Aussie farmer nearing death as a result of AGW HOAX.
That is our subject.
How long can you live without food?
How near death was he on the day this thread came into being.
How much worse is he now.
Surely if he is near death we should drag him to hospital.
HOAX evidence says it is not just about AGW, why continue to ignore the long history to this.
Has the debts owed by this bloke got anything to do with this.
WHY are farmers, more of them, not sitting bin such nests all over Australia?

Ludwig - as you know, I'm no great fan of Rudd but I certainly think that he and his government are streets ahead of any likely alternative. I see no value at all in wasting energy on "hating" the PM, who could not lead his government if he didn't have the support of the ALP caucus. Hell, I didn't even hate the odious Howard, who was far worse in my books. Once you start hating, reason flies out the window - indeed, it's one of the problems with the kinds of debates that occur in online forums such as this.

I think that Spencer's silly protest is a hoax and a beat-up for reasons that I've clearly explained. The man is best described as a businessman/hobby farmer with little farming experience and grandiose ideas, who wants the Australian taxpayer to bail him out of the consequences of his poor business decisions and his own mismanagement of the marginal property that he acquired and subsequqntly neglected.

You want him and others like him to be compensated, but you propose no mechanism for doing so. I've suggested that the only viable and equitable way of farmers being remunerated for not engaging in broadscale land clearing is via a comprehensive and progressive ETS under which emitters pay, rather than taxpayers.

Spencer isn't a farmer. He's a businessman who's made some poor decisions that he wants somebody else to pay for.

CJ, you continue to condemn Peter, but without having addressed the all-important point of constitutional conflict and principle-of-law violation that he has been subjected to.

I respect your views, but that doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.

<< Once you start hating, reason flies out the window >>

Not at all. I guess you and I are very different in the way we think about this.

<< You want him and others like him to be compensated, but you propose no mechanism for doing so. >>

I haven’t needed to propose a mechanism so far in this discussion. The principle of compensation is what really matters here.

There’s nothing too difficult about the mechanics. It is basically just a matter of making money available as a core component of the tree-clearing legislation or carbon sink legislation of whatever you want to call it. Then undertaking a reasonable assessment as to what compensation would be appropriate on the case by case basis, with a lump sum payout being issued at the same time or not too long after the old growth / regrowth vegetation is locked up.

Or paying the difference in property values if the potential productivity of a place is significantly reduced and a landholder feels the need to move on.

Or paying half of the respective losses. Or something. But not NOTHING!

Compensation needs to be tangible, in line with the tangible restrictions imposed on landholders and not ethereal or far less tangible as it would be via an ETS.

I know you will not answer Ludwig.
But your blind hate is truly blind,to truth.
If at this very hour Tony Abbott became prime minister, with control of both houses.
He would never change the things you hate about Rudd.
Both party's while screaming abuse basically have the same growth in numbers plan for us.
No party ever could fund farmers in the way you ask, and none should, it would cost more than the proposed ETS.
I also believe you never read the Australian story, you should, hardly a left wing propaganda sheet.
He is down, poor bloke faces bankruptcy maybe but he was never ever going to achieve anything.

He’s down, after 52 days.

Well done Peter. May your mighty effort lead to some commonsense changes to the rotten compensationless aspect of the tree-clearing legislation and the rotten idea that governments can impose changes upon us in a grossly uneven manner, causing some people to lose their livelihoods while others are unaffected.

If there is one thing that should be taken from our constitution and our understanding of democracy, it is a fundamental sense of fairness, which should lead to concerted efforts being made in things like vegetation management regulations to make sure that it IS FAIR, or at least not grossly unfair to some.

----
Belly, you wrote:

<< If at this very hour Tony Abbott became prime minister, with control of both houses.
He would never change the things you hate about Rudd. >>

EXACTLY!!

I’ve said it a hundred times on OLO if I’ve said it once - the Libs and Labs are just as bad as each other!

If Abbott was in the chair and he kept on with the same sort of policies, I’d hate him just as much as I hate Rudd.

I’ve made that crystal clear Belly. I don’t understand how you don’t get it.

You seem to assume that because I detest Rudd, I must be an Abbott supporter.

Er, nooooooooo!

I do not wish to show lack of respect for you Ludwig.
Had you truly researched the issue you may well have not claimed PS is a hero, far from it.
And it appears, from your own words, you would transfer your hate to Abbott the day he took over.
What party then best matches you wants and wishes.
Is it not true none do fully? or maybe get close?
We each, must understand no government, ever could please every one, Ludwig you want a sustainable country pegged numbers, no growth in population.
Ok a nice thing , one we all should want.
But do you understand most do not share your wishes?
Most want house prices to continue to rise, if they already own one, jobs for their children.
More consumer goods.
But if you and I had our wish, would growth in our neighbors stop too?
Or would the day come we would be forced to share our land, maybe world wide commitment not just some country's is the only way it would work.