Sitting in front of the computer on a snowy –2 degrees Sunday morning, looking at the roos grazing and snow blanketing the Brindebellas, Shannon’s Flat, Jerangle and Tinderry Mountains I am moved to respond to your paper, The District Bulletin.
This weather event was predicted by climate scientists in the early nineties to be a very rare event with only the highest peaks getting the thinnest of snow cover.
A pause (in warming) has been recognised by the IPCC and leading climate scientists. So in [the writer’s view] the urgency to remove CO2 is not there.
Is there any need for the federal government to continue supporting renewable energy promoters with taxpayer’s money? The past renewable energy policy has set conditions that have made energy from renewables as cost effective as that from coal.
By now there are many companies and individuals that will invest in renewables without the need for taxpayer’s money. In this aspect the renewable energy sector is like other business sectors, they are rent seekers. Let them stand on their own feet.
I would suggest that the funds for something that can be provided by private enterprise be diverted to those needs that only government can fund. Health, education, transport all improve our standard of living and only government can provide.
Imagine what the $20 billion in the renewable energy fund could provide. This is more than Australia has committed to spend on the F35 and only Government can provide defence.
I would be more than happy to pay a few more cents per litre of fuel in excise if that money was distributed to local councils to maintain local roads.