Plenty of older people assist with their grandchildren and/or their own parents and/or undertake volunteering or community activities, often on the other side of town from where they live.

Plenty of older people also need to attend frequent medical appointments to address health issues and to keep them living independently.

Try doing all that, in Canberra, using only public transport.

Public transport is simply not a viable option on many occasions.

Clearly, members of the ACT government don't know, or don't care, about the transport needs of older people, juggling multiple responsibilities and activities, and are plainly dismissive of the very real value to the community of those activities.

Their contempt for people needing to travel by car for worthwhile reasons is demonstrated by their attempts to make car travel less viable.

As for the Transport Minister's attempts to "provide genuine alternatives to the car", those outlined in the article are laughable when one tries to apply them to the above scenarios.

I look forward to all the bright young things reaching an age when they realise that personal transport is necessary, in this town, to meet all their family, health and community obligations.

Of course, by then they'll all have their decent parliamentary pensions to help them manage their various transport requirements.

Gordon Fyfe, Kambah

So Northbourne Avenue is to be a spectacular and visually stunning boulevard. Great news.

"Something quite grand" and "the most important corridor in Australia", gush the NCA's CEO and chair. (I wonder what Brendan Nelson thinks of that in comparison with the AWM and Anzac Parade).

I've just returned from Sydney. Light rail there is at last making significant headway, particularly in the CBD/George Street. To my surprise there are no poles and wires along the whole CBD strip there, from Circular Quay to Bathurst Street. Sydney Light Rail website states that without poles and overhead wires, the CBD's historic buildings and pedestrian boulevard will take pride of place.

Sound familiar? So why then in Canberra's so-called premier boulevard has the ACT government proceeded with poles and wires? The illustration in The Canberra Times, provided by the ACT government, shows tree heights fairly equal to adjacent buildings. If, as the government plans, some building heights will be near 50 metres, I suggest we urgently acquire huge Karri eucalypts from south-east WA and get them growing fast.

As a footnote, a good number of the newly planted brittle gums in Northbourne are looking rather brittle (in fact are dead).

John Mungoven, Stirling

The authors of the City and Gateway Urban Design Framework, that includes a long-term plan for the strategic direction for the Northbourne Avenue corridor, are taking a very short-term view and missing a golden opportunity to make it into a great people-friendly boulevard.

It was reported ("Going up for a grand entrance", December 20, p1) that the decision to reduce Northbourne Avenue to two-lanes in each direction had been scrapped (for now) – a golden opportunity missed.

Removing a lane and producing wider verges would make it a safe and comfortable street for everyone using all modes of travel (walking, riding bikes, driving cars, using light rail) and, for the increasing numbers of people who will live and work in the area, make it a people-friendly place that is inviting, fun and interesting and where people will linger, talk to neighbours, sit outside cafes and shop.

The road has effectively been operating on two lanes in peak traffic times for many years with the left-hand lane being occupied by buses that stop regularly and the light rail works closing lanes most of the time.

When the light rail comes into operation there will be no bus stops and then one lane could be removed with no real adverse effect on motor vehicles traffic flow.

Come on city planners — close a lane in each direction, widen the verges, make it people friendly and stop pampering to people who want to drive everywhere.

John Widdup, Lyneham

The 2012 Transport for Canberra strategy offered no incentives for us to travel as car passengers rather than as car drivers.

Canberra became more car-dependent. The 2016 census recorded Canberra's highest-ever proportion of car-driving commuters.

For the first time, the number of passengers in cars fell below the number of passengers on public transport.

The strategy's centrepiece — the frequent bus network — achieved a small increase in bus patronage.

But the number of car drivers who switched to public transport was exceeded by the number of car passengers who decided to drive their own cars to work.

"Moving Canberra" offers more of the same blinkered thinking.

Leon Arundell, Downer

Christmas time is both very predictable and inexhaustibly mysterious.

To some it's a time to pause, to reflect, to stand in awe: God enfleshed in a tiny, vulnerable child.

But to the vast majority it's the silly season; a time of over-eating, drinking, buying, selling, worrying, partying — and, for the odd city council, a time to turn Christmas Carols into tunes trumpeting political ideologies; think Darebin City Council in Melbourne, for instance, who want us to exalt "solar panels" as the 'Saviour' of the world; forget the Child.

There is rightly a lot of noise and blowback when the secular starts to feel bullied and put upon by religion, but what about when the secular starts to bully the sacred?

Isn't this Christmas writ large?

Jesus of Nazareth was born. He did walk the earth.

He did change human history.

He did transform the world with rare self-emptying compassion and mercy — and at great personal cost.

He is still regarded by billions as the greatest person that ever lived.

I reckon that's worth a "Merry Christmas" or two.

Peace and regards.

Fr Peter Day, Queanbeyan

I speak with many people, but cannot find even one who can agree with the requirement that we do not need to note the gender of new-born children on their birth certificate.

Most folk say this is really necessary.

Geoff Cass, Tewantin Qld

On the ABC's 7.30 program on Wednesday night (December 19), Energy Minister Angus Taylor declared that the Morrison government was determined to get the price of energy down and ensure that it was available 24 hours a day.

Mr Taylor did not directly say that the government would underwrite the continued operation of existing coal-fired power stations or the construction of new ones, but said coal "was in the mix".

Earlier, in response to the government-commissioned Emissions Reduction 2018 Report, Mr Taylor announced that there would be no more large-scale renewable energy projects and no significant emissions reduction between 2022 and 2030.

This was because, according to Mr Taylor, Australia will reach its Paris agreement emissions reduction target of 26 per cent by 2022. This reduction in emissions has been brought about mainly by an increase in the amount of renewable energy in the National Energy Market.

