A climate change leadership challenge:

David Hand writes: Re. “Rudd could be a great leader on climate change if he actually tried” (yesterday, item 2). Bernard Keane thinks that Kevin Rudd might be a great leader on climate change if he “stopped giving polluters taxpayers’ money”. Though Bernard waxes eloquent about taxpayers’ money, it’s the yet to be introduced carbon tax money, disguised in a CPRS, that is being fought over, though it does seem that the CPRS is so badly structured that it risks losing money rather than collecting any.

Bernard’s Neanderthal view of economics seems to be that evil carbon polluters should be made to pay, perhaps conjuring up the money from thin air. After all Kevin Rudd seems to have done this in the last year or so. Which brings me to the next point Bernard doesn’t seem to grasp. If the evil polluters have to pay the tax, they will pass the cost on to us. Yes folks, we are going to pay. This is absolutely clear to the most casual observer.

The whole idea of the CPRS is to drive up the cost of carbon polluting activity to the point where we change behaviour and switch to less polluting alternatives. It’s us that Kevin is concerned about, not evil polluters. His wishy washy do-nothing CPRS is being pilloried for its lack of bite because he does not think we, the voters, will take too kindly to step increases in power, petrol and energy intensive manufactured goods.

Kevin Rudd is a man on a mission. His mission is to get re-elected in 2011 and hopefully 2014. His tough sounding rhetoric plays well to the electorate provided he doesn’t hurt their hip pocket by actually doing anything meaningful. Consumers would surely feel pain if a CPRS of any real meaning was to be introduced.

Kathryn Mullner writes: Bernard Keane, can you please provide us, the general public, with a simple explanation and proof that you have of the “overwhelming global scientific consensus” on climate change.

Certainly people we speak to on this subject seem convinced that global warming/climate change is not the scary issue the scientists/government are trying to convince us of.

I don’t read The Australian, so not influenced by that quarter, but we use our limited common sense to determine that yes, our modern society does contribute to climate change, but many of us are still more convinced that our climate has changed and evolved over thousands of years, and these current droughts and similar warming have all occurred in times past.

I can assure you there are a lot of ordinary people out here who need to be further convinced if this is otherwise.

Mick Fink writes: Great to see “balance” in a story (excuse me while I choke). Of course anyone who disagrees with the left leaning intelligentsia, and the self serving bureaucrats, is termed a “flat earther”. No there is NOT a consensus, because large numbers of scientists disagree with the drivel we are being fed, e.g. the end of the world is nigh!

Rather than argue their case on its merits or otherwise, all know nothings like Bernard Keane can do is indulge in character assassination of anyone that may work in a high carbon emitting industry, or any politician that dares not to speak the utterances desired. This smacks of the Spanish Inquisition where freedom of thought or expression is only something this sort talk about when it is their own rights being trampled; they do not extend that right to anyone that differs from their prescribed thoughts.

By the way, when did carbon become “pollution”? Another monstrous lie. It is essential to life … you know like Biology 101 … plants take it in and then emit oxygen. Gee, sure I knew that by the time I was around ten years old!

If you actually got out and spoke to some business people, including small business, you may actually get a surprise, as they know all this is just another form of cost and taxation being foisted upon us by stealth.

Rudd wants this for his ego and his future, where he likely sees himself as Secretary General of the UN — another useless institution, that achieves very little.

Oh, by the way Bernard, do you cycle to work or drive a car, do you never take a plane? I thought so. Try practicing what you preach.

Brian Mitchell, Former editor of the Fremantle Herald, writes: I must take exception with Bernard Keane’s demand that the Kruddfit punish The Australian‘s (increasingly ridiculous and shrill) editorial stance by denying it advertising. Governments are entrusted with managing considerable mountains of public cash and should never reward or punish business — any business, but one would suggest particularly the media — in order to force people to toe a line.

Yes, it happens and when it does it is despicable (it has happened to papers I’ve edited on many occasions, from both state and local governments, and the effect on the bottom line is considerable). For a journalist to suggest it is legitimate is simply staggering. There is a good business case for dropping jobs ads in the print media and moving them online, but such a decision should be based on business merits, not political spite.

It will be a dark day for journalism when governments, as a matter of course, shop around their advertising dollars based on who has the friendliest journos.

Bernard Keane, you’re a bloody idiot.

A Minerals Council of Australia spokesperson writes: This is incorrect in yesterday’s Bernard Keane comment piece: “For example, the Minerals Council of Australia, the most vociferous opponent of the Government’s CPRS, gets funding for its Minerals Tertiary Education Council program from the Department of Employment, Education and Workplace Relations.”

The Minerals Tertiary Education Council (MTEC) receives no funding from the Department.

