In defence of the phenomenon known as Trump

Thank you for publishing a splendid selection of articles on your Commentary page on Thursday, all with positive references to the phenomenon of Donald Trump.

Greg Sheridan’s analysis of the flawed Paris Accord (“Why support this trifecta of fails?”) gives good reason to applaud Trump’s action in cutting free from the shackles of a misguided ideological agenda. US industry immediately picked up steam.

Daniel Wild (“Labor would keep US handcuffed to the Paris climate deal”, 12/11) describes how the shadow of Joe Biden’s energy policies would fall on Australia and impede our continued access to coal-fired power with its cheap dependability.

And Gabriel Moens (“Early voting warps result”) gave an excellent description of an electoral system so detrimental to the valiant efforts of a man with his unfinished work of draining the swamp.

John McRobert, Indooroopilly, Qld

Thank you, Greg Sheridan, for an excellent article demonstrating the fatuousness of the adoption of a “net zero emissions by 2050” climate change target. Without proven technology and a costing, claiming such a target is simply virtue signalling.

The UK parliament passed the legislation for this without any plan or costing. The fact Prime Minister Boris Johnson had been a climate sceptic adds to the cynicism about the seriousness of the target. It would be a shame if Australia ever added itself to the list of cynics such as China and India. The problem is that the UN would take this “support” seriously and start the next round of talks on “actions” being taken.

Geoff Dunsford, Lindfield, NSW

It is heartwarming to watch Anthony Albanese, Mark Dreyfus, Mark Butler et al destroy the Labor Party. It no longer has relevance for workers, who realise that future job opportunities depend on a government that totally rejects the 100 per cent renewables mantra. As Greg Sheridan writes, “a move to renewables will make us poorer, our competitors richer and actually damage our planet because activity is undertaken in a country with dirtier production”. Labor just does not understand this basic logic and will pay dearly at the next election.

Chas Barter, Lower Mitcham, SA

Greg Sheridan notes that under current “carbon accounting” rules, Australia could get to net zero emissions by having big bushfires every year and then claiming credits for replanting the trees that just burnt down. Rather than wasting the trees in bushfires, follow Europe’s lead and burn them in power stations to replace coal and gas.

G. Perryman, East Melbourne, Vic

What an extraordinary column by emeritus professor of law Gabriel Moens. He casts doubt on the validity of the US elections basically because of an objection to early voting. Did he have the same objections when the Coalition won the last federal election, with early voting predominantly being used by Coalition voters? He then finishes with an imagined scenario, “for people to wonder what happened when, sometime in the middle of the night, a carload of early votes arrived to be counted”. Cue scary music. Anyway, everyone knows they arrived in black helicopters.

Don Dowell, Kew, Vic

Gabriel Moens suggests that only after hearing all of the rubbish candidates spew forth during a campaign will we mug voters have the information that counts when deciding for whom to vote. I vote on track records over the term of the parliament, not the rubbish that comes from the mouths of politicians when they are sucking up in an end game. To claim I might change my vote based on those frenetic few weeks of campaigning insults my intelligence.

Ron Owers, Mollymook, NSW

I found it disappointing The Australian chose to publish Gabriel Moens’ attack on early postal voting, clearly motivated by Donald Trump’s loss in the recent US presidential election. Democracy is on a very slippery slope indeed if we deem some votes more worthy than others, especially in an election held in such unusual circumstances.

Given the different partisan attitudes to COVID-19, it was entirely predictable that postal votes would favour Joe Biden, whereas in-person votes would favour Trump. Trump’s “huge election lead on election day” that “simply evaporated” was no more than a consequence of the order in which the votes were counted.

Sue Lester, Grange, SA