In his excellent piece "What would a new monarch mean for Australia's republic movement?" (canberratimes.com.au, October 28) John Warhurst doesn't quite get to the point about why the advent of a King Charles (or George VII if he opts for that) will probably stall the Australian push for a republic.
Just as it would apparently be rude for us to do this while Elizabeth is monarch, the naysaying monarchists here will argue that it would be an affront to establish a republic while Charles is King. Better to wait till he is not. Which then leads to doing it while a popular William ascends that chair. And around we would go again.
But there is another issue. It is the inability of the Australian Republic Movement to mount a cogent argument for a republic. It continues to populate its Facebook page with anti-royal family posts, many of them inaccurate and based on asinine humour.
The ARM seems to believe this sort of stuff will convince those who have not yet decided we should be a republic to change their minds. It won't; it will just reinforce their views about how beaut the monarchy is, so why should we change?
Many ARM members, and I am one, find this approach tedious and childish. It has now turned off the comments link to this page, including for members unless they take an additional step to be permitted to make them, and to read what others have to say.
The ARM does not appear to have a communication strategy. Communication strategy means long-term objectives that are designed to make people aware of an issue, convince them to support it, and to take action.
This failure will cost the ARM dearly, even if it doesn't fracture over a proposed model for a republic.
The most naive statement I have ever read in my life is in your opinion piece: "The industrial revolution destroyed industries, reduced millions to abject poverty, sparked mass migrations, accelerated colonisation ..." ("Scott Morrison will be the pauper at Glasgow's COP26 feast", canberratimes.com.au, October 28).
The industrial revolution is what dragged us out of medieval squalor, ignorance, poverty. It gave us our modern standard of living, healthcare, longevity, and fostered democracy around the world. This is why all developing countries want to experience this themselves, albeit minus the negative side-effects such as climate change. Your opinion writers should learn economics and history.
Your editorial ("Scott Morrison will be the pauper at Glasgow's COP26 feast", canberratimes.com.au, October 28) is on the right track: COP26 in Glasgow will be - or should be - all about a 2030 emissions target rather than the speculative goal of net zero emissions by 2050.
If there is to be any hope of reaching that goal, emissions reduction must be set on the right trajectory in Glasgow next week. The alternative, a 2.7 degrees increase in average global temperature and a hothouse earth later this century, should be inconceivable, and must be avoided, no matter the financial cost. There is no time to lose.
Your editorial ("Scott Morrison will be the pauper at Glasgow's COP26 feast", canberratimes.com.au, October 28) is right on point.
The LNP government has pathetically failed to effectively address climate change and the ALP hasn't done much better by saying it's up to the government.
We're all in this boat together and simply pushing the problem aside or pointing the bone of blame does not prevent us all from going down when the boat sinks.
Scientist Ian Bayly's excellent summary of Australia's woeful long climate action struggle is mesmerising reading ("Coalition's last minute shift on net zero beggars belief", canberratimes.com.au, October 27).
Despite the lost decades, Bayly concludes that "we must fervently hope that COP26 is a resounding success".
Many of us will be thinking and feeling the same way. In spirit with the determined leaders at Glasgow, I hope like mad that Morrison and other laggards can somehow convert on the spot.
But realistically, our nation's best chance to be climate action effective is the coming federal election. We must vote for new, science-minded caring MPs who will govern properly and progressively.
Ian Bayly's brilliant article ("Coalition's last minute shift on net zero beggars belief", canberratimes.com.au, October 27) deserves a Walkley award.
It is hard to think of another that lays out the history of climate change science and politics so well. I am going to send it to every federal Nationals politician in the hope that at least a staffer will read it.
There was much that was memorable, but for those who haven't yet had time to read it, this was the most telling paragraph: "In December 2011, the British Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research found that Australia's agricultural land would be more severely impacted by global heating than that of almost all of the 24 countries considered ... there can be no better indication that the National Party no longer represents the interests of rural Australians on the land than their wilful ignorance and total neglect of this research".
The Nationals have indeed become the coal and gas party and no longer represent the real interests of farmers.
In the scientifically unfolding world, we replace outdated and restrictive practices with smarter ones. But in the spiritual world of the human soul and will, God's laws and standards don't change with the times.
