Marxists see both Left and Right liberals ("do as you likes" (ALP)/ free traders (Australian Liberal Party)) as stupid and easily manipulated. I think it was said somewhere that Traditionalism is Marxism's greatest challenge because they weren't motivated by the same things as Liberals.

CM,

I'd rather see a system that reacts against the concentration of power, so separation of powers is essential. From what I've seen of Albo with his handling of the Voice and the failed referendum, I think he sees the democratic process as something to manipulate rather than respect. He might have even less respect for koalas, especially if they stand between him and his super.

Happy thinking!

Fester said "I'd rather see a system that reacts against the concentration of power".

Yes Traditionalist also prefer to rule themselves.

Fester said "separation of powers is essential".

True.

Fester said "I've seen of Albo with his handling of the Voice and the failed referendum, I think he sees the democratic process as something to manipulate rather than respect."

Good to hear that you see things this way.

I haven't heard about Albanese's Koala's- but Koala's are a sacred Australian mammal.

Canem Malum,

By “Albo’s koalas”, I suspect Fester’s doubling-down on his claim about renewables being more environmentally destructive than nuclear power.

--

Fester,

If I’m right, then you’re wrong. (About the koalas, I mean.) The idea that land clearing for renewable energy poses a greater threat to koalas than nuclear power, and that we should therefore choose nuclear energy, doesn't hold.

The land that solar and wind farms are usually built on are marginal lands or in agricultural zones, and strict regulations and environmental assessments help to minimise the impact when this is not the case. Projects for renewable energy sources can include conservation initiatives to enhance local biodiversity, too.

Uranium mining for nuclear power may not not be located in koala habitats, but environmental risks of radioactive contamination is still cause for serious concern.

The physical space required for nuclear plants is smaller than large solar or wind farms, but the risks associated with accidents, waste storage, and long-term contamination and have significant and broad implications.

That aside, the money we’d save on a cheaper energy source that aligned with the rest of the world would leave us plenty to allocate to the maintenance and restoration of koala populations.

John,

You accuse me of believing in pseudoscience for my skepticism of multi-decadal climate models of the Earth, perhaps the most complex system ever to be modeled. Yet you believe that someone living next to a normally operating nuclear power station will be slowly poisoned by the radiation emanating from it. You believe this despite the fact that you would need to live next to the power station for several years to get a extra day of average background radiation. You believe this despite observational evidence that variations in background radiation up to twenty times the average are not found harmful, as well as evidence suggesting populations with higher exposure have lower rates of some cancer and longer lives. To hold such a view is not being pseudo scientific, it is being pseudo scientific on steroids.

"The objective was to secure energy independence, which it largely achieved. It wasn't about an absolute replacement of all energy sources but creating a resilient energy mix, which is something we should aim for now."

Um, yes the Messmer plan was about "all nuclear, all electric". You are probably using the same reasoning which founds all your other nonsensical beliefs. At least you could have the good grace to report historical facts honestly.

Fester,

My mention of pseudoscience was in reference to a broader set of beliefs centred on the denial that humans play a significant role in climate change, as suggested by your comparison of climate models to religious prophets and your lack of knowledge of their accuracy thus far.

No, I don’t believe that someone living next to a nuclear power plant will necessarily poison someone. You’re latching onto this and riding it for all it’s worth because it’s all you’ve got, but it’s a skewing of what I said. This is the second time I’ve linked you back to what I said there. Hopefully there won’t be a third:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=23028#395925

Thanks for the correction regarding Messmer. What I should have said was that the objective was to secure energy independence, and that while it focused on an extensive nuclear build-out, creating a resilient energy mix is what we should aim for in the more immediate future.