New leader, same old net-zero claptrap

A new leader for the NSW Liberals, but the same old claptrap (“Sloane softens stance on ‘confusing’ net zero”, November 26). Once strongly in favour of net-zero targets, Kellie Sloane says her language has “softened” because the term is not understood by voters, who are more concerned by power prices and the “bungled” rollout of renewables. Right on message, right on target – and right off track. Ms Sloane, if people “don’t understand” net zero, then how about explaining it to them? Are you a leader or a follower? Anyway, people are more concerned about mortgage rates, rents and home prices than power prices. I pay much more for my internet and phone, council rates, insurances and grocery bills than for power. It was your government who flogged off the electricity providers, assuring us that this would bring prices down. It didn’t. Now the ailing coal-fired power stations are so clapped out that they want taxpayers’ money to bail them out. And it was your mob who blocked the rollout of renewables at every turn. John MacKay, Asquith

Kellie Sloane has recognised that the term “net zero” is confusing to many people. She is certainly right on that, and among those people are politicians who either themselves don’t understand it, or may well prefer voters to remain confused. In short, net zero will be reached when our attempts to reduce climate change have a total effect equal to our continuing actions causing climate change. It is effectively a “zero-sum” situation, in which our positive influence on the climate equals our negative influence. Russell Julian, Port Macquarie

Rinehart has a point

I usually enjoy Elizabeth Knight’s columns and rate her as one of the more astute business writers, but I was a little disappointed with the tone of her piece about Gina Rinehart (“Rinehart pumps up volume on her climate agenda megaphone”, November 26). It leaned heavily on Rinehart’s visibility and rhetoric, rather than grappling with the core issues she raised. Rinehart is asking serious questions that matter to average Australians, like how many billions of taxpayer and shareholder dollars are being poured into net-zero schemes? What real outcomes are we getting in return? And whether big corporates are chasing approval from, as she puts it, “watermelons” and ESG types, instead of staying focused on returns and long-term profitability? For “mum and dad” investors like myself, seeing weaker dividends from CEOs who tout boondoggle projects is not a fringe concern. That is my retirement. It shouldn’t be controversial to say that environmental goals have to be balanced with affordability, energy security and a strong resources sector. Margaret Turner, Claremont (WA)

It is remarkable and disheartening that Gina Rinehart, Australia’s richest person, calls the indisputable science around climate change “garbage”. Just for the record Gina, 2024 was the hottest year on record with a global mean temperature 1.55 degrees centigrade above the average. Alan Morris, Eastlakes

Burqa overreaction

I’m no fan of Pauline Hanson. I loathe her brand of divisive, populist politics. But having read numerous letters and opinion pieces decrying her burqa stunt, I still don’t see what the problem is (Letters, “Pauline Hanson pulls a stunt and Muslims pay the price”, November 26). Despite claims to the contrary, it’s not racist. Racism is when you claim that one race or ethnicity is inherently inferior to others, or when you advocate giving its members additional rights. Hanson has previously done both of these, but in this situation did neither. If Muslim women can wear a burqa, so can Pauline Hanson. Religious exemptions should not exist in legislation. Broken down, a religion is nothing more than a set of ideas, and nobody – not Christians, Hindus, Jews or Muslims – should have extra rights because of the ideas that they subscribe to. This was nothing more than a publicity stunt by Hanson, and the media has played right into her hands by giving her the attention she so desperately craves. Fraser Rew, Ashfield

It may be a moot point, but Pauline Hanson is guilty of culturalism, not racism. She wants to ban a cultural practice observed by women of many races, including Caucasian women. Our parliaments have ended the abhorrent cultural dictate of female genital mutilation. Does that make them racist? Similarly, are those nations that have banned the wearing of full-face covering in public, significantly France, also racist? Grant Heaton, Port Macquarie

D’arcy Hardy has fallen for Pauline Hanson’s misdirect by emphasising the security threat posed by burqas (Letters, November 26). When one examines the most recent and deadly attacks committed in Australia or by Australians, the main culprits have been Christian nationalists, not Muslims. The Christchurch mosque massacre was committed by a white supremacist Australian and police officers have been killed in Queensland and South Australia by far right, notionally Christian, sovereign citizens. Samantha Chung, Kensington

I am interested in whether Graham Millar’s family is outraged about how most religions subjugate women in one way or another, or whether their outrage is more specific than that (Letters, November 26). The current discussion seems to have focused specifically on burqas, and Islam, in a way that is quite unhelpful for addressing wider questions about how we can maintain a cohesive, multicultural society. To benefit fully from the richness and diversity of such a society, we have to find ways to adapt our systems to accommodate the needs of everyone in it, regardless of ability, age, sex, religion, mobility or income. Our security systems should be able to cope with face coverings. Safety and hygiene regulations in food services and healthcare should be able to cope with hijabs and turbans and peyot. Working it out may be tricky, but allowing these things to become a barrier to civil participation just perpetuates exactly the same kind of subjugation that Mr Millar’s “outrage” seems to be about. Suzie Ferrie, Newtown

If Graham Millar is outraged about Islam subjugating women, I hope he feels the same way about the Catholic Church, Exclusive Brethren and evangelicals, who do the same thing. Jeff Evans, Cambewarra

Someone should tell Pauline that biometric technology can identify an individual in a crowded place just by getting a look at their eyes. John Grinter, Katoomba

I take my hat off to Ms Hanson for having the guts to publicly pronounce what many people think. Freedom of speech is under attack. Renée Butcher, Killara

