Well the Australian government has called game on in the carbon reduction game by setting a target of 80% reduction in emissions by 2050. With population set to double this is effectively saying we are going to reduce emissions per head to negligible. Personally I think it is socialist rhetoric rather that a real plan but it is backed up by a carbon tax and wealth redistribution to minimise the impact on the most vulnerable.
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/cl...710-1h90m.html

This will be a test of wills between a public who have had enough of rising living costs and a government with an alarming reformist agenda. It is not often a government sets out to drive industry offshore but with the impacts falling squarely on the power and gas industries rising prices will force alumina, refining, paper and any number of energy intensive industries offshore even if it is suggested they are protected. It places the generating capacity of the state of Victoria in jeopardy with no plans to develop a replacement other than a vague reference to renewables.

And all of this the help out those who will not help themselves, the northern hemisphere polluters in America and China who have created the problem and do nothing to fix it.

Quote:

---

It is not often a government sets out to drive industry offshore

---

The US government does that all the time with our tax policies.

Quote:

---

but with the impacts falling squarely on the power and gas industries rising prices will force alumina, refining, paper and any number of energy intensive industries offshore even if it is suggested they are protected.

---

And the consumer will pay the price with higher costs of goods produced in Australia. Of course you can buy Chinese goods..

Quote:

---

It places the generating capacity of the state of Victoria in jeopardy with no plans to develop a replacement other than a vague reference to renewables.

---

Here in NY the nuke scare in Japan is propelling a movement to shut down Indian Point . That's the easy part. No one tells us how they will replace the 2000 megawatts the plant generates .

Ah Tom you have missed it, there are no goods produced in Australia. We might assemble a few things like cars or package a few biscuits, we dig holes in the ground and chase tourists around Ayers Rock. We already buy Chinese goods.

2000 megawatts eh. Look I have a deal for you, you give us Indian Point and we will give you Hazellwood and all the brown coal to keep it going. We have plenty of uranium so you can keep the fuel for your other facilities. The extra CO2 will never be noticed in the northern hemisphere and we won't need this blasted carbon tax. A win-win for everyone

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

the northern hemisphere polluters in America and China who have created the problem and do nothing to fix it.

---

I beg your pardon, my air is quite clean thank you very much.

Yes so is mine despite been labeled the biggest polluter, from my front porch I can see forever, clean crisp fresh air, and I don't know any Australian who can't say the same. Now when you go to China you can see the pollution, photochemical smog all day everywhere, yet some dill has been convinced by spurious arguments that we need to do something about it like reducing our CO2 emissions by 80%. What we would like is for the rest of you to do the same

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

No one tells us how they will replace the 2000 megawatts the plant generates .

---

Hello tom:

No one?? Nahhhh... Somebody is, but it's going to take some government INVESTMENT which you call spending. Read about here.

excon

Fusion has been a fantasy for over 50 years. Maybe one day it will be realized ;maybe not. However ;if they take dowh Indian point they will need to replace the energy now. Not at some undetermined future date.

I've attended my share of public hearings about local natural gas generation. Most times the people who attend are NIMBYs who find an environmental pretext to block the new energy plant. Then they drive home ;turn on all their energy consuming devices ,crank up the a/c and toast their efforts saving the environment from those evil energy companies.

Let's not take this into the rhelms of fantasy like the 80% reduction target. Tom I gave you the answer good ole reliable pollutin coal to replace your nice clean nuclear plant. It is interesting that no one here has said anything about the target, they have just focused on the immediate effects of the tax. I expect it is the same for your nuclear plant, they haven't decided how they can finance the replacement which might be from that wonderful atlantic wind, imagine, every building with its own wind generation, at a million a megawatt it is cheap but all your millioneirs could afford to own one and Buffett, Souros, etc could afford to supply a city. I expect it hasn't occurred to them

If we put enough of our tax money into the project we may see 500 million watts of fusion power for 500 seconds and longer by 2020.
I think the scientists should explain how much energy it takes to separate the hydrogen using electrolysis. This is the same problem that the folks who promote hydrogen cars have.

