Letter to the Editor: Emissions policy offered ‘unrealistic goals’

DEAR News Of The Area,

I WRITE in response to Kenneth Higgs’ recent letter regarding the suspension of the Port Stephens Council’s Emissions Reduction policy.

Mr Higgs is entitled to his opinion, but his version of events deserves scrutiny.

To claim that councillors who voted to suspend the policy acted on behalf of “polluting fossil fuel corporations” is not only inflammatory, it’s disrespectful to elected representatives who are doing exactly what they were voted in to do: question bad policy, demand accountability, and ensure ratepayers are getting value for money.

The policy in question may be 100 pages long, but that doesn’t make it right.

It’s filled with expensive, unrealistic goals that offer little clarity on actual environmental outcomes, yet carry significant long-term cost implications for our community.

The suspension is not a denial of climate change – it’s a responsible pause to assess whether this policy reflects the priorities of the people of Port Stephens, or just those of loud activists and inner-city ideologues.

Mr Higgs suggests a “public consultation process.”

That’s exactly what elections are.

The councillors who voted to suspend this policy were elected by the same 76,000 residents he claims to speak for.

Perhaps Mr Higgs should consider that many locals are concerned about skyrocketing living costs, housing pressures, and rates – issues that often get overshadowed by expensive, feel-good climate policies.

This wasn’t a hijacking.

It was democracy in action.

And if Mr Higgs disagrees with the decision, he’s welcome to put his name on a ballot next time around.

Regards,
Troy RADFORD,
Tanilba Bay.