It’s a COP-out without ‘phase-out’ at Dubai

The trillion-dollar question

Nero fiddled. At COP28, numerous fossil fuel lobbyists press for delay and for economically damaging CCS investments. Will they be able to look their children in the eye?

CCS offers cover for the fossil fuel industry to continue its pollution, poses risk of leakage, and a high-CCS path to net zero by 2050 will cost at least $US30 trillion more than a pathway based primarily on renewables, energy efficiency and electrification, according to a report from Oxford University’s Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment.

Jim Allen, Panorama, SA

Muddling through without engineers

Hans van Leeuwen’s article on his interactions with Ted O’Brien, the opposition’s nuclear energy proponent (“Coalition powers up its nuclear quest in Dubai”), makes for disturbing reading because missing in action are the engineering voices. Australia’s transition to wind, solar and batteries makes it the world leader in asynchronous, as opposed to synchronous, AC electricity.

Those engineering voices are keeping shtum in debate – which is a pity, because we do not have the answers to make the transition work and the disparate politically inspired debates ensure that “muddling through” will be the game. And that means many regrettable investment decisions.

Phil Kreveld, Caulfield, Vic

Political point-scoring goes nuclear

If the Coalition is serious about decarbonising the economy, reducing emissions and doing our fair share to combat climate change, how can it possibly oppose joining 100 other countries in the COP28 pledge to triple the world’s renewable energy capacity (“Australia’s alternative energy brawl spills over at meeting”)? Instead, it argues for nuclear power.

Ted O’Brien is a nuclear power enthusiast whose proposals are questionable. Given the Coalition’s failure to act on nuclear power when in government, it feels like its enthusiasm now is purely political point-scoring.

Ray Peck, Hawthorn, Vic

Albo and ScoMo on the same page

Adrian Tilley is absolutely on the money with his assessment of the Albanese government’s enabling and greenwashing of our coal exports (Letters). But what makes it even more disappointing is that Anthony Albanese’s comments echo a 2020 statement from Scott Morrison. At the time, the AAP fact-checked Mr Morrison and concluded: “Replacement of Australian coal with lower-grade coal from another country would have only a small impact on emissions, based on the available data.”

The world, and Australia, would be a safer place if we were exporting clean energy and technology, not our bog-standard coal.

Lesley Walker, Northcote, Vic

Take pride in metallurgical coal exports

Adrian Tilley erroneously assumes that all export coal is burnt in overseas power stations. There is a high likelihood, however, that the trains seen heading to Dalrymple Bay were carrying metallurgical, not thermal, coal.

About 85 per cent of coal shipped through that port is metallurgical, a steel-making input for which there is no substitute. Australia should be proud to be the world’s largest exporter of metallurgical coal, essential for producing a key component of infrastructure, including that required for the energy transition.

Ian Satchwell, Swanbourne, WA

Avoidable failure of the Yes case

Megan Davis is absolutely correct that blame for the failure of the referendum Yes case rests with our politicians (“Hatred of politicians killed the Voice: Megan Davis”). As Aaron Patrick observed after the vote (“Most Australians didn’t want a new, black elite”, October 16), the Yes case would have succeeded if the prime minister had held a constitutional convention before proceeding with the referendum. All fears and misgivings about the Voice could have been aired and resolved. The resulting model would have ensured the success of the referendum.

Instead, Anthony Albanese ignored Australia’s history: that each of the eight previously successful referendums had bipartisan support. I presume his advisers were aware of this. Most likely, the PM so badly overestimated the strength of the public’s appetite to change the administration of Indigenous affairs that he believed the Voice referendum could not fail.

He wanted all the kudos for himself and expected that the Coalition, not wanting to risk public disfavour, would have no choice but to support it. This misjudgment handed to Peter Dutton a very large stick to beat the government with, and that opportunity was simply irresistible.

The likely failure of the Yes case without bipartisan support and the consequent damage to the government’s reputation was Dutton’s priority. It was certainly far more important to the opposition leader than crushing the hope of a better future that recognition in the Constitution and establishment of the Voice meant for First Nations people.

Whether or not Davis is correct that the public hates all politicians, I despise the fact that a cruel partnership between a grandstanding PM and a selfish opposition leader killed the Yes case.

Derek Norquay, Pelican Waters, Qld

Words failed the Voice, not pollies

Accepting rejection of one’s ideas and ambitions is difficult enough for any of us, but on such a massive scale as in the Voice referendum, relating to the words Megan Davis herself had drafted, must have entailed a different scale of pain. Even so, it is wrong to attribute the loss to the public’s “hatred for Australian politicians” – instead of accepting that the rejection was of the words and what they portended, and that the No voters seek a different way forward to achieve the goals of all Australians, including First Nations people.

Peter Thornton, Killara, NSW

Don’t ignore school funding inequity

It is reasonable to call for a renewed focus on traditional teaching methods to increase school attendance, improve student behaviour and strive to reverse declining outcomes, as revealed by the latest PISA results (“Jason Clare’s counter-insurgency must save the education revolution”). And yes, we should be focusing on our most disadvantaged students, who struggle to learn when faced with teacher shortages.

Gaining more “bang for buck” should indeed be the focus – but I struggle to completely fall into line with your recommendations without any mention of the funding inequity between private and public education. Yes, let’s do more with the money available, but could we please start with restoring a balance between the money available for public schools (state funded) and private schools (federal funded)? Asking our public schools to tighten their belts without this as a pre-condition is a bit much.

Bruce McKinnon, Mosman, NSW

High rate of developmental issues

How can it be that in a wealthy country with one of the best healthcare systems in the world, 20 per cent of children (one in five) have a disability or developmental problem (“What happens to the kids the NDIS can’t help any more?” )?

Apart from spending more on care and rehabilitation, we should also devote resources to finding out why the rate is so high, and what more can be done to tackle the issue earlier in the life cycle of the family and the individual.

Allen Greer, Sydney, NSW