I've been reading the Greens' transport ideas and many of them make sense but

"Aims
The Greens NSW work to:
Greenhouse gas reduction and energy efficiency....

24. Phase out the use of semi-trailers and B-doubles as the major form of freight transport and replace them with a combination of rail, maritime transport and non-articulated trucks running on renewable energy"

has me a bit bemused as, from my experience, semi-trailers are more fuel efficient than rigid trucks, are more practical and do less damage to roads, addedto which the trailer part of the combination can be sent by rail and then coupled to and delivered by the prime mover which returning can then deliver another trailer etc.

You're wasting your time here Is Mise.

There wouldn't be a single green supporter with enough engineering savvy to understand what you're talking about.

I wonder what renewable energy they are talking about for a heavy transport fuel. Surely not ethanol, which takes more petroleum energy to produce than it supplies, & produces more greenhouse gas than it saves.

Hasbeen,

One can but hope!!

Is Mise and Hasbeen,

Obviously you pair don't live in the vicinity of Port Botany, Australia's busiest container port, nor are you subjected to the road traffic congestion associated with that facility, and the lack of freight rail, due to the use of the single Cooks River line, which was built to service Bunnerong Power House (long gone) in the 1930's. A fright line that is only single and incapable of moving double stacked containers.

Hasbeen, as an Engineer I'll put my qualification up against yours anyday. Dr John Kaye a Greens member of the NSW Parliament is also a qualified engineer. You must be trapped in some kind of 'time warp' as you can't envisage progress of any kind. With all that 19th century thinking. No offence but I'm sure you guys must be around 80 years of age, if not, your thinking certainly is.

Is Mise, Since you were bemused, I take it you favor an increase in greenhouse gas emissions and a reduction in energy efficiency.

http://www.busaustralia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=28349

Is that Is Mise and Hasbeen I see at the controls of that steam locomotive?

Paul,

I'm 81 and a fierce advocate of steam for locomotive purposes and I'm sure Hasbeen would make a good mate on the footplate, however we digress.

What has me intrigued is the Greens' preference for rigid trucks over semi-trailers.
I just can't see it.

Another thing that I'd like to know is how many acres of land would need to be under cultivation to supply the needs of the Greens envisaged fuel requirements; perhaps you could tell us, Paul, as you've said that the Greens have fully funded their policies.

Is Mise, I was out by a year. We changed from acres to hectares, 14th February 1966, 50 years ago next year, do you think you could get with the times? Ah, in favor of old stem locos, 4% energy efficiency at the wheels, hummm possibly not. Do you think possible one day Australia will be capable of building a hydroelectric scheme in the Snowy Mountains? Possibly not.

Paul,

I know that we changed from acres to hectares but acres will always be with us.

Look at the ads,

"ACRES-ACRES-ACRES

A fine 20 hectare property......"

Simply because A comes before H in the alphabet and thus one's ad goes to the top of the column.

Steam locomotives are very efficient for society, they require more service personnel, more maintenance personnel and more crew members thus providing more jobs. They can be built locally, equals more jobs.
They require more depots and thus more jobs in regional areas, more services not directly in support of the railways but supporting the town and the workers that live there.

Steam locomotives are good for society.

Is Mise, a casual read of this forum may conclude you are making with de joke, but I know you too well on here for that, you are dead serious about the locos.
I can just picture you thundering across the American prairie in a carriage behind a steam locomotive. Dressed in your oil skins, with a big droopy mustache, the spitting image of 'Buffalo' Bill Cody, your trusty blunderbuss at the ready, shooting bison at will, as you steam by.

Is Mise, I like steam locomotives despite their inefficiency and their high CO2 emissions. But your claim of being more efficient for society because they require more jobs is completely wrong. They're LESS efficient for society for precisely that reason! Employing more people for that purpose means they're not able to be employed for a more productive purpose.

