Gymnastics in green
Gymnastics in green
Three quotes follow about three different issues that all relate to the environment:
THE Rudd Government has given the green light to an expansion of the uranium industry, approving a new mine in South Australia that will add hundreds of millions of dollars a year to the industry’s exports.
The Four Mile mine, 550 kilometres north of Adelaide, will open next year after winning clearance from federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett.
Mr Garrett, the former anti-uranium activist who once stood for the Nuclear Disarmament Party, said he did not take the decision lightly.
But he said that he was “certain this operation poses no credible risk to the environment” after it was subjected to a “rigorous and comprehensive assessment”.
Four Mile will be Australia’s first new uranium mine in close to a decade and the 10th biggest in the world. Its approval was made possible by Labor dumping its no-new-mines policy before the 2007 election.
“The CPRS will significantly reduce the competitiveness of coal production in Queensland,” Ms Bligh wrote in a letter tabled during a state parliamentary estimates committee hearing in Brisbane yesterday.
“Options to assist the coal industry … need to be developed that go beyond that currently proposed.”
Ms Bligh said modelling by the federal Treasury confirmed that Queensland faced the greatest impact from emissions pricing, with the biggest cut in economic growth of any state or territory by 2050.
Her decision to go in to bat for the coal industry betrayed the Premier’s fears of further job-shedding in the state’s struggling mining sector.
Between July and December last year, the prime ministerial planes made 50 “phantom” flights between Canberra and the state capitals.
On most trips the Prime Minister stayed interstate overnight. But on seven occasions, the RAAF dropped Mr Rudd off, returned to Canberra and was then dispatched just hours later to collect him.
According to the Defence Department’s six-monthly Schedule of Special Purpose Flights, the RAAF flew empty on Mr Rudd’s watch for 55 hours, burning almost 6 tonnes of carbon.The Prime Minister’s office said the use of the VIP fleet was consistent with the former Howard government and decisions on operational matters were a matter for Defence. It said none of the carbon emissions from the flights were offset.
Defence said there was no standing requirement for aircraft to return to Canberra and, where possible, they would ”remain overnight with the VIP”.
But ”operation requirements” meant the aircraft might return to Canberra for maintenance or if there was a lack of parking, security or crew accommodation. Staff were limited to a maximum 14-hour shift and might need to return to Canberra to change crew.
Defence figures show that, in six months, the Rudd Government’s 50 empty flights cost taxpayers $180,000.
A single flight to Brisbane can cost between $4300 and $6000, even when the jet is empty.
The bill includes $28,000 racked up when the jet flew home to Canberra after dropping Mr Rudd in Perth for a Council of Australian Governments meeting only to return to Perth the next day to collect him.
- Green bans
The Mantra of the socialists used to be entirely concerned with the welfare of the workers but during the seventies something changed and we began to see a shift to a broader focus, first upon issues like development run amok (the BLF’s green bans come to mind) and issues from out side the actual workplace have become progressively more important as time has gone by.
- Blue sky mine
Readers may wonder why I have conflated these three issues into one post, well put simply they are all symptomatic of just how conflicted the Labor party is when it comes to environmental matters. The first item is something that I applaud. In an energy hungry world we would be mad not to exploit our extensive reserves of Uranium but there in lies a problem for the socialists as the more extreme left are almost psychotic about the stuff and I can expect that this decision will have an effect on Brother Number One’s electoral bottom line at the next election.
Mining protests
The second item is of course much closer to home for me (because it concerns Queensland) Now it is all well and good to talk about the theory of AGW and phasing out jobs in the coal industry along with the platitudes about the new “green” jobs but that does not mean squat to the central Queensland mine workers who face the loss of their entire financial foundations by, making a very efficient industry substantially less profitable by the imposition of a stupid scheme that purports to be about saving the planet but in reality is just another way for the government to tax the people. The way that this puts state and federal governments into conflict is something that both want to play down but I can see that this will be the cause of more defections from the same electoral bottom line.
