Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend, by the name of Common Sense.
Common Sense lived a long life, but died in Australia from heart failure at the beginning of the new millennium.
No one really knows how old he was, since his birth records were long ago lost in bureaucratic red tape.
He selflessly devoted his life to schools, hospitals, homes and factories, helping people get jobs done without any fanfare and recognition.
For decades, petty rules, silly laws and frivolous lawsuits held no power over Common Sense.
Finally, Common Sense lost his will to live as the Ten Commandments became irrelevant, churches preached a social gospel, criminals received better treatment than their victims and judges stuck their noses in everything from the boy scouts to professional sport.
Finally, when a woman failed to realise that a steaming cup of coffee was hot, and spilled it over her and sued the cafe proprietor and was awarded one million dollars in compensation, Common Sense threw in the towel.
Common Sense was preceded in death by his parents, Truth and Trust, his wife, Discretion, his daughter Responsibility and his son Reason.
Not many attended his funeral, because so few had realised Common Sense was gone.
Hedley Scholz, Eudunda
All need to participate
Andrew Hastie, federal frontbencher for the Liberal Party, in signalling that he will resign from the party if they do not abandon the pursuit of net zero (‘A Hastie departure?’, The Advertiser, September 16), highlights the anomalies that currently exist with this important global issue.
The world’s top three carbon emitters are China (31.5 per cent of total), the United States (13 per cent of total), and India (8.1 per cent of total), accounting for 52 per cent of global carbon emissions.
China and India are rapidly increasing their emissions, while much of the developed world is working at reducing them.
Australia only emits 1.2 per cent of carbon each year, and yet it is taking measures that will have a significant impact on the economic and social lives of all Australians.
Why should Australia sacrifice and harm itself in the pursuit of ‘net zero’ when the three largest emitters won’t do the same?
Australia exports six times more coal than it uses, and exports more than four times as much gas as it uses domestically.
Why not utilise more coal and gas in Australia and provide ourselves with cheaper and more reliable energy, rather than exporting our energy security to Asian nations like China to burn instead?
Australia’s pursuit of ‘net zero’ emissions is futile and self-harming without involvement from the world’s largest emitters: China, India and the US.
As has been said many times before, if you want to achieve change, ‘one in, all in’.
Ian Macgowan, Ceduna
