But we pump out more per capita. .
Printable View
But we pump out more per capita. .
Everyone wants a subsidy, or a pension, etc etc and bugger who pays for it, oh that will probably be our grand children.
If hot rocks are such a great idea, or wind power let them investment their own money, or sell shares to like minded folk. What's the takeup on the green power option, i bet two parts of a gnats nuts.
If past errors have been made in power generation or distribution systems, fine, but lets not use that as an excuse to perpetuate more errors.
And while im at it, if you want to grant asylum to economic refugees, unlike those poor buggers in Iraq at the moment, fine they can stay at your place and you can feed them, not me.
Philip, why when I express my with links as reference have to be a troll?Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilipA
Yes I have look at the Australian Institute and regard them as more honest that the present government.
Now , regarding the financial implications of eliminate RET have you read the other reports by Roam Consulting, Deloitte and Jacobs among others?
I would put it in another way if we talk about trolls and it is any posts that is backing Newman or Warburton views who are so bias to be a troll for provoking a proper response.
That it is Ok Andrew if you apply the same to the mining industry, the power generators, etc,etcQuote:
Originally Posted by AndyG
If not then the idea is not in line with values but with ideologist view.
The entitlements have to be apply equally.
Yep, this IS our biggest problem, as NOTHING will improve until this STUPID decision is fixed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies
Time to buy the assets back, bugger the debt, the constitution should also be changed to reflect this stuff up and ensure it never happens again. And note the perpetrators.
Absolute :censored: IDIOTS that sold us up the river in the 'essential energy services' sector, amongst other sectors.
In my opinion :angel: of course, one party in particular managed budgets with these sales, just my irrelevant opinion.
So your ok with living like the majority of Chinese or Indians to reduce your greenhouse output per person?:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Kevin B
China and India have around 100million middle class each, but when they both have well over 1 billion people go figure how the vast majority live.
We've been through this many times, but even with Chinas so called plan their emissions still increase by multiples or their starting point, compared to our plan where we reduce.
When you compare the jobs made in renewables, to the jobs lost through carbon shedding you see who truly loses. Add in that a lot of those renewables jobs are just installing/bolting together imported equipment and it is an act of dumbing down our country, not boosting our knowledge.
From my "office" I can see shiploads of wind towers/turbines being brought in from china, where's the knowledge gain?
No party would ever sell off major assets to use in tax cuts to buy votes would they? No party would refuse to challenge a billion dollar+ tax avoidance/return because that company owns 70%of one specific area?
Frantic, whats that got to do with the thread?
It's a local matter , not international.
Well that says it all.Quote:
Yes I have look at the Australian Institute and regard them as more honest
that the present government.
The productivity Commission is an unbiassed Public think tank.
Thay make recommendations to the government who accept or reject them.
If the Coal miners say, and the ABC publishes that the the Productivity Commission has found no subsidy to the coal industry, then you can be pretty sure that there is no subsidy.
The productivity commission oversaw the dimantling of marketing arrangement for all rural industries and the restructure of the dairy industry and the dismantling of the subsidies.
The only subsidised or restricted marketing sectors in the Australian economy are Taxis, Chemists and now renewable energy , which AFAIK they were never asked to examine.
To give an idea of their mindset to cancel marketing arrangements and improve efficiency have a look at the last time they looked at the energy sector in 1991.
Energy Generation and Distribution - Australian Productivity Commission
They have never seen a subsidy or marketing arrangement that they like.
Regards philip A
Yes I guess that it says all, money now and looses in the future for some are more important that the environment.Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilipA
Sad really :(
IMO in a case like this there is more that the economic factors that have to be taken into consideration, the damage to the environment including the climate change is well above the financial aspects.
I live the issue of bias for others to think about it.
IMO if subsides are not a good idea then they should no be available to the mining and power generator industries among others.
I think that we have to agree to disagree on this one :)
3 strikes and your out! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by ramblingboy42
Both pat303 and kevin spoke in international terms, before me,but you target the 3rd response that covered BOTH areas. Why???
Last time I checked warming was not just gold coast, Qld or Oz but global so if you don't look at what EVERYONE is doing, gauge it's effectiveness and LEARN from their mistakes, rather than imitate , we are doomed to not just failure, but lower living standards and increasing unemployment ,along with less money to help alleviate issues caused by it ,on the way to the global BBQ :twisted::twisted:
P.s you used the term other countries in the first post,,, oops!