Letter of the Week

double pass* to the film of your choice

You have won

EVs are the future

Like it or not the EV revolution is coming.

TAFE are running courses for technicians and supply chain issues are being overcome.

Importantly, Australians are now beginning to see through the misinformation put forward by the previous federal government and the fossil fuel industry. The states are embracing EVs with financial incentives as well.

It’s six months now since we picked up our car and some of the comments we have received are as follows.

Too expensive you say? Our car was $44,700 on road and cheaper cars are coming.

Not enough range? Our car has a range of 420 kilometres fully charged around town and 350 kilometres on the highway.

Not enough chargers? We charge at home using solar which is easy. Why give your energy provider your solar for 7 cents a kilowatt when you can use it in your car. Unless you drive over 300 kilometres a day, you have no need to look for chargers.

Ampol and BP are rolling out fast chargers, and although you may find delays during holiday times, things are improving fast.

Towing costs? We have a tow bar rated at 750kg which is ample for most people.

As for EVs ruining your weekend, we just drove over 870 kilometres to Wilton for Mother’s Day. We stopped to recharge three times, and taking advantage of the NRMA free chargers, we spent just over two hours charging. If we had paid and used the super fast chargers it would have come down to 1 hour 40 minutes.

Our car has V2L which enables us to use the car’s battery in the event of a power failure by running a lead from the car to household appliances. Our battery is 60kW, which is equivalent to five times the storage of a house battery.

Maintenance is negligible compared to petrol/diesel and most importantly much cleaner for the environment.

The car is quiet, smooth, and the acceleration is amazing.

We know that it’s not possible for some people at the moment, but we believe the sooner you can join the revolution the better.

Gwyn Hooper, Uki

Destroying the planet to save it?

A year ago, our PM voiced his vision of the future: “solar panels on your roof charging your vehicle for free overnight.” Using starlight? Only if you install a massive and very expensive home battery.

Alex Goldenstein says: “cars can act as home batteries” (TVW May 25 Letters), but when can you drive an electric vehicle (EV) that is being charged by day to cook your dinner and heat your home by night?

It is true that EVs are cheaper than conventional vehicles to run and maintain, partly because electric motors are less complex and more efficient than internal combustion engines, and partly because they don’t contribute a cent to roads (via fuel excise) while doing more damage due to their weight. They cost much more and depreciate much faster, strain the grid and increase electricity demand and costs.

They can reduce air pollution and noise in cities but have a huge carbon footprint in production and are still mostly coal-powered here.

Lithium batteries in EVs can also catch fire, sometimes spontaneously with dire consequences. Since Felicity Ace sank on 1 March, along with the charred remains of 4,000 expensive EVs, some shipping lines refuse to transport them.

The biggest problem with lithium-ion batteries, however, is that they contain more cobalt than lithium, and the world would run out of cobalt within a year if every new vehicle was electric. Most cobalt comes from the Congo, often using child labour.

Unless you have solar batteries you are facing serious increases in energy costs. 888 Solar Tek have installed hundreds of solar battery systems in the Northern Rivers in the last 8 years. If you have existing solar panels we can easily retrofit solar batteries to store your power for overnight use. Why buy more expensive electricity when you can use more of your free solar power?

Studies have found that mining the minerals for renewables, batteries and electric motors threatens biodiversity more than climate change itself, so we may be destroying the planet to save it.

D Weston Allen, Cudgen Response to Mr Huf’s column on C Zones

In response to the column written by Craig Huf in the May 11th edition of the Tweed Valley Weekly, I would like to make the following reply.

The Tweed Valley is one of the most biodiverse places on earth.

There are more threatened species here than elsewhere in the state of NSW, and the area is comparable to Kakadu or the Daintree rainforest in its botanical and faunal treasures. This natural heritage needs to be protected; as historically, one of the most environmentally damaging industries has been farming.

Massive historical clearing for agriculture is one reason many of this area’s flora and fauna are in danger of extinction.

The claim that changes in land use from horticulture to cattle grazing will require a Development Application is also a laughable furphy. Again, where exactly is this stated in the proposed rules? Nowhere.

Dr Samuel K Dawson, Caldera Environment

Centre

Why we should vote yes

The argument that we do not have sufficient detail about the Voice ignores the fact that the constitution does not lay down the detail of any of our processes of government.

The constitution, for example, grants the government power to tax, but it does not stipulate which taxes shall be raised or how they will be administered.

These details have arisen as a result of parliamentary decision-making over the last 100 years.

The same is true of all of aspects of federal government.

The proponents of the yes vote have always argued that it is the current Australian parliament that will sort out details after the referendum if it is successful.

Why would we demand a level of scrutiny and detail that doesn’t apply to any other part of the constitution?

The fear that the Voice will somehow challenge or override parliament is just patently wrong.

Time and again proponents have explained that the Voice will do no more than advise on policy affecting our Indigenous population. It will not have the power to override or challenge our elected representatives.

After 200 years of dispossession and trauma, surely First Nations people deserve the right to be consulted on issues directly affecting them? We should just vote yes, it will unite the nation and allow the process of healing and reconciliation to begin.

David Cross, Dunbible I disagree with comments on the Voice

In response to recent letters by D Allen and B Francis on the Voice issue.

It is gratifying to know that D Weston Allen (TVW May 11) agrees with the notion of properly recognising Indigenous people in our constitution.

While we may agree on this aspect of the upcoming referendum, I do not share his pessimism about the proposal to enshrine a Voice to Parliament.

If anything, this proposal has the potential to be part of a healing process that addresses historical and present day racism.

It is hard to see how any reasonable voter would give credence to the emotional outbursts of renegade Indigenous identities such as Jacinta Price and overlook the considered views of Indigenous leaders such as Noel Pearson, Ken Wyatt, Linda Burney, Pat Dodson, Pat Anderson, Marcia Langton and Tom Calma.

Regarding the remarks of Bruce Francis in the same edition of The

Weekly, each of his four reasons for opposing the Voice is highly problematic.

Firstly, the PM and other supporters have provided detail on the proposal. Conservatives opposing the proposal have reached no consensus on what additional detail they are seeking.

Secondly, the Voice proposal does not, in itself, divide Australia by race.

It provides Indigenous people with a mechanism for finally having their voices heard after decades of institutional racism.

Thirdly, it is pure speculation that elected representatives may demand reparations for past injustices. Representatives have yet to be elected and the government of the day would not be obliged to adhere to such demands. This is just fear mongering.

Finally, as an advisory body, the Voice would have no power to veto government decisions.

Government retains the final authority. Past failures in government policies are clearly related to the lack of adequate initial consultation with First Nations People.

The Voice simply gives Indigenous people an opportunity to comment on legislation relevant to their well-being.

Neville Jennings, Murwillumbah

Scolding US President unwarranted

The scathing attack on the American people by Jane Wallace was unwarranted (TVW, May 25).

I lived and went to school in Sacramento for a few years and only found them to be warm, kind and generous. President Joe Biden met Albanese at the G7 summit and had to go home to a crisis in his own country.

Libby Francis, Uki

Please note the views on the letters page are that of the letter writer and not of the Tweed Valley Weekly. Letters must include a suburb and contact number for verification. Letters may be edited for length or legal reasons. Send your letters to editor@theweekly. net.au.