AFTER the antics by Blockade Australia over more than a week, the question is: what have they really achieved?
The answer is they have increased the amount of fossil fuel output because of increased road traffic through the use of cars and buses to replace over 100 passenger trains that couldn't run. With this, they are contributing to climate change.
I also believe they have gained increased public hatred of their tactics that have never been of benefit to society. They do not have the majority support of the general public, and this week's actions are just a continuation of a mindset that ensures they never will.
Glen Wilson, Cardiff
The case for nuclear is strong
FASCINATING conversations have flowed in letters to the editor on Peter Dutton plans to bring nuclear to Australia as a way to solve the issue of baseload power.
The comments from Labor and the Greens include that it's not cost effective, it's far too expensive, it will take too long to build, it's far too dangerous, it won't bring down power prices, no one is building them, no one wants to live near them, Dutton is just being divisive, he has no intention of building nuclear.
More countries around the globe need to embrace and build more nuclear power plants to assist with baseload power to fill the shortfall of wind and solar. Australia is the only one of the world's top 20 economies that don't have nuclear power generation.
We have had a nuclear plant in Lucas Heights since 1958. No three-eyed fish in the Georges River or surrounding suburbs. Lucas Heights was built in a green zone due to fears that no-one would want to live near it. There are now million-dollar homes built across the road from the plant.
The United Arab Emirates have taken on average 11 years to build reactors, so not that long. There are currently 57 nuclear power plants under construction, with a further 100 in the planning stage worldwide. When Finland brought their nuclear power plant online their power cost dropped 75 per cent.
To Labor and the Greens, I say to you call Dutton's bluff and remove the ban on nuclear. Let's see if there is an appetite for them. Of course they won't, because they are genuinely worried someone will build them.
On the waste I would suggest we follow Finland, who is being touted as using innovative ideas to solve the problem of nuclear waste. We are smart enough to solve that problem. We live on the most stable continents on the planet. If not nuclear, then HELE coal-fired power is the answer.
One last thing have we all forgotten; it was Labor who signed off on nuclear submarines.
Andrew Hirst, Seaham
We're lacking haste in transition
IT is now an established fact that the number one cause of human induced climate change is burning fossil fuels to create energy. This is causing the release of massive amounts of greenhouse gas emissions into an already emissions clogged atmosphere.
The global damage caused by human induced climate change is enormous but this does not seem to be enough to stop the Australian Federal Government from encouraging, in many ways, the continued use of fossil fuels.
Perhaps our federal government should be made aware that future estimates by the World Economic Forum, regarding costs associated with human induced climate change damage, indicate that by 2050 yearly global damage costs could be in the vicinity of between 1.7 and 3.1 trillion dollars per year.
This just may spur the federal government to act with some haste regarding reducing the continued use of fossil fuels to create energy.
Brian Measday, Kingswood
Albo was right to call Assange
SIMON Birmingham, his colleague James Paterson and other LNP critics of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese having made phone calls to Julian Assange, are in extremely tenuous territory when it comes to determining what are appropriate actions or statements for an Australian prime minister to make.
For example, how would they rate Anthony Albanese's phone call to Julian Assange when compared to John Howard failing to tell parliament the truth about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction? Or for the inappropriateness of John Howard and Tony Abbott demonising asylum seekers for base political reasons, asylum seekers?
Do these critics think it was appropriate for Tony Abbott to have given unqualified support to convicted paedophile priest John Gerard Nestor? A proven child molester whom Abbott described as being "a beacon of humanity". By contrast, by being appropriately supportive and measured in every aspect of the Assange issue, our prime minister has, with his actions and words "simply done the Australian thing!"
Barry Swan, Balgownie
Footy commentary should look beyond blokes
CAN I make a valid suggestion regarding the women's State of Origin? Get rid of the male commentators. Phil Gould and his mates should give it over to female commentators. I think Gould is horrible. There are some very intelligent women commentators around and it's time to give them a chance.
Greg Lowe, New Lambton
Harsher penalties for vandals
Why is it always alluded to as racism when an Indigenous mural gets defaced or vandalised ("Defaced mural may allude to something worse", Letters, 27/6), but never when a statue of an early explorer or an Anzac memorial is damaged? I believe those destroying public property should be slapped hard on the wrist or punched.
Bryn Roberts, New Lambton
You can't blame them for response
BEING short of political savvy, and global understanding, I fail to comprehend how two countries visited with aggression by their neighbours, are considered to be the guilty parties when they respond in kind. Said countries are being reviled, when the instigators are being supported by the world at large. My logic is obviously flawed.
William Hancock, Rankin Park
Stance on housing speaks volumes
SO Saxon Davidson of the Institute of Public Affairs doesn't believe our environment is worth defending ("Taxpayers funding the demise of regional communities", Opinion, 28/6), that says it all about the IPA's mentality.
Bob Watson, Swansea
War of words won't be the end of it
RICHARD Overy, an expert war historian, believes World War III is inevitable and gives a few scenarios as to how it will start with China invading Taiwan sometime. I believe and stated in this forum this will happen before Xi Jinping's rule is over. He will not go to his grave without taking Taiwan, so perhaps the dribble I read in response to my letter from people with a higher education than Mr Overy obviously is exactly that! Dribble.