High steaks for Joyce

Like that prime wagyu on the sandwich press, Barnaby Joyce is being pressed from both sides (“Joyce dines with Hanson in her office after burqa stunt”, November 25). Though you have to wonder if joining One Nation would be the political equivalent of cooking premium beef in a kitchen appliance: unconventional, eyebrow-raising and potentially a waste of quality ingredients. After all, if Hanson treats wagyu steaks this way, imagine what she’d do with a self-described “front-row forward” – he might end up just as flattened! Raj Kamath, Castle Hill

Migrant ploy an insult

Not content with demonising and purging immigrants in the US, Donald Trump is now trying to export this philosophy to Australia (“Trump administration orders US embassy to collect data on migrant crime in Australia”, November 26). This is an attempt to bolster his propaganda about the dangers of immigration. He will say, “look, this is happening in other countries, so we are doing the right thing”. All this is done under the pretext that the US is looking out for Australia. The danger with this view is that it will serve as a dog whistle for racist behaviour against migrants in Australia. The government should reject this blatant interference and tell Trump in no uncertain terms that we can look after ourselves and have no need for his patronising and pernicious views. Leo Sorbello, Leichhardt

Michael Koziol’s article about the Trump administration collecting our crime data is difficult to digest. America’s murder rate is seven times Australia’s, and its gun-related death rate is 40 times Australia’s. We should not be complacent, but the Americans have little to teach us about modern-day cultural integration, or about crime minimisation. David Hind, North Sydney

On the subject of Trump’s plan to end the war in Ukraine and the loss of territory that would ensue, your correspondent Trish Neilsen asked how the US might feel if Mexico invaded (Letters, November 25). Probably much the same as Mexico felt when the US invaded in 1848 and annexed not only Texas, Arizona and New Mexico, but California, Utah, parts of Colorado, Wyoming and Kansas. A clue to the historic connection is the name of many of the cities in that annexed territory: San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, Las Vegas, Santa Barbara, Sacramento, Santa Fe, San Antonio and so on. Not a good comparison. Brian O’Heira, Point Frederick

There’s only one turkey in the Whitehouse, and it doesn’t have feathers (“Trump injects own brand of humour into beloved tradition”, November 26). Viv Munter, Tumbi Umbi

Blooming waste

Lord Mayor Clover Moore defends the $20 million price tag for city planter boxes, saying they “bring a lot of joy to people and dramatically improve the sometimes harsh environment of the city” (‘Half the price at Bunnings: Row over Sydney council’s $20m planter boxes’, November 26). Clover, I’ll support your planter boxes if you break out the chainsaws and remove all the exotic plane trees from the City of Sydney precinct. These trees quite simply make people sick with their toxic pollen, which falls like snow almost year round now thanks to global warming. Step outside Town Hall or take a walk down Macleay Street in Potts Point and you’ll hear a cacophony of coughs, sneezes, wheezes, snorts and assorted wails as people ingest the barbed pollen through the nose, mouth, eyes and ears. Plane trees are giant noxious weeds – spend $20 million replacing them and that would be money well spent. Patrick McGrath, Potts Point

Knowledge is power

Thank you, Brendan Jones, for drawing my attention to the internet as a source of reliable knowledge (Letters, November 26). As an “actual scientist” with two doctorates and decades of experience, I should probably give it a try. My point is, while there’s no doubt we have to dramatically decrease CO2 and other fossil-fuel emissions, we shouldn’t forget the other environmental detriments caused by all vehicle types, battery-powered included. I don’t think most of us know where to find an unbiased, whole-of-life comparison between vehicle types, however, perhaps it would help to encourage less individual car ownership and greater reliance on communal and lower-polluting forms of transport. This might be a more effective strategy than self-congratulation about EV ownership. Rob Baxter, Naremburn

Not so smart

I can’t agree that Arthur Phillip High School is the “next big thing” in education (“Inside the Sydney school where the teachers change classrooms, not the students”, November 26). While having teachers move between classrooms may sound like a good idea, and perhaps it is, the rest definitely isn’t. They are online for everything even though the mantra is “get off your device”, they are in high-rise so there is no easy access to a playground or sport, and each year group is on a designated level, so there is no interaction with other students. Jenny Greenwood, Hunters Hill

Pensioners patronised

What Noel Whittaker failed to mention in his excellent article was that working pensioners are required to report their income every fortnight (“Pension system rewards the rich but punishes the poor”, November 26). However, the information being reported via the Centrelink app (no longer a phone call) has usually already been autofilled from the payroll company. More galling is that failure to report on your allocated day results in the pension being withheld until you do report – in other words, confirm what the system already knows. If you earn no income over a given fortnight it is still necessary to report zero earnings – or have your payment withheld. Pensioners do not need to have their hand figuratively slapped like a five-year-old caught with their hand in the lolly jar. Helen Howes, Collaroy

Is there a system anywhere that rewards the poor but punishes the rich? Mustafa Erem, Terrigal

Forever homes

I don’t understand how building more and more homes for our growing population will ever be enough (“Supermarket sites set for 12,000 homes”, November 25). If the population just keeps expanding, what parameters will be used to say “now we can stop building”? Is there a magic number after which we will be also told “now we have enough housing?” How will this end? Dorothy Gliksman, Cedar Brush Creek

Human science

Correspondent Stewart Fist claims AI can handle science better than humans (Letters, November 26)? I disagree. AI creates no new knowledge. It ransacks existing knowledge sources to draw generalised and often unreliable conclusions. It is human curiosity and inventiveness that drive scientific achievement, and just as importantly, the wisdom to know what to do with it. Tom McGinness, Randwick

• To submit a letter to the Sydney Morning Herald, email letters@smh.com.au. Click here for tips on how to submit letters.
• The Opinion newsletter is a weekly wrap of views that will challenge, champion and inform. Sign up here.