Puff piece lead 1News tonight trying to reframe the narrative around coal to be about getting a fair deal, with no mention of environmental destruction and climate change
Shane Jones is 65 years old. Statistically, he can expect to live another 15 years. So, he's right: it's not _his_ problem, because he'll be dead when (he expects) the problems hit.
The sheer selfishness and short-sightedness of this view ought to be obvious to all.
Of course, things are moving much faster than we expect, so they'll probably hit when he's old and helpless. If he burns to death in a retirement home in a climate-change fuelled inferno, or dies of heatstroke after AirCon failure, we can at least say "karma".
Matua Shane is going to see his whenua burn every summer before he dies. He is going to watch Muriwhenua cook for his moko while he flits around like blowfly, shitting on everything that matters.
He considers that the ETS will magically take care of it and that will be the miners' responsibility, not his. As for destroying habitats, he says they can "shift some critters around" and deplete some populations and on balance that'll be OK.
Doomsday anklebiter is a strange way to describe your FTA counterparties as you go shouting about ignoring environmental concerns for the sake of trade.
I really want to know why they do this sort of piece. Are they told to, and if so by whom? Some sort of joint editorial decision? Who here has worked in a TV news room and could advise?
