phlogiston
Bejabbers!
I got Labor, Democrats, and can't figure out which order the other parties are in, although I guess it would be Liberal, Greens and Family First, although I suspect that I'd put Greens before Liberals.
Johnny is calling the election
- Thread starter JonBonJovi
- Start date
I got Labor, Democrats, and can't figure out which order the other parties are in, although I guess it would be Liberal, Greens and Family First, although I suspect that I'd put Greens before Liberals.
maiden1
50 QUID.I.A.S.A.FOR
I couldn't give a toss about the election who's in who's out so for that I wont be voting.......
Goreripper
Metal as fuck
Actually the latest date the election could have been called is November 15 and the latest it could be held is January 27. I really doubt anyone would hold an election during the last week of December or any time in January.
Mark
Not blessed, or merciful
Any country that embraces green energy, and invests in the development of alternatives to fossel fuels, will win in the future economy. The Chinese and Indians will be huge customers, especially if the green energy is cheaper, since they need so much of it. Signing Kyoto will ultimately provide greater benefits than not signing it; the only ones who will lose will be slow-moving companies and economies that are unable to change.Dän;6606083 said:
Goreripper
Metal as fuck
Goreripper
Metal as fuck
You mean those run by 1950s-style ultra-conservatives? I'm disappointed Rudd won't embrace nuclear power. "Clean coal" is bogus pseudo-science.
Shannow
Stunt Plough Rider
Clean coal is the scariest thing I've ever heard.
I'd rather live 1km away from a nuke than 10km away from a carbon sequestration point.
Read a very good point a few years ago. When you bury the CO2, the O2 part means you are burying oxygen also.
I'd rather live 1km away from a nuke than 10km away from a carbon sequestration point.
Read a very good point a few years ago. When you bury the CO2, the O2 part means you are burying oxygen also.
Shannow
Stunt Plough Rider
Goreripper
Metal as fuck
You're the engineer, so maybe you can answer this one: If you bury enough of that stuff, won't it eventually cause an explosion?
Shannow
Stunt Plough Rider
Pump enough in, and you can cause an explosion, just like anything.
My biggest fear, and it has happened twice in the last couple hundred years is sudden and massive CO2 release.
Those couple times, cold water lakes have acted as CO2 sinks. An earth tremor has occurred, and exactly the same as swirling a flat beer and thumping it, the CO2 can be released instantly. In those occasions, every land dwelling animal was killed, within kilometers of the release.
Lakes and dams can only hold a limited amount of the stuff, and they can destroy huge numbers of people/animals.
The climate change facility that I work at produces 50,000 tonnes of CO2 per day. Liquified that's 50 million litres that have to be pumped underground every day. And the "technology" is relying on rocks to hold that volume at a pressure of 150psi (not counting the pressure of pushing it into the rocks).
Putting that much CO2 in an isolated place is truly a WMD, as you don't know the true strength of the rock, or when it is going to fail. When it does fail (and one will fail in the future history of sequestration), then it's game over for how many thousand people happen to be in the gas stream. CO2 pools, and covers huge quantities of ground.
Other technology involves liquifying it and dropping it into the ocean trenches where the water pressure is greater than the vapour pressure of the CO2, and the Co2 remains liquid.
CO2 and water create carbonic acid. shellfish are already struggling with the increased acid from atmospheric CO2 as it is.
pumping it into the oceans is crazy.
Clean coal is crazy.
My biggest fear, and it has happened twice in the last couple hundred years is sudden and massive CO2 release.
Those couple times, cold water lakes have acted as CO2 sinks. An earth tremor has occurred, and exactly the same as swirling a flat beer and thumping it, the CO2 can be released instantly. In those occasions, every land dwelling animal was killed, within kilometers of the release.
Lakes and dams can only hold a limited amount of the stuff, and they can destroy huge numbers of people/animals.
The climate change facility that I work at produces 50,000 tonnes of CO2 per day. Liquified that's 50 million litres that have to be pumped underground every day. And the "technology" is relying on rocks to hold that volume at a pressure of 150psi (not counting the pressure of pushing it into the rocks).
Putting that much CO2 in an isolated place is truly a WMD, as you don't know the true strength of the rock, or when it is going to fail. When it does fail (and one will fail in the future history of sequestration), then it's game over for how many thousand people happen to be in the gas stream. CO2 pools, and covers huge quantities of ground.
Other technology involves liquifying it and dropping it into the ocean trenches where the water pressure is greater than the vapour pressure of the CO2, and the Co2 remains liquid.
CO2 and water create carbonic acid. shellfish are already struggling with the increased acid from atmospheric CO2 as it is.
pumping it into the oceans is crazy.
Clean coal is crazy.
Icarus
Shamone
Aside from the fact that analysits predict our emmission levels to be 109% greater than in 1990 by 2012, which is only 1% greater than the ratification of kyoto would allow, the impact on Australian jobs and export market, and on the global economy would be immense. Our energy is largely generated from coal, we export it also, to countries that are booming like China and India, who have not and will not sign or ratify the agreement. So if you cant see the negative impact this will have on many workers, our export market, which is also being hurt by a weak US market with low interest rates, driving our exchange rate up, and the implication that this will have on China dn India, which, in turn, will trickle to other area's of the world, and then make its way back to us...then you shouldn't be allowed to vote.