Making it a reality, however, will take significant investment from the government at a time when spending on scientific research is under threat.
Why is that ? If there was a chance of a payout ,private money would be pouring into the project.Of course if I was a scientist on this project I'd be pitching for government funding too.
It's like they said in "Ghost Busters "
"You don't understand. I've worked in the private sector - they expect results".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

If we put enough of our tax money into the project we may see 500 million watts of fusion power for 500 seconds and longer by 2020.
I think the scientists should explain how much energy it takes to separate the hydrogen using electrolysis. This is the same problem that the folks who promote hydrogen cars have.

Making it a reality, however, will take significant investment from the government at a time when spending on scientific research is under threat.
Why is that ? If there was a chance of a payout ,private money would be pouring into the project.Of course if I was a scientist on this project I'd be pitching for government funding too.
It's like they said in "Ghost Busters "
"You don't understand. I've worked in the private sector - they expect results".

---

500 million watts, 4000 megawatthours, that's like powering a suburb for a few hours. This is why I think scientists are nuts, no practical application. Same as telling us about climate change, no practical application. Let's hope we might have fusion power or moon rock power in the future but in the next fifty years we have a difficult problem of our own making to solve. Growing population and demand for energy while we are trying to reduce and change the sources of that energy and no one looking long enough to see that each new industry is contributing to the problem in its own way. Solar requires vast amounts of energy to refine silicon. Electric cars require rare earths very polluting and energy consuming to refine, and a finite resource. Wind enegry has the same problem and the only reliable source of this energy is nuclear or coal/oil/gas which we know produces CO2. Our brilliant minds here have come up with a wonderful solution to base load power; attach a bank of lead acid batteries to a wind generator. They plan to sell these by the container load. Battery production with current technology we know to be very polluting

I hear this move is weighing on Red Julia's popularity like a lead ballon. Didn't she promise to NOT do this economy killer during the elections ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I hear this move is weighing on Red Julia's popularity like a lead ballon. Didn't she promise to NOT do this economy killer during the elections ?

---

Didn't BO, the mouth from Chi, promise to close gitmo, I put both in the same box. Tom they are claiming it isn't an economy killer because they are going to compensate through income redistribution. The Lttle Red Fox now gets abused in Shopping Malls. She has no mandate to do this, the Greens are backing her minority government

Can Tony Abbott call for new elections ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

can Tony Abbott call for new elections ?

---

He does it all the time but without the numbers in the house he can't get a no-confidence vote up. The independents hold the balance of power in a hung parliament and they are supporting Labor. The Greens hold the balance of power in the Senate. The cracks are starting to appear with one of the independents forming his own party. In our system the PM has the call or the Governor-General (equivalent of the President) can dismiss the government. Last time that happened was in 1975 but this government hasn't had the scandals and poor governance of those days to warrant it. No, we will just have to keep doing hard labour until we get the chance to throw the fox out. It's a fox in the hen house, no doubt about it

Since there is all the name calling of politicians... Didn't president crybaby proclaim not just once but several times PUBLICLY he visited all 57 states during his campaign?

That takes a real rocket scientist to pull off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

Since there is all the name calling of politicians....Didn't president crybaby proclaim not just once but several times PUBLICLY he visited all 57 states during his campaign?

That takes a real rocket scientist to pull off.

---

Yes I've tried to work out where those extra stares are one is no doubt euphoria, another cornucopia and we must not forget utopia. We know that one of those states he didn't visit was dinotopia, did he visit Samoa, Peuto Rica and San Peublo?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

Yes I've tried to work out where those extra stares are one is no doubt euphoria, another cornucopia and we must not forget utopia. We know that one of those states he didn't visit was dinotopia, did he visit Samoa, Peuto Rica and San Peublo?

