(Addressed to Sharyn Eyles, the PA to Chief Executive Officer, Caloundra City Council.)

Dear Sharyn, thanks for forwarding a copy of your standard reply to those who have contacted the council re the golf course.

My comments about sustainability are not to do with financial matters. They are to do with the environment.

Golf courses are renowned for their damage to the environment on a number of counts.

• The land clearing/moving involved
• the use of chemical fertilisers
• the planting of monoculture grass - one species of grass - reducing
  biodiversity
• loss of habitat - for animals and birds

The first two points above are noted in ALL reputable information about green house gas emissions as being the two most highly responsible for high levels of green house gas, after aluminium smelting and the burning of coal. A decision to create a golf course, anywhere, let alone on this sensitive land, is highly irresponsible and embarrassing in a world where environmentally responsible decisions are extremely important.

We all share the atmosphere. There are no boundaries or borders in the sky. For decisions about climate change to work, every country emitting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, needs to take responsibility for doing so and act on that wherever possible. All of us need to take responsibility at every level we can to reduce carbon emissions. The council you work for is trying to push a decision to pursue a golf course where there are options that are far more highly favoured by the community and are far more responsible in terms of green house gas emissions. We all share the atmosphere.

Unfortunately, our current federal government has very low standards of environmental responsibility compared to all but two of the countries involved on the international negotiations about reducing green house gas emissions. Despite what the current federal government would have us believe, The Australian delegation was a laughing stock at the Kyoto agreements on climate change and have earned a reputation for being completely self interested and unreliable in global decisions about climate change. Senator Robert Hill was at those negotiations and receives derisive commentary from other world representatives about his behaviour at the Kyoto agreements.

These are times when Australians could be leading the world in decisions that effect the international community. CCC has an opportunity to do that knocking on its door and because of the self centredness of a few, that opportunity could be lost.

In your second to last paragraph, you say "It is important to understand that the community consultation undertaken to date has, in fact, provided the platform for this new development option". What platform. What documentation exists to say that our community supports this decision?. In fact, it is my understanding that the document formulated at the early stages of community consultation says the exact opposite - that this community does NOT support a golf course.

Please note the following statistics.

'The Australian Bureau of Statistics (QLD Review 2003) and the Australian Sports Commission ( 2005) showed that golf is the preferred recreation of less than 6% of the Qld population. Walking, cycling and swimming were the most popular and are not age specific. All ages and abilities, young and old can enjoy cycle/walking paths and swimming. Golf, however, requires expensive equipment/fees and skill to participate. The Greens advocate that the land be developed so that it encourages a healthy lifestyle for all members of the community.'

What is the platform you talk of?? And what exactly is a "platform". There is nothing in your letter which indicates real support from this community for a golf course.

Jacinta Foale