- high flyer
Finally we have a wonderful example of the blatant hypocrisy of Brother Number One when it comes to the emission of Co2 from his VIP Jet, I can’t for the life of me understand why it is necessary for the plane to flown back and forth across the country, whilst empty, by a Prime Minister who is banging the AGW drum with such enthusiasm. It stands to reason to me that if the PM is staying overnight away from Canberra that his jet should do likewise rather than burning up tons of jet fuel just so it can be parked in its designated hanger in Canberra. But because Brother Number one is considered the lesser of the evils by the Extremist latte sippers they will have to do some pretty neat mental gymnastics to justify this very poor example from the preacher, then again they are used to such complicated routines
All in all I think that the Lattes sippers are going to be having a rather “interesting time” trying to reconcile and explain these conflicts of interest within their political mantras.
Cheers Comrades
Filed under: AGW and climate change, Australian Politics, Bizzare stuff, Carbon Trading, Ethical questions, Federal Election, Global Warming, God bothering, Green Hypocrites, Leftism, Living with Nature, Political Correctness, Queensland, South Australia, The Green religion, World Events, international politics | Tagged: in the news, Business, work/ life, Latte Lefties, Bob Brown, AGW, Kevin Rudd, AGW and climate change, Anna Bligh
Getting past the “eye watering” picture (man, that would have to hurt).
I was posted to Fairburn, where the VIP aircraft, as part of 34 Squadron were stationed, which also doubles as Canberra’s main airport. I was not part of 34, merely, was utilising single male living quarters, situated on the base. I lived 300 metres roughly, from the north/south main runway.
When I was in, we had a 707 for international travel for sole use by the PM of the day, and three smaller Falcon 900 lear jets, for domestic travel. (could be a reason why I qualified on a Falcon 900
?) Note here, both Labor and Liberal utilised this little lurk, over many years, and of course, still do.
The 707 was sold/upgraded to a 737 some years ago, and new tankers were purchased, as we had none. The three lear jets, at the time, were utilised as follows
The PM had sole use of one
The Opposition Leader has sole use of one, and
The GG has part use of the third, along with any other dignitary that may need a lift somewhere.
What is interesting in your inflection in the above argument Iain, (if I get your gist ?) is that you argue that the use of these aircraft, is a massive indulgement to the powers that be ? If so, hmm, I am somewhat sitting on the fence.
These aircraft, having “seemingly important” cargo aboard, are maintained far and above any other aircraft in use in Oz today.
Every day, the pilots, (when the aircraft are not in use), practice “touch and goes”, every chance they get. Even commercial aircraft, have to wait, if these aircraft are anywhere near Canberra airport at the time, as they always have priority clearance. I would think, that there would be more pollutants released, during these ‘test flights”, than if they were off on a normal junkie somewhere ? After all, touch and goes, are done at full thrust, high and heavy wheel brake use, purely to ensure, that under the most severe of stress, nothing falls off ? The same occurs with our fighter squadrons in Townsville, and Amberly, outside Brisbane.
As for uranium, that has been a dicey argument, ever since it was discovered hasn’t it ? Do we export our massive deposits of yellow cake, and make billions of dollars, to pay for the government of the day’s follies, or do we say no, in case the people we sell it to, make bombs out of it ?
I remember at the time, one argument used the analogy, of someone buying a sports car. The person, not able to control the car, had every chance of driving out of the yard, and killing himself or someone else before they hit the first corner. Should then, using that analogy, prohibit the sale and manufacture of all sports cars ?
The Algores and the Rudd’s don’t think they should curtail there lifestyles.
That is only for the sheople. And there are lot’s of sheople.
Why the comrades believe in this belies a wish to be subjugated.
Check out what the press calls the far right BNP party in Britain.
Same old National Socialist beliefs from the Thirties.
The left is fighting against the development of nuclear power at home and cheering on Iran to build the bomb. Beyond stupid. The mark of the left.
