Rich climate poseurs should take a dose of reality

Chris Kenny says well-heeled climate-change preachers are worried about everybody’s carbon footprint but their own, such as from carbon intensive skiing holidays, air travel and living in over-sized mansions (“Voters and shareholders pay for climate posturing”, 19/10).

As well as the hypocrisy evident in their rhetoric, you have to question the validity of their preaching when the costs of their policies would have no material impact on their own living standards.

Energy policy selection is supposed to be a trade-off between costs and benefits, but the costs of decarbonisation wouldn’t be felt by the wealthy. It follows that all those well-off citizens espousing a radical decarbonisation of society should give up their wealth and live as an average family to gain an appreciation of the costs of their policies. Then they might modify their views.

The next stage of decarbonisation would have a far greater increase in energy costs so the present trade-offs between energy bills and holidays, good meals or heating in winter and the stress of holding your job as the local factory struggles with its energy costs would be even more intense. Alternatively, they could try living as a rural family does, ravaged by drought and budgeting on water use because woke state and local governments have wasted money on useless, symbolic wind farms instead of practical measures such as dams and other drought-proofing measures.

Ron Hobba, Camberwell, Vic

Chris Kenny has a good go at the champagne lifestyles of prominent environmentalists such as Warringah MP Zali Steggall. While her predecessor, Tony Abbott, nailed it when he called out the climate schemes for what they really are — socialism masquerading as environmentalism.

Why Warringah traded-in their real climate warrior for a fake climate warrior is beyond my comprehension. But buyer’s remorse at the next election should see Steggall out as a one-term wonder.

Mandy Macmillan, Singleton, NSW

Judith Sloan asks what climate emergency really means (“Labor in grip of its own climate debate emergency”, 19/10). I am reminded of the fable of Chicken Little. The poor fellow was struck by a falling object and concluded the sky was falling on him. This aroused panic among the animals. A fox offered them security and led them to his lair, where he ate them at his leisure.

Peter Clarke, Corinda, Qld

Judith Sloan says her hunch is that the declaration of a climate emergency is just a stunt. I strongly disagree — getting any level of government to officially declare a climate emergency has a hidden objective, that of creating the basis of the legal defence of necessity, which extremists such as Extinction Rebellion can, and do, use to avoid punishment for their illegal activities.

This puts an entirely different slant on these climate emergency-declaration stunts, of which our politicians should be made aware, lest our governments become unwitting collaborators with these extremists and the needless disruption they are causing.

John Gardner, Taringa, Qld

In a single issue, The Weekend Australian provides damning evidence our climate and energy policies do more harm than good. We have AWU secretary Daniel Walton warning that unless the Labor Party adopts Scott Morrison’s 2030 emissions target, “you can basically pack up manufacturing in this country” (“AWU pushes Labor to back Coalition on carbon targets”, 19/10).

In Inquirer, Chris Kenny outlines how voters and shareholders pay for climate posturing as green policies become institutionalised everywhere, without voter and shareholder consent, forcing up prices, destroying profits and jobs.

Then there’s Judith Sloan discussing Labor being in the grip of its own climate debate emergency as high emissions reduction costs are fudged with remote targets, and dubious green claims go unchallenged.

And all for nothing. How often does it have to be said that our sacrifices will make no difference while China and the other big emitters pour our more and more carbon dioxide every year? And how long must we wait for some cost-benefit analysis of the whole sorry mess and energy policies based on science and engineering, not scaremongering and ideology?

Doug Hurst, Chapman, ACT