While I was writing about the lack of a climate change mitigation policy for agriculture, Mr Joyce’s reply that New England voters were not interested in climate change, only electricity prices, seems a more than bit off the mark. 

Mr Joyce, New England residents are bigger thinkers than that. 

I’m sure that the people in New England and the North West see a bigger issue than getting a mere few cents back off our power bills and lower ironing costs (New England women have no aspiration to be promoted to the ironing board). 

We want a more stable future for agriculture, our children and our grandchildren. 

NASA has just announced 2014 to be globally the hottest year on record. 

We are all feeling the effects of climate change right now, and the NSW government’s Climate Change Snapshot predicts that North West NSW could endure temperatures above 35 degrees for one-third of the year by 2070 if carbon emissions continue at the present level. 

The economic cost for New England and the North West of not effectively tackling climate change far outweighs the investment we need to be making now into bigger solutions – ones that offer more than a large carrot to polluting entities in the hope they do the right thing. 

Mr Joyce, it is time that that the actual long-term costs of the Coalition’s policy of virtually doing nothing about climate change is challenged. 

In his State of the Union address earlier this week, US President Obama said: “The Pentagon says that climate change poses immediate risks to our national security. We should act like it.” 

Australia must also take heed.