Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here

Status
Not open for further replies.
@Kul said:
@alien said:
if it was up to the greens party and that imbecile bob brown there would be no emissions and we would be living like people did in the stone age, lol

alien, whilst not supporting the Greens or any of their policies and whilst not going anywhere near suggesting that Australia or the world can/should/will drop to Zero emissions, you of all people should appreciate the options that are available that could see the world operate on zero emissions. For is it not the technology that they use in sci-fiction (which you love) that could do this and are these stories (which you love) not set in worlds with zero-emissions?

Stargate: Atlantis uses a zero-point module for power. 0% emissions
Star Wars: ion technology and other clean reactors. Sure, star wars isn't heavy in the detail but they certainly arn't using 18th century coal to power the Death Star
Star Trek: matter/anti-matter reactors power star ships, global power comes from a mixture of solar and fusion (see Star Trek 4: The Voyage Home)

all far-fetched stuff, but for someone that loves sci-fi and fantasy it's ironic that you should be against such technology and for 18th century coal burning

Australia can achieve 0% emissions (or close to it) if we adopt 20th century technology like nuclear, solar, wind, geothermal, etc…
This is opposed to 18th century technology like coal burning.
Yet you make a claim that 0% emissions would see us drop back to the stone-age. Do you not see the problem with this argument?

The Greens are crazy and Australia will never convert entirely to wind and solar; we need coal and will always have coal. But their argument that we should shift to cleaner technology is (for the most part) valid in both the long-term environmental and economic sense.

But while I'm not saying that your opinion on this topic is wrong, please refrain from saying such silly things as "zero emissions will see us living like the stone age" as I have just demonstrated that 0% emissions can be achieved without cutting our power consumption. It just makes your side of the debate look silly.
Instead you should focus on the economic and environmental debate where the argument over cost is the key for the climate-deniers/free-polluters
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

We wont get enough power from wind and solar but hopefully we will use better technology in the future.

Even though I have doubts that humans are causing "global warming", "global cooling", "climate change" (i think it is mostly caused by the cycles of the sun because even the ice caps on mars were melting), i still think we should decrease pollution if possible. I just think the Greens are unrealistic.
 
judging by your response, you either

a) didn't read my post, or
b) read my post but refuse to acknowledge the logic in the argument (in other words, you're taking a "I'm right and everyone else is wrong, regardless" stance)

i hope it's A
 
i understand the logic in the statement but solar and wind doesnt give us enough power and alot of people still have mixed feelings about nuclear power. in the future it is possible that we could live with close to zero emissions
 
Wind Power is not a bad idea, however it is highly inconsistent as it relies on wind. It is useful in the Snowy Mountains because of the conditions but I don't know whether it is the way to go for cities.

Solar Power is an expensive immediate purchase but costs you less in the long term, many families are opting for solar and I think it is the way to go.
 
What do people here think about the future of Nuclear energy? Sydney is geologically one of the safest cities in the world and if we were to switch to Nuclear energy we wouldn't have our plants destroyed by any form of natural disasters.

I know many of the parties are strongly opposed to Nuclear energy, but I believe the major parties should reconsider their status on Nuclear energy as it renewable, clean and could prove to be a good long term investment.
 
I think reading into what happened in Japan with Nuclear power and comparing the systems of today is like comparing a tricycle to a ferrari . Fukoshima's nuclear plant I believe was built in the mid to late 60 (I think) and trying to compare something from today is almost imcomparable . Labour will never support Nuclear power in my opinion . Coalition may but I think they would have to be in a strong position politically before they made a move as it will be very devisive and could swing voters everywhere .
 
@alien said:
i understand the logic in the statement but solar and wind doesnt give us enough power and alot of people still have mixed feelings about nuclear power. in the future it is possible that we could live with close to zero emissions
Click to expand...

It's been possible for the last 20years. We live in a world controlled by companies which restrict such technologies. You have various technologies which are considered renewable, which can be used in different circumstances and suitable for all areas and parts of the world. Solar, Wind, Tidal, Wave, Hydro, GeoThermal, Biomass/fuel.

Australia is lucky enough to be able to use almost all of these technologies.

Also, typical Solar panels feature PV cells which transfer 20%… I remember reading a study some 5 - 8yrs ago an Aussie uni created cells capable of transferring upwards of 70% (or something).... but this requires private / gov investment so costs can be subsidised and the product affordable... ofcourse this which never happens because.... well who knows why... ask they guy who invented the Swashplate engine.... :frowning:
 
I support nuclear power, however it is not clean in the literal sense as you have waste, which is extremely dangerous as well, that needs to be disposed of.

I would prefer that the large deposit that this country is sitting on be used for our own means instead of being sold overseas where the uranium itself or it's byproducts can go missing.

That said the only real forseeable alternative is solar. Wind power is a logistical & fiscal nightmare and can actually make inhabitants of localities adjacent to wind farms sick.

