because the new Prime Minister has closed the "Climate Commission".
I happen to think that closing the Climate Commission is an excellent thing. The head of it, Tim Flannery, talked a lot but he did very little, the Commission did very little. It kept telling us that climate change was real, that it was something to worry about, that we should do things about it and that a "price on carbon" was a good idea.
I don't know whether climate change is real, whether it is natural or is man made, is something to worry about or something we can do something about or something we cannot do anything about. What I do know is that we need to care for the environment. Caring for the environment is about much more than the climate change debate - and yes, it is a debate. Some people's facts are other people's theories are others people's nonsense.
Putting a "price on carbon" is not going to care for the environment. People will just pay the price and continue to pollute - here or elsewhere.
I have said elsewhere there is a need to plant millions of trees. Am I wrong? No, I don't think so. All sides of the debate seem to think that would be a good thing - but they don't do enough of it. There is also a need to keep the environment as clean as we can. There is a need to care for it and nurture it.
The Climate Commission was so busy with the climate change message that the environment message got lost. Tim Flannery was no a climate scientist. He frequently got his facts wrong. He often sounded alarmist. It often seemed it was his role to sound alarmist. Was it?
I just hope the new government will realise the importance of the environment and do things about it. There is much that could be done.
What if we kept some people out of prison but required them to work under supervision on an environmental project or two? It would save a lot of money and perhaps teach some of them some skills. It wouldn't be for everyone but it might work for some and for the benefit of all.
What if we took some of the young unemployed and trained them up as well? They could be employed as apprentices with the same wages and conditions except that they would be allowed to leave the project if they moved into paid employment elsewhere. Would something like that really be so much more costly than having them doing nothing and becoming not just unemployed but unemployable? We don't want them "employed" as a sort of slave labour force doing just unskilled work but teaching them to use tools and equipment that will allow all of us to become more self-sufficient surely has to be a good thing?
I don't think the climate change crew is terribly interested in that sort of thing. They don't see that as being their role. Perhaps it really is time to ignore them and get on with the business of saving the environment instead?