I refer to a story in The Canberra Times about a study carried out for the Minerals Council of Australia on the effects on jobs of the proposed emissions trading scheme with the 5per cent reduction target (''Union opts to support emissions proposal'', May 23, p3).
In a press statement on its website, the council refers to the study, claiming that, because of the scheme, by 2020 there would be ''an 11per cent drop in overall employment in the minerals sector''. Yet the mining union disputes this claim of lower employment.
Who's right? An outline of the study can be found on the council's website. Although it is never clearly spelled out (and it needs a bit of extra analysis to uncover this), what the council's study really calculates is that the ''11per cent fall'' in employment in the minerals industry is a fall from a projected much higher level of employment in 2020 than now. It calculates that instead of 32per cent more jobs in 2020 under ''business-as-usual'', there will be 17per cent more jobs under the emissions trading scheme.
The unqualified reference by the Minerals Council of Australia to a ''drop in overall employment'' gives a thoroughly misleading picture, one of a shrinking industry under emissions trading, with miners having to leave their jobs. This has caused a lot of ill-informed, scare-mongering commentary. The council should issue a clarifying statement on this, otherwise its credibility in further public discussion on climate change will be nil.
Paul Pollard, O'Connor
Very poor ratings
It is reported that Standard & Poor's, the international ratings agency, has changed its outlook for the British economy from stable to negative, and so is considering downgrading Britain's current AAA credit rating. This is the same Standard & Poor's whose misplaced favourable ratings of subprime mortgages in the United States initiated the global financial crisis.
While stock exchanges internationally reacted negatively to the report, can any real credibility be attached to any of Standard & Poor's ratings these days? One would have thought their own rating would be the equivalent of ''junk bonds''.
Don Sephton, Greenway
A bit of Thai justice
It's nice to see Annice Smoel reunited with her daughters in Australia after her short stint in a Thai jail for what appears to be a very minor incident (''Home to a hug, and never going back'', May 22, p1).
But it's hard not to long for some sort of similar zero tolerance approach to ''minor'' crime in the ACT as I sit here with my family recovering, emotionally and financially, from my son's car being stolen last week, used in burnouts, trashed and wrecked beyond repair.
If we contrast the situation between Thailand and here, Smoel, innocent or guilty, has vowed never to return.
The Thai authorities probably think that's a good thing.
And I'm sure some sort of message has been received by those contemplating ''letting their hair down'' in Thailand in the future for the need to do so with some restraint, or else. In the ACT, given the amount of wanton vandalism that seems to permeate the place, the chances of the criminals carrying out what some now consider such ''low level crime'' as car stealing and burnouts in suburban streets being apprehended seem to be very low, and even if they are, and the public prosecutor puts together a decent case, there standing by the defence lawyer in court will be every do-gooder in town pleading about the criminal's unfortunate background and upbringing, thereby giving the very lenient ACT judicial officials grounds for inflicting a ''slap on the wrist'' sentence, after which these losers laughingly return to the streets to do it all again. As I sit here struggling to convince my son, a full-time uni student working two jobs to make ends meet, that there are more good people out there than bad, that in the end good triumphs over evil, it is very hard not to wish for some Thai justice to be applied in this supposedly civilised, progressive community to help me win the argument.
J. Dunn, Gowrie
Email a friend