Nor are we seeking ''to stop the human race from reproducing'' but some of us suggest that a voluntary limit of two children per couple would be appropriate. As some people do not have children, this would allow a slow reduction in population eventually to more sustainable levels. By all means, let's double or triple the refugee intake, but cut the overall migrant intake to nearer the number of people who leave Australia each year. Study the science, Jack, and get real.

Julia Richards,

Kambah

POPULATION PROBLEMS

''The population in 40 years will probably be 35 to 50 million. Personally, I hope it is closer to the 50 million mark'' (Jack Waterford, Times 2, October 1).

I wonder does that statement refer to a final number, or simply to a figure in passing as the rate of growth continues. I dare say I am in danger of being labelled one of those dreaded ''Malthusians'': I am of the opinion that taking action to increase human population before adequately addressing present population-spawned problems (they are already breeding like rabbits) is not in the best interests of society.

Colin Samundsett,

Farrer

ENFORCE THE LAW WE HAVE

The question I have about new alcohol laws is why the existing laws which prohibit the sale or service of alcohol to the under-aged and drunken or disorderly persons are not enforced? The police must tell us why they cannot enforce existing law.

Gabe Savas,

Watson

LEGAL COURTESIES

Would members of the local bar who are not embarrassed by Jennifer Saunders' obsequious outpourings (Canberra Times, October 1, p20) in relation to the ACT Supreme Court, or its sentencing and bail policies, provide me with an intelligible distinction between the rudeness and unprofessional conduct sanctioned by our judiciary and contempt of court proceedings which, assuredly, would see Mr Landers in hot water if he resorted to similar behaviour before judges in or out of court?

And speaking of contempt, the local bar and the judiciary need to grasp the view held by victims of crime, their relations, friends, associates, and for that matter ordinary citizens, who advance such sentiments in increasingly strident tones.

Patrick Jones,

Griffith

CHINA'S WATER SECURITY

China's consolidation of the Mekong River as described in Michael Richardson's article (''Will the Mekong be Damned?'', Canberra Times, October 1), seems to indicate that China's leaders realise the great geopolitical issue of the 21st century is water security. It shows that China's leaders are fully aware of the disastrous impacts that climate change will have upon their agriculture.

They probably also recognise that their main agricultural base along the Yangtze River is under tremendous strain from pollution and over-allocation. Considering that China controls the Tibetan glaciers which are going to melt at an increasing rate in the coming decades, China probably sees this consolidation as part of a plan for guaranteeing long-term water security and who can blame them for such a conclusion?

Most other Asian countries will suffer far more than China as a result of climate change. Yet while China's leaders deploy a strategy for guaranteeing their nation's water security, our leaders talk endlessly about long-term strategies while collaborating to guarantee the Murray-Darling's rice and cotton industries.

Simon Leeds,

Nicholls

BONUS REPORT A COP-OUT

The Productivity Commission's interim report into excessive corporate largess is basically a cop-out. Although I agree that there are difficulties in putting a cap on the pay, bonuses and golden handshakes of corporate bosses, the proposal for ''shareholders'' to be able to restrict them flies in the face of reality. Small shareholders have little or no power when large institutions and fund managers vote their proxies with boards in a ''you pat my back and I'll pat yours'' type of approach.

I have, at meetings held by brokers and fund-managers, advocated that these bodies reveal how they vote their proxies on executive pay and director nominations, along with their reasons for doing so. Whilst receiving lip-service to the suggestion, nothing has ever eventuated.

Until something does, we are doomed to see these institutions control the vast majority of shareholder voting power, and the 25 per cent target will never be reached without their assistance. There are many examples of the will of the shareholders being overruled by directors and their cohorts, such as the Mt Isa Mines' (MIM) takeover by Estrada, even though this was opposed by one of the smaller fund managers, Platinum Capital.

Ric Hingee,

Duffy

COSTLY CLIMATE THEORY

You know the climate change alarmists are becoming more and more desperate when they start suggesting the publication of any argument contrary to the anthropogenic global warming theory is ''unhealthy and irresponsible'', and that anyone with such an argument is ''ill-informed and mischievous'', as Geoff Davies of Turner has (Letters, October 1).

The holes in the AGW hypothesis are becoming larger by the day, with both satellite and land-based thermometer data showing no warming through the past decade while CO2 levels have continued to rise. Thousands of scientists are now of the view that IPCC models have grossly over-estimated the effect of CO2 on the climate.

At a time when our Government is proposing a tax that will cost every one of us thousands of dollars, based purely on a theory that is being disputed more by the day, it is far more ''unhealthy and irresponsible'' attempting to quash any debate about a science that is still in its infancy, than otherwise.

Anthony Moore,

Calwell

SCEPTICAL PROGRESS

Aert Driessen says he doesn't know a single climate change sceptic who denies climate change; they only question the proposition that CO2 drives it (Letters, 1 October).

If he is right, this is good news. It means that the ''sceptics'' are making progress, though still far behind most people. They used to say there wasn't any global warming (''urban heat islands'' were to blame; glaciers weren't melting, etc), or that the world was actually cooling.

Apparently they have now moved on, to not accepting rising CO2 levels as the main culprit. This raises the key question about the sceptics.

What blackmail-like grip do CO2 emissions have on them, that such emissions cannot be the main culprit? After all, 150 years after the original identification of CO2 as the second most powerful greenhouse gas, at a time when CO2 levels are rising rapidly, and when no scientist has been able to convincingly identify any other dominant plausible explanation for rising temperatures, why not accept the obvious probabilities demonstrated to date?

Acceptance of the highly likely role of CO2 isn't preventing continuing research by mainstream science, based on genuine scepticism and doubt, about the nature of the role of CO2, or about other possible causes of, and influences on, global warming.

Paul Pollard,

O'Connor

PAYING ATTENTION

At the lights the other day I saw someone chatting away on her mobile, hands-free. Looked really safe to me. Should be legal.

What wasn't safe was the glasses she was wearing. They were ones with the fashionably-wide sides; high, back to the ears. Fashionable may be, but they eliminated about 20 per cent of her peripheral vision. So when she attempted a side-glance head-check before changing lanes, she only saw back to about her door pillar. Should be illegal.

John West,

Reid

TRAFFIC LIGHTS

Traffic lights are needed in Canberra in peak business times; then all traffic lights, except for main thoroughfares, could be turned off in non-peak times. Just imagine the savings in fuel and reduced contribution to climate change if drivers didn't have to wait at a red when there is no other traffic in either direction.

Jennifer Burgess,

Downer