Of course, neither major party will advocate alternative technologies as they in one way or another have a vested interest in mining.
\
\
Posted using RoarFEED
 
Really wanting to see advancements in solar paint in the future also . Few people even realize it is available and the government should be making it compulsory for every new house or renovation as of now
 
The problem with nuclear is there ain't enough uranium to support it worldwide for the long term. I heard a stat the other day that if the world switched to nuclear, uranium would be gone in 10 years.

A combination of solar,wind, geo thermal and coal sequestration might be the way to go until fusion.
 
@Kaiser said:
It's been possible for the last 20years. We live in a world controlled by companies which restrict such technologies.
Click to expand...

that wouldnt surprise me
 
I now see Gillard intends to bring 16,000 skilled migrants into the country, most of whom will be re-directed to regional areas for work to "ease population pressures off the big cities" or words to this effect.

Firstly, where's the work? That's the reason people move to big cities is to find work in their qualified profession. There is currently not sufficient infrastructure and housing in regional areas to support these type of immigration numbers. If your a doctor or medical professional, are you going to work in a regional hospital? NO, because they are better off trying their luck in major cities where they will find better work for better pay!

Secondly, you'd be hard pressed finding any country people who actually want immigrants. That's what makes the country unique, you have very small populations, tight community and a high AUSTRALIAN population, not this rubbish where you go out to Auburn or any Western Sydney suburb and you find that something like 17% of residents are Anglo!

We are TOO multicultural, lets at least try and keep our countryside Australian! If population numbers in Sydney are expected to exceed 7 million or what ever the prediction is, I'm out of here! Time to start embracing our nation with REAL Australians, not impostors like Ibrahim-Siddiq-Conlon and the Islam faith who want a full Islam takeover in Australia! How many of these guys are we gonna keep accepting in to Australia?
 
I'm 6th generation Australian and my great grandparents fought hard to protect this country, now look at the shitfight governments of the day have created!

It is a bi-partisan thing. Fraser started the flow of high immigration and the Hawke-Keating Government continued!
 
@hammertime said:
The problem with nuclear is there ain't enough uranium to support it worldwide for the long term. I heard a stat the other day that if the world switched to nuclear, uranium would be gone in 10 years.

A combination of solar,wind, geo thermal and coal sequestration might be the way to go until fusion.
Click to expand...

Out of the commercially available green technologies, solar is probably the most viable.

Happy has a point, I think if a mandate was made for all new homes to have solar power fitted you'd probably see reductions in cost due to the volume which in turn could make retrofitting established homes cheaper than it currently would.

My girlfriend and I are planning to build in the next two years, and I will be looking to solar power not for the rebate, but the fact that it is essentially "free" power, notwithstanding the cost to install and start up.
 
In Canberra, some builders have already made it mandatory to have at least the minimum solar panelling available for new homes.
 
The Sun is an (almost) endless supply of free light,heat and power.

Solar is the future but the Implementation of Solar technology at a scale that would require it will need the exhaustion of coal to get it really into gear…
 
In an ideal would we would be running entirely off hydro, solar and wind but that won't be happening any time soon.

But getting solar panels on each roof would be a HUGE step forward. Even if it only accounts for 5% or 10% of power, it would still be a big step forward and would pay itself off in 8-14 years. A mandatory set of panels on each house would be cool but I think BASIX does already cover something like this…. dunno.

It's such a simple and easy thing that we can all do. Hopefully solar efficiency keeps improving and cuts that period from 8-14 right down to just a few years.

just read this on wiki:

ExxonMobil predicts wind power real cost will approach parity with natural gas and coal without carbon sequestration and be cheaper than natural gas and coal with carbon sequestration by 2025.

couldn't find anything on solar and I don't know if this takes into account the scarcity in supply expected soon
 
Opposition Leader Tony Abbott says Labor taxes on alcopops and cigarettes are overwhelmingly slugging less well-off families.
>
In a broadranging attack on the government for failing to address cost of living pressures on ordinary Australians, Mr Abbott said Labor had turned the working families of 2007 into the forgotten families of 2011.
>
Rather than doing something about cost of living pressures, Labor had made a succession of tax grabs, reaching its long hand into the pockets of every single Australian to rip out their hard-earned incomes, he said.
Advertisement: Story continues below
>
"There's the alcopops tax which is going to rip $3.1 billion out of the pockets of Australian families over four years. There's the cigarette tax which is going to rip $5 billion out over four years," he said in parliament.
>
"Let's face it, I don't like smoking any more than the next person but overwhelmingly these are some of the least privileged, least well-off people in our community."
>
Mr Abbott said the government was set to make a bad situation even worse with its carbon tax.
>
"This carbon tax, based on a lie, is going to be another nail in the way of life of the Australian families," he said.
>
Assistant treasurer Bill Shorten said the best way to address cost of living pressures was to have a good job and fair pay and conditions.
>
He said the government passed that test by creating 750,000 jobs with another 500,000 predicted to be created over the next two years.
>
"If you have a job in this country you have a chance to pay the bills. If you don't have a job in this country, life is that much harder."

i'd be interested to hear a smokers perspective on this
Anyone?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Members online

Total: 702 (members: 11, guests: 691)
Back
Top