Copyright smh
The decision by the National Party to remove mandated net zero targets from its federal policy platform is regrettable but hardly surprising (“Nationals abandon net zero mandate ahead of party room meeting”, November 1). For some time, the party has been thrashing around in search of relevance while the world moves on. The genesis for its decision on net zero may be found in its campaign against the Voice referendum. They thought that as “If you don’t know, vote no” worked so well on Indigenous policy, maybe they should try the same stunt with climate change. The problem is that an “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it” approach won’t work with climate change. The climate, if not broke, is at least crumbling. Coastal houses that were supposed to be forever homes are being swallowed by rising tides. Summer temperatures in large parts of Australia are reaching the mid-40s, making it impossible for humans to work outside. The frequency and ferocity of cyclones are increasing, sending house insurance premiums soaring. In response to their changing world, many of the inhabitants of rural Australia (who the Nats are supposed to represent) are bolting solar panels to every flat surface they can find, as well as selecting crops and stock that can cope with increasing temperatures. Nationals leaders who continue to wish away climate change are ensuring that their party will become an historical artefact, rather than a healthy participant in political debate. Mike Reddy, Vincentia The Coalition’s ongoing squabble over climate targets, particularly net zero, reveals a troubling lack of leadership (“Conservatives push to ditch ‘net zero’ term in Liberal party room debate”, November 1). Everyday Australians can only assume that the National Party and many within the Liberal Party don’t care about the increasing climate disasters hitting the very communities they claim to represent. They don’t care about the floods, the fires, the droughts and the rising insurance costs. The only thing the Liberals and Nationals consistently support are the coal and gas industries that produce climate pollution without paying a cent for the damage and deaths that they cause. Where are the credible policies and plans from the Coalition that will keep us safer? Isabelle Henry, Ascot Vale (Vic) It is intriguing to hear that the Nats have “ditched” net zero. How do you ditch something that you never held in the first place? Warren Devrell, Wellington New bill no better The current Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act has been an utter failure for our forests, our native animals and our people (“Our law to ‘save’ nature is a rubber stamp for species extinction”, November 1). It’s well known that Australia is a global hotspot for deforestation and we have one of the worst records in the world for native animal extinctions. But will Environment Minister Murray Watt’s proposed new bill adequately address matters of national environmental significance? Protecting forests and habitat is essential to protecting our wildlife, safeguarding Country and tackling climate change. According to experts who have examined the bill against a set of criteria, the proposed new bill is no better than the old one and in some aspects, worse. Why? Because it’s full of loopholes and uncertainty. Generally, it upholds the status quo of allowable destruction of forests for the sake of cattle pastures, mining and developments. If we all take a stand, this new bill could be amended to help save habitat and wildlife – with the added bonus of reducing climate change. Here is what Mr Watt needs to change: remove logging loopholes, close the continuation of use exemption and improve national standards so they are strong. Rigel Best, Doonside