As for the Greens' transport policy, I don't think they've thought that particular part of it through at all well (though as it would be a very slow phaseout during which time the policy would no doubt be amended, that probably wouldn't've mattered much even if they had got to form government). I'm guessing they favoured rigid trucks over semis for safety reasons, but it really isn't practical even though rigid container trucks do exist.

As for running on renewable energy, it could mean biofuel which, contrary to Hasbeen's claims about ethanol, does have a positive (though low) net energy return. Or maybe they favour using electric trucks for drayage, Combined with a massive expansion of renewable energy generation, that could be a sensible long term policy, and it would deliver enormous air quality benefits to Sydney.

You were obviously a government engineer Paul1405, or government consultant engineer, if you are in fact one.

What the hell would you do with a rail line from Port Botany, & to where would you run your trains. Obviously to all thinking people, trains must run to a goods yard. Goods must get from that yard to destinations far from such depots, & very widely dispersed.

It really sounds like green engineering to load containers onto a train in Botany, take them somewhere else, then unload them again, before starting their final distribution by TRUCK. Hell you could even build that freight depot out where land is cheap at Campbell town or somewhere similar. That should use up some of that eco fuel.

As usual, green thinking that stops half way, perhaps helping a favored area, but bring 6 new problems, all requiring more tax money to cure.

God help us.

The Greens don't frame policies a such because to do so would be contrary to their modus operandi as human headlines, NSW 'Watermelon' Greens David Shoebridge is a case example, and niche as a protest party, not a serious contender for government, ever.

It is a jolly good cruise for any Greens politician. All s/he has to do is flick the smelly stuff at everyone else, confident in the knowledge that the media don't bother with the Greens and the publicly-funded ABC gives the Greens free podiums and never fact-checks them. Just polish those fine leather seats in the Parliament and cop the benefits, while others do the hard yards on comprehensive policies and integration, plus paying for it.

Referring to the Greens transport 'policy' as mentioned in the OP, it is yet another of the Greens slack rolling the arm over instead of sending down well-aimed bowls. Because as usual, all this local lot appear to have done is fudge some stuff however inappropriate and wrong from elsewhere, probably the UK Greens and re-cobble it for Australian consumption.

Not that it matters to the Greens of course. It is only ideological bumpf to use as protests and in activism. The real goal is society change. They earn their stripes as the political 'Watermelons'. A very thin veneer of green on the outside as camouflage, but deep pink and red the way through.

Hasbeen –

Where would the trains go? The planned freight terminal at Moorebank is the obvious answer, as well as the existing one at Chullora. Ecologically it makes good sense to have multiple rail terminals to serve Sydney's large metropolitan area; it saves significant fuel compared with a single terminal. But making it cost effective is much harder, and requires lot of automation.

Aidan, you give the game away. The existing Cooks River Goods yard can not cope with the volumes. With the center of Sydney's population now west of Parramatta, a duel line to a new terminal at Moorebank along with the existing yard at Chullora is the way to go. Nothing efficient about the existing system where trucks can queue for hours to pick up a container. Then hit the surround already congested roads.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2009-01-21/truckies-lash-out-over-patricks-terminal-delays/2579676

Unfortunately Is Mise and Hasbeen are talking from a point of ignorance on this subject, and Beach has nothing of value to add, just one of his usual anti Greens rants.

Green dreams. Costed accordingly.

If the Greens were serious about transport problems in Sydney and other capitals like Melbourne and Brisbane they would NOT be proposing open door immigration and citizenship for economic migrants. They would be highly critical of the present 200,000 pa migrant intake and totally opposed to present ethnic and business lobbying to increase to 250,000 pa.

Off goes the bumbling booby's hat, and on goes the bigoted raciest hat. Beach how many hats do you wear? Certainly no Green hats! I thought you were there hiding under the table whenever Greens policy is being discussed, seems you were missing in action when transport policy was up for an airing! Watermelon Greens, Watermelon Greens, Watermelon Greens, talk about a cracked record! But please carry on, water off a ducks back to me.

