Absurdity of Shorten’s climate position is exposed

When asked about the cost of Labor’s climate policy during the last debate, Bill Shorten put forward the mind-bending proposition “to only look at the investment in new energy without looking at the consequences of not acting on climate change is a charlatan’s argument”.

This is a charlatan’s response, a shrewd deflection and vacuous sleight of mouth. Shorten is too smart by half and is being deceitful. He is ignoring the first question by raising a second question as though it actually acquits the first. It doesn’t. The suggestion that by merely asking the question on the cost translates to not doing anything is absurd.

To illustrate this, it’s just a matter of posing the two questions in reverse. What is the cost to the environment if we don’t take action and, if we do take action, let’s say a 45 per cent target of renewables by 2030, what is the financial cost to the economy? Neither of which Shorten will answer.

Kevin McDonald, Thornlie, WA

Is it giving Australians a fair go not to release costing of Labor’s climate change policy and describing any questions as “dishonest”? Is it a fair go to drive up everyone’s power bills but not let them know what the increases are likely to be? What about the flow-on effects on the costs of goods and services that will rise significantly when businesses pass on the carbon costs foisted on them by Labor?

Is it giving Australians a fair go when some self-funded retirees do not receive their franking credit refunds while others in an industry super fund lose nothing?

Is it a fair go to use taxpayer funds to pay some of the wages for childcare workers, a policy that will flow on to other industries where Labor thinks wages are too low?

Brian Barker, East Brisbane, Qld

Bill Shorten says Scott Morrison is dishonest in asking that voters be told the cost of Labor’s 45 per cent emissions reduction target. It is Shorten’s policy that is dishonest. Reducing emissions requires an effort by all countries. Australia produces only 1.3 per cent of global emissions. The idea of the Paris accord was that countries would share the load to get emissions down. Australia’s fair share was set at a reduction of 26 to 28 per cent. This is the Coalition’s policy. The world’s 10 biggest emitters produce 75 per cent of total emissions, with some countries continuing to increase their emissions. China alone produces 30 per cent and continues to build coal-fired power stations.

Implying that there would be an effect on the world’s emissions as a result of a greater effort by little Australia, and that our economy will not be damaged or jobs put in jeopardy, are the big lies in Labor’s climate policy.

Philip Temple, Larrakeyah, NT

Bill Shorten’s refusal to cost action or inaction on climate change does not augur well. Voters are entitled to have the questions answered because on election, Labor will embark on a program that will lead to the greatest economic and social upheaval this country has seen

Presumably, inaction will see an end to life on this planet and action by one of the smallest emitters in the developed world will save the planet but at an enormous cost to our way of life.

Geophysicists tell us that Earth has been much hotter and colder than it is at present. The possibility of climate change should not be ignored but since so many predictions have been farcical, we are wise to adopt a cautious approach.

P. J. McLeod, Salamander Bay, NSW

Bill Shorten’s reference to those who challenge him on the cost of his carbon emissions policy as dishonest is reminiscent of Hillary Clinton’s reference to those who challenged her as deplorables. If he won’t answer that question, how could he possibly compare it to the cost of doing nothing?

Mort Schwartzbord, Caulfield, Vic

Bill Shorten’s indignant tone, accusing those asking questions on the cost of his climate policy of mounting “a crooked charlatan argument” is pure Freudian projection by a political charlatan. We’re in a very strange place when vague ideas about changing the climate and the refusal to answer the basic question about the cost, gets rapturous applause, but solid infrastructure ideas that would lift the economy, barely shift the needle of enthusiasm.

Jim Ball, Narrabeen, NSW