View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
thebaldfacts
Joined: 02 Aug 2007
|
Post subject: | |
|
David wrote: | TBF, you still haven't explained how a desalination plant opposed by most environmental groups constitutes a "monument to the waste of the green religion". It's just rubbish. |
Refer to my comments in the original post and then my second post in this thread. Answers your question already.
Poor policy leads to poor outcomes. What is so hard to understand? |
|
|
|
|
partypie
Joined: 01 Oct 2010
|
Post subject: | |
|
It's a bit unfair to blame the Greens for the lack of new dams. More dams were recommended in the mid eighties Murray Darling basin report and there have been multiple changes in federal and state governments over three decades.
I am grateful that the desal plants have not been really needed, although it appears they might have to come out of mothballs when El Niño kicks in, as seems likely in the near future. |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
Post subject: | |
|
Pies4shaw wrote: | That'd be because the tooth fairy told him there'll never, ever be a drought again. "I love a sog-drenched country...". Does he have to spell all of it out for you? |
Which is of a course a different tooth fairy to the one which told him world climates have been fluctuating for millennia.
So which one is it, Bald and Factless? Do we do nothing because world climates have been fluctuating for millennia, or do we do nothing because there is no risk of world climates fluctuating?
I know, that logic must really confuse you, particularly given it's your own personal masterpiece.
Tannin answered this a very long time ago. The problem isn't taking out insurance policies. Everyone agrees insurance policies are rational. The problem is corrupt, intransparent, private contracts between beholden governments and the parasites who sleaze their way to untenable contracts—corrupt corporations, government ministers and unions alike. _________________ In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
watt price tully
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
Post subject: | |
|
pietillidie wrote: | Pies4shaw wrote: | That'd be because the tooth fairy told him there'll never, ever be a drought again. "I love a sog-drenched country...". Does he have to spell all of it out for you? |
Which is of a course a different tooth fairy to the one which told him world climates have been fluctuating for millennia.
So which one is it, Bald and Factless? Do we do nothing because world climates have been fluctuating for millennia, or do we do nothing because there is no risk of world climates fluctuating?
I know, that logic must really confuse you, particularly given it's your own personal masterpiece.
Tannin answered this a very long time ago. The problem isn't taking out insurance policies. Everyone agrees insurance policies are rational. The problem is corrupt, intransparent, private contracts between beholden governments and the parasites who sleaze their way to untenable contracts—corrupt corporations, government ministers and unions alike. |
Is it the first, second or third trimester terminations wot causes bushfires? _________________ “I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough†Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005 Location: In flagrante delicto
|
Post subject: | |
|
David wrote: | there is invariably good environmental reasoning behind the Greens' views on these subjects. Say what you like about them, but they have earned credibility when it comes to environment and sustainability. |
Oh dear. _________________ Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: Andromeda
|
Post subject: | |
|
OK, name me an Australian political party that had a more prescient environmental policy 10-20 years ago.
Actually name me another Australian political party that had any notable environmental policy 10-20 years ago.
My point is, people can say what they like about the Greens' poor grasp of economics, or left-wing social views, or general idealism, and they would have had a point at least a decade ago (not now). But when it comes to environmental issues, they were clearly way ahead of their time. And I'm saying this as someone who doesn't really care all that much about sustainability or small-g 'green' issues. _________________ All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Tannin
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006 Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
Post subject: | |
|
The "more dams" refrain is monumentally misguided and owes more to 1950-era fantasy than it does to facts, science, economics, or evidence. Every possible river system in central and western Victoria already has dams, and almost all of the eastern ones do too. In most cases these dams spend most of their time half-empty because there isn't enough streamflow in our river systems to fill them. Over the past decade or two we have been gradually decommisioning dams which don't get a reliable water supply - there may be others as well but off the top of my head I can mention Lake Mokoan in Eastern Victoria on the Broken system and Laanecoorie Reservoir in the west on the Loddon. One has been drained because it was wasteful and useless and nearly empty most of the time; the other is filing up with silt and the plan is to do nothing about it because there isn't enough reliable water supply to fill it up regularly anyway.
If it wasn't for the massive record-breaking flood year of 2009-2010, we'd still be looking at statewide water shortages today. Come the next swing of the ENSO cycle, we will be right back to where we were in 2008: vast empty dams, no water flowing into them for years on end.
