Every day, we publish a selection of your emails in our newsletter. We’d love to hear from you, you can email us at yoursay@theconversation.edu.au.
Monday April 20
What can go in the yellow bins
“Reading about what recycling you can put in the yellow bin was enlightening, but for the wrong reasons. I would class myself as an avid recycler, often to the pains of my family who now ignore my lectures about what can and can’t be recycled. Now, I’m just depressed at the difficulties of recycling, with most of it likely ending up in landfill. I find it ridiculous that a plastic milk or drink container would be made of one plastic while the lid and seal from another and the label from a third plastic, and the three can’t be recycled together! As the article points out, packaging needs redesigning to suit recycling, and a big part of that should be reusability (like we used to do for glass bottles, yes I’m that old!). It’s time the government puts policies in place to require packaging to adapt to recycling.”
Mark Stevens, St Agnes, SA
Tuesday April 21
The cost of politics
“Michelle Grattan is correct that the Liberals need more policy and less politicking with their new migration policy. The trouble is the Liberal party may no longer be interested in policy if they can win the politics and with the guaranteed backing of News Corp they could be right. After all, Murdoch’s Fox News played a big part in getting Trump, a convicted felon, elected for a second time and Murdoch didn’t have the near monopoly in the US that he has in large parts of Australia. The misinformation and disinformation platforms provided by social media have turbocharged the reach of propaganda and AI is unlikely to make it any better. Our electoral system is robust and should provide protection. But our politics certainly isn’t. We would be foolish to assume that what happened in the US couldn’t happen here.”
Gary Barnes, Mosman NSW
Public housing reset
“We need to invest far, far more into public housing. The current idea of building affordable housing with private developers that can be sold off after 10 years is merely tickling the current problem and kicking the can down the road to the future. Distributed social housing in established areas is the answer. This housing should also be quarantined from future sell-off by future governments so a pool of affordable rental accommodation is always available.”
Doug Foskey, Lismore NSW
Space vandals
“The planet would be much better served if regulators took steps to prevent big companies like SpaceX from blotting out the magnificent spectacle of the Milky Way with a million more pseudo-stars. Ground-based light pollution is already killing the view quite enough, thank you. Doing it from up there would be a giant step too far.”
Graeme Osborne
Wednesday April 22
Some thoughts on buffel grass…
“If buffel grass is declared a weed of national significance what would then be done about it? We know from much experience that declaring a plant a weed is useless unless governments are willing to do something about it. In this case, the widespread nature of this plant means eradication is not feasible. Maybe some local control, if done regularly, will work, but who would fund that neverending program?”
Emeritus Professor David Kemp, University of Sydney
“The opening line ‘you might not have heard of buffel grass, a robust and invasive grass’ takes me straight back to the early/mid-1970s when our family lived at the Arid Zone Research Institute near Alice Springs. It was the epicentre of the Dust Control Project that systematically sowed buffel grass across a declared area of about 220 square kilometres to limit soil erosion and dust. Invariably, whenever I mentioned buffel grass at school, most people had no idea what I was talking about and teachers often corrected me to mean buffalo lawn. As a keen gardener at home, I was obliged to constantly weed buffel grass from my veggie patches – and I haven’t stopped weeding buffel grass ever since!”
Alex Nelson, Alice Springs
Thursday April 23
The cost of Antarctic tourism
“After reading the article on endangered Antarctic animals, I was struck by what it leaves out: the environmental cost of Antarctic tourism. Visitor numbers now exceed 100,000 annually, placing mounting pressure on one of Earth’s most fragile ecosystems. Tourists trample delicate vegetation, disturb wildlife, and rely on carbon-intensive flights and cruise ships. The widely cited ‘5-metre wildlife approach rule’ offers reassurance, but strong scientific evidence does not support its effectiveness. Meanwhile, a single visitor contributes to generating up to six tonnes of CO₂. The contradiction becomes even harder to ignore when Antarctic travel is framed as environmental leadership. One extensively promoted and acclaimed program, for example, brings around 100 women in STEM each year on a three-week Antarctic cruise under the banner of ‘saving the planet’. While supporting these scientists is important, this approach raises difficult ethical questions. Is sending scientists as tourists on visitor ships to one of Earth’s most vulnerable regions the best way to advance environmental goals? And does it address any systemic barriers entrenched in science? At a cost of A$20,000-30,000 per person – amounting to tens of millions over a decade – the opportunity cost is substantial. Redirected toward research and conservation, these resources could have generated much-needed knowledge about endangered Antarctic species.”
M. Nakagawa
Friday April 24
Many of you wrote in about the recent changes to the NDIS. Here’s a selection of what you had to say.
“All the shock and trauma of the announcement that 160,000 people will be ‘thrown off’ the NDIS ignores where, in my opinion, most of the cost blowouts are coming from: the providers. I have a disability but have never tried to access the NDIS. We finance my needs ourselves, but it seems to me that many of the providers are taking advantage of the fact the government is picking up the tab, and upping their prices accordingly. We recently bought a carbon fibre electric wheelchair (approximately $4,000) but the same product if purchased as part of a ‘package’ was at least 50% more. I have heard of similar discrepancies with other services as well.”
Chris Free
“The NDIS was started July 1 2013 by the Labor government. In September 2013 the government changed hands to the Coalition. Why is all the media angst directed at Labor when the majority of the time for the system to settle in was led by Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison? Is it not a matter for consideration that the rorting and obfuscation being experienced by the current clients, providers and carers flourished under their care? Do they have a responsibility for the outcomes being experienced? Blame should be apportioned to those responsible, even though the responsibility and the opprobrium will fall on the current government.”
Judy Hardy-Holden, Doonan 
“With all the media coverage of the government’s plans to cut NDIS spending, it’s disappointing to see so little acknowledgement of the benefits of the scheme in contrast to its cost to the budget. There are many reports out there about the clear return on an investment that allows many people with disabilities to join the workforce, as well as the broader benefits that come from jobs and general increased economic activity that flow on from the scheme. Many of those who will be either denied access to the scheme or have their plans cut or cancelled will now find themselves without the supports they need, and without the opportunities to participate in and contribute to the economy and the broader community.”
Barbara Durward