Insightfulness and sanity in the debate about climate change

Thanks to Ian Plimer for once again trying to introduce a note of sanity into the febrile conversation about anthropogenic climate change (“The truth of climate change is revealed at school”, 16/5).

The problem is that those who should be listening have closed their minds to any contrary opinions no matter the logic or historical evidence, and those of us on the other side of the debate have come to realise that the climate change mitigation movement is our version of the South Sea Bubble, and more about redistribution of wealth and influence than logic and reason.

Looking beyond Saturday, I have the feeling it’s going to get worse.

John McHarg, Maylands, WA

Ian Plimer should be thanked for his insightful commentary on climate change. I have followed Plimer’s commentary for more than 20 years and am impressed with the longitudinal and scholarly viewpoints presented. His work highlights the sort of debate we need to have but are prevented from having by the crusaders.

Carbon emissions are not our big problem; it is the sea of plastic rubbish we are drowning in and doing little about. Let’s deal with these issues on the basis of science. And yes, our climate is changing — just as it has done over millennia.

Graham Reynolds, Wendouree, Vic

Gullibility in Kooyong

Having done several shifts in the past three weeks at a pre-poll station in Kooyong, I can say we have hit peak climate madness. GetUp, Labor, Greens, Kooyong Climate Action and the Animal Justice Party are all screaming about the climate.

Julian Burnside looks like a cat who got the cream as these gullible people fall for the climate line. They do not read facts about what the Coalition is doing to reduce emissions or how much in reality can we do as a country to reduce carbon emissions, given that humans create only 3 per cent of annual global emissions and we are emitting 1.3 per cent of that.

The middle class is voting for its own economic destruction.

Tim Gillespie, Camberwell, Vic

Republic problems

Republican ambitions of the Labor Party are receiving very little pre-election scrutiny, but they are highly problematic.

The promised voter survey would erode confidence by inviting a vote against the crown while offering no executable option, and if members of parliament obtain popular republican support but can’t agree on the model to offer at a referendum we will have our own Brexit fiasco.

Then there is the proposed appointment of a minister for a republic. High Court challenges may have to decide whether the crown can commission a minister for its own demise without a successful referendum (and whether all six federating partners must concur before entering a new social compact). The court may well adjudicate against popular aspiration, leading to widespread upset.

David d’Lima, Sturt, SA

Agreement on Newstart

We welcome your agreement that the Newstart allowance is too low (“Time to reveal how Labor would change the nation”, 15/5). You join business, unions and 72 per cent of the public.

However, you state “the Australian Council of Social Service wants the allowance almost doubled to at least $75 a day”. Not true.

ACOSS is calling for an absolute minimum increase of $75 a week to the single rate of Newstart and related allowances.

Far from doubling the allowance, such an increase would lift the payment from $40 to around $50 a day.

The only other payment everybody on Newstart receives is the energy supplement at $4.40 a week.

Cassandra Goldie, chief executive, ACOSS, Sydney, NSW