outta Paris!!! Biggest scam ever!! | Tim |
| Now is the time to put pressure on the Government to remove RCP8.5 from our legal climate framework. Failure to do so will only encourage the climate extremists to continue their drive of economic vandalism. | Chris |
| The wording at the end of his comment should have read That climate warming/change will have NO bearing on any council or insurance companies decisions on RMA planning . | Wayne |
| Watts is a weak MP and is struggling to accept that ALL emission related Laws now need to be deleted. GHGs are not dangerous and do not need to be reduced. Watts has been asleep since the last election! | RICHard |
| Absolutely the whole Climate Change agenda is a scam designed to tax us kiwis who are the 4th highest tax payers in the western world. | Greg |
| Climate change is a natural phenomenon since forever! We cannot change it, any more than we can stop the Sun from shining. Focus should be on preparing for the reasonably expected changes we may experience on a local level, irrespective of what occurs globally. Councils use the excuse of Climate change to hike rates when, in reality, ratepayers are funding council incompetence and wasteful spending. It is time for Government and Councils to be regularly audited and made accountable for their spending. | Martin |
| climate change is the biggest fraud since the convid . | Frank |
| It is all a great sham sadly. | Warren |
| The Minister should have been far more blunt in his letter, and directly instruct councils to throw RCP8.5 into the round file! | Mark |
| This stuff has gone far enough. When will we get bureaucrats and politicians brave enough to support reality rather than vote protectionism? Anyone who does is likely to get huge support from the silent majority. | Robbie |
| The National Party are a shadow of their former selves. Worshiping the climate gods combined with Tikanga appear extreme weather events. Taxpayers want a united country where every citizen is on equal terms. | Eileen |
| they need to go, this is another reason rates are to high & it is difficult to get anything done | Nigel |
| This has gone on long enough can’t believe people are so stupid councillors also nead a hurry up ie get rid of the leftist useless individuals | Peter |
| “Implausible” is a weak word. Choose stronger language to reflect the actual risk profile. | Peter |
| He should also apply the directive to Government departments. The Early Adoption Accelerator to reduce methane emissions announced by PM Luxon at the Fieldays should be cancelled and AgriZero, which justifies its existence on RCP8.5, should be canned | Neil |
| A small nation like New Zealand will and is suffering because a few. Yes, a few part Maori are benefiting financially. The benefits don’t trickle down. | William |
| No,It is now considered inappropriate and discredited by most enlightened earth scientists.The modelling used flawed material and dis not consider historical data. | gale |
| It is upsetting our right to use our resources for the good of all Kiwis. | Tony |
| Local councils on the same coastline in different areas are using different models for rising sea levels. How come? | William |
| Using non -credible data is unhelpful for any decision. | BRIAN |
| If a model is deemed implausible it should not even be used in any assessment. Remember these are only models and one can make models to predict anything you want them to predict. Models are based on assumptions not necessarily actual fact and so should be taken with a grain of salt. Where have sea levels risen? A few paces but is it caused by melting ice or is it caused by the movemnet of tectonic plates. If a tectonic plate “drops” then of course the sea level will have risen in comparison but if there is no movement has the sea level risen and the answer i no. There is photographic evidence to support that. Is CO2 a greenhouse gas – the answer is yes if you grow crops in green houses as some growers inject CO2 into the greenhouse to increase growth and therefore crop yield. On the other hand if you were to lower the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere there would be a decrease in plant growth and there food production and the result would be a famine. This is basic science for year 13 students or 1st year university students. So simple. Climate scientists need to go back to school and remember the basics. | Kevin |
| This is pussyfooting of the first order. | Ken |
| Why so slow??? All the evidence is available to reshape plans. | Ray |
| We are down another rabbit hole.. | Gerry |
| Councils appear to do their own things these days. The seeds which started with Adern and James Shaw’s lot are already germinating — like most matters in NZ today, the call may be too late. | John |
| The Socialist left leaning councils already thumb their noses at Central Govt ie speed limit reinstatement. In fact they have doubled down on their defiance. | Jack |
| Not by a long shot try again | Trevor |
| need to legislate against the use of extremist climate scenarios | David |
| This position has been known for month Municipalities should be told that past information under the paris accord is wrong – so do not waste anymore time and money on these scenarios. | Gavin |
| Climate change has been natural for MANY years (millions). It is NOT man made. Al Gore – Crap – ?????. | Brian |
| Frankly I think all councils need a watch dog over them | Gail |
| Simon Watts will never go far enough. LWDW and the whole of local government restructureng shows he is not up to the job. | John |
