-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
GREENS
- Thread starter dukeos
- Start date
jb03 said:
JB i aint gonna do yr list thing, but i have lived in a rural area where lots of people are CFA volunteers, and a lot of them have Green sympathies.
I don't understand why you are so derisive. A lot of people are disenchanted with the mainstream parties and are looking for alternatives. Thats hardly new news.
Michael said:
a lot of people seem to bag him cos he is gay. Well if that's the best they can do they ought to be ashamed of themselves.
At least he has the courage of his convictions and hasnt sold out like the Dems did, or like Garrett.
i was impressed with his crack at Bush when the pres addressed our Parliament.
SS Tone, you can belittle this, but it's true. But i am sure that the CFA like many other organisations around Victoria, has members of all political persuasions. and it makes no difference to the great job they do.
My only problem is that u seem surprised by this.
My only problem is that u seem surprised by this.
jb03 said:
In other words you don't like them and just want to denigrate anyone who does.
I have to say I have never read such a lot of tosh that I have seen in this thread - no CFA member would support the Greens? WTF? Have you gone and polled every CF Association member in Australia?
The Greens have been warning of climate change and it's consequences for twenty years at least - this has now passed into the mainstream and even diehard conservatives (such as Johnny "Me Too" Howard) can no longer pretend the issue does not exist, and can no longer avoid the science.
You'll also find if you look at Green policies in detail they do deal with phasing old "dirty" technologies out and doing the R&D and commercialisation work of phasing the new ones in.
If you don't like the Greens because you disagree with their policies fine, but coming out with emotive and unverifiable statements like the CFA one makes you all look like conservative blowhards who can't mount a decent argument.
Tiger74 said:
This is a common misconception.
Due to an absence of any democratic socialist ideology... and with the leader being a self proclaimed conservative when it comes to the economy... the ALP must surely fall under a centrist right category.
antman said:
I completely disagree with this. Checked the greens website, and I was right, this is what they want:
2020 - Greenhouse gases down 30%
2050 - Greenhouse gases down 50%
To do this, we need to do two things, take coal and gas offline for powerplants, and gets cars off the road.
Tinkering around the edges will not achieve these goals, and contrary to the Greens website, this currently cannot be done without significant economic and social pain.
CARS
Not enough hybrids are available yet. Tried buying a Prius lately? Get in line is all I can say. To retool and redesign will take time. My mates are in the car game, and cars do not get redesigned in 1-2 years, its 5-10. Even if we mandate a requirement for hybrids (and this only takes us part of the way) it will take years to generate the industrial capacity to supply the market.
Biofuels are also not the answer. You use more oil in growing the corn, sugar, etc that you get the ethanol from as you get from the crop. Ironically oil is more "green" than ethanol.
Hydrogen is still in the myth stakes, some decent prototypes, but nothing that can go commercial yet.
POWER PLANTS
It takes 10+ years to build a power plant. Why is this important? Because to meet the 2050 target nearly every coal fired and gas powerplant in this country will need to be shutdown. The problem is, replaced with what? You can say "but but but we are throwing money into researching and developing solar, and wind, ooh ooh ooh, and geothermal", but guess what? We have NO idea how far these technologies are away from replacing base load power supply.
Wind is a failure. Denmark the great role model to us all gets power from nuclear Germany when the wind doth not blow.
Solar is still theory. We have the pilot plant going up in Mildura, but that isn't even complete, will need to run for several years to confirm the data, and then you will need years more in developing a commercial model.
As for geothermal and tidal, we are further behind on these than we are on solar.
This is all an issue, because the Greens want to lock us into binding targets. The penalty of this of course is IF these technologies don't come on line, industry will have a broadsword taken to it as we shut down the economy to meet the emmissions targets.
Tiger74 said:
All good points and fair enough Tiger74 - top marks for research. These things do take time - in many cases a long time. All the stronger the case to get on with developing the new technologies rather than falling further and further behind other countries that are smarter and more forward looking..
However, look at Germany - they were nowhere in terms of renewables ten years ago. They made a decision to aggressively pursue renewables and have a committment to 100% renewable energy. They are already up to 12% of total electricity energy after ten years. The renewable energy industry is also generating jobs and new industry in Germany, not destroying them - except in the sense of "creative destruction" - old industries get destroyed by new, more creative, better tech industries - this is the way it has always been and always will be. Renewables industry is a net generator of jobs in Germany and not a destroyer. Germany is also committed to closing ALL its nuclear powerplants in the 32 years from 2001.
Australia was a world leader in solar photovoltaics. Howard cut the R&D funding to these (and most other areas BTW) and now we are that no longer. A great chance to lead the world in new clean technologies - gone. Guess who leads the world in these areas now? Germany and Japan.
The question is do we want to get on the bus or get left behind with our existing dirty technologies.
I have dinner to attend to so will have to get onto the issue of cars tomorrow ;-)
antman said:
No I don't like what they stand for which is a mish mash of feel good propaganda. I certainly haven't and won't denigrate anyone who votes for them. It is there democratic right. IMO on this website the lefties are far more belittling and denigrating of those that openly support Howard than the other way.
jb03 said:
You already did!
So let's summarise - you have clearly tried to denigrate anyone who supports the Greens and also denigrate their policies - without providing any examples or argument...
The only one who has attempted to argue the issues on this thread from the anti-Greens perspective is Tiger74. He's at least looked at policies and consequences and makes good points, many of which I agree with. You haven't.
And then you have the hypocrisy to claim that "the lefties are far more belittling and denigrating of those that openly support Howard" when the only denigration that has occurred on this thread has come from the anti-Greens, T74 excepted. sixpack and myself have been completely reasonable, you haven't.
The two quotes you provide could hardly constitute denigration. I expressed amazement that someone would vote for them (interestingly few who say they are voting for them say which policies they actually support, it seems more a protest vote against the major parties) and the other was a dig at Greens voters for not fighting bushfires.
I'm surprised at your sensitivity Antman.
And I stand by my claim re who belittles who more.
I'm surprised at your sensitivity Antman.
And I stand by my claim re who belittles who more.
jb03 said:
I'm far from sensitive - I don't really care if you didn't make an argument and chose to play the man not the ball. Your comment above about a protest vote makes more sense but it's interesting though that people who vote Green who are uninformed about policies are somehow different from the millions who vote for the major parties who are equally uninformed. Where's the difference? Somehow their choice is more valid because they vote for a party you do support?
Having a dig at Green voters? Having a dig at, denigrating, semantics.
Belittling? Who is sensitive now? Stand by your claim by all means. It's not borne out on this thread and I don't have the time or inclination to do a tally of all the threads that ever existed - I speak for myself only and have to say that sixpack has been completely fair to you and everyone else on this thread. I have a very high tolerance of people with different views to my own but I have a very low tolerance for hypocrisy and this is what gets me "sensitive".
antman said:
People who vote for a major party generally have at least one platform or reason - eg either pro or anti workchoices. There is no denying that the majority are however largely un or ill-informed, myself included. I have never said 6pack or anyone else has been unfair. He even wished me luck with my vote.
It is pretty simple, IMO it is silly to vote for the Greens. Some think it is silly to vote for the Libs or Labs. People don't share a common view - that is fine.
Can be a touchy subject politics.
jb03 said:
People who vote for the Greens generally have a platform or reason - climate change and the environment - even though they are generally uninformed about the science, economics and policy details.
But you are right - politics sure can be a touchy subject!
