“The increase in locally renewably-produced energy would free-up oil supplies for use in areas where increasing electrification is more complex such as mining and manufacturing,” says letter writer MIKE QUIRK, of Garran. 

The closure of the Strait of the Hormuz highlights the urgent need to reduce our 90 per cent reliance on imported fossil fuels.

There are two broad responses. Both acknowledge the need to increase domestic fuel storage reserves.

The first is to increase domestic oil production. It will require the investment of billions, is likely to result in more expensive fuel and will not make a significant contribution to supply for at least a decade. It will require fracking to extract shale oil which could have major environmental consequences from its high demand for water and potential groundwater pollution.

It downplays the possible severe environmental and economic impacts of human-induced climate change. 

The other response, advocated by groups including the Climate Council and the Grattan Institute, is to increase the support of renewables.

It involves the provision of additional incentives to increase the uptake of electric vehicles, home solar and batteries; greater taxation of gas exports; the end of fuel tax credits and tax exemptions for fuel-intensive utes with the savings used to support renewable technologies.

The increase in locally renewably-produced energy would free-up oil supplies for use in areas where increasing electrification is more complex such as mining and manufacturing. 

While major challenges will need to be overcome including how to deliver “green” steel and aluminum and to increase the use of electric trucks, rapid technological improvements are likely as countries including China, Japan and South Korea, seek to reduce their dependence on gas and oil.

Political parties, other than the Greens, support increasing domestic oil production. But as the Grattan Institute observed, investing heavily in petrol production is nonsensical when the world is moving toward cleaner energy. 

To reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, the government’s response has to be based on evidence and free from undue influences.

Mike Quirk, Garran 

Just a warehouse for troubled people

Our jail was named after a prison reformist, Alexander Moconochie, and the name is about as far as reform gets a look in at the AMC.

There is a lack of education and practical training for detainees to use when they are released.

If they go out as they came in: poorly educated, mental health/substance use issues, poor social skills, little or no work skills then it’s no surprise that, for a high percentage of offenders, it’s back to crime.

Apart from the lack of useful training, there’s little reason to participate in it. Detainees are like the rest of us: they do better when they’re encouraged with practical measures like decent pay.

The last increase in detainees’ pay was 2.5 per cent some seven years ago. Since then, our wages have increased by around 20 per cent. So, why should they bother?

The AMC is the most expensive facility to operate in Australia, yet it is nothing more than a warehouse for troubled people. 

Minister Paterson, why aren’t we taxpayers getting a bang for all our bucks? Why is our jail continuing to fail the ACT community and those detainees “stored” in a facility which appears increasingly resistant to providing rehabilitation?

 Janine Haskins, prison reform advocate

Not the feral cats, it’s the humans

Clive Williams’ letter (“Worry about the feral cats before killing the roos”, April 30) ignores the real problem causing environmental damage. It is not free-living cats, but human activities such as land clearing, urbanisation and climate change. 

Robyn Soxsmith, via email

Equal discredit to Rattenbury and Greens

While I thank Alec Gray (Letters, CN April 23) for bringing to our attention the Legislative Assembly e-petition opposing Light Rail Stage 2B, I query his statement that light rail “was only the choice of Chief Minister Barr as one of his ‘legacy’ projects”. 

Equal discredit should surely be given to Shane Rattenbury and the Greens. 

Helen Jackson, Higgins 

Letter writer should apologise

To protect my international reputation as a scientist, I feel it necessary to point out that Anthony Hordern (letters, CN, April 23) has falsified my statements by claiming that I don’t understand that “solar panels produce no energy at all 60 per cent of the time half the year when it is dark and a further 10 per cent when it is cloudy or raining”. There is nowhere in any of my writings here and overseas that can in any way at all support this claim!

I ask him to withdraw his statement and apologise.

Nick Standish, Macquarie

Reluctance of media to call out the far left

Ross Hudson in his letter “Left see right and right see left” (CN April 23) incorrectly says I am dissatisfied with the classification of journalists as either left or right wing.

That’s not what I said. I was commenting on Google’s inconsistency in referring to journalists for example Laura Tingle and Sarah Ferguson as Australian journalists, and Andrew Bolt and Paul Murray as conservative journalists.

They are all Australian journalists and so they should all be referred to as Australian journalists. If there has to be a classification then why doesn’t Google refer to Laura Tingle and Sarah Ferguson as non-conservative or left-wing journalists?

The point of my letter was to point out the reluctance of so-called mainstream media and some social media to call out the far left, while they are willing to call out the far right.

It is an accepted political reality that support for Labor is support for the left and support for the Coalition is support for the right. That’s just the way it is and any classification of Labor as being centrist or mainstream is gobbledygook.

Paul Temby, via email

Take some responsibility for offending

Julie Tongs’ latest opinion piece about aboriginal incarceration (“ACT leads the nation in jailing indigenous kids”, CN April 23) talks of the high number of Aboriginal children being incarcerated in the ACT. 

There is absolutely no discussion on what led to such high numbers of children being incarcerated; ie Aboriginal children committing crimes that leads to their incarceration. 

Reading her article one would expect to see ACT police simply pulling Aboriginal children off the street for simply being there.

This is obviously a multi-faceted problem and it is time for people such as Tongs to take some responsibility and to be part of the solution, rather than blaming everyone else.

A Smith, via email

Determined to be a ‘good statistic’

World Ovarian Cancer Day is on May 8. I was diagnosed with ovarian cancer (OC) in July 2016, my chances of surviving five years were 46 per cent, but my husband reminded me “for every bad statistic, there is a good statistic” so I was determined to be a “good statistic” while admitting the odds were not on my side.

Ten years later I am still alive despite a recurrence in 2020. The alarming fact is that in those 10 years the survival rates have only increased by 3 per cent. 

The chance of survival of  women diagnosed with ovarian cancer has not skyrocketed like those of many cancers, which is why ovarian cancer is the number one cause of gynaecological cancer deaths and the fifth cause of cancer-related deaths in women.  

There is NO early detection test for OC and it is common for women to believe a cervical screening test will detect ovarian cancer. As a result, women are not diagnosed until the cancer is advanced, which leads to poor outcomes.  

I will be celebrating in July, but many women have not lived long enough to enjoy such a privilege.

I have a daughter and granddaughter, and it is for them that I volunteer with a program called Survivors Teaching Students, which teaches medical, nursing and allied health students about the signs, symptoms, risks and the lived experience of OC “survivors”.

Information about the Survivors Teaching Students program is at anzgog.org.au/sts/ and the signs and symptoms of OC at ovariancancer.net.au/about-ovarian-cancer/symptoms

Ann Prunty, OAM, volunteer regional co-ordinator, Survivors Teaching Students, ACT and Western NSW

Priorities, positioning and political will

While Fiona Colin’s claim that green hydrogen for steel would only be viable with “oodles” of surplus renewable power sounds reasonable (“Batteries ‘essential’ piece of puzzle”, letters, CN April 30), international experience suggests it is ultimately about priorities, positioning and political will.

An overview by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) shows Sweden, Canada, Portugal, the US and Brazil have all begun developing green iron or steel using green hydrogen.

IEEFA argues Australia’s strong renewable resources could enable low-cost green hydrogen and create opportunities to process iron ore domestically into “green iron” for export to emissions-conscious steelmakers.

The report highlights South Australia as particularly well placed, citing its abundant renewable energy, magnetite reserves and active government support, including the 2024 Green Iron and Steel Strategy.

If Australia delays, the opportunity may be captured by others already moving ahead. The lesson is clear: this is not simply a question of surplus energy, but of strategic ambition. Big-picture thinking, backed by timely action, is needed now.

Sue Rechter, Talbot, Victoria