Paul1405,

That is the problem with the Greens isn't it? The Greens can get away with a gaggle of idealistic pronouncements posing as policy. The 'fact-finding' ABC and others never hold Greens policies up to scrutiny. Maybe they are thinking what is the point, where the Greens are entertainment and not serious prospects for government.

It is sufficient for the Greens to mount the podium pretending to have the high moral ground, examples being on economic migrants, transport and water (and energy) However, there is no linking between the policies, which can work against each other and be diametrically opposed.

The Greens have the luxury of always talking as though each of their 'policies' operates in a vacuum and there are no other commitments for government spending.

The Greens have idealistic and ideological wish lists, not policy. They know they will never be required to implement their 'policy' platform, nor be accountable for the likely (read as certain) negative consequences and failures.

No matter what was Greens policy, Beach with his extreme anti Greens bias would be denigrating it. I simply say, below is NSW Greens Transport policy in full, and be the judge for yourself.

http://nsw.greens.org.au/policies/nsw/transport

No one can be expected to agree with every aspect of any particular policy of any political party. I am not a Liberal Party supporter but there are aspects of their transport policy I would agree with, a second rail crossing under Sydney Harbour is Liberal policy and I agree. This Beach character is so blinkered and so rabid anti Green his opinions should be construed as less than worthless.

p/s Beach also likes to present himself as a fair minded moderate, yeah and Attila The Hun was a bleeding heart liberal. LOL

Well that certainly sounds like a Green policy.

Lets triple handle all the stuff coming off a ship, & ship it all round the place, often passing it's final destination on the way.

If a third year high school kid suggested such foolishness, they would get a big fail. However a green can seriously suggest such rubbish, & think they are clever,

Fortunately it is all pie in the sky stupidity.

Hasbeen, nothing like debating from a point of ignorance, is there for you. Many if not most containers from Port Botany are first shipped to a logistical holding yard, sometimes only a short distance from the port, before being on shipped to their final destination.

For the dummyl Ship-Road-Road-Final Destination.

Since you are such an expert Hassy I'll throw this one at you. What comes into the Qube Logistics yard at Botany, and what goes out of that yard? I'll explain in simple English, just for you. Containers come into the yard, where do those containers come from, answer container ships moored at Port Botany. What goes out of that yard, you guessed it containers! Hassy go to the top of the class.

The Greens Transport policy certainly resonated with the good voting folk of Newtown recently, not far from Port Botany. During my time there before the state election, I found very positive feed back for that particular transport Policy, seems I didn't bump into Beach, for a ear bashing of negativity about those "Watermelon Troskyist Greens'. Incidentally. well before the election I did invite Beach to nominate for the seat of Newtown, would have loved his policy of a Para-Miltary Private Army, would have went down well with the voters of Newtown as they overwhelmingly voted Green!

Greens still opposed to a rise in fuel excise? Hypocrites!

This is what happens when Greens 'policies' are subjected to scrutiny (UK example),

"Green Party leader Natalie Bennett delivered a car crash performance in one of the most cringe-worthy interviews you will ever hear.

The politician was doing the media rounds ahead of the launch of the Green Party’s General Election manifesto, when she came up against LBC radio’s Nick Ferrari.

The radio show host asked Ms Bennett how her party would pay for an additional 500,000 new social homes - part of one of its key strands of “ensuring everyone has a secure, affordable place to live."

Ms Bennett said: “Well, what we want to do is fund that particularly by removing tax relief on mortgage interests for private landlords. We have a situation where…”

Mr Ferrari asked how much that would raise, to which Ms Bennett stumbled: "Erm... well... it's... that's part of the whole costing."

The interview went from bad to worse as Ms Bennett’s pauses after the questions became longer, and she she seemed to suffer a coughing attack as Mr Ferrari drilled down into the policy."
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/natalie-bennett-listen-green-party-5220699

It goes without saying that it definitely was NOT a BBC interviewer who asked the obvious questions (that had been asked of other parties!).

