top of page
19nov19 Kingborough Chronicle pg 2 Comme

Kingborough Chronicle, Letters to the Editor, 26 November 2019, Page 4,  responding to the above article.

Gideon’s response: 

So, when I talk about Saudi Aramco, China Oil and the US military being big polluters who are exacerbating climate change, Lara de Vries’ best argument is to complain about how political parties waste too much paper? This sadly ignores the scale of fossil fuel production and consumption by the world’s biggest polluters. This is making a false equivalency that the Greens marketing materials (which happen to be printed using vegetable ink on 100% recycled paper) is somehow comparable to the US Military which uses more electricity per day than Denmark and more oil per day than Sweden. 

This laughably weak argument is topped off with a wildly overwrought assertion alleging that I advocated for "the total destruction of democratic society." I have read and re-read my contribution to the Kingborough Chronicle on 19 November but still cannot seem to find the bit where I supposedly argued for destroying democracy. Nice try Lara de Vries, but maybe stick to putting garbled words in your own mouth rather than trying to put them in mine.

Lara de Vries Hysterical response 26 Nov

You can read my response to 'Eco-code asssumptions' below. Each number corresponds with my response at the bottom of the article. 

Gail Foster Hysterical response 26 Nov 2

Eco-code assumptions


Dear Editor,

Cr Cordover makes a number of assumptions in the Kingborough Chronicle, Comment Column published November 19. Some of these are: carbon is bad, big business is bad, military is bad, especially the US military, capitalism is bad, capitalism should be overthrown (hence the expression, ‘late stage’), those that agree with capitalism and business should be fought against and that the role of a councillor is to push an ideology and ‘win’. I would like Cr Cordover to explain some points. What constitutes planetary health? [1] If Quantas and Virgin are so evil why do the Greens continue their taxpayer funded flights/junkets to climate conferences all around the globe?[2] If businesses do not make goods and profit, where are the funds coming from to pay for all the Green goodies?[3] Does the banning of corporate political donations include those that fund the Greens?[4]What is ‘meaningful climate action’? What are ‘world emissions’?[5]If we replace the eco-code newspeak with facts then ‘better public transport’ becomes the abolition of private transport[6], ‘uptake of renewable energy’ is actually, ‘ugly windmills and high power prices’[7] and ‘mitigate the impact of climate disasters’ results in waiting till the forest is on fire to demand ‘adopt climate action now’. Is Councillor Cordover qualified in science or business? No, he is qualified in acting. Feelings are not facts. Perhaps Councillor Cordover should stop acting in his local government role and take up the mantle of collective action somewhere else.[8]

Gail Foster

Blackmans Bay

Gideon's response:

  1. 320 parts per million (ppm) atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration instead of the current 411ppm.

  2.  The US military uses more electricity per day than Denmark. They use more oil per day than Sweden. Parliamentarians flying back and forth create less carbon emissions than Sweden. I’m sure you would prefer that Greens parliamentarians not fly back and forth to parliament so that there would be no one in Canberra to reveal the systemic corruption. 

  3.  What are Greens goodies? I am concerned that Gail Foster has consumed one too many Green Goodies and it is taking a toll on cognition. All ‘goodies’ can be paid for with real resources and public money. For example, do you think that the military depends entirely on businesses making profits? If that’s the case, how was the Second World War able to be fought when every developed nation was at that time affected by the Great Depression and businesses had no profit yet all the developed nations miraculously found enough money to build all the armaments they needed to fight the war. 

  4.  Yes, it does. Currently, Greens don’t take donations from corporations trying to buy influence.

  5.  I think you know what I meant by “world emissions”, but whilst we’re playing this game, what is “Quantas”?

  6.  I assure you, I don’t want to abolish private transport but, since we’re making up fantastical things the other person thinks, why don’t you tell us why you want to burn down all our hospitals and replace them with giant vats of oil?

  7.  According to that well-known far-left group Forbes Magazine, onshore wind and solar PV power are now, frequently, less expensive than any fossil-fuel option.

  8. Well, Professor Doctor Lieutenant Gail Foster QC OBE, I’m sorry that you feel like I”m not qualified to speak about the climate without a tertiary degree in climate science or business. Would you prefer I had the same qualifications as Pauline Hanson, or Tony Abbott? According to your theory, I wouldn’t be able to talk about Blackmans Bay water quality without a degree in biochemistry, or tree setbacks without being a professional arborist or roads without a degree in structural engineering, or garbage collection without a degree in environmental management. Sadly for the honourable post-doctoral professor doctor lieutenant Gail Foster QC OBE, no one on the council has a graduate degree in every single issue that the council has to discuss. But we have this thing called democracy where the people vote for the representative they think can best fill the position. And mostly, except for one or two exceptions, they think that the idea that you have to have a degree in something before you’re allowed to speak about it is elitist claptrap.  By the way Professor Foster, what is your degree in? Because unless you have a degree in journalism, history or a Masters of Business Administration, I think you’ve just hoist yourself upon your own petard.

bottom of page