The Canberra Times' editorial ''Bipartisan effort to end dark days'' (April 13, p8) suggests that Malcolm Turnbull is not working in the interests of Australia and should be more supportive of the Government's initiatives. I find that a very strange position.
The way I see it, the Rudd Government spent some $10billion in tax payers' dollars on an untargeted stimulus package before Christmas, which seems to have sunk without trace. The Government's spin is that things would have been much worse had this money not been available. That may be so, but I need more evidence than Kevin Rudd's assurances to convince me.
Another $10billion or so is now being delivered under similar arrangements, with the prospect of a further monumental sum of untargeted largesse in the future. At the same time the Government has committed the country to at least $30-odd billion on a broadband system without a business case to describe how all this will happen strange from a Prime Minister who claims to place so much emphasis on ''evidence-based'' policy.
The Government has unravelled the workplace laws in such a way that small business will probably shy away from employing people beyond the magic number of 15 to avoid being caught by unfair dismissal laws. This at a time when most would agree that maintaining employment is the No 1 challenge facing our nation. Add to this the impossibly convoluted carbon trading scheme which was anxiously announced to the world despite the fact that it will place greater strains on business and employment, and in the clear knowledge that we contribute only a tiny fraction to world greenhouse gases.
In view of the enormity of these initiatives and the lack of clarity surrounding them, why would we want to muzzle the Opposition? I would have thought it was vitally important to test these ideas, however negative that may appear to those who support the Government's approach. Isn't that the way our system of government is supposed to work?
H. Ronald, Jerrabomberra, NSW
It's a burning topic
Rosslyn Beeby resents scarce research funds being spent on trying to develop clean coal technologies (PM's choice should be hauled over the coals, April 17, p2).
The Greens say Canberra's new clean coal institute confirms Rudd's capture by the coal lobby. But it's not just that.
It's because, once this global recession is over, coal burning in growing developing countries will return to its astounding, exponential growth trajectory. They'll remain committed to coal because they have resources, proven technology and the moral high ground on per-capita emissions.
But if they're not stopped, carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere will keep rising even if the West cuts emissions by 100percent.
So; no effective clean coal technology to give them? We all fry. The fact that we get to keep selling our biggest export is merely a useful side benefit.
Tom Waring, Ainslie
The coal lobby has achieved another handshake from the Federal Government with the launch of the $100million global carbon capture and storage thinktank. Their investment in CSIRO and the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (no dissenting voices permitted) has paid off for them. Unfortunately, Labor policy, just like Liberal policy, has been contaminated by patronage at every stage. Why should we Aussie taxpayers fund a ''clean up coal image'' program? Because that is all it is.
Carbon capture and storage might work one day (albeit divert funds from real clean technologies) but the International Energy Agency predicts that it might take a carbon price of $100 a tonne before it becomes viable (much higher than for wind or solar generators). The infrastructure required for this process is comparable to that of the entire petroleum industry but built in a few years, all to dispose of a waste that could be avoided in the first place. If this is not just a Clean Up Coal Image Program, why then is the industry not contributing more than one thousandth of what each tonne of coal sells for?
Colin Handley, Lyneham
Email a friend