Very nice post. I love that you challenge your readers to think. Now, On a lighter note. I fell down the stairs once and ended up in the position that gymnast is in. She did it on purpose, I spent a week in bed with a pulled back.
Thanks for the kind words Eric I aim more than anything to encourage my readers to think outside the square on these issues.
and I agree that the girl’s pose is quite, err challenging and I hope that there was no lasting damage to your back.
Nobody is cheering Iran to build the bomb Shawn – and if Bush hadn’t of screwed up the case against Iraq so badly, he would still have had credibility to do something about it militarily.
The fact that no-one is going to take US evidence against Iran seriously anymore is down to Bush – you can thank him next time you see him!
That argument is silly PKD The US has always been far more wary of Iran than it was of Iraq, and lets be real here: Everyone thought that the WMD were real (before the war) because Saddam worked very hard to convince the world that his trouser snake was bigger than it actually was and his exaggerations were taken at face value.
Everyone thought that the WMD were real
Errm – you missed the widespread protests then?
Or the objections at the UN of countries like France et al to the war before it began?
Saddam worked very hard to convince the world that his trouser snake was bigger than it actually was
Errm – I think you’re reinventing history then. Saddam in fact was constantly denying the existence of any WMD post Sept-11. I remember well the statements they made to the UN denying they had any WMD’s.
In fact the regime was suspicious that the whole thing was a setup and whatever they did wrt the weapons inspectors was pointless because it was simply a pretext to war. And they were right – Blix wanted more time having found nothing, Bush invaded anyway.
I know the right is desperate to spin a new version of events to excuse the war but jeez Iain – you could at least try to spin it a *little* bit believable!
“Or the objections at the UN of countries like France ”
Or Chirac who was asked at the time of the invasion how he would react if WMD were actually found and responded “oh well, that would change everything”
Or Scott Ridder, US attack dog* inspector who quit before the invasion and was telling anyone who would listen that his people had found nothing and he didn’t believe anything existed.
* Ridder being the sort of long time military professional who would’ve called in the air strike on his own position if he’d found anything dangerous.
And what I love is Iain’s claim that “Saddam exaggerations were taken at face value”.
Strange – I don’t recall Saddam claiming he could fire a WMD at 30 minutes notice. I *do* recall the British Govt stating it though in the Houses of Commons.
So who was exagerating Iain???
PKD
Can the recent revelations about Saddam’s interviews by the FBI escaped your notice? He made it clear that he was very worried that Iran would take advantage of Iraq’s weakened position (after Gulf war 1) and that he wanted to foster the belief that he retained a capability with WMD to deter his old enemy, He was successful in convincing everyone who mattered that this was the case. and the ultimate result was the GW2.
So Saddam told lies to deter one enemy but it encouraged another , such is the result of lies and dishonesty, but don’t pretend that Saddam was a nice chap when he was in fact a bloodthirsty tyrant who thought nothing about sending millions to their death in a war against Iran and massacring his own citizens with poison gas.
He was successful in convincing everyone who mattered that this was the case.
He failed to convince a single weapons inpsector he had anything – see Blix and co. No Iain – the evidence was *exaggerated* by a desperate West – no amount of spinning is ever going to change that.
but don’t pretend that Saddam was a nice chap when he was in fact a bloodthirsty tyrant who thought nothing about sending millions to their death in a war against Iran and massacring his own citizens with poison gas.
Ah yes – the last desperate throw of the dice to excuse the war. Shame the war wasn’t really about deposing a universally condemned tyrant and bringing democracy to a repressed people.
I mean, if ideology was really the justification for war, then wheres the liberation or Zimbabwe, Iran, Nepal, Uighurs and countless other places where millions are being repressed by non-democratic regimes.
Don’t expect an answer PKD.
Iain – it’s is very telling that you just don’t answer people when you are exposed or caught making shit up. Bad tactic though, just makes your comments look even dumber.
Craigy
What precisely is there to answer here?
In fact PKD has sidestepped all of the points In my previous comment and he asks nothing but rhetorical questions that require no answers.
