What happens when the economy loses $70bn in coal earnings?

Noel Pearson makes a cogent and intellectually honest argument for the cessation of Australian coal exports, but his argument suffers from a deficiency and a logical flaw (“To make a dent in global emissions, let us curb coal exports”, 4/5). The deficiency is that he does not explain where we will replace the $70 billion of export income generated by coal or the associated royalties and jobs. It’s no good proposing a policy without saying how you will pay for it.

The logical flaw is that, as the world learnt from US prohibition, and is still learning from the criminalisation of recreational drugs, curtailing supply does not work. Without reducing demand, all you do is increase prices and introduce criminality.

We perhaps shouldn’t be too concerned by criminality because exporting coal is tougher than producing and selling bootleg liquor, but while increasing prices will reduce some demand, it will be at the margin — those hundreds of millions of users in developing nations who would either like to have electricity or have electricity and can barely afford it. What’s moral about that?

Stuart Hall, Noosaville, Qld

Terminating export of coal and its consequent replacement by dirtier coal from overseas sources is not just another attempt to sustain the unsustainable. It is, in fact, a net negative for the world environment. It would make Australians feel so much better for the virtue signal we send — apart from those greedy Queenslanders who are counting on employment in the mines.

John Quilty, Warnbro, WA

No tears for Hanson

Many of us would support Janet Albrechtsen’s lack of sympathy for Pauline Hanson for her tearful outburst last week. Hanson’s failure to take responsibility for her party’s endorsement of various dubious candidates and trying to persuade voters that she has been betrayed, deserves condemnation. But Albrechtsen didn’t take aim at Hanson over more serious issues. For more than 20 years, One Nation has pushed its xenophobic policies, including its anti-Muslim stance. This is its main reason for existence.

Anyone who thinks that disenchantment with the main parties is a good reason for supporting One Nation should think again. There is never a good reason for supporting racist policies.

Irene Goldwasser, St. Kilda, Vic

Religious perspective

Forget the potential legal quagmire over Israel Folau, let’s look at it from Jesus’s perspective. What would he be likely to do today? The context is that it is accepted that homosexual preferences are inherited at birth. It is not a lifestyle choice but a given, like blue eyes or dark skin.

Based on what is written in the gospels, Jesus is likely to side with the weak and down-trodden and castigate those aligned unfairly against them. He would show an uncompromising caring side and would physically stand next to them to show in the clear light of day he is with them.

So much for those rugby players who would not because of their religious beliefs. So much for Folau’s professed claim that he is taking his stance for their own sakes.

John Whiteing, Willoughby, NSW

With your poll supporting Israel Folau, I suppose the voters were not lawyers specialising in workplace relations. I am a keen rugby fan, including the superb talents of Folau, but the fact remains that he breached his contract by making banned public utterances after being warned not to do so.

I wonder if he, on taking the field in a match against an openly gay team, the same team perhaps who valiantly tried to save one of the doomed planes on 9/11, would be rushing to pull the trap door sending them down to their firey and eternal damnation.

Robin Hyett, Parrearra, Qld