In Australia the Greens have been serial nuisances disrupting the federal senate for years, BUT never has the 'fact-checking' ABC set Leigh Sales or any other serious interviewer the task of holding to account the (previous) Greens leader Bob Brown or the present Greens leader and senators.

Why has the 'fact-checking' ABC, the publicly-funded national broadcaster, consistently allowed the Greens and particularly the awful NSW 'Watermelon' Greens to fly under the radar for so many years?

Even when Bob Brown was partnered with Julia Gillard (and white-anting her daily while smirking all the time) the ABC was superficial in its infrequent interviews of Brown and giving him a free podium for petty shots and self-promotion.

A bit of Beach thinking.

I can't find anything in Australia to throw at The Greens, so I thralled the internet and lone behold I found a story 16,000 km away in England. Now let me see what I can make of that. Maybe Paul1405 should look for a redneck story from Alabama USA and throw it at my Australia First Party. Just as relevant, Now Paul1405 didn't bother reading past the first line of my story.
<<This is what happens when Greens 'policies' are subjected to scrutiny (UK example),>> What a YAWN!

Aidan,

"Is Mise,
....your claim of being more efficient for society because they require more jobs is completely wrong. They're LESS efficient for society for precisely that reason! Employing more people for that purpose means they're not able to be employed for a more productive purpose."
and do we now, as a consequence, of these more productive purposes have 100% employment?

My local council bought a dual control truck that sweeps and collects rubbish from the streets.
Unfortunately it can't sweep between parked vehicles and the kerb so it has to miss those places; it runs on imported fuel and imported tyres and needs only one man to operate it.
It was made in Germany.

It replaces a single horse dray that was a two man operation,
fuel was grown locally, the dray was made locally, the tyres and the horse's shoes were made locally and the wages supported two families.
The horse system was more efficient if only because the sweepers could sweep the whole length of the gutters, parked vehicles being no problem; the by product from the exhaust system was immediately usable on the garden
True only one wage is now paid but there is the interest on the purchase loan for the sweeper and the money borrowed went to Germany.
With the Horse and cart system there are more jobs and all the outlay stays in the municipality.

Council periodically bleats about the lack of local industry etc.

Paul,

You still haven't told us the Greens' costing for all that alternative fuel that is to power our transport and you haven't addressed the Greens' preference for rigid trucks over the articulated variety.

Is Mise, maybe I should be warming to your policy, of a horse and cart form of transport, Is that offical Shooters Party transport policy? Well, if things go badly you can always shoot the horse, ah!
What about the Ancient Egyptian form of transport 10,000 slaves pulling things along on rollers, think of the employment that creates. That is better that your parties present none existent transport policy.

Is Mise,

No, we don't have full emoloyment because the government isn't spending the savings on employing people for a more productive purpose (nor enabling the private sector to do likewise). Instead it's pursuing the illusion of economic responsibility by trying to run a surplus at a time when it's actually very economically irresponsible to do so.

And why are you expecting Paul to explain the reasoning behind a seemingly illogical aspiration in the Greens' transport policy? How would he know?

Paul,

As usual your comprehension is taking second place to your frustrated desire to be a comic.
Street sweeping is not really a form of transport.

You still haven't told us the Greens' costing for all that alternative fuel that is to power our transport and you haven't addressed the Greens' preference for rigid trucks over the articulated variety.

and Aidan, Paul knows, because he knows all the 'important' Greens and he also knows just where to find their costings because he told us that the Greens policy wss fully funded.

Is Mise, prior to the 2015 State Election Greens policies were submitted to the NSW State Treasury for a costing annalists. Now, if you wise, you could hitch up your horse and cart and take a trip down to the NSW Treasury and have a peak-a-boo for yourself. Or are you one of those, pinko, commie, bolshy, lazy lay-abouts who expects others, in this case me, to do their work for them. I expect all the relevant info with your next post! So snap to it!