| I have followed this climate change NONSENSE for many years & I am heartened to see that finally ‘common sense has prevailed’…! The issue will be getting each Local Council to ‘back the truck up’ & abolish the influence of the UN IPCC RCP8.5 Scenario on local authorities to use “evidence based adaptive climate change modelling instead of the extreme (Marxist) modelling which ahs caused SO much damage in many people’s mind, especially our school children who have been seriously indoctrinated…Big Bad Evil People like Al Gore…! | Bruza |
| The 8.5 scenario is implausible, IPPC own words. Implementing these scenarios is stupid | Wynne |
| It is high time this man made climate change nonsense was put to bed once and for all. It is nothing but another unaffordable cost scam on vulnerable countries like NZ when our politicians are to scared to not toe the UN line because of some perceived trade sanctions risk or other meaningless ring in their nose reason. | Mike |
| There is no man-made-climate-change! But every country gets the politicians it deserves. Considering their quality and qualifications I have to say it clearly: the majority of the people in most countries are simply too stupid. Until the end, this majority went along with the Covid madness. Most of them had joined in the separation and offence. Yet anyone who could read numbers could see after a few months of this so-called “pandemic” that it was a huge nonsense. One look at the mortality figures would have been enough. We saw the same thing in the accompanying so-called vaccination campaign. You have to be clear about this: With every yoghurt pot, most people pay attention to what they eat, but with the completely insufficiently tested vaccines, most people did not care what they contained and what they let enter their bodies. Exactly the same happens with the so-called “man made climate change”. When I ask around how a not well mixed trace gas (0.035% of our atmosphere), heavier than air, with only a tiny spectral range of not even 1 micrometer (a human hair’s thickness is about 20 %u03BCm!!) , is supposed to be a green house gas, I look into empty eyes. I don’t get an answer, but people still vote red or green. Yes, the majority of the people in this country deserve what they get. I just feel sorry for the few who understand all this but still have to put up with all this rubbish. And I hope that there is still time for an overdue change before it is all too late. | Klaus-P. |
| Total wimp-out by another pathetically inept politician. Any ministor worth voting for would have instructed all councils, and government departments to cease using those hopelessly out of date climate assumptions IMMEDIATELY and ten backed up the instruction with legislation. National has become the party of wimps! Despite NZ First and Act supporting for the government to cut out all the maori everything BS, the government wimps instructed the public service to stop and the public service which is riddled with Labour and Green party hacks has universally ignored the government. We can expect exactly the same with the instruction to do better with climate change planning. It’s time we got leader with the ability to exercise intelligent thought, climate change is mostly natural, with human activity making little difference . The planet will keep warming up regardless of what money we waste trying to change it until the current natural cycle ends and the planet begins cooling toward the next ice age. Humans will destroy the planet long before that ever happens. We must strive for sustainability, to accommodate the planets natural variation without panic, and most of all to stop wasting money on nonsense coming out of media hype, none of which is supported by facts. | Steve |
| Thats a big NO | Ian |
| Councils need to have a change of culture full stop. Instead of how can we stop this attitude, to how can we make this happen | Lindsay |
| Typical National action,let’s do a little bit to say we are on to it but let’s just kick the can down the road a little further. This climate change bullshit needs to be gone soon as possible once and for all. | Peter |
| Climate models MUST be consistent, especially when they lead to cost outcomes. ONLY central government can define the model, and only then can local govt follow that direction. i.e. god help if the greens define that direction. | Alex |
| Was an almost but not quite moment | Steve |
| Another weak decision and nobody is listening – presumably trying to save face from falling for such implausible nonsense in the first place. | Jan |
| Afterall he is just a Politician | Geoff |
| Asking Watts to actually do something is like the weather, all piss and wind! | Bill |
| Its been a con job from day one including the ETS scheme. We would be a wealthy country if all this BS had never happened | Errol |
| as stated many local councils are just going ahead using 8.5 regardless saying it is only recommended | john |
| A return to commonsense planning based on realistic research would be good | Phil |
| the greatest hoax of the century | john |
| Expecting a resolute decision from the Nats is doubtful to say the least. They will always hedge their bets lest they be seen as leaders. | Fred |
| Have written to our Mayor as suggested | Michael |
| Councils will only change when forced to….. | Peter |
| Unless their feet are held to the fire, these people will continue to do exactly what they have done in the past. Whether this is through ideology or laziness is anyone’s guess. | Laurie |
| The whole scenario is a GREEN DREAM 11 | Warwick |
| Basics ..Fix the Plumbing Always… otherwise the “Ship” will sink. The climate is in control of its journey….let it be! | Chris |
| Councils are notoriously risk averse and many will take the worst-case scenario to cover their backsides. | Les |
| There ate loopholes | NICHOLAS |
| Al Gores predictions were a total scam. | Geoffrey |
| No! Firm Instructions are necessary to avoid council “stonewalling”! | Alastair |
