Great article, BigVal.

I hope others read it. There seems to be little concern from Labor voters...not just here, but generally....about the impact of the Greens' preference deal.

Even without the deal, both parties will be up against the Greens in the Senate.

What puzzles me is that with the incredible rises in costs of energy that have occurred in the last few years, that the

a. the Greens vote has grown so much.

b. Labor is still so popular, knowing that they have been influenced so strongly by the Greens.

The last part of the article rings so true.

Clearly, pricing carbon is an important goal for the Greens, but it is not the ultimate goal. The ultimate Green goal is to deny Australians access to non-renewable energy; coal, gas and uranium. The Greens and others’ fascination with “boutique” energy sources such as wind and solar will not solve the “climate change” problem. Such energy sources will not replace base load electricity generated from coal or gas or nuclear (renewable sources require non-renewable back-up) in any time frame consistent with the Greens own deep belief in human induced climate change. This means that Labor, which has for at least the next term walked away from pricing carbon emissions, will need to spend a huge amount of money investing in renewable energy that will have no impact on carbon abatement.



Nevertheless, Labor will happily pay the price for holding the Treasury benches and keeping the Greens quiet, up until the point that the climate change abatement response either disproves itself, at which point governments will have to admit there is not a thing they can do to abate carbon at a rate sufficient to make a difference, and adaption becomes the strategy, or the whole anthropogenic climate change theory collapses in a farcical heap as temperatures continue to fail to keep rising.



Last, but by no means least, the Greens will demand a place at the table of Australia’s premier economic advisory bodies - the Productivity Commission, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, and the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics. Indeed, if the animal rights faction (Peter Singer end of the spectrum) gets their way, they will challenge the primacy of human rights, insisting on animal and biota rights and infiltrating the Human Rights Commission. That may make the comfortable leftist enclave of the Human Rights Commission squirm.



The real impact of the Greens holding the balance of power may be in embedding Green thinking in premier institutions. This would be by far the most destructive part of a Green price of power. Bad advice can be very expensive.

Here in Victoria, the costs of construction of the desalination plant are yet to be felt.

So, on Holding's own say-so, the price of water will double - meaning that most low-income families won't be able to maintain a garden.

[url=http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/time-to-come-clean-on-the-cost-of-water-20100530-wndy.html]Link[/url]





The north south pipeline (Sugarloaf) is a really big con.

With all the money being spent on these projects, dams could have been built. But the Greens have stopped any efforts to build them, and Brumby and Bracks before him have caved in to the Greens' demands.

Bob, have bookmarked the link you posted, to read at leisure.

Bob, have bookmarked the link you posted, to read at leisure.



Well, I hope you can read the article. I gave up after a bit of reading as I found the writers style to be difficult to understand. I also got tired of reading how it is the capitalists and greedy that are destroying our world. Seemed like a lot of hypothetical stuff used to justify their actions. So I just stopped reading. I certainly don't think we should give up the science and methods for keeping our lives healthier and improving live spans. There is no reason for doing that and there is no proof that we should.

.

Bob, I posted a reply to you earlier, but it seems to have not reached here.

The thrust was ..I agree re the article. Quite unreadable, but obviously with some dangerous messages.

The other part from me was in relation to the fact that many people who read anti-Green Party comments assume that we are not interested in cleaning up pollution...which of course is untrue. I think I can safely say the average person in the street is all for cleaning up the environment, but without the dictatorial ways of many in the Green movement.

Our energy prices are rising rapidly in the name of green power, and soon the less fortunate in our society will not be able to afford it.

Research on alternates needs to be undertaken slowly and methodically.

Koko, glad it was not just me having trouble reading that article. You are absolutely correct saying that most people prefer to clean up the way we use our environment. Something that is actually pretty easy to do without all this carbon taxes, outlawing certain methods of using energy, and destroying our economy at the same time.



The US has lots of solar panels already installed and we also have many wind farms built and more on the way.. In my state we have been building wind farms for 20 years and are only at 15% or our energy needs. The US in total is only about 3% of its energy needs. At this rate it will be another 100 years to build up to anywhere near our needs.



The Greens do not seem to have any notion of time involved to build, use, and design changes to the early builds for the next generation. Just start off with outlawing the essential needs for helping all to live better lives. The solar panel things now being built in the US are the next generation of sun heating some sort of salt solutions. This is supposed to allow for saving heat for use after night or in dark cloudy times. Likely to have even another generation after that and likely we will never find a way to generate sufficient power for everyone after the innovations and testing have been going on for many many years.



First, we should use what is known to work for our benefit and as newer PROVEN ways arrive we will be able to replace with newer ways. The Greens don't seem able to accept moderation and beneficial ways to improve lives. Their goal seems more to build power over the masses and create another communist style government like the failed Russian and Chinese governments and several smaller countries around the world. Countries where the government claims to have the power to look out for everyones lives and make decisions on how you get to live. No freedoms any more, just do as we say or be sorry.

.

Well said Bob, and much of what you say can be applied here.

(The current PM has even borrowed one of H Clinton's phrases to use in her campaign. LOL)

I think the Greens have some very good ideas also, but we came onto the

age pension with Labour in the seat and living "the good life" on the money

we receive and very grateful and happy so why change? My husband

and I are happy to vote Labour again.