Paul and Is Mise, the Greens didn't actually promise to do anything specific to that effect. I don't think the treasury costed aspirations; only policies to do things.

If you want the answer you're going to have to ask the Greens yourself.

Aidan

I'm not asking for anything Is Mise is the one asking. You can not cost an aspiration. Bob Hawke "By 1990 no child will be living in poverty." Bob couldn't cost that and nor can many things political parties put up be coasted to the nth degree.

Yes, Paul, you're not the one asking, but you're the one misdirecting Is Mise to the NSW treasury, so it was appropriate for me to address my comment to you too.

Paul,

I don't want a costing to the Nth degree just a reasonable estimate will do; and there must surely have been some discussion among you Green engineers as to the desirability of rigid trucks over articulated ones.

You told us that you're an engineer, surely my question is not outside the field of engineering.

Is Mise, as a transport engineer it's in my field, and further up this thread I've already speculated that it could be for safety reasons. But I also stated that it's badly thought through, and should the Greens ever be in a position to implement their transport policy, they'd abandon that part of it rather than trying to implement it.

Like every other green's policy, the transport policy is work of fantasy designed to appeal to the technically challenged left whingers. Semi trailers and B doubles exist because per unit of freight they are cheaper to run and more energy efficient, and banning them would drive up GHG emissions.

Transport policy needs to cater for all transport types, and while I would agree with a terminal at port botany, I don't see the use of rail being the answer to many more freight issues. While train freight costs should be much cheaper the reality is that the heavily unionised rail service is generally more expensive, and needs substantial subsidisation to begin to compete with road transport.

SM driven by some ideological ignorant fantasy of yours;

<< While train freight costs should be much cheaper the reality is that the heavily unionised rail service is generally more expensive, and needs substantial subsidisation to begin to compete with road transport.>>

Port Botany container movements per day 2,900 2010 to estimated 4,700 by 2021. 14% by rail 2010. All movements = approximate 2/3 imports 1/3 export.
Rail movements per day = 30 in 2010, would need to increase to 70 by 20121 to obtain 20% rail movements, physically impossible with the existing installation has a maximum daily capacity of 35 movements. The most recent figures has road movements at 86%.
Road movements are in two forms (1) Road Direct 20% to 25% of all movements, and Road via Transport Depot 60% to 65%.
The average cost per movement is;

(1) Road direct $458
(2) Road/depot $634
Rail $476, not subsidised.

Given that Sydney already experiences significant arterial road congestion, without significant investment on road infrastructure the delay cost attached to road transport will increase substantially over the next 5 years. (Sydney Ports Authority).

I present facts not ill informed opinion.
Draw your own conclusions. The Greens and rail, the Liberals and road. Who is in fantasy land!

Shadow, despite that small flaw which is only an aspiration anyway (they certainly WEREN'T promising to ban them if they gained enough votes to form government in their own right) the Greens' transport policy was on the whole more sensible than those of Labor and Liberal. Which I admit isn't saying much.

Rail is intrinsically more efficient than road for moving large volumes of freight. The problem is terminal operating costs, not unions – the days when unions had a major influence on freight train operation are long gone. And increased automation is reducing the terminal operating costs.

Paul,

Thanks for the figures, but Railcorp get a subsidy of nearly $2bn a year otherwise they would not be able to compete at all.

The cheapest and quickest is to ship a container directly via road. The alternative road cost is via a depot which involves one trip to the depot and a second to the destination, which adds a double handling cost. The cost of rail essentially covers the cost of shipping to the station, but does not include the on shipping cost, and is not an accurate comparison, thus even the subsidised rail cost is not entirely competitive.

Secondly, as stations for freight are relatively far apart, the road option is generally faster and cheaper, which makes rail convenient only for shipping long distance, and considering that majority of cargo handled by Botany is destined for Sydney, rail is only a niche solution.