Bad sports:

Michael Riley, Chairman, Sport Supporters Australia, writes: Re. “Tips and rumours” (yesterday, item 7). Crikey published:

Does anyone know who is behind the new lobby group Sport Supporters Australia? I heard a whisper that Fairfax heavies may be behind it which may make sense given the glowing article in the Sydney Morning Herald on Saturday by known News Limited hater Roy Masters. Not surprisingly, I didn’t see any reports in News publications of the launch of the organisation.

I’d like to correct the record and reassure the conspiracy theorists that there are no “Fairfax Heavies” involved in the establishment of Sport Supporters Australia (SSA).

SSA is an independent, not for profit organisation governed by a Board of Directors who are supported by a number of committees in developing strategies, policy advice and recommendations on issues that are relevant to sports supporters. We aim to represent the interests of the major stakeholders of Australia’s leading spectator sports — the fans — in the boardrooms of the country’s leading sporting organisations, with government, in the media and in the community.

SSA is beholden to no interest other than those interests shared by sports fans and we are financially supported solely by our membership fees and any donations we get to help us fund our work. We are not funded by government or any other organisation.

If Crikey readers are interested in our position with relation to the media around sport they are more than welcome to read our submission to the review of the anti-siphoning list. Anyone wishing to know more about our organisation or wanting to join, feel free to visit our website.

Unfounded nepotism:

Elissa Blake writes: Re. “Tips and rumours” (yesterday, item 7). I have a small, yet important, clarification for Crikey. Yesterday, you have published this: “There’s a new power coupling at the Sydney Morning Herald where Jason Blake (theatre critic) and his wife Alyssa are bosom buddies with SMH editor Peter Fray and his wife. Amusingly, Alyssa Blake has just been appointed theatre critic of the Sun Herald.”

Just for the record, Jason and I have never met Peter Fray or his wife. So any nepotism implied in this item is unfounded. It’s not so unusual for married folk to be working in the same field.

Asylum seekers:

Alan Kennedy writes: Re. “Mungo: Saint Kevin’s halo has finally slipped” (yesterday, item 10). In his trip to Sri Lanka, Stephen Smith continued the bully boy rhetoric of his boss Kevin Rudd over being tough on people smugglers and then did a deal with the people who are causing the problem, the Sri Lankan Government.

The US Government, the European Union and Human Rights Watch have been putting pressure on Sri Lanka to stop its repressive policies towards the Tamils in the north of the country. The situation is bordering on genocide. The Tamils are fleeing appalling conditions and anyone in their place would do the same. They choose any method they can to get their families to safety. The ones who do get here are quickly able to show they are genuine refugees.

Smith should have joined all the other world bodies in condemning the Sri Lankans and demanded it stop its repressive policies towards the Tamils. Instead he has just asked: “How can we help make the camps more secure so we don’t have to care about what is going on?”

What next a big contract for razor wire?

Melbourne Uni:

Angus Sharpe writes: Re. “University of Melbourne spinning themselves a lie on VCA” (yesterday, item 19). Save VCA campaigner and Music Theatre Alumni Scott Dawkins (I’m not making that up) laments that “there is an imminent threat of talented teaching staff leaving VCAM”. Apparently this is because the University of Melbourne has not engaged with staff.

So quit. That’s sure to bring modern civilisation crashing to its knees. Is it just me, or does this brouhaha remind you of the Australia Council strike?

And Scott. How would　you have liked the consultation process to go? As follows perhaps?:

Q: Not enough students are willing to pay to take our courses in obscure subjects. Therefore, our faculty is currently subsidised by the the other faculties. Would you like this state of affairs to continue (the alternative is to merge or cut the unpopular subjects)?

A: Yes please.

Please.

A law student at Melbourne Uni writes: If Scott Dawkins seriously thinks that a self-selected sample of 25% of VCAM staff represents a ‘pretty good litmus test’, he is only demonstrating how desperately RDM is needed at the VCA to deal with the figures involved in actually running a functioning university faculty. More stunning is the failure of the group to reach unanimity.

As a concerned student, it’ll be nice once the collected staff of the VCA&M (and the Law School) decide to give up the white-anting and fiefdoms and go back to, you know, teaching.

Ray Quigley writes: I am mystified. Most, recent, days I have been enthralled with the detailed claims, and rebuttals, as to the MoU “business model”. The claims, and rebuttals, are so full of “facts” and “statistics” that it can become eye glazing. Yet, nothing appears in the popular press. My laboured point is, “what does this say about the Crikey readership?” Am I in elite company?

Send your comments, corrections, clarifications and c*ck-ups to boss@crikey.com.au. Preference will be given to comments that are short and succinct: maximum length is 200 words (we reserve the right to edit comments for length). Please include your full name — we won’t publish comments anonymously unless there is a very good reason.