| WCC are basing their LTP on climate change warnings. Cycle ways are continuing to be proposed with the belief that they will encourage more out of cars and more using cycles. As stronger direction from Goerment is necessary. | Howard |
| National are part of the WOKE problem. They are unable to pivot even when blind Freddie can see we have all been scammed. If the cost of living is really their concern they would remove RCP8.5 by law to ensure this cost to everyone was removed. Excuses around trade agreements, are just that, excuses, I can’t I can’t I can’t is really, I won’t, I won’t I won’t. Look to ACT and NZ First, they are more likely to honor their promises. | Sam |
| Its about time we recognised the level of red taped propaganda our parliamentary system has left us with – one which NZ Taxpayers now need politicians to apply accountable measures to. | Andrew |
| Overspend on Climate change has created Child poverty | David |
| as most councils are members of the extreme left LGNZ I doubt they will take any notice | mike |
| It is total scare mongering. NIWA can’t predict with total accuracy what the weather will be like for say the month of August, but can somehow tell us that climate change will do XYZ in 20 years time. Just poppycock! | Bev |
| Once again, a leading question. Of course he should have banned it altogether. It was rubbish in 2006 and is total rubbish in 2026. | Peter |
| About time these councils woke up to a dose of reality. | Robbie |
| The prevailing woke agenda needs to be shut down completely. | Rod |
| I vote no but surely there are other options as the 8.5 option was the worst case senario, implementation of 4.5 senario could be an option for all councils to follow | Andrew |
| For pity’s sake, how long does it take for commonsense & proven science to gain recognition? | Frank |
| No, he should get rid of the Climate Change Commission as it is not independent, as all members are alarmists. | Chuck |
| Agree that Mr Watts needs to be much firmer, being reasonable and polite doesn’t work with arrogant zealots ( who shouldn’t be near councils in the first place). | Basil |
| Big NO. The minister Simon Watts should have demanded councils ban outright or you get the same as WRC are doing, nothing. Their own agendas continue, stuff the rate payers whom they are supposed to work for. | Allan |
| Councils are now both inceasing rates and destroying many property values with extreme flood risk notations on titles based on flimsy evidence. | Hamish |
| While I think it is right to ban them, it is fair to give Councils a chance to do the right thing. Central govt. can do more to rein in Wellington bureaucracy. | DOUGLAS |
| We need to stop this nonsense before it grows like a cancer. | Peter |
| New Zealand cannot make any difference in the world with large Countries ignoring Climate change | Peter |
| It’s a scam! For me it falls into the same indoctrination, as “only white people can be racist” Go against these ideologies and you’re a tin hatter or racist, transfobic, etc | Stuart |
| As long as there is no accountability with local governments, spending by them of ratepayers money will continue unimpeded. | Rob |
| We need to have the truth spelt out very clearly. | Murray |
| As always go hard at the outset. | Evans |
| Yes we are experiencing rain falls with greater volume. What is not addressed is gready corporates and off shore owners of forests dumping slash in the rivers. What is not being addressed is incompetent councils not undertaking maintenance and diverting maintenance money onto pet projects. What is not being resolved is gready offshore corporates ripping profits and management fees offshore, preventing nz productivity improvement. The big question is why are these big issues being ignored? | Raymond |
| The only way forward for New Zealand is scrapping ETS and climate change provisions, they are unworkable. | John |
| Stop subscribing to stupidity even in the 40s and 50s rain coated men were walking the streets saying the end is nigh | chris |
| Do away with it altogether | Tony |
| ASAP of course. This is all taking far too long! | Lee |
| One New Zealand | Ray |
| sick of all this tribal garbage | alf |
| That is why the youth of NZ have been so deceived. They think that wont have a Planet to live on. Absolute climate alarmism. Designed to help the UN rule over the Nations. | dene |
| It seems whatever people say is ignored by people we have voted in.Voters NEED to make it VERY PLAIN they are ONLY in because we voted them in but if they CONTINUIE to ignore our opinions (which are better than theirs) they can forget our votes ever again. | Cindy |
| The climate change RORT… just the same RIP OFF SCAM AS THE CONVID SCAM!! but N.Z HAS NOT WOKEN UP YET…. it is ALL CONTROLLED WEATHER EVENTS, WHICH THE MILITARY HAS BEEN USING FOR YEARS….. FOR THEIR ONGOING WARS, CONTROLLING THEIR ORGANISED MAN MADE WARS, THE AGENDA, WON’T STOP, UNTIL WE STOP COMPLYING!! | DAVID |
| No! Using RCP8.5 should be banned now otherwise officials will continue using the measures – the Wellington Regional Council response shows that. | David |
| The bureaucracy in local government is still attempting to deliver Jacinda Ardern’s agenda! The only way to stop them using extremist measures is to ban them. | Mary |
| Labour and the Greens embedded extreme climate activism in NZ. Fanatical advocates won’t stop unless they are compelled to do so. | Phil |
| The Moa Point sewerage disaster is a good example of climate change objectives – cycleways – taking precedent over critical infrastructure – fixing sewerage pipes! | Hugh |
| This country’s obsession with climate change is ridiculous. It delivers stupid outcomes and achieves nothing. The whole climate agenda should be banned! | Christopher |