The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Aussie farmer nearing death over AGW Hoax

Aussie farmer nearing death over AGW Hoax

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. ...
  10. 14
  11. 15
  12. 16
  13. All
I think this discussion is being over complicated.
Australia has complied with Kyoto because of a halt to land clearing.
Australia gets brownie points for having done so.
Condition; the individual farmer cannot be compensated.

Question; if it is of benefit to the whole community, should not that
community pay for it ?
Posted by Bazz, Wednesday, 23 December 2009 10:02:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Belly
I did admit I did not know all the particulars of this case other than listening to the Alan Jones interview which is of course offering a very particular bias.

On the face of it, we don't want broadscale clearing as CJ pointed out but it is incongruous that we compensate those larger industries who have strong lobby groups, such as coal, and ignore the contribution of farmers.

I agree we should not be continually clearing land. It is hypocritical for us to continue clearing land for farming while we criticise foreign governments for doing same.

However those who have made a living out of it should not now be penalised, and in fact should be encouraged to plant more trees.

If we can afford to bail out sport and racing industries, fund corporates in car manufacturing, fossil fuels and many more, why not push some of this down to the smallest component - the individual.

PJ O'Rourke, who I don't have much in common with as it happens, did say one thing that resonated on Q&A. Rather than bail out the banks who were responsible through greed for the financial crisis, why not use these billions of dollars to repay the bank customer and let the banks fall. Other banks will come in their place. We reward this greed with a bail out and little more in the way of regulation (in the US case).

Peter Spencer has a right to air his views in any manner he pleases whether we agree with him or not. I hope for his family and friend's sake that he does not do himself harm. But he obviously feels strongly about his cause.

Belly as a unionist you would know that blackmailing governments or corporations through strikes or stunts like Spencer's is sometimes the only way to be heard.

The postal strike is a good example. Postal workers will now be denied their usual performance bonuses for going the extra mile in terms of deliveries over Xmas while executives continue to reap millions in bonuses
Posted by pelican, Wednesday, 23 December 2009 11:47:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I wonder if all the people ridiculing this man would hold the same opinion if their homes were to be confiscated without compensation to widen a road? After all, it would be an injustice on your behalf to deny the majority clear access to and from...

Look, this is not about global warming, pollution reduction or destruction of the environment. This is about government stealing from the people at the point of a gun!

This poor fellow was sold land that he was legally aloud to develop agriculturally. Now with the click of a leeching government finger he has been denied this right without compensation. Is this right do you think?

Would you stand by while they demolished your home to widen a road without compensation. Isn't this the same thing?
Posted by RawMustard, Wednesday, 23 December 2009 12:17:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I do wish the Christian gentle man would leave, in a hurry, you add nothing to a debate like this.
Pelican re read the racing thread no room exists to use it here.
Now this subject, it has been around for some time, put my name under C J Morgans post it talks for me.
But I know it understand the who history of it.
See walk with me here, Joyce too said pay the bloke, then it was pointed out, listen folks!
The costs would be more than this country could pay, much more than the ETS, that new super tax.
Now yes some bushy weeds are being protected.
Some land clearing can be done, some farmers should/could be compensated for growing trees.
BUT BARNABY JOYCE will not allow it!
He says we should keep the land for growing food, surely not all of it?
Some land can only grow trees, some can make its owners money only as carbon sinks, but this bloke is about none of that.
Allan Jones?, sorry nothing that comes out of that blokes mouth is of interest to me.
Posted by Belly, Wednesday, 23 December 2009 3:16:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What we appear to have here is the great case of hypercritical numbnuttery thinking.

First let me say I feel for the emotional pain of the the farmer in question. Anyone's pain is sad. I admire his sticking to his "principals?", if not his logic.

Notwithstanding, what we have here is a man who refuses to accept reality.

As I understand it, he's upset about opportunity cost, money he *may* make in the future if he clears the land. This is dependent on; the bank, the climate and competition all cooperate. What will happen if they don't? Does he do the same about being unable to get the funds, or it fails?

Isn't the point of business being able to balance the risk with the return? and if he can't , it's sad but...
On one hand he want's equality for all but in his case he want's guilt edged guarantee against change. Specifically, immunity from usage of land regs changes. Nobody gets that (except perhaps in Qld)?

He has options but he has *chosen* his way or the highway,not anyone else.

I respect his right to die for *his principal* if that is what he wants. One can wonder what good would his death or later health issues do him, his wife, children, country?

He hasn't had his land or home taken off him, only it's uses restricted, every house holder/business is subject to that.I can't build the same shed now that I need for my business that I could have 11 years ago when I bought the house, (it was permitted then and affects my life and livelihood) I now have to buy/rent an office. The only difference is the size, the issue is the same.

I find it concerning, that disingenuous power mad entertainers(?) like Jones, can pontificate on emotional tripe and influence people like Raw Mustard who haven't a clue.

I wonder if he'd be so sympathetic if it was an alternative lifestyler, Labor voter.

I agree in principal with CJ.
Posted by examinator, Wednesday, 23 December 2009 4:08:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Raw Mustard,

My apologies for not responding to you
earlier but I've been busy with Christmas
preparations.

You asked me to provide you with a website
as to where I got my information from regarding
the rejection of the PM's letter to the Aussie
farmer. The website is as follows:

http://www.australiansonline.net.au/rural/content/2009/s2778535.htm?site=local

"Farmer's hunger strike."

If you scroll down to "Day 30," you'll find the reference there.

The website also gives additional information that may
be of interest to you and other posters.
Posted by Foxy, Wednesday, 23 December 2009 7:23:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. ...
  10. 14
  11. 15
  12. 16
  13. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy