Plastic bags, climate change, renewable energy,

Haakon

has an accommodating arse
Well it's front page news here, and what a boom for jobs it will be! Reports of strong opposition from usual green parties. Apparently a development on the site was knocked back a while ago because it is known to house an endangered bird (regent honey eater). Someone called this a "left field" idea. Ummmm wtf???
Should build some wind turbines - that’ll show those dumb birds who’s boss!
 

fatboyonabike

Captain oblivious
great spot, but where is the water going to come from?
maybe piped salt water out of Lake mac or lower Hunter river
Why wouldn't they put it at the old Alcan smelter, considerable HV infrastructure and water supply already exists there
 

Oddjob

Merry fucking Xmas to you assholes
great spot, but where is the water going to come from?
maybe piped salt water out of Lake mac or lower Hunter river
Why wouldn't they put it at the old Alcan smelter, considerable HV infrastructure and water supply already exists there
Because that wouldn't boost the land value of the guy spruiking the deal...

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk
 

pink poodle

気が狂っている男
Because that wouldn't boost the land value of the guy spruiking the deal...

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk
The article did touch (too) gently on that, the local paper really delivers on quality journalism. There was a great opportunity to call the shit show for what it is.
 

pink poodle

気が狂っている男
he sounds trustworthy,
give a little guy a break, the net worth of his enterprise is only $25K...shonky much!
That caught me as odd...for a single share holder company, why so much? I thought you could get a lot lower with a shelf company. Alternatively if you wanted to look like yiu had clout, surely a little inflationary activity would be employed?
 

Haakon

has an accommodating arse
And in case anyone was unsure who to vote for in search if a greener future...

Carbon pricing's return is inevitable - just ask the big oil companies and industrial players that lament its loss and make long term business decisions premised on its return.

Underwriting a new coal plant and indemnifying against future carbon liabilities has a metric shittonne of tax dollars attached to it...
 

hifiandmtb

Sphincter beanie
We have to move to CO2 neutral in 10 years.

We can't do it without reducing per-capita demand.

Or we could do it your way - which requires killing billions of people in the next ten years.

Which way is sensible?
 

Calvin27

Eats Squid
We can't do it without reducing per-capita demand.

Or we could do it your way - which requires killing billions of people in the next ten years.
Come on man even you know that is playing the extremes. I'm not even talking about killing anyone yet, on this trajectory, we will be killing each other when we ramp up the fight for resources. But honestly the tax system and the economy is based on perpetual growth and that is at odds with a more sustainable future. Plenty of non killing policies that can reduce population - you just have to look to realise how skewed the system is towards pro-population growth.
 

pink poodle

気が狂っている男
Genocide is a great idea...


Of course people could try not running their air con, having cold showers, watching less TV, and walking more...they could then move on to lowering their consumables. But who wants to accepts a drop in living standards? Especially if those shitty third world countries aren't joining in...
 

Flow-Rider

Burner
Genocide is a great idea...


Of course people could try not running their air con, having cold showers, watching less TV, and walking more...they could then move on to lowering their consumables. But who wants to accepts a drop in living standards? Especially if those shitty third world countries aren't joining in...
OOOOOH, but that is too life restricting son, we need to show domination not just to poor animals but to our human friends too.

351301
 

hifiandmtb

Sphincter beanie
Come on man even you know that is playing the extremes. I'm not even talking about killing anyone yet, on this trajectory, we will be killing each other when we ramp up the fight for resources. But honestly the tax system and the economy is based on perpetual growth and that is at odds with a more sustainable future. Plenty of non killing policies that can reduce population - you just have to look to realise how skewed the system is towards pro-population growth.
If you aren’t talking about killing people, why are you talking about population control?

This is a problem that needs a solution in 10 years. How is stopping people from having kids going to achieve that?

Population management is an issue, but it doesn’t rate high in the priority list relating to the problem at hand.
 
Top