Putting a price on carbon

John Hunwick writes: Re. “On climate change, politicians think you’re stupid. And you’re paying for it” (yesterday, item 9) Bernard Keane has returned to his best with his comments on Climate Change. He rightly uses the introduction of a carbon price as an indication of how committed any politician is to tackling the problem.

I would go two steps further. One is the actual price on carbon. While many might accept $20/tonne, this level should only be accepted for 12 months to get the notion accepted and then raised quickly to $40/t if not more. My personal preference is for something like $100/t by 2015 just to show we are dinkum, but I guess that must relate to other nations, but is close to the necessary ball park figure to effectively make the transition to renewable.

The second step or indicator I would use to assess any genuine commitment to a climate change policy of any merit is a declaration of phasing out coal-fired power stations and no more new ones to be constructed. Until this undertaking is given to the Australian community then we are still only rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic albeit with good intentions.

Arguing over Afghanistan

Rod Metcalfe writes: Re. yesterday’s editorial on Afghanistan. Let me see, the US got its twin towers hit by ‘terrorist’ flown airplanes. There are a lot of other countries in Afghanistan. So is Australia. Perhaps if the US hadn’t been hit on September 11, 2001 then your editorial would be right — no one would be there.

However, we might be in Afghanistan if planes had been flown into the AMP centres in Sydney; the houses of Parliament in London; the Eiffel Tower in Paris to name a few. Get real guys. Your editorial is wrong. The risk of global terrorism which was highlighted in 2001 via Afghanistan is the reason we are there — although we seem to have forgotten.

World Cup fever

Sam Varghese writes: Re. “World Cup: the inside scoop on Paul the clairvoyant calamari” (July 9, item 5) When will Crikey learn that triumphalism almost always ends with egg on one’s face? Your acclaimed “scoop” about Paul the octopus was revealed as the ravings of a deluded mind when the cephalopod opted for Germany in the playoff for third and fourth places and for Spain in the final.

There are plenty of lunatics who send anonymous emails to online publications claiming to have discovered who was actually behind the 9/11 attacks and who killed JFK. That Crikey believed this kind of pap and wrote a story about it shows that you are as gullible and as unprofessional in your approach to journalism as those whom you condemn day in and day out.

Jenny Batesman writes: Let’s use soccer as an analogy and Spain’s win in the world cup in Australia’s election year.

Soccer is now reflective of a country’s society and the success of the Spanish team had a lot to do with the philosophy of the players, manager and their country today in the global context. They played the “beautiful game” with skill, smart strategies, maturity and depth as a team in a progressive manner and were deserving to win against a conservative country and side like the Dutch.

Let that be a lesson to the campaign managers of the political parties in the next couple of weeks.

Land of the long black cloud

Nigel Brunel writes: Re. “New Zealand no longer the land of the long black cloud?” (July 1, item 11) I fail to see what the fear is in Australia over not having an ETS. New Zealand (the only country not to lose at the world cup – minor point) has an ETS and despite all the fear-mongering by the climate denialists and those who felt New Zealand was sacrificing its global competitiveness — there is a noticeable silence in the air.

There are no demonstrations in the street — no one is walking down Queen Street waving their electricity or petrol bills in the air. The reality is that almost everyone you speak to is concerned about the environment and wants to do something and the vast majority of voters voted for a political party that wanted to have an ETS.

If everyone sits around waiting for other countries to act – nothing will happen. Given climate change (and man’s effect on it) is real and a peer-reviewed scientific fact (Hi Tamas) — why is there so much push back at a political level? (Rhetorical question)

Seize the moment Australia.