I assure you Iain – Asking where the democratic liberation of other subjugated peoples wasn’t a rhetorical question – I was quite serious. I’m surprised you can be so glib about that point given *you* were bringing up the point about how bad and nasty a dictator Saddam was in the 1st place.
And its quite clear I didn’t sidestep your points – as I responded to them specifically by pointing out that there were many people like the UN weapons inspectors, France et al who we’re *not* fooled by the West’s exaggerated ‘evidence’.
Iain – the reality is that I rebutted your defense of the indefensible war, and you did your usual trick of doing a runner rather than try and continue propping up the failed right wing ideologies that were really behind the war…as usual!
Bad tactic though, just makes your comments look even dumber.
In this post – hear hear!
PKD
Bollocks!
Pull the other one It plays jingle bells!
It is entirely unrealistic to seriously suggest that any western government would try to liberate any third world country from tranny so your suggestion can not be taken seriously at all.
The French and weapons inspectors were not by any stretch of the imagination decision makers when it came to going to war with Saddam and you know it.
But I was not defending the war in Iraq PKD, I was just pointing out that you can’t judge history as if what is known now was known then, because at the time Saddam’s propaganda worked,at least for the people who made the decisions to got to war.
Iain – you do a poor job of trying to spin the mess that your hero Bush and his deputy sheriff made with their aggressive foreign policies.
You would however be a great writer for the ‘ministry of truth’!
I remember much argument with your side, demanding we invade Iraq to remove the WMDs and then quickly shifting to ‘we’re getting rid of a tyrant’ argument when the truth came out.
Why even poor Colin Powell had to resign when it became clear that he, Chaney, Rumsfield and Bush all new the WMD thing was bullshit. The poor guy was dying from embarrassment at the time when he had to front the UN with his made-up ‘intelligence’.
For you and your try-hards to attempt to rewrite history is very, very amusing….keep up the good work….Big Brother will be calling you soon…..
Craigy
A Mess? maybe but you do the sums and compare how many people Saddam was killing during his rule extropolate that death rat to the present and even Iraq comes out ahead.
You would however be a great writer for the ‘ministry of truth’!
I really don’t think it was ever an either or justification at the time Craigy but what i wonder is why you want to revisit this topic so much, especially when the topic here is about the environmental woes of teh Labor government. Oh yeah you have nothing to say on that I suppose
You must be desperate to divert attention from the environmental conflicts of the ALP
Yawn !
Get another record the one you are playing is very scratched and worn…………..
It is entirely unrealistic to seriously suggest that any western government would try to liberate any third world country from tranny so your suggestion can not be taken seriously at all.
But Iain – thats *precisely* what the war became about in the spin of Bush, Blair and Howard – after it became clear there were no WMD. All of a sudden the war is suddenly ok on the grounds we had liberated the poor oppressed Iraqi’s(*) from their tyrannical dictator.
But I was not defending the war in Iraq PKD
So are you now saying you don’t support the war Iain? Somehow I doubt it. You’re as confused as ever on this aren’t you…
You must be desperate to divert attention from the environmental conflicts of the ALP
Actually Iain, you have Shawn, not Craighy, to thank for bizarrely bringing up the left cheering Iran on to build the bomb for the direction of the comments. But nice try. Although you bringing this up now is only highlighting your own desperation to get off a topic that you’re all at sea on!
Cheers,
PKD
.
(*)Well, the Shias and Kurds anyway – the Sunnis are now on the path to becoming as oppressed as the other two used to be under Saddam…:(
The environmental conflicts in the ALP are not surprising with their move to capture those who don’t give a stuff – those that vote for the Libs and Nats.
I’m no fan of the ALP Iain – as you know I support the Greens as the most sensible and rational party at this time.
….and on that amusing note I will go and spend some time in the workshop in a very Jolly frame of mind You do comedy so well some times Craigy….
Yes – run away away Iain – run away!
Is there an echo in here?