The mere act of mining coal discharges large volumes of methane (which we all know is 20 times more effective as a greenhouse gas than CO2), largely uncontrolled, to atmosphere.
In underground workings, methane drainage engineers make sure that methane (known in the trade as ''firedamp'') is scavenged and discharged safely to atmosphere. In some coal deposits methane is collected as ''natural gas'' a new and lucrative product.
The coal industry is now complaining of unfair treatment when required, in the context of carbon tax, to account for the methane it releases. We now have a double whammy from the acts of both winning coal and burning it in the thermal power stations.
Knowing the 20:1 penalty of methane release, why has this incidental, probably large, effect been concealed? If we were to shut down all our thermal power stations, burn no more coal and sell it all to China, we would still be accountable for all the methane spilled. Why cannot this powerful, polluting by-product be collected to some useful purpose?
Can it be that the anti-nuclear bigots have conspired to suppress this ''methane release'' term in the global warming equations? Should we have a realistic view of nuclear power, which contributes practically nothing to global warming?
Colin P. Glover, Canberra City (Civic)
Balance on roos
I note that none of the experts or professional protesters who are opposed to the cull of kangaroos on Defence Department land are ACT residents. It is doubtful, therefore, that they have firsthand knowledge of kangaroo management issues in the ACT. The Eastern Grey kangaroo is not an endangered species in fact it is found throughout the ACT and surrounds in prodigious numbers, as any resident can attest.
I believe it is unfair to first criticise Defence for not taking action at Belconnen and then, when the final action was taken, to provide glaring publicity for a small band of protesters who endangered both themselves and the animals they profess to protect.
It's also unfair to then criticise Defence for taking action in line with ACT Government policy and RSPCA practice, and for delaying an announcement until the cull was under way to protect the integrity of the action, and protect interstate protesters from their own idiocy.
Seriously, the time for debate has long passed. Let's deal with an overpopulation issue before the animals in question begin to suffer through inaction.
G. Rhodes, Wanniassa
Grading schools
Robert Willson's example of sporting teams to challenge school principals about student outcomes (Letters, May 12) turns out to be the exact reason why school league tables are not desirable.
The reason why Geelong and St Kilda are well ahead at the top of the AFL ladder is because they have better players than Richmond and Melbourne, which are stuck at the bottom.
I'm sure the players of all teams are doing their very best to lift their game each time they play, but some have superior skills to others.
If all children had the same set of genes, the same home environment, the same parental interest in their activities, the same diets, they would all be at the same place on a league table.
We all know this is not the case and never will be, no matter what efforts teachers and principals make.
We recognise that in any city there is a wide diversity of people, and to expect, or even to want, everyone to be the same is naive and unhelpful.
Gwenyth Bray, Belconnen
Robert Wilson (Letters, May 12) wonders why school league tables are not on.
Does he really think it's fair for public schools, which are chronically underfunded and cater for socio-economically disadvantaged children, to be compared with rich, privately run businesses which may choose their own customers?
Of course it's not. The obscenity of public funds going to the wealthy is bad enough without the poor public schools being hung out to dry publicly.
How much better would it be if parents with cash opted to support their local public school rather that confine their largess to their own kind?
Bob Howden, Kambah
Email a friend