Indigenous voice proponents should hear out those who fear a divided nation

Only a racist would argue against your editorial (“Labor’s mandate for Uluru, challenge is in the detail”, 25/5), which says “the endgame must be improving the lives of disadvantaged Indigenous Australians”. Will enshrining an Indigenous voice in the Constitution help achieve that laudable objective? The impressive Jacinta Nampijinpa Price views a referendum as a distraction. I believe it will be worse than a distraction; it will be divisive.

Like it or not, the path to a referendum has now been set and incoming Indigenous Australians minister Linda Burney has a formidable task to control the inevitable passions on both sides. Ms Burney will need to control attempts by Yes proponents to truncate legitimate debate by slandering all the No proponents as racists. This will entail the government not running a propaganda campaign in favour of the Yes vote and giving equal funding to the proponents of the No vote.

A reasoned argument against a constitutional change that effectively generates two nations, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, is contained in anthropologist Peter Sutton’s book The Politics of Suffering.

John Allsop, Mont Albert, Vic

The media and the major parties downplayed climate change – too divisive and difficult to put upfront in this election. How wrong they were (“Day 1: change the climate”, 25/5). The elevation of this issue as the No.1 factor identified by voters now means deep interest in what comes next. With the simple two-party approach to government a thing of the past, how will the new Greens and independent forces drive priorities for climate action? Where are the ready levers to be pulled to turn this fossil-fuelled ship around? The carbon tax is gone, so what’s left?

The “safeguard mechanism” – pull that one hard. Grab the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and expand its capacity to promote large-scale wind and solar, along with electric vehicles, and then there’s the Rewiring the Nation Corporation. The beauty of these is that they are off-budget, so easy pick-ins. Get going and the target debate will diminish. With the “third eye” of parliament watching every move, not to mention all of us voters who want action, Labor better be on it. So much to do, so little time.

Carolyn Ingvarson, Canterbury, Vic

With Labor’s new emissions plan, the winners will include the Chinese makers of wind turbines and solar panels, the Australian renewables industry, carbon traders and those who finance the whole shebang.

Losers will be just about everyone else facing the higher costs of the increased capital outlay and more complex grid and back-up systems, with those on lower incomes and tight margins hurt the most.

Australia will become less competitive (from higher costs) but the planet will be unaffected. Warm inner glows will be created in believers, but this will eventually wear off, leaving only a sense that maybe they were duped.

Doug Hurst, Chapman, ACT

The countries reducing emissions most effectively often couple this with delivery of clean energy projects on the ground in other countries.

Examples include Sweden helping the US, Austria working with African countries, Denmark in projects in China, and Finland supporting projects in Indonesia.

These countries reducing their own emissions while providing aid are mainly focusing on forestry management, energy from biomass and energy efficiency. Maybe Finland or Denmark could provide us with the advice we urgently need.

Andrew Lang, senior consultant, World Bioenergy Association, Lismore, Vic

So the big question now is how is Anthony Albanese going to save the planet with the net-zero emissions plan. China, India and Japan are all committed to increasing their coal-fired power stations and even Germany, which spent billions trying to get renewables to work, is reverting to coal. Albanese will send Australia broke, all in an effort to realise an unachievable goal.

Chas Barter, Lower Mitcham, SA

After polling day, we can no longer doubt that Australians want stronger governmental policy to address climate change. Graham Lloyd zooms in on climate anxiety (“Severe weather amped up climate ‘doomism’ vote”, 25/5), but his conclusion that we are “teaching a generation of people to be fearful of the natural world” is preposterous.

The climate fear is not of the natural world but rather of the implications of an inadequate response to the threats of a changed climate. This anxiety was unsurprising when the government had climate ambitions consistent with 3C of warming.

One can hope and assume that, with the implementation of more ambitious climate policy, young people’s mental health will improve alongside the health of our environment.

Amy Hiller, Kew, Vic