Congratulations to Environment Minister Simon Corbell and the ACT Government (''ACT to aim for zero gas target'', May 12, p1) for adopting the goal of a carbon-neutral Canberra.
With the highest level of carbon emissions per capita in Australia, it is a target we must set and achieve.
Drawing up the road map to a carbon-neutral Canberra and agreeing to a time frame will be a focus of the second annual Switch to Green Expo and Conference to be held at the National Convention Centre on September 11-12 this year.
Canberra organisations, including the ACT Government, Canberra Business Council, the Property Council and the Climate Change Institute, Australian National University, are co-hosting the expo along with the United Nations Association. All Canberrans are invited to come along to discuss what each of us can do to reduce our carbon footprint.
Russell Rollason, president, United Nations Association of Australia (ACT)
Matt Andrews and Paul Pollard (Letters, May 13) are clearly committed to the view that global warming is real, poses risks to our future and that the science is solid.
Nevertheless, there is no attempt to answer my question (Letters, May 11) regarding the explanation for the fall in global temperatures for nearly three decades in the mid-20th century, while carbon dioxide levels continued to rise.
This inconvenient truth would seem to undermine the theory that rising carbon dioxide levels drive global warming.
I am yet to see any attempt to explain this anomaly, let alone a rational and compelling argument in support of the theory.
If, as Andrews claims, the answers are easily available, why has nobody produced them for examination?
Andrews also suggests that I cited Ian Plimer repeatedly, which I think is something of an overstatement, given a couple of general references.
The interesting situation regarding Plimer's Heaven and Earth is that it has attracted much criticism in general (Andrews calls it shameful), but no one has offered any detailed rebuttal of even two or three of his central claims.
Andrews also acknowledges that carbon dioxide is not the only greenhouse gas; I agree it's not even a major one.
Pollard seems to take an each-way bet on climate prediction, suggesting that summer is likely to be hotter than winter, but little else can be predicted with confidence.
He also concedes that global warming is not certain, but is a risk worth consideration.
I tend to agree with these moderate views. It is the translation from risk to certainty and then to massive overreaction that is of concern. There are countless examples of simple, scientific solutions leading to unwelcome, unintended consequences.
We would all benefit from a debate based on evidence, not on generalities and personal criticism.
Michael Sage, Weetangera
Uncivil behaviour
Contrary to G. Rhodes's assertion (Letters, May 14), the vast majority of people protesting against the latest massacre of healthy kangaroos at Majura are ACT and Queanbeyan residents.
Many are people who watched helplessly while 500 plus Eastern Grey kangaroos were massacred at the Belconnen Naval Transmission Station in May last year unable to intervene without further endangering the animals.
Risk to ourselves is, of course, irrelevant. What we are willing to risk and sacrifice to prevent these obscenities is entirely our own affair.
There are, of course, some interstate people willing to give up their time to travel here to swell our ranks.
Fortunately, Canberra and Queanbeyan are not the only towns where some civilised people live.
Frankie Seymour, Queanbeyan, NSW
Meaningless less
I would like to make a plea for the word ''fewer'', which is rapidly being driven to extinction.
People talk more and more about less policemen, less goals, less runs and even less journalists (this by a journalist on ABC television).
Less means ''not so much'' and fewer means ''not so many'', which logically implies that less must be used with a singular noun (for example, less fat, less salt, less sex) and fewer with a plural noun (fewer runs, fewer people).
If it means anything at all, ''less journalists'' could mean that they have all been decapitated, for instance, or perhaps that they have all been through the Biggest Loser regime, that is, there's not so much left of each one of them.
So, please try to do the right thing and give ''fewer'' back its rightful place in the English language, and use ''less'' less.
Ken Fowler, Batehaven, NSW
Email a friend