It is extraordinary that the Government is being criticised by the Opposition for giving too little compensation to the big polluters.
The Opposition could have demanded more compensation for state schools and hospitals which have not been guaranteed any assistance in meeting the inevitable rises in energy costs, yet chose to demand even more compensation for the big mining companies.
It is a sign of the power and influence of the fossil fuel lobbies that they have both sides of Parliament falling over themselves to give them more, which defeats the purpose of the emissions trading scheme as a price signal to reduce carbon consumption.
It is amazing how successful the fossil fuel lobbies have been in making both Labor and the Coalition ignore their own scientists and government reports in favour of dodgy mining company modelling and the threat of Australian jobs and carbon ''leaking offshore'', even though there is absolutely no evidence that such a thing would occur.
Most depressing of all is that this Government regards climate change as nothing more than a convenient issue to wedge the Opposition with.
History will not be kind to these hollowmen.
Simon Leeds, Nicholls
Many years ago a Yes, Minister program summarised the characteristics of a good policy. They were that it be ''simple, cheap, popular and quick''. The Coalition alternative proposal for emissions trading (from Frontier Economics) is simpler, cheaper, and more effective in reducing emissions and easier for industry to digest, so would meet the popular and quick criteria.
The Government's second emission trading scheme that it insists must be passed to suit its election agenda looks pretty ordinary by comparison. The Labor reaction was telling; label the Coalition scheme with an epitaph (a mongrel) rather than argue on the facts.
It can't bang on the facts or the law, so it is banging on the table it seems! While Malcolm Turnbull may have damaged himself over utegate, at least he is putting something serious on the table. Credit to him.
Will Labor resort to a policy argument or a campaign of personal denigration and labels?
Why do I think it will be more spin than substance?
M. Gordon, Flynn
With the Senate about to vote on a Bill on climate change, emission reductions and all that those concepts entail, the rhetoric from the Government, and the antics of climate institutes hoping to profit from it, are reaching fanatical levels.
Chief among the ideologues is Senator Penny Wong, who has promoted and politicised the flawed science underlying these concepts. Her reputation hangs upon them and any loss of face will be as damaging for her as the Grech affair has been for the Opposition. Her obstinate refusal to consider alternative proposals or warnings from perceptive levels of science, business and industry has revealed a dangerous inflexibility unsuited to a minister.
It seems that the Rudd Government has been duped by the frenzy of fear and chaos threatened by fundamentalist global warmer alarmists.
Instead of cautiously waiting to see how larger nations handle climate matters, the ALP seeks selfish political advantage at home and international kudos at Copenhagen with heavy impositions of cost, inconvenience and even job losses upon Australians.
The Opposition and the minor parties are obliged in the national interest to restrain a Government that has erred grievously on the issue of man-made global warming.
Greg O'Regan, Farrer
Email a friend