Proverbs 6:16-17 states that the Lord hates (among a list of seven detestable sins) "hands that shed innocent blood" (NIV). Those who tinker with human life, either snuffing it out before it blooms (abortion) or bringing it to an end before its natural time (VAD), will have to give an account to the creator of life at the final judgement.
There is, thankfully, divine forgiveness available in this life for those who have committed the most grievous crime against another human being.
So, Don Batcheli ("Mind your own business" Letters, October 24), please be thankful that our local meddling senator with his ancient religious beliefs has our community's best interests at heart.
Life must trump all else, irrespective of how painful, awkward, or inconvenient the circumstances. This conviction represents true enlightenment, not the opposite.
Scott Morrison's "plan for a plan" for 2050 relies on carbon capture technology that is to date ineffective and exceedingly expensive. A 2020 study by the Victoria Energy Policy Centre at Victoria University has found adding it to electricity generation is likely to cost at least six times as much as wind generation plus storage - if it works at all.
To add insult to injury, there is the smoke and mirrors of producing hydrogen from LNG (blue hydrogen) when a clean method using renewables to split water into hydrogen and oxygen (green hydrogen) is readily available and will prove to be acceptable for export.
It is beyond disappointing to see Australia taking this pathetic package to the world.
In the late 1960s members of our APEX club in Berry, NSW, hosted a group of international students at an English language school in Sydney, and amongst them was a woman who was a gynaecologist [in Afghanistan].
When the Taliban took over after the Russian invasion I couldn't help thinking about her.
Later I saw a documentary in which, with no women allowed to be doctors, a male doctor was being consulted by a woman - behind a curtain. Their attitude to women became very clear - they didn't care whether they lived or died.
Then Australia intervened and built a girl's school in Kandahar, which allowed girls to get an education, and potentially become obstetricians and gynaecologists and be able to tend to women's health conditions.
The news from Afghanistan that girls are not going to be able to progress beyond primary level clearly indicates that at least the Taliban are staying true to their beliefs: that women don't deserve even the care they would give their animals.
The Australian taxpayer paid US$1.6 million to build that school for the girls which now will not go beyond primary. Good value for money?
Scott Morrison has announced that the government has a plan to move to net zero by 2050 in "the Australian way". I assume this might involve a whiteboard or a colour coded spreadsheet.
Is the real reason that the leaders of China, India and Russia are not attending COP26 is that they don't know the words to Kumbaya?
After the PM released Australia's emissions reduction plan it was revealed Bridget McKenzie hadn't read it before signing up to it. What does that say about how serious the LNP is in following through on any detail in the plan?
I have a new song for the National Party to sing at celebrations:
Roll out the barrel,
We'll have a barrel of fun.
Roll out the barrel,
We've got the Greens on the run.
Boom! Boom! Ta-ra-ra.
Am I the only one to have noted the irony of an "in principle" agreement between the Nationals and the Liberals? Over the past couple of years it has become abundantly evident that neither party has any principles whatsoever.
The government's climate plan keeps energy exports flowing, base load power on, agriculture secure and mixes science fact and fiction to aim for net zero 2050. What happens if COP26 fails? Will we still be committed to net zero targets the majority didn't sign up to?
In looking at the poster in Pope's very clever "Advance team" cartoon (October 28) I couldn't help thinking that it would have been even better to depict the waves lapping at ScoMo's toes, representing rising sea levels as ScoMo sat in his beach chair on the sand dithering.
I still remember the day many years ago when our high school maths teacher walked into the classroom and wrote a number on the blackboard. He proclaimed, emphasising the words, "this type of number, one plus "root" two, is known as a "surd". We all started giggling.
I bet our teacher got a good laugh as he recounted our reaction to his colleagues in the staff room later that day.
On October 25 The Canberra Times reported on an individual who defrauded Medicare (ie the taxpayers) of $861.50. Well done, great detection, we all say. Large photograph and personal details on page 2 - um, not sure about that. On page 3 of the same issue, we learn that the ATO will not pursue recovery of JobKeeper payments (also taxpayer funds) of $180,000,000 from ineligible companies. No names, no photographs, no details. What the heck we all say.
Sign up for our newsletter to stay up to date.