Letters to the editor: Pacific neighbours right to worry about climate change

The rise in fugitive emissions explains the recent increase - at least in part. But Mr Taylor's explanation that liquid natural gas exports reduce emissions overseas does not wash and it certainly does not absolve Australia from its obligations to reduce its domestic emissions.

Pacific Island leaders and Australians have every right to be concerned that Australia is not on target to meet its Paris targets. Existing policy settings are not working and there is a considerable challenge for the Minister for Emissions Reduction to introduce effective policies that will actually start to reduce our annual emissions from 538 million tonnes at present to less than the required 452 million tonnes in 2030.

The statement that "Australia is meeting our Paris commitments" will start to sound more credible when we eventually begin to see emissions trending down. Pacific leaders are correct - Australia needs to do more to combat climate change. In view of Martin Parkinson's recent comments, perhaps a price on carbon would help.

Perhaps Bob Brown and the Greens have lost sight of the solution to the contrived "energy crisis". How would they power a location like "South Australia" that requires around a gigawatt of continuously available electricity to sustain industry and lifestyles?

I offer them three energy solutions - but Bob, his family, friends and colleagues will live right next door to one of them. Option A: the coalmine and a fossil-fuelled power station. Option B: the nuclear power plant and the inevitable radioactive waste dump or option C: acres of photovoltaic panels and 200 of the 10 megawatt wind turbines, together with a huge ocean pumped hydro reservoir.

Which energy solution will Mr Brown choose? Coal dust and toxic emissions floating in the air? A handy Geiger-counter and radiation dosage monitoring tags for the kids?

Option C, is cleaner, cheaper, allows rapid implementation and the source energy is free. And for those with a home on the reservoir's edge, some 200 metres above sea level, magnificent ocean views await.

I fully agree with the Campbell and Reid residents who criticise the planned redevelopment of the Australian War Memorial ("War memorial plans fan passionate views", July 25, p3).

Brendan Nelson's plan involves demolishing Anzac Hall, which has attracted much praise for its architecture, and replacing it with a huge warehouse-like building. This is intended to house weapons of war rather than to commemorate the sacrifices of those who fought for their country - the original purpose of the memorial.

The report "Extra cost emerge as War Memorial prepares to expand" (July 24, p8) revealed that, on top of the $498 million already budgeted for the redevelopment, a "value for money" $8.29 million was spent on a seemingly very expensive business case.

There must be many better ways that more than half a billion dollars could be spent. A staged redevelopment of the shambolic and overcrowded Canberra Hospital buildings springs to mind.

I attended the Apollo 11 50th anniversary ceremony at the Honeysuckle Creek tracking station site last Saturday, July 20, as a former Carnarvon and Tidbinbilla tracker. I witnessed the unveiling of the commemorative sculpture spelling out, "One small step, one giant leap".

I suggest that the kindest thing to do to whoever was responsible for this corruption of Neil Armstrong's historic utterance apparently in the name of political correctness is to have them sacked.

ACT rents are the highest in Australia in proportion to property values. They have been for decades and the ratio hasn't varied much.

R. I. Boxall now says that rents have risen, and so has land tax: implying the one has caused the other (Letters, July 25). But the ratio of rents to property values hasn't changed. Land tax, rates, and sales tax changes haven't changed rents appreciably.

Peter Bradbury now says that unit holders own distinct properties (Letters, July 25). So rates should be on the same basis for "identical block and unit-titled properties".

But rates are, basically, on underlying land value. Unit holders own no land - their property is their right in relation to their unit, but the land belongs to the body corporate only.

When a unit-holder has a separate piece of land, that has its own planning rules, its own building site, and its own development and redevelopment potential, maybe the unit-holder could be rated like a landowner. But no unit holder can develop or redevelop their own bit of land independently of the whole strata project.

It's no surprise that all real estate markets strongly distinguish the unit market from the separate property market. Any practical rating system will need to do the same - according to one method or another.

Yes, it's odd isn't it, Peter Bradbury (Letters, July 19), that nobody seems to know why Canberra's rents are so high. Mr Bradbury is utterly correct. It is Andrew Barr's land taxes, which, already unduly high, increased substantially on July 1, 2018 so that they are payable even when a rental property is untenanted for repairs and renovations.

Land tax triples your rates. If you sell a rental property even one day into a new quarter, your ACT government wants a full quarter's land tax. Land tax is indeed a war on those who do not own homes and have to rent them from other owners. It is sick making to see the crocodile tears of our politicians over the high price of housing, whether rented or purchased. Governments have directly caused and fostered this outcome, for the easy revenue stream it provides.

