For a cleaner future, consider all the energy options – and that includes nuclear

Some of your correspondents recently have berated those who do not believe in climate change, and write of existentialist threats to human life.

Predictions about our climate are not a belief system, like religion, tarot cards or star signs. It is science, and it is the science of predicting into the future, based on assumptions. Any change in those assumptions, even minor, can lead to major variations in the predicted outcome(s). The further out one goes, by force of logic, the more unpredictable any prediction must become.

There is no doubt mankind, especially in Western and overpopulated societies, is having a detrimental effect on our environment. All sorts of damage is being done. But we cannot stop using fossil fuels now as the Extinction Rebellion crowd advocates. Our economies, followed by our societies, would collapse.

In the interest of a cleaner future, we need to transition to cleaner energy sources over time and not deprive those in poor countries of basic rights, such as electricity generated by coal.

Since we all breathe the same air, solutions need to be worldwide. We need to consider the mix of types of energy to provide our needs. These include solar, hydro, wind, thermal and hydrogen. But also all other available forms so we can have reliable energy. That includes nuclear power, used in almost all of Europe and North America, with more plants under construction.

We need rational debate on all of these issues. No one should be berated or shut down. The science of future energy is not settled, it is ongoing.

Ian Morison, Forrest, ACT

Your editorial (“Oppositions must build a positive post-Covid case”, 8/9) correctly argues that when premiers have been easily re-elected on their successful strategies of fear-based protection, opposition parties will need more than the argument to reduce restrictions to regain power.

In the case of Victoria the newly appointed Opposition Leader, Matthew Guy, must present to Victorians a clear and distinct alternative government that focuses on a reindustrialisation of the state that lifts the regions, creates abundant employment opportunities and helps form a backbone of resilience. Together with strategic investment in health, Victorians would then have confidence that in the next pandemic draconian lockdowns will be a thing of the past.

Reindustrialisation will require reliable and competitive 24/7 power, and to start the process I suggest investigating a nuclear power plant for the Latrobe Valley as well as the controlled access to Gippsland natural gas.

Ron Hobba, Camberwell, Vic

Service for the nation

Greg Sheridan is the country’s leading foreign affairs correspondent. When he warns of a real existential peril facing this nation, we need to listen (“We can’t rely on US military might, and our own is a joke”, 8/9). Our total number of Defence personnel is just 85,000, 28,000 of whom are reservists. It is a joke. If ever there were a time to reintroduce national service for 18-year-old men and women, it’s now.

Back in the Cold War days of the mid-1950s many of us spent up to six months as national servicemen and were trained by World War II personnel. Yearly intakes included university students, who were required to train for three months at a time over two years. All others served for six months straight and all were retained on the reserve list for a further five years.

We served in army and air bases, on naval ships. This included aircraft carriers, one of which I served on in our Fleet Air Arm. We experienced flying and landing as passengers on the carrier – in helicopters and jet trainers. I even steered the carrier for a few minutes.

When it was all over, you stuck out your chest with pride in your uniform and then went back to work or joined up, and in some cases – as in Vietnam – were sent into action. Given this incredible technological era, military training would be an amazing experience as much as a national imperative.

Kevin Begaud, Dee Why, NSW

Literacy’s new era

I imagine self-interested educators would report “unacceptably high illiteracy rates” and argue for more taxpayer funding (“Push to tackle adult illiteracy from birth”, 8/9). The claim that “by adulthood, 44 per cent of Australians are classed as functionally illiterate” doesn’t signal some catastrophic failure in our education system. Rather, it’s a consequence of our having about 830,000 people of ethnic backgrounds who self-report speaking English “not well” or “not at all”. It’s also a consequence of these educators using the UNESCO 1978 definition of functional illiteracy, which sets the bar too high and doesn’t recognise the extent to which people in the era of YouTube and podcasts exchange ideas through speaking and listening, showing and telling.

Chris Oliver, Paddington, Qld