Letters, March 22, 2023

Wrong solution

CONTROLLING inflation by raising interest rates was an idea implemented in early 1960, but have things changed since then?

It has often been referred to as a ‘blunt instrument’.

I’ve read that this time around inflation is caused by shortages in the supply chain and increased demand by people with spare cash.

About one third of the 10,000,000 households in Australia have mortgages and these owner/occupiers do not have much spare cash as many are struggling to pay their mortgages.

About another third of households are renters who are struggling to pay increasing rents, as landlords pass on interest rate increase to their tenants.

Of course, a shortage of supply of rental accommodation doesn’t help the situation.

Twenty-three percent of rentals disappeared when landlords sold their properties over the last couple of years.

The final third of households in Australia are owner/occupiers without a mortgage.

This group generally has some spare cash to spend and interest rates do little to curb their spending, except of course, for rising prices as business owners pass on their interest rate increases to the consumer.

Wait a minute, does that mean that interest rate increases fuel inflation?

A lot of companies have been making record profits recently, well above the rate of inflation.

There are other factors of course, such as increasing energy costs that affects all of us.

It seems to me that the Reserve Bank of Australia, Governor and his board members, are trying to fill a bucket without a bottom and despite getting wet feet they cannot work out why the bucket isn’t filling.

If they try this for long enough, the inside of the bucket will fill at the same time as the outside of the bucket and the resulting flood is a much more serious problem.

Ian Hobbs, Mylor

The real problem

HAS anyone noticed that some of the world’s richest and most powerful individuals pump millions of dollars into climate activism but nothing into practical mitigation?

The motives for activists on their payroll are obvious and the naïve foot soldiers just seem desperate for any attention.

But the real problem is that the many of us are becoming isolated from the processes that sustain our modern lives. Everything from groceries to clothing, appliances and building materials are readily available in shops or ordered from a catalogue.

Many people are oblivious to the fact that cheap reliable fuels and energy are fundamental in the production and transport of these goods – something that renewables alone can’t provide.

Sipping on a soy latte whilst waiting for the EV to recharge may improve one’s social standing, but not so their understanding of the true cost-benefit of renewables to humanity or the environment.

K. Stachovic, Meadows

Cat number dispute

MY animal related work involves researching information on surveys and papers written by so-called scientists, and analysing exactly what they mean.

Reading the two letters from Ian Westley (The Courier, January 25 and February 22) referring to figures quoted by Sarah Legge about feral cats and the numbers of native wildlife they kill, and the response by C.A.T.S. Cats Assistance To Sterilise, I wish to add my views.

I agree with C.A.T.S. that estimating the number of feral cats is debatable to start with, and then estimating the numbers of native fauna killed by this estimate is not going to result in anything whatsoever based on scientific fact. (‘Cat dispute’, The Courier, March 8)

Unfortunately, these “estimates” are quoted and then re-quoted by letters such as the ‘Cat carnage’ (The Courier, February 22) and they become even more convoluted as they are taken out of context. Figures quoted as estimates were multiplied up to 10 times by the Federal Government Threat Abatement Plan for Feral Cats, to get the plan to kill 2 million cats, passed.

The plan failed, as new cats moved into the vacuum and bred, because the scientists ignored the scientific evidence for this phenomenon of nature.

We should be careful believing what we read unless it is evidence based, and not estimated figures which have been presented as fact. They are not fact.

Taking small samples of cats from certain areas and then extrapolating them on an Australia-wide basis is ludicrous, because all areas have different food supplies and weather conditions.

There are no accurate figures of cats in Australia, feral or otherwise, and denigrating cats on these hearsays shows human failure.

Lisa Daintree, Strathalbyn

Protect scrub

THE fierce debate over protecting Adelaide’s parklands continues.

Why isn’t the same intensity applied to the thoughtless removal of so much natural regional scrubland?

Not only would the same preservation show future generations the natural flora and fauna of their area, but protection of our unique Australian wilderness is so important as less than eight to 10% of remnant scrubland is left in the Hills. During our bushfire season, why is the bush not treated with the same importance as farmland when fighting fires?

The indifference shown by many people is reflected in comments made like ‘what are you going to use the bush area for’ to which we must increasingly say ‘its natural and best use, of course’.

Glen Chenoweth, Goolwa North

Nuclear Waste

SO the nuclear waste dump debate is rearing its ugly head once again.

In May, 2016, I was a member of the jury, (about 100 jurors in all, from all walks of life), who had been nominated to attend a four day symposium in Adelaide, on whether or not a nuclear waste dump area was feasible for SA.

Several Indigenous senior tribal members also attended one or two of the conferences (mainly the elder women), and in the end, it was agreed by the majority of two-thirds of the jurors, that there would be no nuclear waste dump area in SA (popular areas were either Hawker in the Flinders Ranges, or Kimba).

I have always thought that if a jury makes a ‘final’ decision, that is it.

So why is this debate coming to the fore again?

We don’t want a nuclear waste dump in this State.

Louise Schrama, Meadows

Duck cruelty

THE SA duck hunting season opened on Saturday and, right now, countless little native ducks are suffering as they die in agony, struck with sprays of pellets from the shotguns blasted at them by the callous, sadistic hunters to satisfy their blood lust.

Innocent little water birds that never did anybody any harm that were living in the peace and tranquility of their rightful homeland, with their lifelong mates.

Now their mates are grieving beside them as their partners die in terrible pain.

Where now are all those writers who constantly denigrate cats for attacking native wildlife?

I did not see any of them protesting against this dreadful carnage, sanctioned by our State Government.

Cats may need to kill to survive, but they kill one animal, usually quickly, and eat it: cats do not leave a trail of injured animals all over the wetlands, or send dogs to grab the wounded in their mouths.

The hypocrisy of our politicians to try and force cats to be confined on the grounds of saving native wildlife when they encourage and promote this kind of horrendous cruelty, cannot be accepted.

These MPs know that every duck hunting season these atrocities are being inflicted and yet they still take the blood money for the licences to commit them.

I have seen these horrors firsthand as I have seen the ducks brought in by rescuers with terrible injuries to wings, legs eyes and bodies.

Some are mercifully put out of their misery by a volunteer vet.

Yes, we do need the truth to be told, so it is time that we did.

Christine Pierson, President, C.A.T.S. Cats Assistance To Sterilise