Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Bob Stewart on July 23, 2010 at 6:57pm

Colin,

It just shows that for as long as I can remember, the Greens might have the right goals but are hopelessly ill informed and thereby incompetent to express practical means to achieve them if at all possible. Just what does the Senator know about her green energy to the grid to replace coal? If anything it would be prudent to not make such impractical airy fairy statements that could never achieve the intent when the wind does not blow or the sun does not shine or the biomass and the wave energy would hardly contribute.

.....and what would the Greens do about it anyway with an extra 2.8 billion souls in the World, one third, over the next 38 years wanting to switch on the light?

Bob Stewart

Permalink Reply by Russell Paul Luck on July 23, 2010 at 7:23pm

Hi Colin,
I have missed the blackmail context.
Could you please point me in the right direction to the quoted statement that is balckmaily?

Most of the greens candidates I have met so far are not really that interested in others issues.
They are just after their own agenda.
Where ever did the "Representation" part of the democratic process go to.

They hardly ever get back to you.
The say they are supportive of an Upper house yet they ignore attempts to engage their meaningful support.
Queensland State Green anyway.

And giving their preferences to Labor is disgusting.

Labor has been raping our country probably even more than any Liberal power trippers.
It was John Howard's government that gave us the process to stop the Travesty DAM.

True Labor is dead.
The working class are the foundations of our whole country and "economy", yet they have no effective voice.

Communication is the key.
Pollies need to start talking with us, not at us.

Permalink Reply by Colin J Ely on July 23, 2010 at 7:49pm

Hello Russell

The working class are the foundations of our whole country and "economy", yet they have no effective voice.

This really tickled my fancy. a fellow I know, who works in the construction industry, is a died in the wool Labour Voter, yet owns a number of rental properties! ;-)

A closet capitalist perhaps?

I thought that this was one of the worst things that Kevin Rudd did, particularly coming from someone like him, to play the divisive, 'them and us' card. What was he trying to do, take us back to the 1950's?

Permalink Reply by Roger Rankin Crook on July 23, 2010 at 8:03pm

As you all know, I don't know how to do it, but if you go to Quadrant July-August there is the best article I have ever read on the subject, written by Kathy Russell - The Great Renewable Energy Rort.

You should read what she has to say wind power. Got the numbers too

Permalink Reply by Russell Paul Luck on July 23, 2010 at 8:53pm

Hi Colin,

You are right it shouldn't be us and them.
It should be we.
But when the majority of the political life blood (the voters and their "votes") are ignored, lied to, deceived, stolen from and taunted, it makes the idea very difficult to envision.

We have to value things for other than their $ value.

What was the absence of reflected light delivered message (blackmail) you were previously concerned about.

Permalink Reply by Russell Paul Luck on July 23, 2010 at 9:09pm

Hi Jeff,

Power lines can cause some fairly spectacular fire and light extragansas too.

Check out http://205.243.100.155/frames/longarc.htm#Longspark

Localised solar grids could be fairly effective...

Permalink Reply by Russell Paul Luck on July 23, 2010 at 10:32pm

Battery stored power in dwellings or the like.
The solar grid could charge them an run the inverter during the day.
Being more energy efficient always helps too.

Permalink Reply by Russell Paul Luck on July 24, 2010 at 12:55am

Solar does not have to be economical prohibitive.
It would probably not be a serious contender for total power generation for at least another generation, but it can play it's part.

My family and I lived on a 1Kw 24 Volt solar system for almost a year.
We watched TV, used computers, ran a washing machine at least once a day, used flurolights.
We just had to be more mindful of the "resources" we were consuming.
A gas fridge and stove helped though.

Efficiency is probably as good a long term investment as power generation...

Now where is this blackmail thingy?

