The key purpose of the letter is obviously not the flowery and insincere language expressing some form of sympathy for the people who have lost their lives or whose homes and livelihood have been destroyed. It is contained in the key paragraph which is consistent with much of Charles's writing for the past 20 or 30 years.
The climate change paragraph functions as the letter's thesis statement — it's the one sentence that encapsulates what Charles most wants the reader to take away as a broader message beyond the any form of sympathy for Territorians.
“The increasingly catastrophic effects of climate change are surely a siren-call to the world for more urgent action, not only to address the root causes of our changing climate, but also to restore and revive the inherent resilience of Nature, and to live in Harmony with her through Nature-based solutions.”
The rest of the letter is nothing but fluff as far as Charles is concerned and anyone who is familiar with his writings over the past 20 or 30 years is well aware that he tries to weave this same message into just about every document that his feeble mind creates. He has a long history of lecturing people about “climate change” so this nothing new or out of character for him. He simply cannot help himself at this point in his life. So no, the title is not rage bait, and yes, it accurately characterizes what Charles harps on about on a daily if not hourly basis.
I was unfavorably impressed at how pedestrian and formulaic Charles’ style of writing is. One would expect that with the quality of his education he would do better. For instance, look at how he begins each of his paragraphs. With the first he begins by writing that he is “profoundly” blah, blah, blah. In the next paragraph, he begins with exactly the same expression, only he uses the Germanic root word “deeply” instead of the Latin rooted “profoundly”, as if no one might notice.