Science tells us to act with urgency on gas emissions

Other countries are looking at Australia as the canary in the coal mine. They see catastrophic bushfires, citizens evacuated from beaches, choking cities and tennis stars unable to cope with the smoke pollution.

While the science is telling us that we must urgently act to reduce our emissions we continue to say that we will meet and beat our woeful targets for emission reduction and use carry- over credits to get there.

We have been warned that we are an exposed country. How can we encourage other countries to lift their game when we behave like this?

Kerry Rieve, Brighton, Vic

I find it astounding that in the wake of the bushfire catastrophe, any person could argue against further raising Australia’s inadequate emissions reduction target (“No more carbon cuts, PM warned”, 16/1).

These people will, of course, argue that because Australia’s share of global emissions is only 1.3 per cent and that whatever we do will make no difference to the world’s climate. If every country with a similar share of global emissions thought that way, 182 countries would be saying whatever we do will make no difference, and the world’s climate would soon become unlivable. Furthermore, solar and wind energy are rapidly overtaking fossil fuel energy in terms of cost and reliability. To ignore this and carry on regardless is a dereliction of duty.

Douglas Mackenzie, Deakin, ACT

Many look at 200 years of temperature data, see an increase since the Industrial Revolution and conclude that rising CO2 levels present a significant problem.

Others look at 2000 years of data, and see two long periods of higher temperature and two lower than present levels, and conclude that CO2 levels are irrelevant to the climate.

But do these divergent conclusions affect how we should respond to the bushfire disaster? The former advocate societal changes to stop temperatures rising further. The latter claim that this won’t work.

No one suggests we can realistically lower world temperatures for many decades to come. The CO2 debate should continue but we are left with managing fuel load and improving building practices as the prime areas for our bushfire focus.

Pre-1788, the Aborigines seemed to have understood this. Modern concepts of wilderness and large natural forests were foreign to them. They worked the land to their advantage.

J. B. Anderson, Roseville, NSW

It appears that there are many people who believe that we can halt the effects of climate change in Australia purely by reducing carbon dioxide emissions locally.

It doesn’t seem to matter that the big emitters, such as China, continue to build coal-fired power stations and that their emissions will continue to rise over the next decade. Surely people understand that carbon dioxide emissions by China, India and the US are shared with the rest of the world, including Australia.

Leigh Vinton, Balwyn, Vic

Despite the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change claiming since 1990 that emissions are driving climate change, their 2013 report had high confidence that changes in the planet’s orbit triggered warming that produced interglacial periods in the past three million years.

They also attributed some climate change to variations in the sun’s radiation, cloud cover, volcanoes and ocean currents. These factors are absent from climate models built on the assumption that emissions cause climate change. Their omission probably explains why the models have exaggerated warming since 2005.

When these factors are incorporated in the climate models there is little left that can be attributed to CO2.

Ian Wilson, Chapel Hill, Qld

It is encouraging to find that there are enough Coalition MPs with the backbone to stiffen the PM against his precipitous response to his critics over what must be done to avert further bushfire disasters.

The staunchest climate change activists would be aware that cuts to Australia’s emissions would have zero effect on the global climate, but they are pushing their luck with the PM on the backfoot. More futile proliferation of renewables and throttling coal-fired power would only hurt Australians who are hurting already while available funds should be devoted to practical action to mitigate the fire threat and assist recovery.

John Morrissey, Hawthorn, Vic