Aidan,

But you see, the greens tout these aspirational goals as policies, when they are just populist sloganeering. Ideas that sound good as long as the consequences are ignored. The greens have never submitted policies for costing, because they would lose all credibility.

If you compare rail from station to station, to road along a similar route, then rail is cheaper and more efficient. However, once all the other issues of accessibility and double handling creep in, the story is very different.

Here is another pearl. The Greens support using biofuels as long as it does not compete with food production. Well duh, it pretty much all does to some degree.

Shadow, I don't think those aspirational goals (which they list as aims) were even populist sloganeering. They're simply ill thought out. But that doesn't mean "the greens have never submitted policies for costing". Paul says they have. Are you calling him a liar?

The cheapest way to ship a container depends on where it's going. Of course handling costs are a major part of the rail cost, hence my comments about automation. AIUI rail transport is becoming more competitive in more situations, as most of the possible improvements to road transport have already been made. The Sydney area is huge and there is great potential for more freight terminals. But it goes without saying that there is a large part of the market where rail will never be competitive.

And there's much of Australia where food production is not viable; some of this land could be used for biofuels. So though I disagree with that aim, it isn't as stupid as you seem to think it is.

And how much of Railcorp's two gigabuck annual subsidy is for lines which aren't even used by freight trains?

To quote "In general, the Greens’ policies is a ramshackle collection. They resemble the unedited record of an extended workshop of strident and diverse interest groups pushing their own barrows and narrow ideologies – doomsayer environmentalists, anti-globalisers, gender
politicians, indigenous activists, welfare professionals, industrial relations club members and disappointed adherents of the old Left.
They are as populist and as pork-barrelling at the other parties – just aimed at the hip pocket of a far more Left wing- crowd.
But underneath this diversity, and despite a number of startling internal contradictions, there lies a common theme. The Green policy
framework could be said to be revolutionary. If enacted, it would radically alter existing policies and political processes. It is not new, however. Its philosophy is now more than a century old."

As for the greens costing, while they have cherry picked some token policies or policy fragments for (generally populist tax hikes on business or the wealthy) they have never submitted all their major policies (and not released some costings they did get). This is like doing the household budget whilst excluding 70% of the costs.

Aidan, "there's much of Australia where food production is not viable; some of this land could be used for biofuels"

In the very dry marginal land of Australia, what biofuels might be produced economically and at what cost to diesel fuel and water? Talking about that latter, the Greens make dam building quite impossible with their bloody-minded political opportunism.

If global warming is a factor, that would make the production highly risky to impossible.

I think you may find that biofuel crops are displacing food crops. For example, maize for fuel replacing soybean for food.

Apart from that, biofuel production is not without environmental and social impacts. In places like South America, is clearing of forests for biofuel is better or worse than clearing the forests for food?

My criticism of Greens 'policies' is that the words are only green slogans, pegs for mantras and activism to appeal to an easily influenced audience, particularly youth, who are willing to suspend their own judgement and are being ruthlessly and shamelessly scared witless by pronouncements of imminent doom.

There is internal competition and conflict in Greens environmental 'policies' However the Greens are unfussed by that because they are actually about social change and the environment is just a hammer to sledge and de-stabilise government (of either major party).

That is not to say that many Greens members themselves are not worried about the environment. However one only has to look at the record of the Greens in the federal Senate to arrive at the inescapable conclusion that the green cloak is fine for rhetoric and headlines, but their major political deals behind the scenes always put Greens' far left social reengineering first and foremost.

The Greens are an utterly cynical, inappropriately titled, protest party, that is all.

Unfortunately, poor old SM continues to talk from a point of ignorance. The Port Botany freight line is operated by a private company. My partners d-in-law works for Qube.

