More houses, more trees pose urban challenge

The Age

6 days ago

To submit a letter to The Age, email [e-mail]. Please include your home address and telephone number below your letter. No attachments. See here for our rules and tips on getting your letter published.
CLIMATE ACTION
Suburban trees are an ongoing conundrum (' They bought a knockdown-rebuild and got a fight over Thornbury's tallest trees ', 30/7). We need as much urban shade and carbon storage as we can get, but we're short of houses.
The more we build on the total block to maximise the urban amenity the more we deny replenishment of the water table sustaining these trees. And the more hostile the climate becomes to more the likelihood of these trees become dangerous to from falling limbs.
One solution could be to grant those who harbour such sylvan giants a rate exemption for their upkeep. It may even encourage some imaginative architecture other than the boring masonry piles being erected all over Melbourne.
John Mosig, Kew
The right to bear elms
Great to save trees but what about also saving houses? In the US, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right. Nowadays, most of us here think this is 'crazy' and not a good idea. In Australia, it seems people think it is their right to buy and demolish houses.
This house in question might perhaps be beyond repair, but often people pull down perfectly habitable houses, ones which fit in with the character of the suburb. This is 'crazy' and not a good idea. Replacing an existing house with another does not increase housing stock. But it does use labour and resources (such as timber).
Then many Australians travel to Europe to admire their beautiful street scapes and buildings, not appreciating that in Europe there are strong protections for existing buildings and strong requirements for demolition permits. We need to introduce much stronger protection of buildings here.
Elspeth McCracken-Hewson, Camberwell
Go bold on climate action
Chair of the Climate Change Authority, Matt Kean has said any Australian target should be 'ambitious, responsible and achievable' (' Carbon tax call as PM told to 'go big' on climate ', 30/7). After decades of government denial and procrastination, the climate challenge is now immense.
JFK didn't set the USA the goal of landing on the moon before the '60s ended by targeting what is 'ambitious, responsible and achievable'; he said 'we do these things not because they are easy but because they are hard'. We need a JFK to take our reins right now.
Chris Young, Surrey Hills
Joyce's illogical arguments
Further to your contributors' comments on Barnaby Joyce (Letters, 30/7), of which I couldn't agree more strongly with, let's remember that this is the man who opposed the HPV vaccine program in 2006. At the time, he concocted all sorts of illogical arguments about it increasing teenage promiscuity and claimed community sentiment in support. He lost this argument because he was so blatantly wrong on that subject, as he is about global warming and climate change.
Andrew Barnes, Ringwood
Dilemmas of a third party
Apropos ″⁣ Their founder now calls them unlikeable and authoritarian. Can the Greens change their spots? ″⁣(31/7). 'They wanted action on building more houses', columnist Shaun Carney writes, 'Labor's prescription might not have been ideal, but it did offer action while the Greens ... delivered inaction and boasted about it.' What were the Greens supposed to do? Simply support 'Labor's prescription' and forget about twisting its arm for more? And thereby invite voters to wonder what was the point of voting for them?
Carney's article fails to take seriously the dilemmas of a third party in a balance of power. Indeed, it simply repeats Labor's own self-serving argument.
Colin Smith, Glen Waverley
THE FORUM
Peris' language
Former Olympian and former Labor senator Nova Peris is well known as an outspoken and very active supporter of Israel. She has recently been elected as a director of Hockey Australia, only weeks after sharing a stridently Islamophobic post on social media which calls Muslims 'Satan worshipping cockroaches that need to be eradicated″⁣ (The Age 28/7 and 31/7). Another of her re-posts claims 'Islam should be banned in the West'.
While Hockey Australia's website claims the organisation is inclusive and embraces diversity, it apparently sees no problem with Peris's Islamophobic rhetoric. It reportedly said its 'various stakeholders have their own views which do not always reflect the views of the organisation and the Hokey Australian board'. The Australian Sports Commission which granted Hockey Australia $9.5 million in 2024-25 is similarly nonchalant, claiming 'this is a matter for Hockey Australia'.
Doubtless, had these posts been antisemitic in nature the backlash would be deafening. Whatever her sporting achievements, Peris' conduct is not suitable to lead a government-funded national sporting body.
Jody Ellis, Thornbury
What drives division
You would think that if a former ALP senator was revealed to have shared social media posts describing a section of the Australian community as vermin ″⁣that need to be eradicated″⁣ and not welcome to worship in this country mere weeks after the release of a major anti-racism plan, the Albanese government would have made some comment, or even criticism of the former senator.
Together with the apparent abandonment of the special envoy for social cohesion, it feels as though the Albanese government lacks the courage to adequately address some of the matters that drive division in our community.
Wil Wallace, Wangaratta