During the question and answer session I pointed out modelling for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change shows we may exceed two degrees of global warming if, between 1990 and 2050, people cause an average of 200 tonnes of net carbon dioxide emissions, and that we will almost certainly exceed 2 degrees if we average 600 tonnes.

I was also able to point out that Australia's current national target is to cause 600 tonnes per person by 2030, and Labor's own target would increase that to 700 tonnes of net carbon dioxide by 2050.

Chris Bowen said that to persuade other people to not follow our example on emissions we would need to demonstrate "strong action" to reduce emissions.

Your editorial "Report response better late than never" (April 9, p16) cites the government's acceptance of the Jenkins report's recommendations "wholly, in part or in principle" while Jenna Price also adds "or noting".

I take it "wholly" means the government will do "something", "in part" means "a bit", while "in principle" and "noting" both mean "nothing".

Can we keep track of how many of the 55 recommendations will be "noted" and "in principle" from "Smoco", the master of weasel words?

Bob Douglas (April 7, page 18), asks the critical question, "Is it too much to ask to spend some time on long-term human survival?"

To his major threat number 10, which focuses on barriers created by human characteristics, I would add our propensity to be blind to anything beyond our own lifespan, our own re-election to public office, our own or possibly our children's jobs.

This is a characteristic that, until recent times, has probably served human evolution well.

That is no longer the case. We need to support each other in the ways Bob Douglas suggests so that we can have the courage to visualise what the coming decades will bring if we do not influence decision makers and opinion leaders to face up to the threats he lists.

Rod Holesgrove (Letters, April 8) seems to have his history mixed up.

The emissions reduction scheme that the Greens voted down was the flawed scheme worked out between Rudd and Turnbull that had built-in limits to ambition.

The Gillard scheme that Mr. Holesgrove correctly described as one of the best in the world was the product of cooperation between Labor and the Greens and operated effectively for two years before being dismantled by Abbott.

Now that Transport Canberra is apparently flush with unused funds from the 2019/2020 capital works budget perhaps it should consider rectifying a long standing anomaly with the location of the bus route 31 shelters at the intersection of Aikman Drive and Thirriwirri Street in Belconnen.

We currently have the ridiculous situation where the route 31 southbound (No 4937) bus shelter has no northbound shelter directly opposite as is the standard practice.

The northbound shelters are located 350 metres south and 300 metres to the north east. This is too far for mobility impaired residents from Kangara Waters Retirement Village just opposite to negotiate.

A simple cost effective solution would be to simply re-locate the existing R8 Bus shelter (No 4938 ) some 50 metres south, to a point directly opposite the existing southbound route 31 shelter.

It would then serve both the R8 and 31 bus routes. The cost of re-location would be minimal.

Our journalists work hard to provide local, up-to-date news to the community. This is how you can continue to access our trusted content:

Email: letters.editor@canberratimes.com.au. Send from the message field, not as an attachment. 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 The Canberra Times reports should include date and page number. Letters may be edited. Provide phone number and full home address (suburb only published).