Climate debate

In his letter published in The Courier, June 15, Michael Cornish claims to have a window into the mindset of the hard conservative – which was directed at me.

I’ve never heard of ‘hard conservative’ and the only definition I was able to find is “clash between a circle around a triangle”. I’m certain he was not referring to trigonometry, so I can only assume he’s implying that anyone who disagrees with left wing ideologies is a far-right extremist.

The following is my reply.

By demonising the individual rather than debating the issue, he demonstrates his inability to cope with alternative views, let alone understand the mindset of someone he’s never met.

As former Liberal voter, I know why I changed my vote and it’s nothing to do with climate change.

Many people just like me (Liberal and Labor) feel the same – cost of living is their priority.

Anyone wanting urgent climate action would have voted for the Greens, not for a party that is trying to be like them.

The notion that centrists all follow the same ideology shows his lack of understanding of the political spectrum.

The Lowy Institute survey in which 60% of participants were pro climate action, was taken long before they were paying $2.20 a litre for unleaded, electricity rationing and record energy prices.

It is misleading and immoral to use victims of natural disasters as marketing tools for renewables, especially when they are imported from the world’s largest emitter.

We’re seeing a world-wide resurgence to fossil fuels because renewables can’t provide base load energy. Industry, environmentalists and even the Greens now support use of nuclear energy.

US and Europe are paying a high price to wean themselves off green ideologies and Australia is about to follow.

The “Climate wars are over” slogan is meant to stifle debate.

Much to the disappointment of the creators of this silly slogan, it is having the opposite effect because the real debate is just beginning.

Kon Stachovic, Meadows