Cheaper cars and India’s greenhouse emissions:

Jim Green, nuclear campaigner with Friends of the Earth, writes: Christian Kerr misleads Crikey readers with his claim on Friday that Friends of the Earth UK “seem to be saying” that Indians don’t have the right to cheap, safe transport. Friends of the Earth has said no such thing. Kerr quotes FoE UK representative Tony Bosworth who simply stated the obvious: “The Tata Nano makes motoring cheaper and growing car sales in India will lead to big rises in carbon dioxide emissions. This is another blow to efforts to tackle global climate change.” Kerr misleads by failing to include the next two sentences from Bosworth: “But per-person emissions will still be much higher in the West. Our priority must be to increase efforts to cut our own emissions and to show the rest of the world how to develop a low-carbon economy.” As to the substantive issue of energy and greenhouse emissions in India, a useful primer is the Leonard Weiss article in the May/June 2006 edition of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Suffice it here to note that India’s per capita emissions are about 17 times lower than Australia’s. India’s per capita emissions are in the ball-park of being sustainable on a global basis, whereas Australia’s are a long, long way off.

The Newhouse resignation letter:

Dave Liberts writes: Re. “The Newhouse resignation letter that won’t be buried” (Friday, item 8). The George Newhouse did-he-or-didn’t-he resignation looks to me like a storm in a teacup. I recall hearing a line during the election campaign that the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal’s rules mean that any member who nominates for a seat in Parliament automatically ceases to be a member of the CTTT. So, after reading about the ongoing saga in Crikey, I spent two minutes on Google and found Schedule 2 of the CTTT Act 2001. And there it is in black and white – The office of a member becomes vacant if “the member is nominated for election as a member of the Legislative Council or of the Legislative Assembly or as a member of a House of Parliament or a legislature of another State or Territory or of the Commonwealth.” (S.7(1)(e)) Mr Newhouse ceased to be a member of the CTTT the same instant he nominated for Wentworth, whether or not his resignation letter had been received. I’m not a lawyer and I acknowledge I might have this all wrong, but it looks to me like the NSW Libs are wasting their time on this one. Still, they’ve been doing nothing else since 1995 so not much news there.

Peter Rosier writes: Alex Mitchell quotes, and by implication accepts the truth of, the assertions of Catherine Cusack to the NSW Upper House when she asks “How is it possible that a member of the CTTT presiding over home building cases also can be deeply engaged in partisan activities such as fundraising for the Labor Party and sitting in judgment as a councillor and mayor over development applications? How can this conflict of partisan interest meet the standards set out in the code of conduct?” Leaving aside the substantive question about fundraising, there can be little doubt that Mr Newhouse had no relevant conflict of interest. Whilst the CTTT hears building disputes, these never involve a council, nor require any judgment-sitting on Mayors or councillors – they are between the builder and the owner about the terms of a building contract and whether they have been complied with. The CTTT does not deal with development applications or appeals from Councils on such matters – that is the exclusive bailiwick of the Land and Environment Court with whom Ms Cusack and, it would seem, Alex, have confused the CTTT.

How many US voters are guided by God?:

Despina Anagnostou writes: Christian Kerr asked the question on Friday, “US 08: Which Presidential Candidate should you support?” (item 12). Living in the US, I watch the debates, and I literally sit up and cheer when a candidate chooses to forego the usual barely-if-at-all relevant prepared spiel and actually answers the question (out of the front-runners, usually McCain, Edwards and Clinton). But I curse like an Aussie every time the candidate ignores the question entirely and starts thanking God and the heavens and their wife and preaches about hope and promise (always Obama). It’s insulting, but many voters bought it in Iowa on both sides. Then again, this should not be so surprising given that when the moderator in a Democratic candidates’ debate asked the candidates to name their favourite passage from the Bible, rather than remind the moderator that this is (supposed to be) a secular society and posit that such a question alienated many Americans and was out of line, the candidates just rolled off the passages that inspired them. That’s when I realised that it’s not just that this country has a high God-botherer quotient, but that a belief in God – and not any God, but the one who gave us Jesus – is a part of the national psyche, despite the diversity of religious beliefs. Iowa may have been an anomaly, but how many Americans will vote in this election will still be guided by God?

Cricket:

Tony Llewellyn-Jones writes: If poor old Steve Bucknor is too old to umpire at 61, how and where does that place Malcolm Speed? Having heard Gideon Haigh (the Stephen Mayne of cricket analysis) recently, I reckon Mr Haigh should be drafted into managing either Cricket Australia or the ICC. At least as a Board Member. Then we the people might be assured of balance, transparency and wit in dealing with future fracas which will no doubt crop up – particularly during the proposed tours of India and Pakistan later this year if not in Perth and Adelaide in the next few weeks.

Stephen Magee writes: I have some difficulty with John Hughes’s claim that alleged racist comments by an Indian cricketer cannot be excused, but can be explained (Friday, comments). The explanation, he says, lies in the Australian team’s sledging of the cricketer in question. Sorry to disagree, but the explanation for racist comments is that the person making them is a racist. Any other “explanation” is an excuse.

Well done, Peter Holmes a Court:

Michael Walker writes: The passion displayed by Peter Holmes a Court’s response is testament to the fact that he honestly believes in what he and Russell Crowe are trying to achieve at Souths. If only there were more wealthy people like Peter in such public organisations willing to talk the talk, rather than remain in their corporate boxes. We need more public and personable leaders, not more faceless corporate exec types. Well done Peter.

Nuclear power:

Michael Angwin, Executive Director of the Australian Uranium Association, writes: Re. Mark Byrne and Dean Friske (Friday, comments). Our task, in Australia, and not the only one, is to ensure we maximise the opportunity for the world to use Australian uranium exports for the 60 or so nuclear power reactors it will build in North America, Europe and Asia within Mark Byrne’s preferred timeframe and which will keep supplying clean energy for sixty years after that. That nuclear power won’t meet all the world’s clean energy needs is not a reason not to employ it to address climate change. Unfortunately for Dean Friske’s argument, nuclear power stations can withstand large aircraft crashes, let alone shoulder-mounted rocket launchers.

Send your comments, corrections, clarifications and c*ck-ups to boss@crikey.com.au. Preference will be given to comments that are short and succinct: maximum length is 200 words (we reserve the right to edit comments for length). Please include your full name – we won’t publish comments anonymously unless there is a very good reason.