ner ner ner nerr!!

and it looks like we learned what a petulant little twerp Costello is.

Was quite happy with politics when he had a shot at the top job. Now decides he's gonna take his bat and ball and go home.

He should be paying personally for any by-election that results.

And Dan wanted this guy as PM ??
 
I think Costello plans on staying as member for Higgins and then just not contesting the next election. Then again, I wouldn't be surprised if we see him saunter into the opposition leader job in a year or two when the Liberals lose faith in whomever is running the show.
 
I am in the 0xley elect0ret and the bypass was a massive decidin fact0r f0r al0t 0f pe0ple cl0ser t0 the ipswich m0t0way.



P.S. will by a new keyb0ard t0m0rr0w s0 st0p yr m0anin
 
Well the Nationals are pretty much a spent force. Howard won without them last time, and this time they got even fewer votes. I'd be happy to see the end of the Coalition, but from what I've been reading today if Rudd is even half as successful with his promises as he hopes it will be a long, long time before the Libs get back in. There's plenty of wisdom there.
 
Kyoto's all well and good, but Australia needs to start looking at developing technology to help on a global scale... That's where we are most needed - not in reducing our own emissions. That and we need to fix our own environmental problems (not an easy task), but no party has the balls to have a go at it because it'd be political suicide to try (it'd kill the economy in the short term). We've been ignoring our own environmental probs for decades :( And in all honesty, I don't see the Greens really recognising a lot of these problems - I swear they're too busy with climate change :(
 
They are. You're right about Kyoto, but it's a start. Kyoto is more or less just symbolism really. Where Rudd's policy falls down is in his refusal to develop nuclear power as an option. Nothing else is really viable for large cities but any legislation that might allow it will be doomed by an allegiance with the Greens and people like Garrett (Turnbull would probably oppose it too).
 
To be sure, dryland salinity and water issues will get Australia long before sea levels threaten Sydney, but IMO, there is some pretty low hanging fruit that we can gather that will address carbon in this country.

I was annoyed with the no nukes policy, as it makes no sense except in an emotional sense to some.

For about $8B, the worst three or four polluting power stations could be replaced with advanced ultra super critical plants, increasing our generation capacity by 15% for the same CO2 output.

Did you know that the last few power stations built in Australia (Queensland) are significantly less efficient than those built in the 70's and 80's ?

They are built to a beancounter's budget, and operated with all of their efficiency measure disabled to maximise revenue.

Instead of having Dilemma's Desal plant consuming 500MW of green power, that 500MW would be better served in the grid. 100ML/day could be freed up by installing partial dry cooling on three inland power stations.

Replace Munmorah with a modern design power plant incorporating flash distillation with the exhaust steam (typically 600MW of heat wasted from a 400MW unit), and this gives an effective 65-80% thermal efficiency.
 
I read an article the other day that in France they're considering a law that all new houses have to energy *positive*. That is, on average they generate more energy than they use. Solar cells on the roof, solar hot water, personal wind power, that sort of thing.

Another things that's bugged me is why people are always trying to be "carbon neutral". Why don't they take that extra step and try and be carbon negative?

And in another article somewhere they pointed out that calling "climate change" doesn't really signify what's going on. Climate change happens all of the time, and we've dealt with it before. It's climate destabilisation that we've got to watch.