Recent Lowy Institute poll revealed that 60 per cent considered climate change to be a 'serious and pressing problem', 55 per cent believed that 'the main priority was reducing carbon emissions', whilst just 32 per cent who felt that 'reducing household bills' was more important. The latter despite overwhelming evidence that renewables' energy is cheaper than that produced by fossil fuels.

Coal is an important element of our economy yet only accounts for approximately 0.65 per cent of economic output. Coal mining directly supports 40-50,000 jobs, or less than 0.5 per cent of the workforce. Important to those employed in coal-mining and their communities but trifling when set against the future of our planet.

When federal and state governments have done so much to protect us during the pandemic it is inconceivable that they can't do the right thing by coal mining communities as they accelerate the run down of coal, oil and gas. An obvious approach would be to move from fossil fuel production to the rare earths that are needed to fuel our low energy/high-tech future of which Australia has the world's sixth highest reserves.

We desperately need a cross party consensus of the willing to address this issue and to provide the imagination and sense of purpose so sadly lacking from Canberra.

ARE the days of the Liberal and National Coalition over? Now that the Nats have a new leader in Barnaby Joyce, pictured, their policies are even further apart. So how can they justify their joint party existence? Their ideas on zero emissions, climate change, power generation etc are so far apart, the Coalition should no longer exist.

The opposition parties should push for a "three-cornered" fight at the upcoming election, this would go a long way to restore politicians' credibility and change their focus from longevity for their superannuation's sake and maybe benefit the electorate.

THEORETICALLY fuel excise is supposed to be used on building and maintaining our roads, but since it is a federal tax and just goes into general revenue this doesn't obviously occur.

Victoria's 2.5 cents per kilometre for electric cars starting on July 1 and NSW's in 2027 is basically a cash grab for something they are not presently entitled to. They do however spend a lot on roads and as such should be recompensed. Why then aren't all cars taxed rather than just electric? It should probably be based on weight, since the heavier the vehicle the more damage is done to the roads. Using their own figures they could charge a cent per kilometre for each tonne or part thereof.

For businesses this would be an expense and therefore tax deductible. Odometer readings are taken at annual registration inspections and distances easily calculated and the cost added to the registration. The average motorist would be paying $150 to $300 extra per year but we should have better and safer roads. There may even be an argument to decrease fuel excise, which at present is about 42 cents per litre.

To discriminate by only taxing electric vehicles is unfair and detrimental to their uptake, which in turn slows our response to reducing our carbon footprint and getting cleaner air in our cities. Just a thought.

MARK Vaile claims he faced an "unjustified campaign against the appointment led by minority groups placing ideology before proper governance" ('Jeans to continue as UoN leader', Herald 23/6).

I am a lecturer from the uni who was horrified by his appointment as chancellor, I have not spoken to any staff who supported his appointment (although I'm sure there were some) and I did not need any "minority groups" to motivate me to take a stand against his appointment.

For me it was about the importance of research evidence in public policy and more broadly. It would have been so inappropriate to have a chancellor who has a history of minimising climate change and the need to transition from fossil fuels despite the overwhelming research evidence.

Concern about climate change is not about ideology, it is about science and research. The public backlash was very predictable (and justifiable) and I do not know how the university leadership thought it was a good decision.

AS mostly a Liberal voter, look out Gladys. Your job is to moderate your arrogant and out of control, ministers if you wish to retain government.

Determination of road speed limits is not an exact science, and even then they are truncated back to the lower standard speed limit. Transgression of less than 10km/h over the sign posted speed catches those who "inadvertently" break the law revenue is about 60 per cent of those being fined.

Target those who blatantly do so - in excess of 10km/h. There cannot be "indisputable" statistics between accident reduction and this increase in fines; it's all spin.

Reintroduce signposting immediately after a testing facility, and set a sensible margin above the sign posted limit (10km/h) would be a common sense response to achieve a balanced outcome.

THE debate in the letters page about speeding drivers and speed cameras raises plenty of questions on how to deal with speeding. There is one solution that is gaining support; speed limiting of cars.

The car I drive now, a midrange model, is capable of accurately recognising the speed limit of the road I'm driving on, and can control the engine and the brakes. I would assume that it's not too much of a stretch to have the car's software prevent me from exceeding the speed limit, no matter how hard I push down the accelerator pedal.

I was a bit of a rev head in my younger days, and I would have strongly resisted such a proposal. Now that I'm more mature I can see the benefits, particularly in congested cities like ours. I can't see too many reasons why the proposal wouldn't work, that is, preventing speeding. After all, one of the highlighted security features of self-driving cars is that they will not speed, so we recognise this feature as a good thing.

Before you say "nah, it will never happen", regulators in Europe set in place a policy in 2019 to have all new cars capable of this feature by 2022.

I don't know if it is going ahead, but it's a significant pointer to what could be the future on our roads.

AN easy and fair solution to the Port of Newcastle issue ('Newcastle port in China and price battle', Herald 22/6) would be to resume ownership from the Chinese and return full ownership back to Australia. The Chinese don't need our port as they are not exporting goods such as wine and crops to their country. The money paid could be given to the farmers and producers who have been affected by the Chinese ban on our products. Australia needs to stop the line of thinking that the Chinese are our friends and deal with them in the same ruthless manner they treat us.

THANK heavens Mark Vaile is not going to have any role in the University of Newcastle ('Jeans to continue as UoN leader', Newcastle Herald 23/6). In my opinion he was an appalling pick, and now I want to know how he was ever even considered, let alone selected. There's something twisted that's gone on and needs to be revealed and cleaned up so it never happens again.

SURELY those involved in managing our university were well aware that the chairman of any fossil fuel mining corporation was not the right choice for the role of chancellor. It seems Mark Vaille also quickly recognised that, despite spin, that he was "the best choice". Maybe it is time for those involved to look again at processes and save themselves, and all of us, from any further embarrassment.

THE Darling River should be our icon. Barnaby Joyce says "I hope I come back a better person." I couldn't agree more for someone with such limited national spirit.

GRAEME Kime (Letters, 22/6), irrespective of headgear for juniors or seniors, the perspective of concussion still remains. If they are tackled and their head hits the ground, their brain will still sustain bruising causing concussion.

WELL said Kevin Miller (Short Takes, 21/6), it's high time someone called out those who use the phrase "privileged white males" in an attempt to disparage those they disagree with. Until John Arnold's letter, (Letters, 17/6), I had no interest in his colour or financial status, but as he clearly believes these are important factors in considering a person's opinion perhaps it's time he informed us of his race and level of privilege.

KEVIN Miller is right to feel offended by my pejorative term 'privileged white male'. I don't know anything about his life and it was a baseless assumption likely to offend. Hopefully it helps you to understand how readers of these pages who are gay, Indigenous, unemployed, multicultural, student and refugee often feel after the baseless assumptions made about them appear here.

A REFERENCE to a previous letter was erroneously inserted into John Ure's letter in Wednesday's edition.