Frightening children into believing in

the worst case scenario of climate change is apparently considered acceptable by our Federal Education Minister. He has been reported as saying that what is being taught in schools is "age appropriate". Research suggests otherwise? He still believes it is "age appropriate".

The "Institute for Public Affairs" research will be "wrong" of course because it is a "right wing think tank". Children need to be informed of the "very real problems" facing us. Five year old children need to know about climate change, about the dangers and more. They need to go home, distressed, and inform their parents they should not be eating meat or using their cars, that they should have solar panels and the battery to go with them, and that they should only be planting natives in the garden. In school every lesson should be related somehow to climate change and the danger it poses to humankind. Teachers should use every opportunity to get the young to understand how serious this is.

No, I am not exaggerating. It may not be put into those words but the reality is that this is what is happening. Perhaps most of it will be more subtle than that but some of it will be blatant scaremongering. This is the national curriculum. It must be taught. 

Teachers who do not believe in climate change may as well resign. The vast majority do care about the environment and the do believe the climate is changing. Do they agree with what the national curriculum requires them to teach? It would be interesting to know just what they think but there is no research of which I am aware. My guess is that many of them are concerned by it.

I thought back to my own school days. In rural areas we had a close association with the environment and the landscape around us. We knew it had to be cared for because the livelihood of farmers depended on it. We knew where our food came from in the way that country children do, that cows had to be fed and milked.  In school we were taught about the process by which a loaf of bread came to be. In the tiny "town" I first lived in we saw the sheep in the paddock (field) next door to our house that became the chops and stews our mothers cooked. I don't think anything was hidden from us apart from the actual slaughter of the sheep but most adults did not see that either. 

It was much less obvious in the city but there we still had lessons about wheat and sheep and loaves of bread. We had lessons about the "market gardens" the post-war Italian community worked to provide our vegetables and how potatoes grew in the best soil in the south-east of the state.  We were taught about the Goyder line, the "dog fence" and the problem of "rust" in wheat.

We also had the annual "Arbour Day" at school. There would be lessons about the importance of trees and caring for them. We would go to the "big oval" and other locations and each class would plant a tree. We knew about their root systems and the rings which showed what the "weather" had been like. School would finish earlier than usual in the afternoon and we felt good about "our tree". We were being taught to care for "the world around us". The word "environment" would have meant nothing to most of us and "climate change" was not mentioned. It did not exist even in the minds of most adults.

I think we were lucky. We grew up knowing we had to care for the world around us but without fear of it or for it. The idea that even very young children need to know about CO2 emissions and "net zero" and the many dangers related to climate change seems wrong to me. Surely teaching them to care for the environment in a positive way would have a greater impact?  

Dumping rubbish

outside charity shops is illegal...but people do it anyway. We all know what happens. Boxes filled with broken toys, dog-eared paperbacks, stained clothes, chipped crockery and much more appears as if by magic overnight. In the morning the charity has to deal with all this. It has to take in things that have been ruined by soaking rain or further damaged by being kicked along the street. It all has to be sorted and the things that are completely useless need to be collected by the council rubbish vehicles. 

There are people who dump their rubbish in at such places deliberately. There are others who believe that "oh it might be good enough for someone" and many other thoughts in between. I have seen all this, heard all this and more at one of our local charity shops. That they have a team of volunteers working during the day who are willing to take things which can be sold makes no difference. People will still dump rubbish. Making the charities responsible for it has been the "easy" way to deal with the problem. It costs charities in this state many thousands of dollars every year.

We took a lot to this shop in the process of clearing the house and moving me into this much smaller place. Right through the process I tried to make sure that everything was clean and of a standard that someone else might actually want it. I did not try to pass on anything I thought they could not sell. There were several items I was unsure about so I asked. One thing was turned down but the manager said cheerfully to me, "I know who will take it." She actually called them and someone came to pick it up.

"You give us such nice things," I was told as I handed over the shirts the Senior Cat had worn. They had been washed and ironed and were on cheap dry-cleaning hangers. A friend had done this for me when I told her where they would go. It was one of those simple gestures which can mean so much.

But today there were reports of a neighbouring council which was going to prosecute the workers in a charity shop for clearing up the rubbish left around their premises. Yes, that is correct. They were going to prosecute the workers, the volunteers, in the charity shop for clearing up the rubbish. The council argument was, "Once you touch it then it becomes yours." This was how they had decided to interpret the law. 

It took the state newspaper to make the matter public and make the council see sense. Here were people doing the responsible thing at their own expense. They were clearing away rubbish other people had dumped and paying council rates to have it collected and they were going to be prosecuted for doing this?

The council has apparently "seen sense" and will not be prosecuting those who were attempting to make sure the footpath was clear but it all makes no sense to me. People need to be much better educated about what can go up for a sale. They need to ask, "If I need an item like this and I have a limited income would I buy this one? Is it good enough for that?" Perhaps it is time to teach that in school. It might be of more use than some of the politically correct matters which ar taught.

Dumping rubbish at charities is illegal.Dumping rubbish on charities should be illegal too. 

Buying a mobile phone

should be a simple matter - yes?

