Dear Editor,

Ross Gittins is an economist, not a scientist, environmentalist or activist. Perhaps that explains his assertion that John Howard has neutralised the climate change issue with the promise of carbon trading in 5 years time. ("Income to dwarf energy price rises", November 21). The policy gap remains huge and it is wrong to offer Liberal voters a "get out of Saturday, guilt free" card by pretending otherwise.

First, there is the matter of immediate ratification of the Kyoto Protocol. As recently as the APEC conference, John Howard sought to undermine the treaty and its binding targets. Fortunately, Chinese president Hu Jintao stood firm in support of the protocol and the competing Sydney declaration was reduced to hot air. Immediate ratification directs worldwide pressure onto the United States, the only significant remaining hold-out. Four years of sustained pressure will produce a stronger Kyoto II agreement for 2012.

Second, is the enormous difference between the coalition's 15% clean energy target that includes "clean" coal, and Labor's 20% target for renewables only. The MRET (Mandatory Renewable Energy Target) under the Howard Government has been frozen at 2% since I can remember. They have demonstrated an aversion to renewable energy and by lumping coal into their new target, it's clear which way the bulk of funding would go.

But the paragraph in Gittins' article that made me laugh was the "fear" of a 56% petrol price rise by 2050. We wish. Economists are apparently so out of touch they probably think Hubbert's Peak is a mountain they might enjoy climbing. When Mr Gittins and co are ready to step out of the text books and into the real world, the physical sciences are waiting.

Regards,
Carl Sparre
Eastwood