C J Morgan

I query your original assertion and that is changing the subject? Good one.

CJM, "Of course the Greens favour phasing out coal exports, because they are environmentally unsustainable."

Phasing out? That is not what Greens leader Bob Brown says unless he is doing a back flip, because his period of notice has run out. He did say, 'ban..within the period of a government':

'BROWN: To suddenly ban coal exports would be massively dislocating [KELLY: Absolutely]… but we have to do it.. and we have to do it within a period of a government… [KELLY: within a period of one government?] …that should be the sort of aim we’re looking at…'

http://www.crikey.com.au/2007/02/09/bob-browns-coal-stance-sends-politicians-into-a-panic/

Since you asked, on balance I do not oppose the Palmer deal because:

- China will source coal from poorer quality fields if not from Qld;

- we are not our brother's keeper and in all conscience cannot refuse China unreasonably or outright (as proposed by the Greens); and

- with the state of Qld's economy, the jobs and income are needed (of no interest to the Greens though).

International co-operation on global warming and on environmental matters generally can only be achieved through respectful relations and empathy for the problems being faced domestically and internationally by other countries.

Progress will never be achieved by flipping other countries like China the bird as favoured by the Greens. As the Crikey article implied, the Greens get votes out of appearing militant and they are never accountable for the result as the government would be.

My views on Labor's Big Australia? Opposed and for the reasons I have elaborated on in other threads.

As Pericles said, it now looks like all the backslapping was somewhat premature. Good.

For Cornflower's benefit, the current relevant Qld Greens policy is:

<< The Queensland Greens want to:

Plan a managed reduction and ultimately a cessation of Queensland's dependence on fossil fuels in the transition to a low carbon economy based on new and job-rich sustainable industries that draw upon renewable energy resources, including solar, wind and geothermal. This will include a transition from reliance on coal for a substantial part of state revenues. >>

http://qld.greens.org.au/policies/climate-change-and-energy

Also, while the media like to portray Bob Brown as the "leader" of the Australian Greens, he isn't. Unlike the other major political parties, the Greens don't have a leader as such. Bob is very influential and is authorised to speak on behalf of the Greens, but he can't impose his personal views on the Party, unlike e.g. the ALP or the LNP.

While I'm correcting Cornflower's disinformation, the Greens certainly do not favour "massive immigration" as she dishonestly claims. It's the ALP and the Coalition that want a bigger population for Australia, while the Greens want such immigration that does occur to be based on humanitarian grounds.

I further note that Cornflower's various reasons for supporting the coal industry make no reference whatsoever to the environmental sustainability with which she claims to have long been concerned.

<< Don't worry about the CO2 Ludwig, everybody else is in the process of forgetting about it. The real problem is actually selling it no doubt for a fixed price for 20 years to China. >>

Bazz, setting aside the issue of CO2 emissions and AGW for the moment, there are indeed still huge problems with this deal.

Yes we are selling our primary non-renewable resources far too cheaply. But surely the price won’t remain fixed for 20 years, which would mean a steadily declining price in real terms. And surely it is not geared to inflation either. It is got to be at least somewhat flexible, doesn’t it? I guess none of us plebs are privy to that sort of information (:>|

But by far the biggest problem is the dual issue of us still being stuck in the non-renewable energy era and of constantly making it harder for ourselves to get out of it by delaying action on alternative energy sources and by constantly and rapidly increasing the scale of our dependency.

Our governments, state and federal, just couldn’t be worse in this regard.

<< But I would still like to ask you which is the more likely. We manage to find efficient sources of renewable energy i) with or ii) without the benefit of revenues from coal exports. >>

Pericles, we can’t just stop exporting or using coal. We’ve got to wind it down. We can then continue utilising it at a much lower rate. So it is not a matter of doing away with the benefit or revenues earned from coal, it is a matter of finding a good combination of its usage and renewable energy sources.

The increased revenue from this huge coal deal could and should be largely put into the development of alternative energy sources, improved efficiencies and the development of a sustainable society.

As I said earlier, this deal could be a very good thing, if we could just get our collective psyche off of the continuous expansion spiral and come to embrace the notions of a stable population, steady-state economy and sustainable society.

<< And hey, it's not even as if we're using the stuff. They are. >>

Yes but we are using the export income, and becoming dependent on it. So when it disappears or is reduced, we’ll all be in a pickle… especially given that income earned from coal exports is going predominantly into propping up the same standard of living for ever-more people in this country instead of improving quality of life for established residents.

We have left it too late to have time to develop alternate sources of
energy. Even if geothermal turns out to be very successful it will
take years and years to get prototype plants sorted out.
They are on a steep learning curve in Sth Aus with their wells and
controlling the steam. They have significant difficulties, so before
they have say several big plants running it will probably be 20 years.

Anyone who thinks that we will be shutting down coal fired power
stations any time in the next ten years, or perhaps even 20 years is
fooling themselves as well as you. Some will be converted to gas, but
gas will be too valuable to burn like that.
The above is the main reason the greens will never get anywhere, they
are prepared to put us all in the dark for almost no measurable
difference to the earths temperature.

It is now time to be selfish and think of our own grandchildren abd
let others think of theirs.

I am amazed at the number of people who want to spend tax payer funds on publicly funded research, into energy.

OK, there has been a little usefull stuff came out of the CSIRO, in years gone by, [long gone now], & it works for basic medical research, but nothing to do with basic energy has ever come from it. In fact very little has ever come out of it.

It was private enterprise that discovered the energy in wood, harnessed the energy in coal, petroleum, liquid & gas, & even developed the energy in falling water. Government only got in the way with regulations, [to enable taxes to be gathered], or by tilting the playing field, to favour friends.

Nuclear is one prime example where government interference pushed development the wrong way, at least where he consumers benefit is concerned.

So, if we want alternative energy to ever happen we must get governments, & their bl00dy bureaucrats out of the way. All their interference does is muddy the waters, & make it harder for viable, economic technologies to come through.

Right now we have proof that ex rock stars government ministers, don't make good decisions, in the public interest, but then, neither do ex bureaucrats make good prime ministers, so he's not alone in his green fiasco. If we could just get the rock star to spend as much time overseas as the PM, we'd get less stuff-ups. The less time either of them have to plan things, & make silly decisions, the less stupp-ups we'll have.