Of course it is not. It becomes even more complicated when the would be user has issues with manual dexterity and would much prefer something she could actually use with ease.

I have a mobile phone but it needs to be replaced. It is no longer reliable. There is no auditory alert of an incoming call so I need to be alert to a little green icon popping up. This usually means returning the call with apologies. This is more than a little irritating to both of us. Nobody has been able to solve the problem. 

Yes, it is an old flip-top but it does have 4G capacity. It should be okay to make and receive calls. I can also receive a text message but sending one is a different story. There is no internet access on the plan I am on but the cost of this would outweigh the benefit because there is a limited amount of data which can be stored. I could go on. 

It has been fine until now. I am not wedded to the phone. I avoid giving out my number if possible. I do not want to be contacted in the wee small hours unless it is an emergency. My family and the police have my number for that reason and anyone else who dares to call at that time may no longer be a friend. I dislike phones and making phone calls is something I find stressful.

But, Middle Cat and I are planning the Big Trip. This phone will no longer do. I need a reliable phone that can do some things we used to do on paper. I will need flights and accommodation. In order to enter the UK I need a photograph and relevant information. I will need to be able to find things, make inquiries, do things....it is all done on a phone - or so they tell me. Even more importantly I will need access to my email and a bank account. Sigh....

I spent almost the entire day yesterday looking at various sorts of phones. I read reviews. I visited websites. I compared prices. At the end of it I was no wiser. I think I understand why touch screens are more popular - but they are also more difficult for me to use. My current phone has "big" buttons - not that they are actually that big or as big as some phones but they are bigger than some. Apparently you can get a sort of delay on a touch screen and that might help but it is not available on all phones. I found a tough looking phone with a keyboard but it is heavy and it is made in China which may pose a security risk for me. Sigh again....

It seemed to me there were phones available which would do anything you asked of it...even start the dishwasher or turn the oven on. Yes, I suppose those things could be useful for some people. I just suspect that most people do not need to do anything more than make and receive calls. It might actually be good if they could only make and receive calls...unless of course they are planning the Big Trip.   

Our power bills are going up again

and it seems that almost nobody is even daring to complain about this for fear of being thought a "climate change denier".

Alexander Downer, former Foreign Minister and High Commissioner in the UK, has a regular column in the state newspaper. This morning he has pointed out that the residents of this state pay the most for power anywhere in the country. 

We also have the most reliance on "renewables", the most frequent fluctuations and the greatest need to import power from another state.  This is not something which is mentioned in the media and most certainly not something mentioned by those responsible for supplying our energy needs. 

Companies with high energy needs go elsewhere for the most part. Those who do stay here stay because they get propped up by tax payers. Our local council has taxed us in order to provide "free" solar panels to those who do not already have them. The cost benefit of doing this has been negative, not the positive the Mayor would have us believe.

All this is being done without a plan of any sort. There are "bits" being done here and there and "pieces" being done there and here. Nobody seems to be absolutely certain what the solution is or who is doing what or even when some of it will be done. There is no national solution. We just keep hearing "renewables, renewables" and "infrastructure" and "it will take more...".

Yes, it is a mess. It is a mess which is going to get worse if people are not a great deal more realistic and do not start working together. What is happening right now is not, as many would have us believe, about "climate change" and "net zero". This is about power games in politics and the money to be made from pursuing policies that have not been properly thought through.

Many of us will try to take care of the environment around us but it will not succeed if politics, policies and financial power take precedence.  

A doctorate in political science does not

mean you are an economist. It also seems it does not mean you are intelligent or able to listen to advice from people who do understand economics. The Treasurer in Downunder's national parliament is one such man.

The government has a big problem. The country is in debt, far too much debt. We are not in the happy financial situation many people believe. There is a debt which will have to be paid. If it is not paid by current generations then it will need to be paid by future generations.  It has another big problem. It has to pay for the day-to-day running of the country. There is a third problem and that is that they need to at least look as if they are carrying out the costly election promises they made.

There are other economic problems of course, many of them. Not the least of these is one of the most clumsy and complex tax systems in the world. It is extraordinarily difficult and expensive to run our taxation system. It is also highly inefficient.

So why on earth would you add to the complexity of the system? This is just what our Treasurer is planning to do. It is a plan of such extraordinary stupidity that it is difficult to believe he can even consider it. 

What it amounts to is a system of double taxation on what he claims will be a "very small" number of people, those with superannuation balances over $3m. That may seem a great deal to those whose superannuation balances are well under the million mark. Mine is so far below even that I am, short of someone else buying me a winning lottery ticket, never going to see a million dollars anywhere. It would be nice but it is not going to happen. 

For some other people however it is going to be different, very different. Superannuation contributions are compulsory for both employee and employer. They are taxed. There is, rightly, an expectation that once you have paid tax you should not need to pay tax again. If your assets increase in value but you have not divested yourself of them then why should you suddenly be required to pay tax on that increased value?

Apparently the government, or at least the Treasurer and Cabinet, believe this is perfectly fair and reasonable. It does not affect them in anyway. Our Constitution does not allow them to be taxed in this way. Yes, this is correct. The rest of us are subject to different rules. 

The legislation to do this has not yet passed parliament. It will get through. The government has the numbers in the lower house and they will have the support of the very socialist Greens in the Senate. Once it has been passed it is going to be very difficult, perhaps impossible, to dismantle.  They are not even proposing to "index" it so more and more people are going to get caught up in this. 

Yes, it is a "wealth" tax and many people will, as they believe it will never affect them, see it as fair and reasonable. They will see it as "make the rich pay". I am no economist but I suspect that this is not going to work. It will create a great deal of work, especially for those who have the task of auditing the value of our assets, but it may not bring in the riches the government believes even if it is not indexed. People will find other ways, even legal ways, of hiding their assets. Having already paid tax on them once perhaps they cannot be blamed? 

Sales of Tesla cars are

are apparently going down here.

It is not something I know much about. My SIL, a very environmentally conscious person, bought a new EV last year. She did it with money inherited from her mother and believes she has made an environmentally responsible choice. As she lives in another state I have not seen this vehicle. 

Brother Cat is less enthusiastic about it but has supported her. They have so far been able to charge it using their solar panels but the long term cost is, according to his reckoning, "not that cheap". I have not inquired too closely for fear of upsetting my SIL. My brother is aware that, should the battery need to be replaced, the cost of such a replacement could be very big. It is just one of his concerns.

Here in this state a  NIMBY sort of protest has just erupted over plans for TESLA to build a battery factory on a piece of contaminated land in an adjacent suburb. People do not want it there. They want the land, closed to the public for the past eight years, to be recovered as a green space. Those opposing it  apparently see themselves as environmental warriors of some sort. Perhaps they are. They are also opposed to Elon Musk and anything related to him. 

The two things do not seem to go together but this is their thinking and they are making their thoughts heard. I doubt it will stop the plans going ahead. If their council decides to oppose it then there is little doubt that the government will step in and overrule the council.

Recovering the land as a green space would be very difficult to do. It is contaminated with a particularly nasty chemical. A great deal of soil would need to be removed. Other soil would need to be brought in. Suitable vegetation would need to be planted in an area which had been "landscaped" and more. The whole process could take years. All that also makes it unlikely to happen.

I thought of all this as I read through the comments being made this morning. At some point I may be asked for my opinion as to whether the project should go ahead.

I think my response will be something along the lines, "The factory needs to go somewhere. I would like all factories to be contained elsewhere but that is not going to happen. What I would like to see is the requirement to plant three or four times the number of trees that an area the size of the proposed site can hold." 

That way some good might come out of the proposal.  

"What is really going on in Gaza?"

Talking with friends yesterday this was a question that came up. I did not comment even when asked for my opinion. 

It is very likely I do know a little more than any of them because they rely solely on local news services for their information. I do not see the "commercial" television stations here. I see almost no television and seventeen minutes an hour devoted to seeing and hearing advertisements is more than I can handle. 

The news I do see on the international news service is perhaps best described as "lop-sided". Yes, bias also comes into it but the footage shown is lop-sided. We are constantly told that "some viewers may find the content in this story distressing".  I wonder however whether a more accurate description might be "many viewers do not see any of this as real". It has simply become alarmingly commonplace.

All the footage of ruined buildings is hard enough but the sight of people living there, especially men carrying tiny bodies wrapped in shrouds, leaves me shaking. It should not be happening...but it is happening.

An aid worker who has been in and out a number of times occasionally gives me small pieces of information. I trust this man as much as I trust anyone in that sort of situation. He is telling me things which rarely get told by those responsible for news broadcasts. Those things matter.

We are not hearing about the protests in Gaza, protests against Hamas. They are apparently growing louder but to protest is dangerous, very dangerous. Hamas does not allow protest unless it is in support of them. Hamas needs to be seen in control.

The control Hamas has is not as secure as we are often led to believe. Hamas is not an army. It is a terrorist organisation with one aim in mind and that is to wipe out the state of Israel. Nothing less than that will satisfy them. They are fanatics. They are radicals. They will stop at nothing to try and get what they want. 

Hamas has no qualms about embedding themselves in among the civilian population. They use homes and schools and hospitals for their own appalling activities. That they might be causing the deaths of innocent civilians by doing this does not concern them. It is a very effective way of working. It makes it so much harder for those they see as the enemy to fight them. 

And yes, they are also using food as a weapon of war.  The problem is not all on the Israeli side. Hamas is also hijacking efforts to distribute aid where it is needed most. They do this in their efforts to keep the civilian population under their control. Hunger and the promise of food are very effective weapons. You provide just enough food to keep people alive but not so much they have the energy and the will to disobey you. Yes, the footage of the bakery with all the bread might look good but the reality is there will be just enough bread to keep people alive. They will not be properly fed and not everyone will get some bread.

Can the UN organise the distribution of food? They say they can. They say they have the means to do it and that they have done it many times before.  Again the reality is rather different. Neither the UN or the Israelis have the means to do it in a safe, fair and equitable way. It requires the cooperation of Hamas as well and that is something which is not likely to happen at present.

The idea that "people can just return the hostages and stop fighting" as one of the group suggested is so far from a solution that I wonder if there will ever be an end to the conflict.