Former Australian Rugby star Israel Folau.
Former Australian Rugby star Israel Folau.

Would a Royal Commission into climate change be a start?

Unaffordable luxury

IF YOU are an absolute powerhouse in world rugby you may be able to afford the luxury of leaving out, arguably, one of the world's best players for re-tweeting the Bible.

Australia, obviously, could never afford that luxury and got cleaned up by England for their arrogance.

Re-tweeters beware!

Michael Quilty, Toowoomba

At least we're talking

EVEN though we weary of getting involved in the debate on a planet threatened environmentally by our still increasing population, and the population's increasing desire for a more sophisticated way of life, the number of times issues associated with this debate appear - even in Conservative news - is interesting.

A story (CM, 14/10/19) on the state tracking to green targets of 20 per cent was encouraging as it showed the climate is finding its way into politics - not just scientific circles - and demands more attention.

Local Mackay stories of jobs being hard to find relative to the rest of Queensland could be reversed if renewables were encouraged. Opposition to coal mining jobs creation is not mirrored in renewables.

The Courier Mail's news of scientists backing climate protests to the point of civil disobedience - the scientists are careful it stays peaceful - is unusual for academia and possibly flags their frustration at research and discoveries being discounted.

Emily Grossman, a science broadcaster who holds a PHD in molecular biology, read out a declaration on behalf of the scientists. It supported the Extinction Rebellion. She claimed the urgency of the crisis made it a moral duty to action for scientists.

Would a royal commission into climate change, as reported in the Australian newspaper, be a starting point? It could be hard for its findings to be ignored, as the banking commission showed.

Anyway, at least we are talking.

Len Thompson, Walkerston

New world order?

WHERE is the proof of the world's end as outlined and espoused by the rebellion group?

The new world order has been tried many times and is really another name for communist or socialist regimes - where all are expected to say, think, do and obey according to the set rules as laid down by the group.

"Peaceful" disruption? Better described as selfish action towards others, governments, big business and industry.

Distribution of wealth to the poor and needy? They will always be with us and sources of supply and finance to them would soon become debilitated so all may become poor, needy and lacking basic facilities.

A needle to the world. Perhaps that instrument may well be used to inject a hefty dose of common sense and good manners into the activists' backsides, as it appears to be where their brains reside.

No borders. Have these people forgotten many nations live in constant war, spending hugely on weaponry but never for the benefit of their citizens, while others are fully armed and ready to go if opportunity arises.

Some countries are sources of dangerous diseases like ebola, so does that mean it will be okay to travel the world to spread that?

A speech at the UN about world peace by a brave Pakistani girl who identified herself to the Taliban to save her fellow students was given in a courteous and dignified manner, unlike the Swedish girl who delivered her message in an ill-mannered and surly way.

No comparison, so why should the rebellious group be annoyed that she didn't gain a Nobel Peace prize?

Does anyone fancy their offer of a new world order?

Patricia Russell, Mackay