We’re not deniers, we just want an orderly renewables transition

The NSW government’s decision to extend the life of Australia’s largest coal-fired power station highlights the folly of the Labor Party’s goals of reducing emissions by 43 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030 and reaching net zero emissions by 2050 (“The renewables subsidy shuffle”, 8/9).

Despite cries by climate-action supporters that people who challenge these targets are climate-change deniers, what fair-minded Australians want is an orderly transition to renewables so our energy needs remain affordable, reliable and sustainable. Seemingly endless government subsidies for renewables mean taxpayer money is directed away from more important priorities such as health, education and, dare I say, improving the wellbeing of Indigenous people in remote and regional communities.

Riley Brown, Bondi Beach, NSW

The tragedy of Australian energy policy starts with the long-held view that we could continue business as usual without any adverse consequences. The Australian’s editorial concludes: “Mandating a target without a clear plan to get there was only ever going to end in tears.” This is precisely what the Morrison government did when it committed to net zero by 2050. Many in the Coalition had no intention of even thinking about a plan to get there; indeed, some were openly opposed.

The more ambitious Labor government is attempting a genuine transition in the face of many headwinds, the delay and cost blowouts of Snowy 2.0 being only one. The Australia Institute reports in “2022-23, Australian federal and state governments provided a total of $11.1bn worth of spending and tax breaks to assist fossil fuel industries”. It is rare to hear critics of the cost of Labor’s energy initiatives speak of these and other advantages given to fossil fuel industries.

Our transition to renewables would be well advanced by now, and would not have been so costly, if the Coalition had tackled the problems a decade ago.

Fiona Colin, Malvern East, Vic

Building to crisis

There’s much to like about the Victorian opposition’s housing plan (“Coalition releases housing crisis plan”, 8/9). For example, building more social and affordable houses while “protecting the voice of residents in local planning decisions” is important.

The plan, however, shares the same flaw as the Victorian government’s one. Both aim to squeeze an extra million homes into Melbourne’s suburbs by 2050 to accommodate an extra 3.1 million people. This would involve an unprecedented rate of construction, further loss of green spaces and escalating conflicts with neighbours. The challenge is nigh on impossible, and our suburbs will be perpetual building sites and far less liveable.

What neither political party acknowledges is that the housing crisis is being driven largely by high immigration. The government is planning on 1.5 million net overseas arrivals in the next five years. Let’s slow down immigration until every Australian has a roof over their head.

Ian Penrose, Kew, Vic

Class divides

Claire Lehmann’s article provides plenty of food for thought (“Even the left now calling out ‘elite’ grip on voice”, 8/9). The Qantas controversy captures the growing divergence between the working class and the political elites, where interests can coalesce in an unhealthy relationship.

For similar reasons regarding this divide, some polls show that 30 per cent of Labor voters could be in the No camp. Working-class people live a life where they need to know what they’re signing up to. Perhaps many have read beyond the first page and decided they don’t support the “in full” commitment made by the Prime Minister – voice, treaty, truth.

The same polarisation is happening in the energy debate. If you live a life where every dollar counts, throwing billions at renewables that don’t guarantee reliability and affordability doesn’t make sense. It’s their taxes that are paying the subsidies from which profits are pocketed. Their taxes provide relief to households in energy poverty.

People are asking whether all this economic upheaval is necessary and do the decision-makers understand the magnitude of the problem. The article by Lehmann, and even recently by Paul Kelly’s commentary piece (“PM’s stuck with baggage of Qantas storm”, 6/9), points to a political realignment beyond generational differences. The old paradigms are certainly under challenge.

Jennie George, Mollymook, NSW

Many thanks to Claire Lehmann for highlighting the challenges for those of us who identify with the left but are not sold on the concept of the voice.

Like the Prime Minister, I have been a member of the ALP for over 40 years. However, unlike the Prime Minister I took the time and trouble to read the 25-odd pages of additional notes attached to the Uluru Statement from the Heart and found them to be quite shocking, with the voice but a first step towards achieving “self-determination and self-management” and the “pursuit of a treaty and treaties” as a “pathway to recognition of sovereignty”.

Mitch McDonald, Abbotsford, NSW