We are wast­ing money on cli­mate change and no closer to res­o­lu­tion

The Australian - - COMMENTARY -

The amount of money spent on cli­mate change is in the tril­lions of dol­lars with lit­tle or no re­duc­tion in green­house gases. We are con­tin­u­ally told that more money is re­quired but re­new­ables and bat­tery tech­nol­ogy are decades away from re­plac­ing fos­sil-fuel power gen­er­a­tion.

Fear mon­ger­ing will not help nor will talk of tak­ing peo­ple to court. A new ap­proach is needed, more con­cil­ia­tory and less I’m right and you’re an id­iot for not be­liev­ing me be­cause this just leads to more ar­gu­ments and no res­o­lu­tion. Money is be­ing wasted as an as­tro­nom­i­cal rate. Don Spence, Ash­more, Qld

Rus­sell Waugh (Let­ters, 6/12) says “we can re­v­erse or slow down … cli­mate change by us­ing less fos­sil fuel”. An ar­ti­cle in the lat­est is­sue of Im

pe­rial En­gi­neer (from Im­pe­rial Col­lege, Lon­don, one of the world’s pre­em­i­nent col­leges of science and tech­nol­ogy) says “geo­ther­mal heat re­leased through ter­res­trial and sub­ma­rine vol­canic erup­tions is an un­der­es­ti­mated cause of nat­u­ral cli­mate vari­abil­ity” and was re­spon­si­ble for cli­mate changes “in­clud­ing the 2014-16 El Nino-South­ern Os­cil­la­tion and Arc­tic sea-ice vari­abil­ity dur­ing the past decade”.

So, the science is not set­tled. Un­til it is, I sug­gest we should not take ac­tions that will de­stroy our econ­omy and way of life. In the mean­time, we could start us­ing nu­clear power in­stead of fos­sil fuel, just to be on the safe side. Don Hig­son, Padding­ton, NSW

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Australia

© PressReader. All rights reserved.