Permalink Reply by Roger Rankin Crook on July 24, 2010 at 6:52pm

Some info from the UK:


MYTH 13: Wind turbines kill birds
The RSPB supports the Government‟s target to source 15% of electricity from
renewable energy sources by 2015 because it views climate change as the
most serious long-term threat to wildlife. It regards wind power as having “the
greatest potential to make a significant difference in the UK in the coming
decade”. It states, “the available evidence suggests that appropriately
positioned wind farms do not pose a significant risk to birds”.31

A study by the Environmental Research Institute, published in the Royal
Society‟s journal Biology Letters in June 2005, of an offshore wind farm in
Denmark concluded that less than 1% of migratory birds were in danger of
colliding with wind turbines.32

There is some evidence, however, that in Spain and the USA poorly sited
wind farms have caused problems for birds as a result of disturbance, habitat
loss/damage or collision with turbines. This can be avoided by the appropriate
siting of wind farms.

It is estimated that, every year, more than 10 million birds are killed by cars in
the UK.33

Permalink Reply by Bob Stewart on July 24, 2010 at 7:49pm

Dear Senator Milne,

One could ask if you are blackmailing the people who have believed in you and your passion for the greenest of the environment when there appears to be a very blind side to the Greens eco arguments that relates to money.

It is on record Daily Telegraph December 8,2 009 prior to the departure of the 114 Ruddites to Copenhagen, none of them scientists, that,

FAMILIES will pay little or nothing for Labor's emissions trading scheme, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd pledged yesterday.

Full or partial compensation for rising costs would be available for couples with children on an income up to $160,000, as well as for singles on $30,000 a year or less.

Mr Rudd acknowledged that the Government's defeated ETS legislation, which will be brought back to Parliament in February, would add to household costs.

Average electricity bills would rise $208 a year, gas costs would go up $83 a year and food expenses would increase by $68 a year, according to Treasury estimates prepared last month.But Mr Rudd said 2.9 million low-income families would be fully compensated for the rises. And 2.6 million of those - 90 per cent - would get a windfall, with compensation totalling 120 per cent of cost rises.

There would be cash assistance for 3.6 million middle income households, half of which would be fully compensated for extra expenses. Single pensioners would get an extra $455 a year as compensation and couples $686, Mr Rudd said.

The money would come from forcing industries to buy permits for the tonnage of carbon pollution they produced. ( Emphasis mine)

You don't produce anything Senator to see or feel the impact of the flawed science that gave birth to Copenhagen so why would you care to research your understanding whether the figures are real? if the new explanations try to show the man made warming is real and fails to do so, why would you sustain the myth instead of backing away from it for another time? Theories of man made warming are not supported by the facts that have emerged since.

Among Risk Surveyors for Insurers there is a saying that, If the theory is not supported by the facts then get a new theory Just how will the tax cut CO2 production of the bushfires or the forest degradation in Indonesia Senator?

Robert Stewart

Permalink Reply by noel porter on July 24, 2010 at 8:04pm

Good lord.!
Robert Stewart ,I,d say you,ve stumped 'em with that ?
Well done,!

Permalink Reply by Bob Stewart on July 24, 2010 at 8:14pm

Dear Senator Milne,

With respect to one of the Nations most popular Senators let me explain in simple terms what Australia makes to the global CO2/oxygen equation so that our carbon contribution is relevant. But even to an ordinary man, The BIG question is, will the rest of the world do the same? If not, then the ETS scheme will fail its purpose and the tax remains a tax.

Here’s a practical way to understand Labor'ss Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.

Imagine 1 kilometre of atmosphere, thats 1000 meters, a distance down the end of the street and we want to get rid of the carbon pollution in it created by human activity. Let’s go for a walk along it.

The first 770 metres are Nitrogen.
The next 210 metres are Oxygen.
That’s 980 metres of the 1 kilometre. 20 metres to go.
The next 10 metres are water vapour. 10 metres left.
9 metres are argon. Just 1 more metre.
A few gases make up the first bit of that last metre.
The last 38 centimetres of the kilometre – that’s carbon dioxide. A bit over one foot.
97% of that is produced by Mother Nature. It’s natural.
Out of our journey of one kilometre, there are just 12 millimetres left. Just over a centimetre – about half an inch.
That’s the amount of carbon dioxide that global human activity puts into the atmosphere. And of those 12 millimetres Australia puts in 0.18 of a millimetre. Less than the thickness of a human hair. Out of a kilometre!

As a hair is to a kilometre – so is Australia’s contribution to what Labor calls Carbon Pollution and while you sleep Dear Reader, the vegetation is consuming it, something a tax could never do.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page