For many reasons, I accept that it is highly desirable to stop or reduce the waste of non-renewable fossil fuels, especially petrol.
Many thousands of litres of petrol are wasted every month in spring, summer and autumn by house-holders using car trailers and utes to carry loads of garden waste to (often distant) recycling facilities.
Many councils in America have recognised this almost self-evident fact and have provided garden waste bins to all rate-paying properties for collection and delivery by compacting trucks to appropriate recycling facilities.
If the ACT government believes, as it says it does, that all use of fossil fuels by motor vehicles contributes to climate change, it could conceivably give some thought to adopting the sensible practice of providing a garden waste collection service. To do so would not only save petrol and carbon emissions but also save the time and money of ratepayers.
I, for one, would not object to paying a small increase in my already exorbitant rates for this service. I suspect most ratepayers would be of similar mind.
Brian O'Donovan, Deakin
MORE SUPER RORTS
Not only is Richard Denniss's article ''Super rort for wealthy'' (February 4, p21) not an exaggeration, but is in fact an understatement of the rorts surrounding Peter Costello's tax-free pensions. For example, the top 5per cent will have more than $3million each in super, the remaining 95per cent won't have enough to get off accessing the age pension.
The top 5per cent will pay no tax on their $100,000 annual pensions, will pay no Medicare, will not be hit with the Medicare surcharge if they don't have private health cover and didn't even pay towards the flood levy, and they still get the Seniors Health Card and hence cheap prescriptions.
In addition, since their pension is ''non-declarable, non-taxable' they still have the $6000 tax-free limit before they pay tax so can have another $120,000 outside of super in a term deposit earning 5per cent and not pay tax on that either.
On the other hand, those of us not in such an idyllic state, will pay tax on any interest from a bank account even though it is earned from money that has already paid tax. Costello's tax-free pensions for his mates and ultra-rich stinks and the sooner we get a fairer system the better.
Dave Roberts, Dickson
ABC LOSES LOYALTY
I'm sure there are many reasons why ABC news is rating so poorly in Canberra. Apart from the issue of local content, the ABC appears to have abandoned its audience of ''true believers'' in the misguided belief that they were expendable and could be replaced by younger generations.
The ABC, therefore, turned away from the winning formula of high-quality news and current affairs, documentaries, arts programs, good comedy and drama. Instead, it progressively began to substitute dumbed-down current affairs, cringe-making comedy series (supposedly designed to attract Gen Y) and patronising arts and documentaries, combined with a mind-numbing array of ''reality programs''.
It also ratcheted up its promotions, making them more frequent, louder and more annoying. But the halcyon days when the true believers once tuned into the ABC and stayed there (with occasional forays over to SBS documentaries and movies) have sadly passed. As for the highly prized-younger generation of viewers, they simply channel surf and use new media.
The once great ABC, now increasingly indistinguishable from its commercial counterparts, has lost the loyalty of its once faithful audience without replacing it with a new generation.
Pauline Westwood, Dickson
RESERVE BANK RATES
The government is wasting its time urging the banks to take note of the Reserve Bank's ''decisions'' on interest rates when setting their rates for home loans (''Banks told to 'think' before any rate hike'', February 9, p11) - because the Reserve's rate is merely the suggested cash rate for overnight loans between financial institutions, and bears little relationship to the interest rates banks have to pay for the loans they need to make housing and other loans.
Banks have to adjust their lending rates to reflect changes in the rates they pay, not according to changes in the Reserve's overnight cash rate. Any business has to set its prices at a level that recoups the cost of its inputs.
In fact, it's time the Reserve stopped making press releases about its monthly ''decisions'' on the cash rate - or at least time the media stopped regarding them as significant.
After all, interest is nothing more than a price paid for a service, in the case of a housing loan the use of borrowed money to help buy a house; and the price of the house being bought is set by the market, not by the Reserve or some other government agency.
Incidentally, bank profits are ''huge'' because they're huge businesses, and are not exorbitant when taken as a percentage of capital invested or turnover (as they should be).
R. S. Gilbert, Braddon
THE E10 DEBATE
Greg Jackson (Letters, February 10) enjoyed my typo (mega-joules appearing as joules), but conceded the ratios and hence, conclusion remain valid.
Energy output from burning ethanol is a third less than petrol. But keen to confuse further, he says a given engine won't necessarily move a car exactly 3per cent fewer kilometres on E10. Let's adjust that number then.
If a normal, low-compression car tuned to run on regular petrol (manufacturers specifications) is instead required to run on some other fuel (E10), is that engine likely to deliver more or less performance than the fuel-density-difference alone would suggest? Might real under-performance actually be worse than theoretical under-performance?
And as to his ''fuel costs depend more on the day of the week'' line, one thing's for sure. Every single day of the week, if E10 isn't offered at 4 to 5c per litre less than unleaded petrol, don't buy it. It's a rip off.
Cuthbert Douglas, Bonython
.gif)
