Ok Col, you voted for the Howard coalition.
Moving on ... what do you think Turnbull's coalition should do in response to Rudd's proposal?

Your rant about Rudd abusing national resources is a joke, right?

It appears you are accusing Rudd of the very same characteristics you display yourself. Dump on him all you like, but it smacks of hypocrisy and arrogance - I believe they have a name for this type of defense mechanism.

You may be a great accountant (you allude to your great deeds often enough - talk about ego) so, I would like to see your comments on this:

http://onlineopinion.com.au/documents/articles/GCA_Policy_Note02.pdf

discussed recently on OLO here:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8307

Anyone?

examinator I know the bush, truly know it, while most areas do have worthwhile trees, plants and wildlife some is far too degraded to grow or support much.
That should be our first choice to grow trees, north of a village called Kew, south of port Mac Quarrie plantation hard wood grows in recycled sewage, two jobs in one.
The land on the old Pacific highway around Karuah could produce trees we could use in 50 years while replanting two for every one we take.
Rudd is a leader, he has got it right, Turnbull is nearly forced to vote with the government.
But unlikely to.
Conservatives like a broken record are stuck in a grove opposition for oppositions sake.
Radical conservationist get too much press, but little true support.
Consider these idiotic ideas, stop using coal now before finding an alternative?
Electric cars for all, even in the bush ? trips can be 500 klm long , even more a day.
Find alternatives, yes we must, but give up our lifestyle to stop one percent of the worlds total, and change nothing? stupid.
Col you do your case no justice with the anti left comments in every thread, as a firmly placed left of center lefty I fear those on the extreme right much more, forgive me if I am wrong but I place you there based on years of comments.
Extremes right or left will not impact on this debate and nor should they.

Fractelle, I for one hope we don't get too many of those green jobs you are raving about.

The leader in your green industries is Gremany. Currently it costs the German government $100,000 in subsidies, for every $50,000 green job created. That type of efficient industry, we just can't afford.

Then we have the Ethanol industry, another fast growing "green" industry. It does have a few problems though.

It has pushed the price of food so high that a recent UN studdy has shown there are now an extra 80 million people suffering hunger from food shortages.

Like our German industries, it requires huge subsidies to make the product competitive, & it has now become obvious that producing a litre of ethanol liberates more CO2, than does the litre of oil based fuel it replaces. That's what I call a real green sccess.

We all now know that an increase in CO2 will cause no problems to the earth, & infact will be beneficial to mankind, but of course that is of no interest to any greenie, is it?

Then the lovely wind power. For Denmark the leaders in this folly, latest figures are wind power represents 30% of their installed generating capacity, but produces only 6% of the power thay use. That is the wind power produces only 20% of it's clained capacity, & that at 2.5 times the cost of conventional generation. Sounds like another great win for the green industries to me.

May we in Oz be protected from such success.

I have no problems with the search for cleaner fuels.
Or attempts to cut green house gases.
I would like to see more effort to stop pollution.
We are just starting the search, we could make fuel, ethanol, from vegetation not existing food stocks, we may, will , find a way one day.
Or we may find a totally different clean fuel.
I do not denie green house gases, I do know if it is man made or not, we , humanity, do change the planet,some times we make it worse.
Green jobs need not be at such costs, my plantation theory planting trees on depleted ground and using them would make real jobs.
We long ago harvested too much and replaced too few trees, cut one plant two would be a start.
A thread such as this highlights the fact Green or even conservationist is used to insult in Australia.
The sooner true conservationists take back the center stage in this area the better.
We get headlines if the loonies chain themselves to a coal loader but few want to know about real progress in real conservation.
The current rabble rousing about Australia's green house gas target is mad.
If we can bring the world on board we will have achieved a great deal.

Belly wrote;
We are just starting the search, we could make fuel, ethanol, from vegetation not existing food stocks, we may, will , find a way one day.
Or we may find a totally different clean fuel.

As Hirsch said in his report to the US Energy Dept we need to start
the transition to a new energy system 20 years before the need arises.
If we leave it till 10 years before we will have major economic
problems.

It looks increasing like we will leave it till it bights us you know
where. Hirsch suggests we will have the mother of all crashes if we
wait till it happens.
While the politicians refuse to even acknowledge those two forbidden
words we are condemned to chaos at some point in the not too distant future.
The problem we face is that no one knows of a portable energy with
an energy density anywhere near that of oil.
There seems to be good chemical reasons that we will not find anything
that is as usable than oil. Any substitute will be a compromise.

I have gone from agnostic to skeptic. It is a great excuse for a tax and a gravy train for public servants who can take on the climate change jobs.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/stories/2008/2428150.htm