Airport noise issues rumble onwards
I welcome Queenstown Airport Corporation chief executive Glen Sowry’s unequivocal statement in his opinion piece (ODT, 16.6.23) that "to be absolutely clear, an expansion to the air noise boundaries is not on the agenda." And further that it "is not the case" that flights well beyond the noise boundaries will be permitted.
Commitment to this through QAC’s strategic plan, council’s long-term plan and the statement of intent would prove the truth of his assertions. Currently, QAC’s commitment is caveated to only 2032. If QAC are not prepared to remove this caveat, Mr Sowry’s reassurance is for naught. The figure of aviation causing 96% of the tourism sector’s emissions (misquoted by Mr Sowry as the district’s emissions) is taken directly from the Destination Management Plan steering group’s Discussion Paper published in May. Mr Sowry claims he supports this group’s Carbon Zero by 2030 commitment and his draft Master Plan aligns with this.
In a move committed to by the district’s tourism sector, marketing groups and QLDC, this figure includes emissions of visitors travelling to the district, which for a visitor from the UK includes their total return flights. Mr Sowry’s maths would count only 1.2% of the total flight emissions of a UK visitor. He counts only the one-way sector from Queenstown to Sydney and does not include the non-carbon radiative forcing effects of high-altitude flight. The IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report identifies these as nearly equal to the carbon dioxide effect, while more recent scientific consensus suggests these contribute double the warming effects of carbon.
The difference between the two approaches — the tourism sector’s Carbon Zero vision and QAC’s draft Master Plan — is substantial.
Queenstown Airport Corporation chief executive Glen Sowry replies. As I noted in my opinion piece last week, aviation emissions are a significant challenge to be addressed. That’s why our draft Master Plan proposes infrastructure investments required to enable the decarbonisation of our on-the-ground airport operations, and of air travel.
In her letter, Ms Gilmour has focused on international aviation emissions and accused me of minimising them. I referenced two independent scientific analyses and offered no calculation relating to long-haul travel or how it should be attributed. Queenstown Airport facilitates short-haul domestic and transtasman flights.
Tourism New Zealand’s research tells us that Aotearoa New Zealand is a "bucket-list" destination. We know that visitors who travel the long distance to New Zealand will often visit several other destinations in New Zealand, will often also visit Australia, and may include a stopover in Asia or the Middle East en route.
Ms Gilmour has selected the highest of three scenarios included for feedback in a discussion paper on the district’s visitor economy emissions. It attributes all of a traveller’s aviation emissions from wherever in the world their journey began to the Queenstown Lakes and none to any other destination in their itinerary.
While it is reasonable that a proportion of long-haul aviation emissions for travellers could be attributed to the Queenstown Lakes visitor economy, not all should be.
We support the Destination Management Plan. A holistic approach is required and the airport has an important role to play.
Our focus remains on optimising existing infrastructure and supporting the decarbonisation of air travel.
Kristan Mouat
A truly exceptional educator, leader and person. A tragic and profoundly sad loss.
Soft plastic recycling still a work in progress
I would like to know when the soft plastic recycling programme will be reinstated. Plastics could be dropped off to the bins at New World, Countdown and The Warehouse where they were collected, baled and sent to Auckland to be turned into fence posts. I believe it was stopped last year because there was a problem with the baler. It is such an excellent initiative that stops plastic from going into the landfill and I look forward to it starting up again.
Dunedin City Council waste and environmental solutions group manager Chris Henderson replies. Dunedin’s soft plastic recycling programme is run by The Packaging Forum, not the DCC. It was put on hold due to logistical issues last year, but the DCC is working with parties to try to facilitate a resumption of the service.
Negative, wet, whiney
I was sure that Christopher Luxon must have been referring to the dairy and beef farmers when he spoke about "very negative, wet, whiney and inward looking New Zealanders" — after all they have been dragging the chain for years on fulfilling their obligations towards climate change. For years the rest of New Zealand has been paying export prices for dairy and beef produce (that is the 20% that escapes export). Now might be the right time for farmers to find the goodwill to acknowledge this contribution of the collective to their financial gain and get on with an immediate commitment to co-operating in the need to effect climate change.
Ngata extract raises sourcing questions
I was shocked to find the advertisement from NZCPR in our ODT today (20.6.23).
It is a reprint of an article written in 1922 by Sir Apirana Ngata, giving his explanation of the Māori version of the Treaty of Waitangi, Te Tiriti O Waitangi. Sir Apirana’s views are very interesting to read, they represent his views in 1922. I wondered why in 2023, was an extreme right-leaning predominantly Pākehā quasi- political group, the New Zealand Centre for Political Research, (previously called the NZ Centre for Political Debate), wanting us to read this advertisement?
When I see an advertisement supplement inside my ODT, I always look up the group behind it before I read. I hope others do the same and ask themselves the same question, why are "they" wanting me to read it?
I do not want to be drawn into the right-winged web being woven by the NZCPR.
Under wraps
At a time when the University of Otago’s finances are under close scrutiny, I find it outrageous that the estimated costs of the sculpture currently being installed are being hidden on the grounds of "cultural sensitivity" and that any further inquiries will be treated as "vexatious".
The university's financial problems are New Zealand taxpayers’ problems too and we have a right to know how our money is being spent. Having already wasted nearly $700,000 on the proposed rebranding exercise and hidden huge losses in income from public view, I would have thought that transparency would now be high on their priority list. Perhaps they are afraid to tell us how many academic teaching positions will be lost due to the cost of this sculptural indulgence. Sadly, I am rapidly losing my pride in my alma mater and its current management.
Address Letters to the Editor to: Otago Daily Times, PO Box 517, 52-56 Lower Stuart St, Dunedin. Email: editor@odt.co.nz