Would I rather have more tram stages or lower rent? Did people think about this at the last ACT election? Do electors make the links between the costs of things they need, like housing, and optional extras?

Housing is surely a human right, and government must take responsibility for milking it to the extent they have, making it unaffordable for many. War on the poor, indeed.

I think our land tax system, which is paid as well as rates on rental properties, is contributing to Canberra's high rents ("Canberra the most pricey capital for renters", July 11, p3). Owners of rental properties in the ACT are levied the tax but in times of tight supply, such as now, we could expect owners to pass on some of the land tax to renters. (In times of oversupply of rental property it would be expected that owners could not pass on the tax.) We are certainly in a tight market now.

The ACT system of land tax is different to that in NSW. In the ACT, all rental properties attract a land tax, while in NSW only rental properties that are part of a portfolio with an unimproved land value of $629,000 or above attract land tax.

Here in the ACT the land tax has a fixed component of $1263 and a valuation charge which is stepped. For example, where the unimproved land value is between $275,000 and $1 million the cost is $1500 plus 1.8 per cent of that part of the land value above $275,000. So my guess is that even a very low value property may be charged around $763 before rates are added. This cannot be helping affordable rentals in the ACT.

You can see the advantage of owning a single rental property in Queanbeyan.

I am patiently awaiting the headline: "Boris PM, Queen contemplates early retirement to spend more time with family".

Re: Jeff Hart's reply to Ahron Shapiro's predictable epistle pushing the world towards military confrontation with Iran (Letters, July 20). The unresolved issue of Israel's nuclear weapons capability renders the Middle East situation extremely volatile.

If the Jewish state is nuclear capable, the world must understand Iran's aspirations.

What's good for the goose must be also good for the gander - if only for the sake of just balance.

Regarding the ongoing discussion of light pollution in McKellar, one wonders what happens in the summer ("Lights off after spillage hits neighbours", July 25, p38). Do residents put up with bright daylight saving sunlight? Or do they not complain because they know nothing can be changed? Just wondering.

Just what we need for the treatment of an ailing economy, a nurse turned doctor now the Treasury secretary. Let's hope his bedside manner doesn't upset the patient ("Kennedy: an economist, a nurse, now Treasury Secretary", July 26, p5).

The "Nicole" NBN scam is still active with multiple calls throughout the day. Would the telcos please do something about this, as the problem is not the threat of losing one's own phone line at all, it's how to get rid of Nicole.

A recent Canberra Times article highlighted the challenges facing stage two of the light rail, with Andrew Barr saying a major cost would be the need for the tram to be "wire free" in the Parliamentary Zone ("Questions over stage two final costings", July 23, p3). Problems with the steepness of the route were also mentioned. Doesn't this raise the whole issue of the technology proposed? Surely more modern approaches would be more appropriate for this sector of the network. Rubber wheeled, battery powered vehicles could be cheaper and just as effective.

Commonwealth Avenue is the truly insurmountable problem with the Civic to Woden tram line. There are destructive, expensive, and disruptive construction problems along the avenue's entire length, as well as the loss of nationally significant engineering heritage, superb cultural-landscapes, symmetry, and semiotics, in the finest built precinct in Australia. Briefly, the best lake crossing solution is to take the tram from Civic along Edinburgh Avenue, Lawson Crescent, and Griffin's missing, beautifully curved and arched, third central lake crossing from the outer southern shore of Acton Peninsula to Flynn Drive north (and then up to State Circle, its cutting, and around to Adelaide Avenue).

It hard to believe there are still many politicians who ignore scientific research supporting climate change and global warming and refuse to take action. With record-breaking temperatures in Europe, it's pretty obvious more urgent action is required now to preserve what we have left for future generations.

The political similarities between Boris Johnson and Scott Morrison are remarkable. Both unashamedly attempt to conceal their radical right beliefs beneath the buffoon's cloak and behind the circus clown's red nose. Both are strongly backed by extremists within their parties. Only the next British general election will tell if both can also count on being supported by extraordinarily credulous, unsophisticated and narrowly-motivated electorates.

Email: letters.editor@canberratimes.com.au. Send from the message field, not as an attachment. Fax: 6280 2282. Mail: Letters to the editor, The Canberra Times, PO Box 186, Fyshwick ACT 2609.

Keep your letter to 250 or fewer words. References to Canberra Times reports should include date and page number. Letters may be edited. Provide phone number and full home address (only suburb is published).

To send a letter via the online form, click or touch here.