Pandemic highlights folly of setting reckless emissions targets

Australia’s CO2 emissions fell 14.3 per cent since 2015 and will now be even lower because of COVID-19 (“Lockdown triggers an emissions crash”, 31/8). This far exceeded the global decrease of about 2 per cent over that period with most of the global reduction in 2020 as shown by Graham Lloyd (“Economic standstill fails to clear the air”, 31/8). Lloyd also noted that CO2 concentration in the air has continued to rise at Cape Grim in Tasmania. This highlights the futility of demands to further reduce our emissions based on the unfounded belief that it will stop global warming.

Ian Wilson, Chapel Hill, Qld

It needs to be emphasised that the recent bushfires are not accounted for in the latest greenhouse gas emissions data issued by the government. The 2019-20 fires are estimated to have released 830 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, far more than Australia’s average annual greenhouse gas emissions. How we structure an economic recovery will determine if the recent reported fall in selectively measured domestic emissions is a blip or the beginning of a step change towards net-zero carbon.

There is a big risk that a lull caused by the COVID-19 pandemic offers a fig leaf for a reckless strategic decision to lock in to high emissions and higher energy prices via a gas-fired recovery. Fugitive emissions from gas and coalmining remain largely unmonitored, with recent studies suggesting they are underestimated.

There is no assurance that we are going to meet Australia’s modest Paris commitment to emissions reduction as pledged by Scott Morrison, without serious reforms to help cut emissions.

Gas is one of Australia’s least employment-intensive industries. Opting to back more gas with tax dollars, instead of a clean and resilient economic recovery as advocated by a broad coalition of interests including experts, mainstream business, farmers and some state and regional leaders, is reckless in the extreme.

Jim Allen, Panorama, SA

Testing times

Your editorial (“Testing and reporting vital to boosting school results”, 31/8) argued that one of the reasons NAPLAN needs to be maintained as a census rather than a sample test is the country’s disappointing performance in the Program for International Student Assessment test. But PISA is only a sample test, so should much faith be placed in the results? And it needs to be remembered that census assessment exercises are significantly more expensive than sample ones. Given COVID-19’s impact on the economy, is this a prudent additional expense?

Garry Collins, Stafford Heights, Qld

Super imposition

Adam Creighton makes a sound point about the merit of introducing a universal pension, especially removing the disincentive of the assets test and rolling off of eligibility for the Age Pension (“Super needs to be built on reality, not stereotypes”, 29-30/8).

However, he should not infer that some retirees are over-saving because they are leaving residues in their superannuation. Even a small reduction in drawdown over time will make a substantial improvement in the residual capital remaining in a superannuation account. This capital does indeed provide a retiree with some extra security over a possible 25-year horizon. Who knows when we will get another year like this one?

Peter Edwards, Clarence Park, SA

First port of call

I rarely agree with Anthony Albanese but he is right to call for a review of the Port of Darwin lease (“Review Darwin port lease: Albo”, 31/8). Asset sales or leases to foreign interests show that it is preferable to sell off the farm than to invest in using our own resources and energy potential to prosper.

Brian Whybrow, Wanniassa, ACT