The review of the RET came up with the desired result because it was done from the wrong perspective. Once you accept the urgency of the science behind global warming, your perspective is not to conserve the systems and industries that created the problem but to look for ways to get the most rapid change in the way we power our First-World lifestyle - at the least cost. The organisation Beyond Zero Emissions has already shown Australia could be powered entirely by renewable electricity by 2050 with the sort of investment that would have to be put into renewing our ageing electrical infrastructure. Sure the electricity grid will look different. It will be much more decentralised, will have a greater variety of energy sources, and will not be run by the people and companies that currently dominate. They will not like losing their privileged position and profits. But we have little choice. The RET is just one of the ways to support this essential change.
Trevor Hoare, Boolarra
Illustration: Michael Leunig
Words are cheap, Mr Abbott
Our son, who has been working in the renewable power industry for the three years since he graduated may soon be unemployed, along with thousands of others. Was our son's science education a mistake? Should we have encouraged him to work in a coalmine instead - they seem to have the support of the Coalition. What is it exactly that Team Australia stands for? Higher unemployment and greater disincentives for education, it seems. Tony Abbott states his government is ''dedicated to science'' and ''devoted to research''. But does the Coalition accept that the continual burning of carbon is harmful to the atmosphere, or has it selectively rejected this finding of scientific research? In the international effort to minimise global warming it is becoming clear that Team Australia is a ''leaner'' not a ''lifter'' - let somebody else invest in our future because this federal government certainly won't.
Bruce Haines, Blackburn North
Adding salt to the wound
The axing of numerous programs that assisted us to move to a clean energy economy is analogous to a patient suffering the early signs of heart disease refusing gym membership as it costs too much. In the long run a transition to clean energy will be cheaper than continuing to use the current toxic sources of power. Meanwhile the smoke stacks continue to poison our air, adding to our health costs, and increasing the chances of bush fires and poor crops. What makes it worse is these outdated and dirty forms of power are being propped up with billions of dollars of our money.
Michael Weadon, Ballarat
Communities are getting active
I continue to be amazed by how politicians disregard the intelligence of the electorate. Perhaps the only good thing about the election of a COALition government is that it has led to more determined activism by local and environment groups to fight for a workable future for our children and grandchildren. All we seem to be achieving currently is to be seen as an international laughing stock by governments the world over, who are taking global warming seriously by transitioning to a new energy future. Anyone with a bit of vision could see we sit on the cusp of a great age of innovation where we could be a leader in renewable energy research to power the next century. We have all the natural advantages on our continent, including solar, wind and geothermal power in spades. Sadly, Mr Abbott and his cronies want us to go back to the 1950s. All we can do is give them a clear message at the next election and fight hard to hang on to what we know is building a better future. Think global, act local.
Peter Leppert, Beechworth
A democracy? Hardly
Who do they serve, our politicians elected to serve, when they: sell public assets, public utilities and public land, not infrequently to foreigners; foist buildings on residents and businesses alike against the wishes of locals; jump at the beck and call of miners, captains of industry and the US; keep us in the dark via unconscionable ''commercial in confidence'' agreements (it's ''our'' money); allow foreigners to control our media (print, television, electronic); facilitate the export of Australian jobs offshore and the (ab)use in Australia of foreigners on 457 visas; enter so-called free trade agreements that are not in Australia's interests; trash science in its many facets - teaching, learning, research, industry; pursue the use of irreplaceable fossil fuels over renewable energy; and push roads that people don't want (without any sound rationale) over public transport that people do want?
How long does the list have to be before the governed rise up en masse and object to ''our'' servants acting against ''our'' best interests? Or will the majority forget it all for the promise of a dollar a week tax deduction at the next election? My money is on the fool's gold. What an indictment. What a future.
Margaret Callinan, Balwyn
One-man band
Two party leaders, Tony Abbott and Bill Shorten, who have no constitutional status to distinguish them from any other member of the Parliament, are close to agreeing to go to war with Iraq. What a perversion of parliamentary democracy and government by the people.
Brian Sanaghan, West Preston
Tensions will escalate
At the behest of the US, Australia is now running guns to rebels in the north of Iraq against the Iraq government's wishes under the guise of humanitarian aid (''Australia edging closer to Iraq war'', 2/9). How can weapons be humanitarian aid? We have subscribed to the American edict that ''the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun''. We don't know who these people are and these weapons could be sold on the black market and end up in the wrong hands. One thing's for certain: when these guns are used for their designed purpose, the bloodshed in the region will continue.
Justin Robertson, Carnegie
Set Syria strategy first
The objective of war is peace. When we invaded Iraq last time we had no strategy for winning the war and so it was a waste of precious lives and wealth. We look like doing the same again. There should be no lives risked while there is no strategy for winning the peace in Syria.
Nicholas Tonti-Filippini, Lower Templestowe
Benefit lost on me
I just received my gas bill, which kindly compares usage with last year. Even though successive bills show that usage is the same or less year on year, the cost just keeps going up astronomically. Is this an example of the benefits of an unregulated free market economy as proposed by the Institute of Public Affairs and Tea Party Liberals? What an ugly world they want for us. Are gas and electricity no longer essential services? The greed of the energy industry knows no bounds.
Paul Miller, Box Hill South
Dangerous precedent
The royal commissioner Ian Hanger, QC, has laid much of the blame for the deaths of four insulation installers on the government, whereas most fair-minded people would blame the employers of those killed for insufficient training or unsafe work practices (''Batts deaths 'should not have occurred' '', 2/9). This finding leaves the door open for any infrastructure program commissioned by government to be held liable for any workplace injuries or deaths that occur during construction.
