Lack of solar panel recycling is hardly enlightened
It is surprising that Australia still does not have a viable solar panel recycling industry (“Solar panel recycling plan in limbo,” July 19). According to UNSW Sydney solar experts, up to 95 per cent of the materials in the panels, including silicon and aluminium, can be recovered. The Productivity Commission estimates that reusing these materials could generate more than $7 billion in economic benefits. There is no point in letting these assets go to waste. The broader recycling picture is equally troubling. Our national recovery rate is approximately 66 percent and only 12.5 percent of plastics are recycled. Sweden manages to recycle 99 percent of its waste. A circular economy can be achieved. Will Environment Minister Murray Watt make waste management a priority? A proper recycling industry would allow Australia to turn waste into profit and eventually compete for gold both on and off-site. Amy Hiller, Kew (Vic)
In the past, products were created and brought to market without considering end-of-life. But when waste accumulates and becomes an environmental and financial problem, governments begin to take action at a snail’s pace. This will continue to be the case unless we legislate that no new product will be introduced to the Australian market unless a mandatory product management plan has been established to handle a new product at the end of its useful life. Jill RobinsonRandwick
Education is now ‘user pays’
Christopher Harris’s report on enrollment trends reveals: “An analysis of HSC league tables last year found that, compared with 20 years ago, the number of non-selective state schools among the state’s top performers has halved between 2002 and 2024” (“Parents spend more than $4.5bn on private and Catholic schools every year,” July 19). Is this a joke? What do we think will happen if we move our highest-performing students from comprehensive schools to selective schools while simultaneously moving our most advantaged students to independent schools? Frankly, comprehensive public schools have little or no chance of being “best performing”. In fact, one consequence of our fragmented education system is that some public schools have now become “sink” schools, schools of last resort that serve only disadvantaged students with complex learning and social needs. As Harris points out, government policies have shifted costs from the government to parents. Education has gone from being a basic service that offers equal opportunities to all to a user-paying business and you only get what you can afford. The days when education provided social mobility and an escape from intergenerational poverty are long gone. Irene BucklerGlenwood
In Christopher Harris’s article on private education, Jack Buckley, chief economist at the e61 Institute, says: “I believe parents are seeing something real that they value.” If I buy a pair of Jimmy Choo shoes for $3,000, I’m pretty sure I’m seeing something real that I value, but are they 10 times better than a $300 pair? Probably not. Is this the best use of my money? Again, probably not. But what I bought is a shoe that makes me feel better and tells the world what I value about me. I am someone. I know quality, style and class. I am successful. The situation is the same in private education. Parents believe that they are giving their children a better quality education in the private system, and at the same time they are marking something to the world about themselves and what they value. It works in part because it is self-fulfilling. The more children and parents are removed from public education, the more money, talent and time disappears. Public schools are getting weaker, private schools are getting stronger, and it’s getting harder for parents with means to choose the public system. If a solution is desired, the only reasonable solution is to stop funding private schools and funnel that money to public schools. When you send your children to one of the many great public schools and announce to the world that you value education, your children, equality and common sense, the tide will turn. Prue Nelson, Cremorne Point
Mixing the boiler
Poor old Neil Mitchell, defender of indefensible, sad, stale old men who traffic in homophobia, sexism, misogyny and bigotry (“These media ‘witches’ are bullies,” July 19). Is he really arguing that Donald Trump’s approach to fake news should be given weight as an argument against the childish, anti-intellectual nonsense spouted by shock jocks? Is this algorithmic, performative outrage in any way useful in modern social democracy? It probably proves that a handful of feisty women with a social conscience can be a major threat to the aforementioned sad, stale old man paradigm. Too close to home, Neil? Greg Farrel, Yattalunga
Neil Mitchell confuses accountability with bullying. Advertisers ensured that material that was degrading to women and at times downright despicable was broadcast on the radio. The fact that so many “witches” have contacted these advertisers shows how strongly many of us feel about these publications. It’s almost not bullying; It’s more like wanting more responsibility. Linda Pettersson, Cremorne
- To send a letter Sydney Morning HeraldEmail letters@smh.com.au. Click here for tips on how to send letters.
- The opinion newsletter is a weekly package of opinions that will challenge, defend and inform. Sign up here.
