If you want to "protest"

then please do not go on a "march".

I have written about this before. Ignore me if you wish but I think it is worth repeating. 

The "Free Palestine" group wants to "protest" by walking across Downunder's iconic bridge. They wanted to do it this weekend and, last I heard, "negotiations" were still taking place. 

The police do not want them to do this - and rightly so. It is an issue of public safety. The bridge is there for vehicular traffic. It is there for getting people to and from work and other necessary purposes. It is there for emergency traffic. It is not there for "protestors".

Of course some people will say that this is the purpose of the "protest" and that, by marching there they will draw public attention to the issue. These people have been drawing attention to their issue for months now. It has not changed anything. It is unlikely to change anything. They are still "passionate" about their cause but their numbers are less. The view of many others is that "they are a bit of a nuisance" and "they should just give up" and "they need to get a boot in the backside" and more. It is perhaps fair to say that there are many other people who are less than sympathetic towards the continued disruption they cause.

I am not sympathetic either but it is because my view is that this is no way to protest about anything.  It may once have helped. It is likely protesting against the war in Vietnam did have some effect. That was in an era with no social media as such, just a little "talk back" radio and the "letters to the editor" in the physical paper delivered to the front garden and a little on television. Now anyone with an internet connection can protest on a world wide basis. 

The group which is demanding the "right" to walk across a bridge are apparently not aware of the much more effective means of protest available. In all likelihood most of them would quite possibly be incapable of using the most effective means available to them. They simply could not write an original letter, affix a stamp and post it to one of the people capable of making a decision which would influence a desired outcome. This would require literacy skills many of them seem to lack. This would also require a genuine knowledge and understanding of the issue they are protesting about. Of course it is much harder to do this.  

Is it time to be rid of "net zero"?

The leader of a very right wing party with representation in Downunder's Senate is making a political move which may force the Coalition to make a much stronger commitment to the issue - one way or another.

Until now the Coalition has been on line with the issue. We need to get to "net zero". They committed to it in Paris and then elsewhere. How to get there was not described in any detail. It was just a commitment that a country of twenty-seven million people was agreeing to this policy. We were going to change the world by 2050 and most of it would be done by 2030. Our commitment would mean that rising sea levels would be halted and that our "Pacific neighbours" would be safe.

All this sounded good, very good. People were excited by the idea that we could do it. Nobody mentioned the miniscule contribution we make to those harmful "greenhouse gases" or any of the problems we might have in reaching the target. The cost of doing it was mentioned but not in a way which might cause alarm.

We had a power outage last night. I managed to recover most of what I had been doing. I apologised to the person on the other side of the world and we went back to what we were doing. Then it happened again and again. It was frustrating for both of us. Eventually my colleague sent a message, "I didn't think you lived in a third world country!"

No, I don't...but it might well become that. The "net zero" approach of the present government is not working. It is not likely to work. It is not taking into account our geography or our population numbers or the way we currently house that population. What is more our efforts are not going to make any difference at all. We could do more good and do it much more cheaply by planting more vegetation, particularly trees, which could also feed, clothe and house people as well as caring for the other living things on the planet. 

Of course doing it that way would require a great deal more hard work, hard physical work at that. The present government wants to do it in a way that seems "easy". You plant solar panels and windmills. That you need to import these and the food you can no longer grow on the ground you have covered with solar panels is not relevant to the "net zero" argument...or is it?  

I have said all this before but of course nobody is listening. Who wants to listen to anything that might actually require some work? Even if I had the time, the money and the energy I do not think I have it in me to launch another massive campaign. I did that once but the way the world works and communicates has changed. 

The reason for that power outage last night? A tree had fallen across power lines.