The trains currently servicing the port include the following operators:

Qube Intermodal Shipping Terminal at Minto is using Qube Logistics as its rail provider for its Port Botany shuttle.
Pacific National is operating the Manildra Group’s Manildra and Nowra rail services.
Qube Logistics is servicing clients in the Central West, including Dubbo, Bathurst and Naramine.
Qube Logistics, Pacific National and Freightliner are servicing clients in the North West, including Narrabri, Wee Waa, Moree and Tamworth.
Pacific National services the Blayney intermodal site on behalf of Linfox.
Qube Logistics is the rail operator for their intermodal site at Yennora.

A typical Liberal mushroom! No wonder The Greens done so well at the recent state election.

Then there is Beach who chimes in with his typical anti Green hogwash!

AND I have not even started on the total cock up in this state that is Baird's Coal Seam Gas policy, its a total joke. These fools had claimed CSG is an absolute necessity due to the looming "gas crises" the state faces. NO SUCH CRISES EXISTS! In fact there is a surplus supply of gas over the next 20 years. The Liberals and Nationals were out to destroy the states best agricultural lands for the financial benefit of a few CSG blood sucking multinationals!

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-15/right-all-along-about-no-looming-gas-crisis3a-anti-csg-group/6393272

Aidan, in recent times The Greens have also submitted their policy for costing both state and federal. Famously it was The Coalition who refused to submit policies for costing a while back, when Labor was in government. Claiming they did not have time or they said they would get shafted or something, so they came up with their own set of rubbery figures.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/grogonomics/2013/sep/05/greens-credit-upfront-costings

Paul1405,

It is easy to tell when you are on the defensive.

Greens 'policies' cannot be assessed without considering the very flawed Greens ideology that prioritises the 'Big State' central planning and control model that has failed elsewhere in the world. The Greens are totalitarian.

I already mentioned (and you ducked) the inconsistent and flawed Greens immigration idealism that rejects the present intake of educated and skilled migrants. Instead, the Greens want to solve the world's overpopulation through opening the doors to economic migrants. State Premiers have lashed federal governments for decades about migrants flocking to the major capitals, overloading available services and housing.

To top it off, the federal, State and local government tax burdens for new infrastructure and services (not forgetting Centrelink) are according to the fed's own reports crushing young income earners and preventing young working couples from ever having the children they want.

-Not that the Greens ideologues are concerned about that, because the lunar 'One World Government' Greens are opposed to young Australian couples having children. That is notwithstanding that the huge growth in population is due to the feds setting new records for migrant intakes, year upon year and for decades.

Here are the Australian Greens in action and never forget their political idealism,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0FmFOGnf10

Since Bob ('Make me the first World President') Brown took his golden handshake from the taxpayer and decamped to sail the Seven Seas as a pirate with Sea Shepherd, the barking mad 'Watermelon' Greens have gained greater strength. Now the 'green' in the Greens serves the sole purpose of being a distraction for the pink and red mass of social policies.

Paul,

10 out of 10 for effort, but no cigar. Because the railway has private operators in way indicates that they are not subsidized. Just as the private bus operators would rapidly go bankrupt if they had to rely on passenger fares only.

Reality (which generally eludes the greens) is that rail is the appropriate mode of transport for a minority of goods in spite of its efficiency.

As for CSG, I am not surprised you are against it, as the greens oppose nearly all forms of industry except windfarms and the production of bunnies and rainbows.

As for the costings, the coalition is the first opposition party to ever submit overall budget costings to treasury, and even then Rudd and Swan crookedly tried to pass off their own biased costings of coalition policy as those of treasury.

As for the greens "costings" these in no way constituted a budget plan only thought bubble policies, of which Labor released only a fraction of the costings that Treasury returned.

When it comes to the workings of Australia's largest container port, Port Botany in Sydney, sadly Shadow you are totally ignorant, like the other conservative posters on the forum, yet continue to make grossly ill-informed comment. You certainly prove the old adage "Empty vessels make the most noise.", or is that "ignorance is bliss", take your pick.
The local Greens around the port have been involved since day one, not much an ill-informed conservative can add to the debate.

