Labor’s policy would bring no benefit to the climate

There are at least two problems with Bill Shorten’s claim that the cost of not acting on climate change is worse than acting on it (“Price carbon cuts? Yes you can”, 2/5). First, he can’t quantify the costs of either of these options, so how can he possibly compare them?

Second, it’s not an either/or situation. Given the rate at which India and China are building new coal-fired power stations, Australia (and the world) will have to meet the costs of dealing with climate change whatever happens (assuming that it is being driven by carbon dioxide emissions).

So the costs associated with Labor’s policy of acting on climate change will be additional to the costs of dealing with climate change. And given the inconvenient truth that any action by Australia will have not the slightest effect on the global climate, the obvious question is: where’s the sense in spending such huge amounts of taxpayers’ money on a project that will have no tangible benefits?

David Lee, Noosaville, Qld

The argument that Australia makes such a small contribution to greenhouse gas emissions globally that our actions don’t matter is based on false logic. The same logic would lead to the conclusion that an individual’s vote or action on any national or international issue makes essentially no difference. If everyone felt that way, nothing would get done. If only the highly motivated took action, the result could be catastrophic.

The real issue is whether society can control the climate. I suggest that even if this were to be possible it won’t happen because most people have more pressing problems. Society would not survive the harm caused now by the use of solar and wind power that are perceived as necessary to safeguard the future.

Don Higson, Paddington, NSW

The Labor Party’s inability to cost its climate change policy makes sobering reading. Opposition climate change spokesman Mark Butler and his “dodgy numbers” comment gives pause for thought. The scenario of $1.2 trillion seems like a lot of money for what appears to be very little gain. Australia produces only 1.3 per cent of the world’s carbon emissions.

If we were to run the gauntlet of policies being espoused by Labor and the Greens, it would be helpful to know the real benefit in carbon emissions reduction. Let’s not get ahead of ourselves. We are a bit player.

Gabrielle Baker, Carina, Qld

Bill Shorten is wrong to claim there is a huge cost of doing nothing about climate change. As a small part of a very big world there is nothing useful we can do while China, India and others produce ever-increasing carbon dioxide emissions that quickly swamp any reductions we make.

So if nothing we do will make a difference, doing nothing will make no difference to the climate. It will, however, make a big difference to the economy. Much more renewable energy, restrictions on industry, agriculture and transport will have a cost.

Doug Hurst, Chapman, ACT

Labor’s policy would raise profits at the expense of wages. The need to purchase emission rights equivalently reduces the funds available to business to pay wages and buy capital goods. The effect of this cannot fail to be that the productivity of labour in the economic system would be less than it otherwise would have been and that real wages in the future would suffer from production being less than it would otherwise have been, and thus prices being higher than they would otherwise have been.

Victor Diskordia, McKellar, ACT

Independents Zali Steggall, Kerryn Phelps and others proclaim the mantra of doing more about climate change. That’s fine, but if they mean it, why don’t they direct their demands at the world’s big emitters, China, India the US and the EU? These countries produce 50 per cent of global emissions and the largest by far is China.

The implied promise in Steggall’s pitch is that, by doing more than the Paris accord requires, we can affect global temperatures. Apart from being laughable, her approach can only harm the economy and deny jobs to our young people while benefiting the Chinese economy.

Activists often talk about saving the Great Barrier Reef. It is the big emitters who can save the reef. Giving the impression that policy changes by an Australian government can do the job is dishonest.

Philip Temple, Larrakeyah, NT