Australia ignoring better examples on energy transition

Australia ignoring better examples on energy transition

Australia’s development of a transition to renewable electricity based on wind turbines, solar PV and battery storage clearly is the most costly and least effective of the options but, regardless of that, it is strongly supported by those wanting to profit by it (“Squadron tests ALP green commitment”, 31/7). Meanwhile, the examples of Spain, which was almost bankrupted by its own rapid move to develop wind and solar, and of Germany, which went earlier and further than Spain and now is stuck with the consequences, are ignored.

Unfortunately, also ignored are the examples of countries including the Nordic countries, the Baltic countries and Austria, which are developing forestry and biomass to energy, resulting in major carbon sequestration and the production of near-zero emission heat, power, transport fuels and biochemicals. And with accompanying benefits of permanent rural jobs, stimulus of regional economies and retention of population in rural areas. The energy data for these countries is all available online from national agencies and the International Energy Agency.

Andrew Lang, Lismore, Vic

UN lectures insult us

What an insult to Australia from UN climate chief Simon Stiell (“Climate chief backed fossil fuel tax breaks”, 31/7). What right does he have to lecture us on emissions and threaten our sovereignty? As a politician, Stiell supported fossil fuels and backed subsidies in Grenada. Now he’s done a triple somersault, attacking the very energy sources he once endorsed. Double standards doesn’t begin to cover it. He heads a UN body with zero credibility.

He lectures Australia – responsible for just 1 per cent of global emissions – while ignoring China (33 per cent) and India (7 per cent). Has he ever flown to Beijing to confront the real offenders? Meanwhile, Australia’s cost-of-living crisis is driven not by emissions, but by reckless overspending on high-cost renewables, cheered on by climate zealots. The UN should butt out of Australia’s affairs.

Lee Smith, Kenmore, Qld

‘Anti-racism’ debacle

Thank you, Timothy Lynch, for your thought-provoking article showing how the rise of anti-racism has led to an actual increase in racism, especially anti-Semitism (“Is the anti-racism movement making us more racist?”, 31/7). This can be no better demonstrated than in the universities of the US, UK and Australia where, under the banner of diversity, equity and inclusion, staff have been hired to stamp out racism, yet anti-Semitism is now rife throughout them all. Resentment from the theocratic, autocratic and monarchic countries of the Middle East and Africa, and from the West’s intellectual left, for the amazing success of democratic Israel is no doubt a key factor behind this phenomena.

Ron Hobba, Camberwell, Vic

I wholeheartedly endorse both of Timothy Lynch’s two arguments. Western nations are having to learn lessons familiar to those who have studied developing countries riven by sectarian conflicts. On the first: If a government frames public policy in a racially conscious way, then racial consciousness becomes even more entrenched and social cohesion gives way to tribalism. On the second: Affirmative action policies to eliminate sectarian disadvantage empower group leaders dependent on the perpetuation of victimhood and grievance. The first generation of activists wants equality of opportunity. The next insists on equality of outcomes, which is more contentious. The third generation demands compensation and reparation by guilting the supposedly privileged group, and produces a backlash with the potential for civil disorder.

Ramesh Thakur, Ocean Shores, NSW

Activists get it wrong

John Coyne is right to highlight that activist groups such as the Australia Institute and Jubilee Australia are driven more by ideology than by practical environmental concerns (“Why can’t climate ideologues see the benefits of gas exports?”, 31/7). I read the report referenced in the article, and its core message was simply to discourage investment in Australia’s natural gas industry. It contributed little to the broader energy and climate debate and, more worryingly, offered no serious analysis of the environmental consequences if its proposals were adopted. Its argument around Asian investment in Australian gas was particularly weak.

If Australia cuts supply, these nations will turn elsewhere – potentially to suppliers with higher emissions and lower environmental standards. They will not accept poverty to satisfy foreign activists’ ideals. A blanket opposition to fossil fuels is easy to promote on social media. Complex, evidence-based solutions that improve environmental outcomes are far harder to explain and harder to fund. But if activists truly want to make a difference, that’s where their focus should be.

Don McMillan, Paddington, Qld