I have never argued that this is ideal, but if you leave it up to socialists, who do not understand the way things work, then the country will be worse off. If you give me an argument detailing how signing Kyoto won't have a negative impact on out Domestic economy, then I'll change my stance, until such time I will never change my opinion, and maybe some of you should wise up to the real life implications these things have.
I have never argued that this is ideal, but if you leave it up to socialists, who do not understand the way things work, then the country will be worse off. If you give me an argument detailing how signing Kyoto won't have a negative impact on out Domestic economy, then I'll change my stance, until such time I will never change my opinion, and maybe some of you should wise up to the real life implications these things have.
Shannow
Stunt Plough Rider
Dan,
so the current "strength" of the dollar is a weakness, and indicative of Howard's failure ?
As to your "argument" that we are only 1% off the target...it's impossible that reaching the target can wreak catastrophe, isn't it ?
as per your statement, we are only just off target, with the bestest economy that has ever been seen (except for our fucked up for business exchange rate, which on the other hand is proof of superb economic management)...meeting our Non kyoto targets is the greatest thing we could do.
BTW, why did we negotiate a (very favourable) position at Kyoto, then not ratify it ?
That's plain stupid, or a pretense/lie that we were serious at the time.
Yet another Howard "non core promise"
so the current "strength" of the dollar is a weakness, and indicative of Howard's failure ?
As to your "argument" that we are only 1% off the target...it's impossible that reaching the target can wreak catastrophe, isn't it ?
as per your statement, we are only just off target, with the bestest economy that has ever been seen (except for our fucked up for business exchange rate, which on the other hand is proof of superb economic management)...meeting our Non kyoto targets is the greatest thing we could do.
BTW, why did we negotiate a (very favourable) position at Kyoto, then not ratify it ?
That's plain stupid, or a pretense/lie that we were serious at the time.
Yet another Howard "non core promise"
Mark
Not blessed, or merciful
And if you can't see that the ecomony would survive, if not boom, if the market were to concentrate on clean, CHEAP fuels, then you shouldn't be allowed to vote either. You don't need China or India to sign Kyoto, you just need to sell them clean fuel; the impact this will have on their pollution output will be similar to if they signed Kyoto and turned to clean fuels on their own, except if a commercial market was focussed on selling the fuel to them then it'd happen sooner than if it was left up to the Asian markets to make the switch.
What happens when the coal runs out, or China/India/Whoever switch to clean fuels, and Australia hasn't invested in new fuel generation? Our economy will be super-fucked. Who will be to blame? Conservatives like you who take a short-term view based on old-time thoughts and analysis ("it's been this way forever, ergo it will be this way forever").
Shannow
Stunt Plough Rider
Mark,
conservatives should stand for conservative and economic use of resources.
But as we've seen, conservatives seem to stand for pissing it up the wall while it's cheap, until it becomes expensive and the market determines the next cheapest fuel to be pissed up the wall.
Problem is that they never figure in the hidden costs.
Global warming is a hidden cost of using fossil fuel. It's value is nothing.
The Iraq war is a hidden cost of fossil fuel. It's value is nothing.
Conservatives are playing with a partially filled balance sheet.
conservatives should stand for conservative and economic use of resources.
But as we've seen, conservatives seem to stand for pissing it up the wall while it's cheap, until it becomes expensive and the market determines the next cheapest fuel to be pissed up the wall.
Problem is that they never figure in the hidden costs.
Global warming is a hidden cost of using fossil fuel. It's value is nothing.
The Iraq war is a hidden cost of fossil fuel. It's value is nothing.
Conservatives are playing with a partially filled balance sheet.
Spiff
I have the power
The thing we're forgetting about the coming election:
Teflon John has met his equal. They've thrown so much at Kevin Rudd - Brian Burke, the strip club, dodgy ticker, questionable childhood history, probably some other stuff - and yet his popularity hasn't gone down.
No, I don't actually have anything to say about economics or the environment or Work Choices or anything. I just deal with the simple stuff.
Teflon John has met his equal. They've thrown so much at Kevin Rudd - Brian Burke, the strip club, dodgy ticker, questionable childhood history, probably some other stuff - and yet his popularity hasn't gone down.
No, I don't actually have anything to say about economics or the environment or Work Choices or anything. I just deal with the simple stuff.
Our dollar is strong on the back of a weak US market; the foreign sector has little to so with domestic policy, as per liberal economic framkework. That is why we have a floating exchnage rate, which is determined by capital flows, the demand for bonds, foreign and domestic interest rates, and the supply and demand of our currency on the exchange market. A high exchange rate is not the best for Aus atm as it means imports are cheaper, which stimulate an already over heated demand sector. Did you learn something then, or will you ignore it?
