From: Lee Vandervis <lee@vandervision.co.nz>
Date: Thursday, 21 September 2023 at 10:33 PM
To: Lynne Adamson <Lynne.Adamson@dcc.govt.nz>, Council 2022-2025 (Elected Members) <council.2022-2025@dcc.govt.nz>, Sandy Graham <Sandy.Graham@dcc.govt.nz>, Executive Leadership Team (ELT) <elt@dcc.govt.nz>, Robert West <Robert.West@dcc.govt.nz>
Subject: Re: Council Agenda
Dear All,
Item 21. Climate change significant forecasting assumptions – 10 year plan 2024-34 has included many forecasting assumptions, but fails to identify the most fundamental and important assumptions in my view.
These assumptions resulting in expensive climate mitigation strategies have significant cost implications for our Council Controlled Companies and our ratepayers.
Throughout, emissions are loosely assumed to be CO2, when in fact N2 and H2O are a much greater percentage component of vehicle emissions than CO2.
Throughout it is also assumed that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, higher levels of which cause global warming.
No long term evidence has been available to me to prove this causality, and all the verifiable evidence I have found shows that increasing CO2 levels can not be causal of increasing world temperature, because historically there have been long periods when CO2 was high and temperature low, and other times vice versa, as the following graph shows.
There has never been a causal connection between CO2 levels and world temperature levels in the past, so why would CO2 suddenly be causal now, just because we are releasing previously sequestered CO2 from fossil fuels back into the atmosphere?
If there is any better or alternative long-term CO2/Temperature evidence available, please let us see it to justify this most fundamental assumption.
Another assumption in this Item 21 is that increasing CO2 levels also contributes to more extreme and dangerous weather events, an assumption that is easy to assume without evidence if you follow main-stream-media.
In fact the last 100 years of dangerous weather events has seen a significant reduction in climate catastrophe deaths as the following data shows:
A further glaring omission from this Item 21 is the assumption that CO2 is dangerous green-house gas when in fact it is the stuff of leaf-growth and hence our food supply as proven by NASA satellite surveillance summarised in the following graph:
We also have local DCC confirmation of this wonderful increase in plant growth by way of significant increases in our vegetation control contracts costs due to greater growth in recent years.
The extra CO2 we have been releasing into back into the atmosphere from fossil fuels now gives us the potential to properly feed many more people.
This proven CO2 positive should also be part of Item 21 significant assumptions, for balance if nothing else.
The unspoken, uncommitted to writing fundamental assumption that ‘CO2 increase = world temperature increase’ should be clearly stated as an assumption along with evidence, as it is necessary for other assumed claims regarding what can be done by us to lessen climate change impacts.
Looking forward to any alternative data or evidence that can justify the very important assumptions in item 21 that are simply assumed.
Cheers,
Lee
From: Lynne Adamson <Lynne.Adamson@dcc.govt.nz>
Date: Wednesday, 20 September 2023 at 6:28 PM
To: Council 2022-2025 (Elected Members) <council.2022-2025@dcc.govt.nz>, Executive Leadership Team (ELT) <elt@dcc.govt.nz>
Subject: Council Agenda
Kia ora
The agenda for the Council meeting to be held on Monday 25 September 2023 has been published to the Council website and is available on the following links:
https://infocouncil.dunedin.govt.nz/Open/2023/09/CNL_20230925_AGN_2520_AT.PDF – PDF version
https://infocouncil.dunedin.govt.nz/Open/2023/09/CNL_20230925_AGN_2520_AT_WEB.htm – HTML version
Lee Vandervis - lee@vandervision.co.nz 
I would like to know how much the DCC has spent in the last decade with the goal of reducing atmospheric carbon locally. And what evidence, if any, that whatever measures they have carried out have been effective.
Some relevant stuff from the past. https://youtu.be/jMRD0-RLQ9w?si=c6cFL7-bnaSt5_Ih
DCC meeting where a climate change emergency was declared.
Here’s the Public Forum for that meeting: https://youtu.be/RiLpAu0yF1k?si=ym0ysnDPqU-OpbtJ
And here’s the public forum preceding the Motion to declare a climate emergency and the first speaker’s submission is quoted in the agenda as the reason to put the Motion on the agenda by the CE, despite that fact that the CE repeatedly said during the meeting that the Motion was purely political. So IMO a CE should not have put it on the Agenda – it should have been a Notic of Motion from an elected rep. Mr McDonald was not representing Xtinction Rebellion but speaking as an individual. He did not make any concrete suggestions about what the DCC could do, except perhaps to educate the public. He claimed all the solutions exist but the political will to implement them was lacking. But listen for yourself.
But my Public Forum followed Rory’s (who please keeping in mind was speaking as an individual, not representing a group, same as me). But the very next meeting a Motion was put on the agenda by the CE claiming to be in response. I have been a council watcher since the 1980’s and I have never seen a council immediately respond to a public forum submission with a Motion the very next meeting. And this was a local body election year. In my submission (the second I had made on what practical steps DCC cou
Hey Lee, Hope youre well, in hopong you can give me some insight on Envirowaste and the DCC. Completely off the record of course. I am frustrated at the response from envirowaste, some grumpy lady hung up on me. Rather than civilly explain how their cost increases are reflective of the 40% cost increase they’ve put on me in the past few years, she was rude and nasty and yelled at me. Luckily, I have reasonably thick skin lol! So I learned that the DCC have increased the fee Envirowaste pays for rubbish dumping BUT is it actually 40% or anything close to that? I’ve briefly spoken to Ingrid our MP about it and as I’ve said to her the real concern here is that the trash will end up in our recycling bins that we’ve worked really hard to implement. I think this particular company is extorting us and potentially breaking the law. We have laws in place to stop contracts prices being dramatically increased without our consent ??? Anyway, I understand if you’re too busy to get onto it but it was worth a shot as I’m no longer able to afford a wheelie bin, I can’t be the only one. Kind regards Haley
Sadly the new DCC policy to go to 4+1 bins and new collection regime has had enormous cost consequences all round.
I voted against the new collection system because of the direct and indirect costs that it guaranteed, but it was pushed through as a planet-saving must-have, just like the transport policies that are driving people out of their cars and driving debt through the roof.
The new DCC landfill at Smooth Hill will cause even greater refuse collection costs in my view, which would have been more cost-effectively run by private contractors Nash and Ross, who already deal with almost all our commercial waste because they are so much cheaper.
The new DCC bin system should be directly cheaper for you personally as it will be funded [very expensively] through rates.
I’m hoping** Auto correct failed me. 😬😅