Regretfully, the Morrison government is happy to cease any intervention – apart from supporting coal – after 2022.

As a result, Australia's emissions are projected to rise between 2023 and 2030. The rise is only slight, but if the government were to take the latest IPCC report and warnings from the Bureau of Meteorology seriously, it would ensure that Australia's emissions decreased as quickly as possible.

Consigning coal, the fuel of the late 19th and early 20th century, to the dustbin of history should be the primary objective of a responsible government.

Dr Douglas Mackenzie, Deakin

Given Angus Taylor's extraordinarily privileged education starting at The Kings School through to a Rhodes scholarship he has no excuse to take the current position that he is promoting as our federal Energy Minister, a position so eloquently dismissed by the NSW Energy Minister, Don Harwin (Lib) this week.

Mr Harwin wrote: "Simply put science is evidence based: it is not an ideological stance."

Taylor's position on energy policy leaves the rest of the populace guessing at his motivation.

Could it possibly be, despite his educational advantages that he learnt nothing? Or does he have another agenda such as ambition for power or financial advantage?

Whatever the truth, he is totally unfit to represent the people of Hume, and worse still, to make decisions in his capacity as a minister of the Commonwealth that affect our children and our grandchildren.

I can only hope that saner heads, being the state energy ministers, shall prevail.

Timothy Ashton, Glebe, NSW

Both Dr Mackenzie and David Osmond (Letters, December 17) continue to argue that it's possible to rely on renewable energy sources to power electric vehicles.

Dr Mackenzie at least acknowledges that carbon-based energy generation is needed to sustain the power grid when solar is unavailable (ie, at night) but places his hope, perhaps not well-founded, that the ACT government will divert Stage 2 Tram funds to develop a battery system similar to Elon Musk's Tesla battery in SA to reduce the reliance on carbon-based power.

But that battery, with a capacity of around 100 MW is designed to smooth power fluctuations, not to serve as an overnight power backup. To achieve what Dr Mackenzie is proposing will require a bank of 20-plus such battery banks.

David Osmond also places great faith in the contribution of wind, quoting the 14TWh generated last year by wind, but omitting to mention that this represents less than 5 per cent of total national power generation.

It will be a long time before it can seriously impact base-load supply considerations.

Regardless of what these gentlemen may hope, carbon-based electricity generation will remain critical for some time to come.

Kym MacMillan, O'Malley

Cole Latimer ("AGL boss fires back at Canberra", December 19, p20) suggests that renewables are cheaper than coal-fired electricity.

What about the doubling of the wholesale price of electricity when the Victorian Hazelwood coal-fired power plant closed?

I am sure we can look forward to a similar price rise when the Liddell plant closes down.

That is what AGL wants. There is no altruistic interest in the Australian economy or prosperity. It is just self interest. AGL's profitability is what counts with it.

If something of use is to be done, if the government has the gumption, rescind the Renewable Energy Target.

Then we will see how competitive renewables really are. Let them go by the same rules as the fossil-fuelled generators.

Lots of luck with that.

John McKerral, Batemans Bay, NSW

Kym MacMillan (Letters, December 11) is sceptical of the claim that an electric vehicle charged on the ACT's soon-to-be 100 per cent renewable electricity will not contribute to greenhouse gas emissions, but I believe the claim is justified.

Every extra unit of electricity consumed in the ACT requires an extra unit of renewably generated electricity to be supplied into the grid at some time.

That unit of extra renewable generation displaces a unit of fossil fuel generation and its associated emissions, regardless of when it occurs.

This quantitative matching is sufficient to avoid emissions.

As the rest of the grid approaches 100 per cent renewables, we will need more storage, but we have quite a way to go yet.

Nonetheless, data cited by David Osmond (Letters, December 4) showed that our geographically distributed sources of wind and solar generation do come reasonably close to matching the timing of the ACT's consumption, not just the quantity.

Meanwhile, the direct emissions from burning petrol are avoided.

Also avoided are the emissions from the considerable amount of electricity used elsewhere to refine that petrol and further fossil fuel that would have been burned to transport the petrol from remote oil wells to refineries and then to Canberra.

Peter Campbell, Cook

The CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology have released their State of the Climate 2018 report, which shows alarming changes to the climatic conditions around Australia.

Since 1910 both our land and ocean temperatures have increased by 1 degree, rainfall and stream-flow have decreased across southern Australia, sea levels have risen, the ocean has acidified, and the fire season has lengthened.

This is because atmospheric carbon dioxide was 405ppm in 2017, an increase of 46 per cent from the level of 278ppm in 1750.

For the past 2000 years CO2 has been around 280ppm. Other greenhouse gases such as nitrous oxide, methane, and synthetic gases have also increased, and when the impact all the greenhouse gases are converted to an equivalent of CO2, then the CO2e reached 501.5ppm in 2017.

If we'd held a plebiscite in 1970, a time when environmental awareness was on the rise, and asked the question "should we make the above changes to the chemical composition of our atmosphere which will cause the above changes to our climate", I'm sure the answer from the electorate would have been "why, what on earth, are you mad?"

But, here we are, in 2018, and these changes have been made without our consent.

The report predicts more extremely hot days, a higher bushfire risk, more extreme storms, further decreasing rainfall, higher sea levels, more marine heatwaves resulting in coral bleaching. This is complete madness.

Stuart Walkley, Lyneham

Email: letters.editor@canberratimes.com.au. Send from the message field, not as an attached file. Fax: 6280 2282. Mail: Letters to the Editor, The Canberra Times, PO Box 7155, Canberra Mail Centre, ACT 2610.

Keep your letter to 250 or fewer words. References to Canberra Times reports should include date and page number. Letters may be edited. Provide phone number and full home address (suburb only published).