Business chiefs should be more concerned about their poor productivity

Poor productivity, poor vocational training and an uncompetitive economy should be business priorities.

It’s the new year and business-lobby chiefs saw the reminders on their calendars: time to whinge (“CEOs warn: stop toxic policy drift”, 21/1). Here’s a novel suggestion: what are they going to do about poor productivity, poor vocational training and an uncompetitive economy? They are as responsible for the mess they identify as is the government.

Monopoly or near monopoly control is the aim of much of business — telecommunications and banking, for example. Smaller banks and once efficient telecoms companies have been swallowed up.

They’ve become productivity sapping, inefficient bureaucratic mazes. The last thing they worry about is excellence in the product or service they provide. Their dominant concern is short-term customer milking.

Perhaps most illuminating of all about the attitude of business is its response to the banking royal commission. No concern expressed for the abuses identified, but a worry about future regulation to prevent such abuses. They want tax cuts for themselves, but they want the government to balance the budget.

George Finlay, Balaclava, Vic

Big fry in the Pacific

Scott Morrison’s Pentecostal faith and his passion for rugby league might be trump cards in Australia’s need to counter China’s soft and hard power in the Pacific region, but relations with Fiji’s leadership will require caution (“Pacific trip gives life to step-up policy”, 21/1).

Although Frank Bainimarama is aware of the Coalition’s refocusing of Australia’s foreign aid on to the Pacific since 2014, Fiji’s PM is a wily customer. Witness his attempt to embarrass Morrison on Australia’s climate change efforts. However, what would be his response, if confronted with the choice between assistance from Australia with renewable energy and the offer of a modern coal or gas-fired power station from China? Nevertheless, Greg Sheridan is right to point out the significance of the Morrison visit, compared with the usual photo opportunities for our pollies in the big league where we are very small fry.

John Morrissey, Hawthorn, Vic

Climate change credence

I note the responses to Ian Plimer’s excellent article exposing some of the chicanery of the climate change industry (“97pc of scientists agree on nothing”, 17/1). There are still letters trying to con readers into thinking that there is any substance to the notion that a fictitious 97 per cent consensus of scientists supports the myth of climate change.

As a scientist, I have yet to meet a genuine scientist who gives any credence to climate change nonsense as proposed by wishful thinkers, the left-wing brigade, renewable energy rent-seekers and those whose careers depend on the research-grant gravy train.

As for consensus, it is irrelevant if the hypothesis that the consensus supports is wrong. The advancement of genuine science depends on facts, not opinion, and no amount of consensus will make correct something that is incorrect.

The Earth is a dynamic planet where nothing stays the same, such as continental drift, volcanism, tectonic activity, and the natural shifts in weather patterns and climate that depend on solar cycles. Carbon dioxide is a plant nutrient, without which there would be no animal or plant life. Its greenhouse properties are minor and variations in its concentration in the atmosphere have not been demonstrated to have any influence on climate, despite the concerted efforts of the IPCC.

If the charlatans proposing man-made climate change wish to make a valid case, they have to unequivocally demonstrate that only carbon dioxide emitted by humans affects climate, not the other 97.5 per cent derived from natural causes.

Marian Skwarnecki, Maylands, WA