The thing about Peter Fraser and his letter, "Taxes not Technology" (GP Nov 3), is that he does share some common ground with Angus Taylor when he says he is all for "....reducing carbon emissions".
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The difference lies in his heading, "Taxes not technology", which implies he believes carbon taxes are the best way to reduce carbon emissions, and further, that since Taylor's 'Technology roadmap' will be funded by taxpayers to the tune of $20 billion, then it's just a carbon tax under a different name.
But it's not. Here's why. It's an investment.
A carbon tax is a tax which aims to reduce carbon emissions and put the fossil fuel industry and big emitters out of business altogether, which will make energy more expensive, destroying jobs, investment and the standard of living in the meantime.
On the other hand, the technology roadmap is a one off investment by government (taxpayers) to reduce emissions while at the same time producing cheaper energy and stimulating investment through innovation.
Unlike a regressive carbon tax, it's an investment in the future which will incentivise business, create jobs and expand the economy. Nuclear power is included in the roadmap but can't become part of any plan until it gains bipartisan support.
Attacking Angus Taylor appears to be some kind of local or national sport these days but it is worth noting that his grandfather was Sir William Hudson who headed construction of the Snowy Mountains hydroelectricity and irrigation scheme; he not only has 'blood in his veins' when it comes to power generation, he has had lifetime experience in the power industry itself.
Achieving net zero by 2050 is a huge ask. Glasgow has said it's not going to happen by then.
Some say it's dreaming. Here's why.
Forget the fact that China, India and Indonesia don't plan to do anything until 2060 or 2070. Since the introduction of renewables in the mid-80s, fossil fuel usage has only dropped as a percentage of manmade global emissions from 86 to 82 per cent, while total usage has increased with population increase.
If we are to have any chance of net zero anytime soon, then we'll have to stop this political charade, look for common ground and do the work.
Tony Morrison, Goulburn
Hospital parking 'inadequate'
Parking at the new hospital build seems inadequate for staff and visitors.
It's essential that the nurses have safe and easy access to parking. Having to walk blocks in the dark to park and return to their cars of a night at the end of their shift is at least dangerous.
I'm hoping there is further planning to increase parking for those using the hospital.
Anna Wurth-Crawford, Goulburn
Multiquip Quarry's 'empty promises'
I have watched and have been involved with most of the empty promises from Multiquip Quarry.
When is any body of authority going to say enough is enough?
The Department of Planning should cease Multiquip's trading until roadworks are completed and satisfactory
They have had a very easy passage so far.
And to threaten the council with legal action?
If council allows Multiquip a pay-as-you-go system, Multiquip's attitude will never improve.
Michael Heppleston, Bungonia
Fence should be required at St John's Orphanage
Just been reading about St John's and I'm just thinking that all buildings under construction or in an unsafe condition are required by law by the owner or builder to erect a cyclone fence around to secure them from vandals ect and to protect the properties.
Why can't this owner be made to erect such a fence around this till it can be demolished or made safe at least?
The owner by law should be made to meet these requirements.
