Re: Aus Federal Politics thread (II)

[Paul Keating]

Sure we had money in the bank, but after 11 years of power, Howard left our economy dependent on China. Not one economic reform that will see us reap rewards 20 years later. Look how competitive keating's reforms have made us even 25 years later. Plus under Howard out foreign debt blew out to unmanageable levels.plus housing affordability became impossible.

[lardbucket]

... and an alternative view: Hawke and Keating simply continued the financial reforms commenced under (the largely forgotten) Fraser!

[horace]

bwhahaha at Lardy...tho maybe I'm having a classical Taips nsr moment...fraser was asleep at the wheel in terms of the economy...even ljh who was treasurer those days complained that bugger alll was done

[bodyline]

What did Gillard lie about?

ou are farken joking aren't you?

There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead (6 days out from polling)!

[JGK]

Do you even know the meaning of the word "lie"?

[bodyline]

Gun Control ?

GST?

Work for the dole!

[bodyline]

WHY do we allow our political leaders and the commentariat to refer to carbon dioxide as a pollutant instead of a greenhouse gas?
Some time ago, politicians or their advisers decided a clever way to frame the climate change debate was to label carbon dioxide as a pollutant: hence the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.

Of course, in 2015 our government proposes to move to an emissions trading scheme, which has a better resonance than a pollution trading scheme, were they to be consistent. I believe in the science of climate change and the role of greenhouse gas emissions, particularly CO2, from household and industrial use of fossil fuels.

But I am offended by the manipulation of the argument by deliberately coding CO2 as a pollutant, which it is not, and implying some environmental agenda where there is none.

When fossil fuels such as coal, gas and petrol are burned, there are a number of by-products.

Particulate matter that is not filtered from exhausts and escapes from smokestacks is polluting and contributes to smog and serious respiratory and other community health problems, such as widely experienced in China with its many coal-fired power stations and old technology. Paradoxically, particle emissions contribute to global cooling but are definitely pollution.

Gases such as nitrogen oxide and sulphur dioxide arising from the combustion of coal can cause acid rain; they also are pollution.

Water vapour, as seen billowing from the hyperboloid cooling towers much favoured by photo editors, is not pollution unless we include clouds and rain in that definition, which few do.

Carbon dioxide, which is produced in great quantities also, but is colourless and normally benign, is not a pollutant. It is a greenhouse gas which, as its concentration increases in the atmosphere, contributes to the warming of the planet. It is a greenhouse gas, not a pollutant, in the context of climate change.

CO2 is necessary to plant life and in regulating our temperature and climate. The level of CO2 prior to the industrial revolution in the 1700s was about 280 parts per million in the atmosphere and no one believes that level was excessive. Today that level is about 390ppm and CO2 has become a pollutant. At what level did this change of status occur and in which decade or generation?

Many cold regions in the northern hemisphere welcome global warming. Think of Scotland, parts of Scandinavia, Russia, Canada. To them, increasing CO2 is not a problem. Is it possible for CO2 to be a pollutant in the southern hemisphere but beneficial in large parts of the north? What previously unknown principle of chemistry is at work here, which changes the character of a molecule depending on location?

Here is another matter that unsettles me. Why are smelters where aluminium is refined labelled as dirty polluters? One doesn't see chimneys or stacks at a smelter. Few emissions arise from the industrial site and no atmospheric pollution.

The answer appears to be that smelting is a very high user of electricity: at present about 11 per cent of national electricity consumption. Aluminium is known as congealed electricity.

There is an argument that energy intensive industries helped supercharge our economy and standard of living through the decades. But they are now unfashionable because of the pollution label, and because of a political ideology that affordable energy will not be the basis of our modern economy. But is it right, fair or sensible that input electricity is demonised with the pollution brand?

Do we label pharmaceutical companies as drug dealers because some of their pain killers are made from heroin, a nasty product if abused?

Is my granddaughter an environmental vandal because she "contaminates" eight nappies a day destined for landfill. Who dares call babies polluters?

If your energy hungry plasma television is bigger than mine, are you a polluter?

Finally, our 2050 greenhouse gas reduction target smoothly and uncritically has shifted from -60 per cent to -80 per cent. I guess one fanciful goal is as good as another. But now we have the Greens talking about -100 per cent, that is, taking all carbon out of our system. With goodwill, I assume this is hypothetical, a conversation starter perhaps?

So why stop there? Let's aim for -150 per cent by 2050. That means taking out more greenhouse gas than we produce, perhaps remedying generations of excessive emissions by our reckless ancestors and righting a historic wrong. The techniques to do this are being developed. Early on we can dedicate more acreage to planting more trees and so on, perhaps reclaiming land from people and putting pressure on us to reduce our habitat and population. Eventually, technology will arrive to remove greenhouse gas from the atmosphere and oceans and, as a (temporarily) rich country we've the means to fund such efforts and do even more than our fair share.