Paul,

I have spent a decade within a few hundred meters of port botany, in heavy industry shipping out hundreds of thousands of tonnes of product every year. So I doubt what a effete green like you could ever teach me about port botany. Quoting a few out of context statistics simply shows your ignorance.

Logistics is more than simple point to point efficiency (thus the success of air freight). Handling costs and the time value of product in transport often trumps a few dollars saved. The flatulent noise that is green policy is a joke that anyone with a jot of technical expertise can blow a hole through. Good greens policy is an oxymoron.

Shadow, not only are The Greens opposed to Coal Seam Gas and its inevitable destruction of the environment, take a look at the swings against sitting National Party MP's in the recent state election. Lismore a 21% swing, Ballina, Nationals down 28%. The Conservatives own constituency on the ground, farmers do not support it, it will destroy their way of life. That however never concerns your side of politics when there is a quid to be made.
How about a comment on how wrong the Baird Government is at estimating the gas requirements for the state over the next 20 years. Crying that there was going to be a huge shortage of gas unless CSG came on line only to be shown up a out of touch and in fact there will be a surplus.
Could this be like Liberal Party corruption and developers, a new phase of the corruption saga for the Coalition, looking after their benefactors.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/csg-santos-and-oil-giants-revealed-as-major-donors-to-national-party-20140206-324o3.html

Paul,

There are hundreds of CSG wells in Aus, and in none of them are any signs of your predicted apocalypse, but as most Australians I am aware of the hysterical overstatements from the greens, and their hatred of any industry.

Also given the thrashing Labor got at the last election a swing was expected, but with still a strong win for the coalition.

Shadow I am no supporter of The Labor Party, but I note you made no reference to the fantastic result achieved by The Greens in NSW. As late as today I am pleased to announce that the 21st seat in the NSW LC went to a Greens preferenced candidate Mark Pearson, the newly elected representative of the Animal Justice Party Mark will be sitting on the cross-benches.
Since this thread is now about all things Green. I offer no apology for using the "C" word in relation to the Liberal Party, yes it was I who referred to them as the new CORRUPTION PARTY.
Since both the Liberal and Labor Parties have no stomach, for strengthening the powers of the ICAC to investigate state corruption, for obvious reasons. Who can forget the Labor Godfather, the corrupt, Eddie Obeid or the conga line of corrupt Liberals fronting the ICAC. It has been left to The Greens Jamie Parker to introduce legislation to give the ICAC the necessary teeth to get hold of these corrupt Labor and Liberal politicians and their corrupt mates in unions and big business. Great work Jamie.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/greens-to-introduce-bill-to-shore-up-icacs-powers-following-margaret-cunneen-ruling-20150416-1mm98x.html

Paul,

You want to go there again. Especially given the deeply corrupt nature of the greens taking a $1,5m bribe.

Lets recall the idiots of the gangreen moron party.

Christine Minge,
Disease Rhiannon,
Jamie Porker,
Syphylitic Hanson Young,

I can go on and on.

Shadow, when you have nothing, you simply make up "FANTASY", a pathetic attempt at best. To almost quote you 'none out of 10 for effort, but no cigar, not even a cigarette butt for that one.
Still no comment on the fantastic Green result in NSW?

Paul,

I am actually quite pleased with the damage the greens are doing to labor. So While the greens are tearing seats away from labor, labor is trying to out green the loonies on the left, whilst giving away seats in the middle to the coalition.

PS you have not congratulated the libs on their resounding win.

Thought I'd drop in for a bit....

So...let's see?

SM:

"Lets recall the idiots of the gangreen moron party.

Christine Minge,
Disease Rhiannon,
Jamie Porker,
Syphylitic Hanson Young,

I can go on and on."

Hmmmm.....

This guy writes this puerile smutty bilge in all seriousness! - as some kind of representation of right-wing mentality.

Shadow Minister's posts would be more at home scrawled on the back of a toilet door at some elite boys school.

Gawd help us....