Letters to the editor | Live sheep export; Renewable energy pollution; Armidale rail trail

I read with positivity the story "Indonesia could offer new live export option" (The Land, April 25, p3).

This is what we need in the sheep industry presently, new markets being found and a wider global spread for our products.

Live export is an important part of the sheep industry; selling product to markets that don't have the cold storage supply chain, or container handling facilities.

It is very narrow minded of those who think all parts of the globe can handle frozen and chilled product and handle it safely up to the point of consumption.

The world needs quality protein and this trade makes Australian sheep meat with other processed forms accessible to more people.

Live export does have a strong future and if all market avenues are investigated for frozen, chilled and live animals sold under the ESCAS accredited pathways, it is a very positive future for sheep producers, spreading risk across countries and customers and creating more domestic competition for our livestock.

It is completely wrong to think of live export being an industry specific to Western Australia.

Historically, the eastern states have provided many stock for this trade, and presently it has a connected impact on prices on the east coast.

I would like to encourage Australian Live Exporters Council, along with other relevant industry peak bodies to be running high visibility promotion of the value, benefits and success of the live trade to the Australian public.

The lifting of standards through the ESCAS program to, and in the destination countries, and how Australia will only be welcomed to engage in this this work if the trade is continued.

This needs to be in the main capital cites where the major electorates are.

FLOYD LEGGE, Cudal.

I am increasingly worried about the many ways our breakneck speed adoption of renewable energy is, and will, impact our country and our future generations.

My concerns range from environmental to economical and to Australia's ability to be productive and self-sufficient.

In terms of the environment, all we hear is that solar and wind are clean and green.

Are they really? I am of the opinion that the full life cycle of these projects and products be considered and compared to other energy solutions.

What is the net impact on the environment when the following issues are taken into account?

The massive amount of mining required to produce solar and wind products (up to 17 minerals, including rare earths, with the proportion of usable mineral in the total mined tonnages being extremely small).

The manufacturing processes, the transportation, distribution and installation of the products and supporting infrastructure, the opportunity cost of not producing food on vast areas of previously productive land and the in-life impact of the products themselves.

Solar panels apparently convert less than 50 per cent of energy into electrical power - the rest being released back into the atmosphere; Solar panel casing damaged by hail, strong winds, etcetera, could pose a risk of leaching toxins and contaminating soil and water; Wind turbines impacting the health of those unfortunate enough to live nearby (the American Bulletin of Science, Technology Society reported symptoms including decreased quality of life, annoyance, stress, sleep disturbance, headache, anxiety, depression, and cognitive dysfunction).

And there's the end-of-life dismantling, transportation and disposal of the solar panels and wind turbines.

When compared with the impact on the environment of other energy sources, when compared on a per unit of energy basis, I don't think they are actually as clean and green as we are lead to believe.

When the above is considered, we must also keep in mind the sun isn't always shining, and the wind is not always blowing.

These energy sources are therefore not reliable and require battery storage. All of the points above must also be considered for full battery lifecycle.

How much of our productive land (a resource that is already limited in this country) are we willing to sacrifice to the vast solar and wind 'farms'?

If the land and/or water gets contaminated by toxic waste from 'renewables', this country will be in dire straits.

From an economic perspective, renewable energy is expensive. It is heavily subsidised and unreliable. Solar panels and wind turbines have short life spans (only up to 20 years) when compared to other forms of power.

Why, with the subsidies in place, are our power bills still rising when there are solar panels on an ever-increasing number of homes and buildings and 'renewables' making up a higher proportion of energy in the grid? It doesn't add up.

Perhaps the most important concern is the risk to Australia's independence as a nation. Without reliable 24/7 electricity, we can't be self-sufficient. It is not just comforts but necessities like communications. We live in very uncertain times; communications are vital.

After the second world war, Sir Robert Menzies said we had to become self-sufficient. He made sure we achieved that. But we are now heading, at speed, in the opposite direction.

This week we celebrated Anzac Day, commemorating the sacrifice of our armed services over the past century, all in the name of freedom.

What would they think of us giving our freedom away to be controlled by another country?

PENE NUTHALL, Young.

Has there been any news of a war book being distributed locally.

If there's going to be a war, then we need to be prepared for it.

I travelled the bush for many years and some of the communities were such a long way out from Sydney.

It got me wondering about local food and fuel supplies [likewise auxiliary support for local police] and what would become of these communities if trouble times came to the nation.

It got me thinking of the Commonwealth War Book they distributed post World War II designed to prepare local government for a war situation.

Has council [or local state government offices] been given a copy of such a publication?

The federal government is dragging the chain with its preparation for a conflict in the Pacific.

There's even been conflict between the government and Defence over minor events. That's shows disorganisation.

I think it's time we got ready despite the possibility of actual conflict likely being a few years away yet.

GRAEME GIBSON, Caringbah, Sydney.

It is disappointing that Armidale Council has voted against proceeding with the first leg of the proposed rail trail from Armidale to Dumaresq Station.

This first leg is only nine kilometres and a small part of the proposed trail to Ben Lomond (with a separate part being built from Glen Innes).

The government funding offered will be returned and not be available again.

The naysayers wanted more studies, more detailed costing, even though this proposal has been discussed in council and with the NSW government for a number of years.

Once again Armidale will deserve its reputation of being a backward looking, timid town unable to grasp and create opportunities for increased tourism and civic and economic development.

We will just have to look on as Glen Innes reaps the benefits of its bolder, forward thinking approach.

Such a lost opportunity.

LUCINDA WRIGHT, Armidale.

Do you have a letter to the editor you would like to submit for consideration?