There is evidence of vegetation once growing on the Antarctic continent, and inland Australia was once an inland sea.

This planet will get warmer before it cools down again and there is nothing we can do to stop it.

The ETS is a tax by another name and will serve no purpose whatever. The bill should not be passed by the Senate.

Wal Pywell,

Wanniassa

I find it bizarre that the main focus of media coverage around the ETS is the Liberal leadership.

While this is newsworthy, surely the main story is the woeful inadequacy of the scheme our leaders are agreeing to.

Its weak targets, if applied internationally, give us less than a 50per cent chance of avoiding a global humanitarian and financial catastrophe.

Would you get in a car if there was greater than a 50per cent chance of it being in a major accident?

In most other areas of life and business we take a sensible risk-management approach, but it somehow gets forgotten in this debate.

The Global Humanitarian Forum estimates that each year climate change is already killing 300,000 people, seriously affecting 325million and causing economic losses of $US125billion.

Australia is particularly vulnerable environmentally, yet we have the renewable resources to revolutionise our energy systems. Unfortunately our two major political parties are more interested in business as usual with further handouts to foreign-owned coal companies that already receive billion-dollar subsidies from the taxpayer.

Matt Holden,

Coburg, Victoria

It would appear that more and more Australians are coming to realise that the ETS legislation as drafted and amended by the Coalition is not really what is required; particularly when it would seem that the taxpayers are going to be about $5billion worse off.

Would not the right and proper action be to chuck the current legislation on the scrap heap?

There is no need whatsoever for this legislation in its appalling state to be passed before the Copenhagen Conference. The sky will not fall, houses on the coastal fringe will not be inundated by a 1m rise in sea level overnight and there will still be ice in both the Arctic and Antarctica. All parties should come together and produce a policy which is totally acceptable in all respects to all stakeholders and that includes the electorate. Then perhaps we can move forwards.

To be sure the hearts and minds of those involved in drafting the current legislation are in the right place and the work done is to be appreciated, even though it seems to be incorrect. The Government should swallow its pride and go back to the drawing board to get it right.

N. Bailey,

Murrumbateman, NSW

Why should Commonwealth taxpayers fork out billions to compensate for the short-sightedness of state governments and private corporations? Governments and multinationals knew, or should have known since 1990, of the climate change risks of burning fossil fuels. The Commonwealth's current investments in infrastructure to export yet more coal look pretty short-sighted too.

David Teather,

Reid

I read David Barnett's column (''Turnbull's victory will prove to be his undoing'', November 26, p21) today and nearly fell out of my chair.

Howard spruiker, Liberal apologist, and deluded hobby farmer he may be, but he's finally got something right: if Australian politicians were serious about global warming, they'd cut immigration and build nuclear power stations.

To be honest, I thought he'd got it wrong on immigration, but a moment's reflection showed that with Australia's per capita emissions being the highest in the world, an immigrant denied is a person who has a lesser capacity to pollute. Bravo, David!

Bronis Dudek,

Calwell

Ian Brook, Susan MacDougall, Glen Anido and Geoff Davies (Letters, November 27) want Australia out front in the global vanguard on climate change.

They demand that moral-high-ground regardless of cost and negligible impact.

Rudd and Turnbull just want Australia in the game back in the pack.

They know that unless big developing countries, with their astoundingly large, committed expansion programs for motor vehicles and coal-based power, cement and steel, really take part well before their per capita emissions surge to meet our falling ones, we all boil.

So, Australia and other small countries should link their greenhouse gas policies directly to those of the real emitters, especially the US, to flag their dominant responsibility and increase their leverage. One in, all in. And spend whatever it takes to prove-up carbon capture and storage. Because unless we can retro-fit something to burgeoning developing-country, emissions-intensive industries, we all boil anyway.

Tom Waring,

Ainslie

Nick Minchin would like to take us back to the 19th century.

John Howard wanted to take us back to the 1950s, but Minchin can go one better: he would like to take us back to the 19th century.

What Minchin calls ''the de-industrialisation of the West'' is in fact the inevitable adaptation to 21st century circumstances.

Most other countries have realised that, and are busy developing the new economy.

Whether it is solar energy in Germany (of all places), solar-thermal in Spain or electricity generation by osmosis in Norway, they have all realised what the 21st century looks like.

Australia lives on exporting minerals, especially coal not exactly the ''clever country''.

Even if Minchin does not mind destroying the planet for his children and grandchildren, he should be worried about their economic future.

The way he would like us to go, Australia will end up even poorer than a banana republic.

Dr Peter M. Hill,

Broulee, NSW

ARROGANCE OF BRUMBIES

It is hard to comprehend the arrogance of the Brumbies.

They were given a huge government grant to bail them out.

They can afford to donate $10,000 to Lauren Jackson.

Now they want to be given the Griffith Oval.

Only a short time ago the taxpayers funded the chainwire fence with five openings to enclose the oval.

The Brumbies already own the land purchased from the Bowling Club.

If Andrew Barr has done a deal to allow this to happen, there will be an uproar greater than the uproar when John Hargreaves closed the Griffith Library.

I regularly walk my dog on this designated off-leash public oval and pick up any droppings. I have never in all the years I have been doing this seen a syringe or dog poo or any of the Brumbies picking them up early in the morning as is claimed.

People who take their dogs there for exercise are responsible citizens.

Maybe dogs that roam there without their owners are the culprits and that is a separate matter.

Sonia Hathaway,

Griffith

MORALLY CORRECT PLACE

A theme of Jack Waterford's ''No stemming the tide of change'' (Forum, November 21, p8) seems to be that popular opinion has swung in favour of legally recognised gay unions and that Christians opposing this should recognise this change in public opinion and accept it.

Continuing opposition would be ''almost certainly unavailing'' and more likely to undermine the ''sacramental side of marriage'' than civil unions.

What is more, those opposing would find themselves increasingly isolated and likely to alienate someone's maiden aunt. However, majorities accomplish little and do not always guarantee morally correct positions.

One of the lessons of history, as evidenced by feminism, the pro-choice abortion movement and the gay-rights movement, is that change in ''popular opinion'' is brought about by dedicated, focused, patient minorities willing to risk unpopularity to achieve their desired goals.

Thus is the tide changed. Of course there is no guarantee of success but if no effort is made failure is definitely guaranteed.

The goal, I believe, for Christians should not be a legalised ''no'' but a public persuaded of Christianity's ''yes'' to life.

Russell Warnken,

Higgins

CALVARY SALE LINKS

Tom Brennan, of the Little Company of Mary Healthcare Ltd, states (Letters, November 23) that Clare Holland House is inseparable from the Calvary sale. Well, it's not.

It doesn't matter who first suggested they be linked: it's a thoroughly bad idea.

No case has ever been advanced for selling the hospice.

It was simply used as an inducement to get LCMHC to sell Calvary.

There is no reason why LCMHC must own the hospice to ''fulfil its mission of service''. The question of the extra inducement required by LCMHC Ltd should be settled separately. Otherwise the whole deal should be called off while an independent review is conducted.

David Lawrance,

President, ACT Palliative Care Society