Of course, if half of our planned greenhouse gas reduction arises from purchasing carbon credits offshore, then it's just a question of money. Why stop at half?

Here's my simple summary of our present energy strategy: no coal, no gas, no nuclear -- no clue.

Ziggy Switkowski is chancellor of RMIT University.

[bodyline]

Rudd to undergo heart surgery.


KEVIN Rudd expects to be back at work as Foreign Minister about eight weeks after being given a new heart valve.
Labor sources dismissed suggestions this would be the heart condition to causes a by-election - and a change of government.

Mr Rudd's heart was damaged by childhood rheumatic fever and he had a faulty aortic valve replaced about 20 years ago in what is considered a standard procedure.

"Then docs have said, Kev, it's time for a new one'. And so, being the obedient soul that I am, I've decided to take their advice and that's what's happening," Mr Rudd said .

The operation on August 1 will be carried out in Sydney or Melbourne, he said. There is no urgency and the procedure is quite common.

"The normal recovery period is somewhere in the vicinity of eight weeks. That's what I went through last time 20 years ago, when some of you might remember I was Director General of the Cabinet Office here in Queensland," he said.

.."And I haven't aged a bit since then.

"Then I will be back at work and doing everything that I've done in the past."

In fact, recipients of new heart valves often experience an energy boost and this will be noted by apprehensive staff at the Department of Foreign Affairs.

Mr Rudd will miss at least two weeks of parliamentary sittings but expects to be "paired" with an Opposition MP, meaning the Government will not lose a vote.

One extreme possibility is that his health fails him and he has to retire, causing a by-election in his Brisbane seat of Griffith which, with Labor at such a low ebb, the Liberals would be hoping to win.



Read more: http://www.news.com.au/national/foreign-minister-kevin-rudd-to-have-heart-surgery/story-e6frfkvr-1226098348632#ixzz1ScNUske9


Ruddster - surely this needs you to resign to recouparate!

[JGK]

You could just see the Mad Monk rejecting giving him a pairing for the Carbon Tax vote.

[Paul Keating]

Gillard calls for an enquiry into News Ltd here.

The online comments on the Australian goes into a hate filled over drive.

Are these the same people that said the children overboard affair did not require investigation? Are these the same people who said that the WMD is not in question?

And are these the same people who did not believe that a News Ltd owned football club in Australia could be cheating the salary cap?

Fark I say bring it on. And now we will see what Rupert has been up to down under.

BTW - my comment was not posted on the Australian website, the online moderator obviously felt it was too hard core.

[bodyline]

Gillard calls for an enquiry into News Ltd here.

The online comments on the Australian goes into a hate filled over drive.

Are these the same people that said the children overboard affair did not require investigation? Are these the same people who said that the WMD is not in question?

And are these the same people who did not believe that a News Ltd owned football club in Australia could be cheating the salary cap?

Fark I say bring it on. And now we will see what Rupert has been up to down under.

BTW - my comment was not posted on the Australian website, the online moderator obviously felt it was too hard core.

Only because President Bob wants it.

[bodyline]

Gillard calls for an enquiry into News Ltd here.

The online comments on the Australian goes into a hate filled over drive.

Are these the same people that said the children overboard affair did not require investigation? Are these the same people who said that the WMD is not in question?

And are these the same people who did not believe that a News Ltd owned football club in Australia could be cheating the salary cap?

Fark I say bring it on. And now we will see what Rupert has been up to down under.

BTW - my comment was not posted on the Australian website, the online moderator obviously felt it was too hard core.

WTF has she called for an inquiry BTW? I can't see anything in the OZ.

[horace]

I note some Lib Senator's adviser has been given his marching orders after the Oz found he had had been using a twitter account to bag several coalition shadow mnisters as well as Top End Ted and various Vic State Lib Ministers...Frequent use of a term for female genitalia was used to describe these various libs

[horace]

so RD was working for a Lib Senator...bronny must have tired of him

[Zat]

Link to story in the Aus

JULIA Gillard ... said Australians were disturbed by the revelations of telephone hacking by British journalists, which resulted in the closure of the 168-year-old paper, The News of the World.

“I do believe that Australians watching all of that happening overseas with News Corp are looking at News Ltd here and are wanting to see News Ltd answer some hard questions,” Ms Gillard said.

...

News Ltd chairman and chief executive John Hartigan last week said he believed the company's Australian newspapers were free of the type of improper practices seen in the UK.

“I know the newsrooms, I know how cultures develop, and I'm hugely confident that there is no improper or unethical behaviour in our newsrooms,” he said.

And Ponts, your comment must have been way OTT, there's plenty of comments on both sides of the argument posted now. 134 at the moment.

[Zat]

Actually, on reflection, the comments about the article are 'balanced' in the typical Aus fashion. The first fifty or so are against Gillard, then there's a few the other way.

-------

http://www.flamingbails.com/viewtopic.forum?t=11403

[Sponsored content]