Responses to articles in The Conversation: To Grattan: The LNP are dinosaurs: they ignore economic, scientific and environmental expert evidence which favours pricing CO2, and using this market mechanism to move towards renewable energy generation. This government is quite prepared for industry to continue to dig up more coal, burn more coal, capture coal seam gas etc. and dont care at all whether Australia meets its international targets on CO2 emissions. All PMs for the past decade have favoured an ETS, except Tony Abbott. He and the current LNP have manipulated information and debate about climate change. The LNP program openly puts industry profits at the top of national objectives, way above any concerns about environment consequences. What the LNP fails to see is that countries in Europe are way ahead of us: they are implementing technological changes now. Their companies are at the forefront of adapting to a lower CO2 regime, while ours are being held back. The Labor Party needs to stand firm, and insist that an ETS is integral to it platform. If the LNP expects Labors support for abolishing the carbon price, it will only happen the context of introducing an ETS. Otherwise Labor risks losing credibility, as well as losing the support of the significant majority of voters who believe action on climate change is urgent. To Maddock: The picture of Joe Hockey adjusting Christopher Pynes tie says it all. The LNP is so self-absorbed in their own agenda that they have no idea of how ordinary people will respond to this idea which seems to have come from outer space. Where did this proposal get any coverage in the LNPs Real Solutions airbag of goodies? Tony Abbott and his team are attempting to introduce fundamental changes to many portfolios, including this privatisation lemon, without any sort of mandate whatsoever. This government is not only sneaky, but downright contemptuous of the Australian electorate, if they think they will get away with this sort of privatisation by decree. Christopher Pyne seems to believe he has some sort of divine right to impose his will on the populace - his passion on Q&A last night was scary to behold. Fortunately in a democracy, debates will occur, and this privatisation proposal is unlikely to make its way unchallenged through parliament. To Bowditch: There are many factors to do with infrastructure costs. Many years ago I put forward a suggestion: instead of continuing to move cargo through constantly expanding port facilities in central Melbourne, a road-rail outer-link circling Melbourne be built from Portland (which is a deep sea port), through nodes (acting as internal ports or distribution centres). These could be located near (but not in) the regional cities of Ballarat, Bendigo and Traralgon, where land costs are comparatively cheap. There is so much congestion and pollution involved in moving products in and out of major cities, that decentralised solutions seemed a no-brainer. This sort of approach would also revitalise many rural regions. All of this was ignored, maybe because the Port of Melbourne did not want its expansion plans challenged. So we have the daily grind of traffic gridlock, at a huge cost to the states productivity. Ive never seen the opportunity cost of these massive waste of hours, particularly during peak hours, factored into any cost-benefit analysis of new transport infrastructure projects. Weve also seen Port Phillip Bay dredged to allow super-containers to come through, where it would have been much simpler to load and unload these ships in Portland, with little or no environmental damage. And now Victorians face the prospect of Westernport Bay being ruined by this sort of industry-driven planning. The cost of land in Melbourne is escalating. To continue to build expensive road-tunnels under existing suburbs seems like a massive waste of public resources.
Posted on: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 13:04:30 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015