Some commentators have stated that this is not a very important election. I disagree.
The scenario of voter dissatisfaction with both major parties, means that the Greens, are poised to benefit. Such an outcome may lead to significant consequences to the way we live and work, to which our PM has alluded to. A softly spoken threat does not alert most people to logically think through the consequences.
Partly or wholly overturning our modern fossil fuel based civilisation, based on a man-made myth for which there is no evidence, may not only turn out to be regrettable, but also based on some Green commentary, irreversible. The case for the 'precautionary principle' is insane, i.e. "let's destroy our economy, just in case this failed theory is right". All this is served up, whilst ignoring better, more convincing and scientifically supported theories.
Yet all our major parties are proceeding on the basis that 'something' needs to be done about reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Therefore this election is very important, because it is substantially based on the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on humanity. It would also appear, no major party has the resolve to save us from this misguided path to economic destruction. Apart from other serious side effects this path will also lead to greater environmental degradation, as many Green policies already do.
There are many minor parties with limited resources trying to alert voters and provide more choices at the ballot box. If Australians will not listen to that choir of small voices, they may not realize what they have lost, until it's gone. Voters who are sensing something is 'not quite right', would be well advised to at least take out some lifestyle insurance with their Senate vote.

A quote from Wyatt Roy, the 20-year-old LNP candidate for the outer-Brisbane-fringe seat of Longman:

""The year 2050 for me is a reality
[he'll be 60 years old] and it's something
I want to ensure we get right; it's us
that are going to be dealing with
whatever decisions are being made now"
he says of his own generation."

The quote is from this article: http://www.freedomtodiffer.com/freedom_to_differ/2010/07/q-weekend-article-on-wyatt-roy-the-coalition-kid.html




It certainly seems reasonable that the electors of Longman should seriously consider electing him as their member if only to put some prospective talent into the future leadership talent pool of the Coalition parties, if it is true that what is on offer this election is not even a second option at the polls. At least that way those electors could be casting a vote for Australia's future.




More from the article, quoting Mary Spring, Wyatt Roy's economics teacher at La Trobe university:

"... He's a bright boy and can appreciate
things on an intellectual level, but he also
has a keen interest in the 'human' as well.
The fact that his family has been in the area
a long time, too - he has eyes looking through
the lens of generation after generation. That's
a powerful thing. He can bring all that
combined wisdom to the table."

Is it ridiculous for the Coalition to commit to making him, if elected, their leader immediately? At least then the existing talent's sincerity would be tested: then ALL would have to work as a team under a fresh, even if inexperienced, leader with a real stake in the future, if in turn THEY are interested in a political future.

An OLO thread on Wyatt Roy: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3807&page=0

>'precautionary principle' is insane, i.e. "let's destroy our economy, just in case this failed theory is right".

Yes you've got it in one. It's like saying "We need to kill large numbers of people now, because otherwise large numbers of people might die in the future."

It never seems to occur to the interventionists that by tinkering with the machinery that currently supports large numbers of lives, they are likely to cause large numbers of deaths. They will accept neither disproofs in theory nor in practice.

The order of society currently supporting six billion people is, like language, a product of human action, but not of human design. Contrary to authoritarian myth, it cannot just be re-shaped at will by passing laws - except to make it more wasteful. Even if you had one policeman assigned 24/7 to every member of the earth's population, it still can't be done, no matter how pious the beliefs of the enthusiasts.

Apt quote in haiku form from George Fripley - very relevant to the election.

The people have to choose
Between a rock and hard place
Suffer in your jocks!

CO2,

"Partly or wholly overturning our modern fossil fuel based civilisation, based on a man-made myth for which there is no evidence, may not only turn out to be regrettable, but also based on some Green commentary, irreversible."

Unfortunately, our thirst for cheap energy and imperative for infinite growth are both on a collision course with the finiteness of our natural resources.

I do believe that human activity is intensifying the greenhouse effect. However, even if you don't, there are plenty of other reasons to phase out fossil fuels - not least of which the fact that energy production cannot increase beyond the next decade, or two at the most (and global oil production is already in decline).

What this means is that our modern economy is going to be destroyed anyway, and certainly within my lifetime.

This gives us two questions to consider. Firstly, we know the car we're driving is definitely going to stop moving, and we can either hit the brakes or hit the trees. Secondly, even this question would be of a far lesser consequence if we weren't driving a car at all. Ultimately, we don't need to mitigate the problem: we will need an entirely different way of thinking.

We have far more serious problems in society than climate change, but if we can't get this discussion right, even after nearly 40 years, we'll be in even worse shape to deal with the next one.

Cheers,

Aaron

Aaron Nielsen,
Again this is a case of 'did you get party authorization for this ad'.
NB I am no fan of any party, as I believe they are a good part of the problem pandering to the almighty election win as an end in its self.
One can almost here the victors saying the morning after "Well that strategy worked, now we've won, *what* are we really going to do now."

The Greens would be " well that strategy worked, thank goodness we don't have to actually implement our policies. Now what are we going to do now".

Untill the Dems lost their way they at least had the policy of "keeping the B's honest".

The difference is that the Greens have to accommodate as part of their base the extremist. The public knew what they really stood for people and as such extremism has no part in their ambitions. Because of the greens narrow focus logic dictates that the extreme ends are closer to the mean and therefore one can't be that sure how dogmatic they will be.

Peter Hume

>'precautionary principle' is insane, i.e. "let's destroy our economy, just in case this failed theory is right".<
Your assertion that the precautionary principle means absolute or instant dismantling of our current structures is simply bad logic or a reflection of r emotional political bias.

IMO Any argument that assumes either of opposing extremes are the only options are so naive as to be practically unworthy of serious consideration.