---

I think he has spent much of his time recently between the states of Denial and the state of Confusion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

I think he has spent much of his time recently between the states of Denial and the state of Confusion.

---

Ok so we have Euphoria, Utopia and Cornucopia, Deniel and Confusion, has Disaray being forgotten because Celebration has long gone.

Can I ask a question that has much vexed me regarding the US, why does the Constitution enter into so much of political discussion? It is hardly mentioned here even though we have some titanic political struggles

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

Ok so we have Euphoria, Utopia and Cornucopia, Deniel and Confusion, has Disaray being forgotten because Celebration has long gone.

Can I ask a question that has much vexed me regarding the US, why does the Constitution enter into so much of political discussion? It is hardly mentioned here even though we have some titanic political struggles

---

Because the Democrats seem to think it has no legal bearing when they want to circumvent it... yet try to twist its actual meaning to stop anyone else from doing what IS allowed.

I'd have to understand your political dynamics far better than I do to understand why its not as much an issue in Australia.

Because you still believe in a monarchy telling you what the law is. Once you finally give in and accept that a republic is your future you will see the importance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

because you still believe in a monarchy telling you what the law is. Once you finally give in and accept that a republic is your future you will see the importance.

---

That is a complete misnoma Tom monarchy plays no role in our system since it has no real power excepting to sack a government. Such power as there is is held by a representative of monarchy appointed by the government. The executive branch is the Governor-General and Prime Minister operating in the Executive Council so the Governor-General takes the advice of the Prime Minister

http://www.dpmc.gov.au/guidelines/do...e_handbook.pdf

Only once has this been challenged. That was in 1975

The laws of Australia are decided by its Parliament and given assent by the Executive Council. The final authority on the legality and constitutionality of those laws is the High Court of Australia. It is unlikely that an Australian republic would be formed on any materially different structure and attempts to form a republic based on direct election of a president have already failed. The republic issue is unlikely to be canvassed again in the reign of Elizabeth II. To do anything requires amendment to the Constitution and that has proved extremely difficult to do. In any case Tom what is your President other than an elected monarch?

The reality is, Tom, that our democracy is far more representative than your own, with the Executive Branch, represented by the Prime Minister, facing questions in the House on every sitting day. There are no staples to bills, there might be deals but it will be in separate legislation which must itself face the House, or it waits for the budget process

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

That is a complete misnoma Tom monarchy plays no role in our system since it has no real power excepting to sack a government. Such power as there is is held by a representative of monarchy appointed by the government. The executive branch is the Governor-General and Prime Minister operating in the Executive Council so the Governor-General takes the advice of the Prime Minister

http://www.dpmc.gov.au/guidelines/do...e_handbook.pdf

Only once has this been challenged. That was in 1975

The laws of Australia are decided by its Parliament and given assent by the Executive Council. The final authority on the legality and constitutionality of those laws is the High Court of Australia. It is unlikely that an Australian republic would be formed on any materially different structure and attempts to form a republic based on direct election of a president have already failed. The republic issue is unlikely to be canvassed again in the reign of Elizabeth II. To do anything requires amendment to the Constitution and that has proved extemely difficult to do. in any case Tom what is your President other than an elected monarch?

The reality is, Tom, that our democracy is far more representative than your own, with the Executive Branch, represented by the Prime Minister, facing questions in the House on every sitting day. There are no staples to bills, there might be deals but it will be in seperate legislation which must itself face the House, or it waits for the budget process

---

Exactly correct.

Unlike America we did not need to come up with a political system that attempts to pull itself up by its own boot straps. The monarchy has no power in Australia. Our system of government is based on a long successful tradition (Westminster system).

We don't have to worry about any "Imperial Judiciary"


Tut

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TUT317

We don't have to worry about any "Imperial Judiciary"


Tut

---

Wrong thread Tut that is another question entirely but I agree thus far our judiciary excepting for a certain well know justice hasn't attempted to rewrite the Constitution