KEY POINTS:
When I spotted the Venerable Garth George rubbishing the prophets of global warming yesterday, my initial thought was he must have got the real oil from his good mate, the Big Guy in the Sky. But no, it seems he was just miffed at the thought of having to moderate his personal polluting habits.
"If you believe all the garbage ... about global warming," he thundered, "then you probably believe the Earth is flat [and in] those ancient charts in which large areas are marked 'Here be dragons'."
This from a man who believes that a 2000-year-old book, full of tales of Middle Eastern mayhem and make-believe, is the literal word of God.
Defiantly, my fellow columnist plans to keep tootling about in his gas-guzzling car, take as many flights as he pleases and keep his woodburner stoked over winter.
I guess for someone who runs stories in his fundamentalist Christian newspaper declaring the end of the world is nigh, a little bit of human-assisted planet-warming could be seen as doing God's work, helping hasten the time of Rapture when the true believers float skywards to a better place while we sinners stay put to burn to a cinder.
Let's hope that when he gets there, he manages to find a little cloud to relax upon that is not too speckled by the soot of his carbon-burning earthly life.
What gets me about the climate change debate is the zealotry of the deniers. Why all the anger?
The majority of experts appear to agree the Earth is going through a warming-up phase. They also believe the burning of fossil fuels over the past 200 years is largely to blame. Not being an expert, I have to take their word. But from what I do understand, their arguments make sense. As does their commonsense solution, which is to slow down the rate of the burning.
But even if this hypothesis eventually proves to be wrong and global warming turns out to be more about sunspot activity on the sun, or even a sign of God's wrath, does that mean the proposed rescue package of reducing carbon emissions into the atmosphere was all a waste of time? Surely not. Any move to lower the level of atmospheric pollution is of benefit to each one of us. Forget about the long-term health of planet Earth and get personal.
You have only to look out across Auckland from the harbour bridge or from one of the volcanic peaks on a still morning to see the pockets of lung-damaging haze hanging over the city. And we're lucky. Much of Asia is permanently like this.
But back to the personal level. I used to burn coal in my ancient open fireplace, and very cosy it was of a winter's evening. But you couldn't miss the black particles of soot and other pollutants that tended to settle on the front doorsteps at the same time. They still do, but at least it's someone else doing the polluting.
Pumping noxious car fumes and fireplace particles into the air we all breathe is an anti-social act just as unacceptable in this day and age as hoiking on the pavement or peeing in the gutter. That it is also probably warming up the planet is almost a side issue.
I'm not that fussed if the temperature does sneak up a degree or three. For a start, my heating bill would go down a little. As for the resultant sea-level rise of 50cm or so over the next century, I'm afraid I can't get very excited about that. I suspect I'd need a rise of at least 50m to turn my modest abode into a desirable sea-front property.
The one area of climate change that does concern me is any liability my local authority might face by way of claims from businesses and homes caught by storm damage or rising sea waters.
The leaky building saga has been a salutary and expensive lesson for ratepayers, who face huge damages bills as the last guilty party standing. For Auckland City ratepayers alone, the bill could be in the tens of millions of dollars.
I'd like to think that in 50 years, when some rich person's cliff-top home subsides into the Waitemata Harbour, Auckland ratepayers are well protected and don't end up footing the bill.