Alan Inchley, Frankston
Sanction employers
Why no criticism or sanction of unscrupulous employers and chancers who rorted the insulation scheme by employing unqualified and untrained operators? Basic standards of accreditation and work practices aren't suspended simply because a government implements a scheme at short notice. Findings against only the government of the time lends credence to the inquiry being politically motivated.
Graeme Noonan, Phillip Island
Kids aren't commodities
Were we appalled on hearing of another unregulated Thai commercial surrogacy case gone wrong in which the Australian biological/commissioning father allegedly sexually abused his twins aged under 10? We should be. Similarly, we should be concerned at the move under Tony Abbott's adoption reform to expand a deregulated pathway for Australians living overseas to adopt children, thereby avoiding the ''red tape'' associated with the best practice regulation of inter-country adoption domestically under a Hague Convention.
Many commentators are arguing for a global ban on commercial surrogacy. I agree. There should also be global bans on adoption outside the safeguards of the Hague Convention and on anonymous donor conception. Children are human beings and deserve much better than to be treated as just another commodity in an exploitative, globalised free market.
Penny Mackieson, Kew
We've come a long way
I loved the letters (1/9) on the World Congress of Families held this past weekend, especially the one from Kath McKay on the traditional marriage of her mother in the 1950s. In the 1960s I worked with many women who had similar experiences: husbands who refused them driving lessons, who would not let them have a get together with work colleagues a few times a year, or have any money of their own. It was called emotional blackmail. No physical violence was inflicted as long as women handed over their pay packet at the end of the fortnight. They had no money of their own so we shouted them little luxuries; their homes were in name only but they did not leave as they had children. I would ask Fred Nile on whose side God was in these circumstances. Don't let us go back to those appalling days.
Lois Daley, Port Melbourne
Thank the activists
Please desist from using terminology such as ''bleeding lefties'' (Letters, 2/9), a category of activists who are basically responsible for the democratic, generous principles that have made this country what it is. I agree we need to do something about the ''genuine, displaced refugees who languish in camps for years''. Why isn't this government diverting the billions being spent on ''stopping the boats'' to support the UNHCR and to improve conditions in those refugee camps. Our support could also see an improved system of processing that gives hope to those refugees.
Anne Walker, Carlton
Online voting is the go
The ''People's Panel'' mentioned in Nicholas Reece's opinion piece ''Putting people power back into democracy'' (Comment, 1/9) is a welcome and progressive reform. However, it raises two important questions; how is the panel formed and, more importantly, in this day and age, with the technology we now have available, why not trial an even greater form of participatory democracy through online plebiscites?
Reece glosses over the question of how panel members are selected, yet it's a critical factor in how the work of the panel will be perceived and received and, hence, its potential for success and having an ongoing role in informing Melbourne City Council decisions.
As for online plebiscites, surely the technology is now mature enough to allow this to be securely adopted, with current computing power and smart algorithms enabling the analysis of plebiscite results in an instant. Involving people in this way in making the decisions that affect their lives would, I suggest, tackle the decline in Australians' satisfaction levels with democracy that Reece bemoans. Come on, Melbourne City Council, why not give this a go?
Peter Murphy, North Caulfield
World of difference
Dean Frenkel calls for well-articulated speech (Comment, 1/9). Clear enunciation deserves to be adopted nationally as a standard part of our education system. One reason is that it would make life considerably easier for a large minority of the population with hearing disabilities. Shouting louder does not usually help a person struggling with growing deafness. But clear articulation does make a world of difference.
Railway environments are the archetypes of unintelligible announcements, yet travelling on the Piccadilly line in London, I could understand every syllable of the announcements made by the well-articulated female voice. Yet, within the familiar surroundings of my own city, Melbourne, I understand less than 20 per cent of what is spoken to me. However, if one happens to meet a person with clear articulation, what an unusual pleasure to understand every word without difficulty.
Damien Dunlop, Preston
AND ANOTHER THING...
Iraq
Hostile Senate; stalled unpopular budget. What is more attractive than a war in Iraq?
Steven Scheller, Benalla
''Bob did it, and John did it, so I can do it too!'' Tony Abbott explains parliamentary convention. Or was it a kindergartener's excuse to a teacher?
Andrew Cameron, Newstead, Tas
Captain Tony's role in Team America may see him taking our country into places we would prefer not to be.
Hugh McCaig, Blackburn
Now that the business end of the season has started, perhaps it's time for Operation Tipping Competition: guessing what position Team Australia will be playing in Team America this week.
Stephen Jeffery, Sandy Bay, Tasmania
Headline on Hugh White's article (Comment, 2/9): "Intelligence is key: only fools will rush in to Iraq." Say no more.
Frank Braybrook, Runaway Bay, Queensland
Messrs Abbott and Shorten are as dumb as each other, canvassing the prospect of Australia participating in another unwinnable Middle East war.
Lawrie Bradly, Surrey Hills
We can't find out any details about ''boat people'' but the government can tell the terrorists what we are going to do in Iraq. Strange?
Keith Robinson, Glen Waverley
Politics
Matthew the-go-to Guy for greedy developers who put profit before people.
Liz Jovanovic, Moonee Ponds
When the economy is beholden to shareholders and their profits it is a false economy.
Jonathan Knox, West End, Qld
Energy
Renewable energy is the future; why do we have dinosaurs in government who can't seem to see the way forward and whose policies will ensure we come to a sad, sad end.
Vicki Hambling, Brunswick
This insanity has to stop, Mr Abbott. We all deserve better.
Rhonda Silver, Bangalee, NSW