Shorten is dodging the central question on climate

After Wednesday’s debate I am staggered to think Bill Shorten could receive any votes. Here we have a potential prime minister who refuses to answer the most important question of the election — the cost of his renewables energy scheme — on the grounds that it’s “dishonest”.

We know who is dishonest here. A political leader who would drag the country into a weak and inefficient energy structure that would threaten the economy and reduce living standards on the false claim that it would influence the world’s climate.

We should be prepared for any form of climate change effects, however caused. It follows that the only responsible course of action is Scott Morrison’s one of moderation where we keep our international commitments but maintain a strong economy with appropriate environmental infrastructure.

Ron Hobba, Camberwell, Vic

I have questions for Bill Shorten. Yesterday, the Australian Energy Market Operator’s website showed that of the total electricity being generated in South Australia, 61 per cent came from renewable sources, predominantly wind. At the same time, 63 per cent of the total electricity being generated in Queensland came from coal but the wholesale price of electricity in SA was $106.5 maximum hourly rate, in Queensland it was $54.7.

Please explain, Mr Shorten, why the price of electricity will not go through the roof as your policy on climate change mandates more renewable sources? Why is this a “dishonest question”?

Graham Balderson,
Clear Island Waters, Qld

Curiously, Scott Morrison did not pick up on an inconsistency in Bill Shorten’s argument following his statement that carbon emissions have increased despite the Coalition’s efforts to reduce them.

In a later segment of the debate, dealing with the expenditure for renewables in reaching Labor’s ambitious emissions target, Shorten held that Morrison had neglected the costs of doing nothing.

If he maintains that — despite the Coalition’s effort to reach agreed goals — carbon emissions have increased, how can Shorten assume that more of the same by a Labor government would decrease them? Could the overall costs in the future exceed the costs of doing nothing?

Gordon Stokes, Pymble, NSW

I thought Scott Morrison won the bulk of the third debate, but Bill Shorten won the closing remarks. It made for a nice change having a “fair” moderator and audience. Morrison was all over the detail and is hardly ever caught out, nor does he scramble for words. Shorten was hazy on detail, and when in a corner, becomes stroppy, and says “we’ll let you know”.

Rosemary O’Brien, Georges Hall, NSW

The response by Bill Shorten to questions about the cost of Labor’s climate policy is that the question is “dishonest” and the answer is really the cost of doing nothing. An honest answer would be “the cost of doing nothing is the cost of our policies which are, say, a $100 billion”.

Based on scientific evidence any climate change spending will achieve nothing. It’s a natural cycle revealed by the Vostok ice cores. Man’s contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide is 3 per cent — nature does the rest. Rises in carbon dioxide follow natural temperature increases — not cause them. Spending billions to achieve nothing (other than win over gullible voters) is crazy.

L. Smith, Kenmore, Qld

The debate showed that the dumbing down of science now dominates our political commentary on climate. Bill Shorten espoused the evils of “carbon pollution”, an error of fact. Carbon is graphite or coal and contributed to the great London smogs of the past. Carbon dioxide is a colourless, non-toxic, non-polluting gas and an essential plant food. It warms the planet slightly, but beyond that there is little evidence it causes any extra warming.

Then moderator Sabra Lane put in her contribution to the dumbfest by noting that we now have increased storms, floods and droughts, another claim that has no basis in fact.

By calling for emissions control, all Shorten is doing is engaging in a form of carbon imperialism that excludes economic development and the alleviation of poverty in Asia. Emissions reduction will not change the global temperature but it will put a wrecking ball through our economy.

G. M. Derrick, Sherwood, Qld