And I haven't even mentioned the stupendous cost of dammed river systems in both economic terms (lost productivity; soil degradation; river system death), natural values (horrendous damage to the natural; environment - just look at the disaster we call the Murray-Darling system), and human values (who wants to live next to or visit a lifeless, empty drain surrounded by dead and dying trees?).
But you don't need to like the natural environment to oppose yet more useless dam building; all you need is a basic understanding of the countryside we live in and the ability to count up the massive costs and vanishingly small benefits.
Pretty much all the good dam sites were exploited in the 30s, 40s, and 50s. In the 60s we built a couple of very large ones on the last two remaining unexploited river systems (Thompson and Mitta Mitta); and in the 70s we built a handful of bad ones which have proved to be at best useless and more often counter-productive. Since then we have got a bit smarter and recognised that there are no good sites left unexploited and stopped building them.
You want more dams, move to a country which has enough water to fill them up more often than once every 20 years. _________________ �Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007 Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
Post subject: | |
|
stui magpie wrote: | David wrote: | there is invariably good environmental reasoning behind the Greens' views on these subjects. Say what you like about them, but they have earned credibility when it comes to environment and sustainability. |
Oh dear. |
Double dear. The Greens have some good economic policies - among them changing the economics of housing speculation through the tax system, and funding public investment through public borrowing rather than the chicanery of PFI. But they're still deeply dishonest or illiterate about how fiscal economics actually works. If they think they can significantly raise the capital gains tax, and raise income tax to 52% (income tax + medicare) without making the wealthy move offshore and eroding the tax base overall, then reality is waiting for them in a dark alley.
In the end, it's the same old political trick of bribing voters with someone else's money. If they want more services, then fine- but be honest about the fact that Joe and Jane public needs to pay for them, in basic income tax rates, because that's the only way the money will surely be raised. That's a perfectly credible position ; what they have today is not. See Hollande in France for a picture of where this wretched type of deception leads. I'm not opposed to the Greens, but until they rid themselves of their old-style statist economics, they're not electable.
Btw, i agree that the desal plant has nothing much to do with the Greens as a party or a world-view. It was just a fairly rational reaction to the fact that a city of 4million+ people, despite strong usage-reduction campaigns, was getting alarmingly close to running out of water. _________________ Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005 Location: somewhere
|
Post subject: | |
|
Gees we are dammed if we do and dammed if we don't
Dam it _________________ You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
1061
Joined: 06 Sep 2013
|
Post subject: | |
|
That damn ALP built some contraption that turned salt water into fresh drinking water, dam them the LNP have told us we will have another drought again,
Who'd be lying to us? |
|
|
|
|
thebaldfacts
Joined: 02 Aug 2007
|
|
|
|
|
Tannin
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006 Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
Post subject: | |
|
^ The most moronic post I have seen here. `The right wing of the ALP, noted opponents of the Greens, commission a project over the strenuous objections of the Greens and all known environmental groups, and you call this the Greens' fault?
Who, exactly, do think think this naked stupidity will fool? Are you even managing to fool yourself with it? _________________ �Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: Andromeda
|
Post subject: | |
|
TBF, you can put your fingers in your ears and sing every time someone points out that you're making a fundamental logical error, but what purpose does it serve? Anyone who reads this thread can see that you've got this one badly wrong. Why keep repeating the same old incorrect assertion and ignoring the responses? I just don't see what you're achieving here other than wasting your own time. _________________ All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Tannin
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006 Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
Post subject: | |
|
The same thing he is achieving in the various other slightlly less ludicrous threads, of course. Whatever that is. _________________ �Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
thebaldfacts
Joined: 02 Aug 2007
|
Post subject: | |
|
Tannin wrote: | ^ The most moronic post I have seen here. `The right wing of the ALP, noted opponents of the Greens, commission a project over the strenuous objections of the Greens and all known environmental groups, and you call this the Greens' fault?
Who, exactly, do think think this naked stupidity will fool? Are you even managing to fool yourself with it? |
Doesn't even come close to your usual brainless comments. Read the thread properly and stop being so moronic.
This is about the Green religion and whilst the greens adhere to this nonsense, it does not change anything about the waste that belief in the green religion has contributed to. |
|
|
|
|
|