Global Warming

[KnightersRevenge]

kr a few points
1 bob not the bogan princess is running the country
2the majority of all polls even the so even balanced fairfax smear sheet would be a fair account of the majority not your experiences
3 howard took it to the vote and won,end of story
4get up hey? you sure you arent simon shriek?

1)Nope.
2) A fair poll is the election. Most of the country is split and many of them voted for bob, hence his elevated position. That is what happened. Get over it. Your "bogan princess" is here to stay, as is the elementally obvious need for change.
3) Howard won 49.05% of the vote, the rest went to Labor - on a two party preferred vote, it was a lucky victory because of the lower house majority.
4) Bogan princess? You sure you aren't Alan Jones?

We cannot stay shackled to the mining industry, before long China will own it anyway, if we haven't got another string to our bow where will we be?

 

[Total Tiger]

That is not how our system works. If a party is able to form a government then they run country until the next election. That is the sytem we have. The very loud voices of conservative radio hacks and the Murdoch press do not represent the majority, in my experience. John Howard gambled and won on the GST, just. Without the Democrats and Brian Harradine, it doesn't get up (sound familiar). It was hardly a smashing success, and with just a slim majority in the lower house he still called it a mandate and implimented it. What's good for the goose......

You're right, the GST did get negotiated through the senate but had the senate blocked that after the election was all about the GST, it would have been a disgrace and we probably would have rightly had another election. It's about taking the policy to the electorate and although you think the silent majority agree with the carbon tax policy, I'd suggest that the ALP might disagree with you as they wouldn't be committing this political suicide if they agreed with your position. They'd happily have us going to the polls on this and if your position was correct, they'd have their majority parliament and we'd all be happy.

 

[tigersnake]

kr a few points
1 bob not the bogan princess is running the country
2the majority of all polls even the so even balanced fairfax smear sheet would be a fair account of the majority not your experiences
3 howard took it to the vote and won,end of story
4get up hey? you sure you arent simon shriek?

1. Bob isn't. But hes got more influence than the greens have ever had, which reflects the proportion of the vote he got and political realities, ie, a coalition effectively. If we had a proportional rep system the greens would have a fair few seats, around 15-20. Besides, the Nationals have wielded far more power than their vote indicated for decades via the coalition.
2. Not quite sure what you mean there by FF smear sheet. If you are trying to insinuate that the age and SMH are lefty, geez, you are a serious redneck.
3. Yes he did, but its never 'end of story'. Howard broke heaps of promises and changed his mind, remember 'non core and core promises'? But you do make a good point. Hewson put up the GST and got done. Howard had a go later and got up.

I reckon a similar thing will happen here. The carbon tax, like the GST, has to happen. I reckon Labor will get it through, and JG will convince a lot of people in the wash up, but not quite enough. Abbott will win the poll by a bees *smile* and not repeal the CT. He might re-name it or water it down but he won't repeal it, like Beazley wouldn't have repealed the GST. Labour will get back in and put the CG back the way it was. Job done. The environment and the economy will still be around.

 

[tigersnake]

In terms of popular media, it is popular because it gives its audience what its audience wants to hear. I imagine if it ceased doing this, it would cease to be the popular media. The thing is though, shock jocks by their very nature are ever only preaching to the choir, their influence on changing minds is minimal.

Re the first sentence, define 'popular media'. And who is to say the audience deon't want to hear the real positives of the CT? I agree completely with the assessment of the shock jocks. Their demographic are within the 30% of people who are never gunna vote for anything vaguely green or left. Thats the thing. Youve got roughly 30% who will like the CT, 30% who will hate it regardless of what the policy actually entails, and 30% who could go either way.

But the shock jocks are one thing, newpapers and TV are a different thing. We have a history of pretty balanced tabloids in Aus up until the 1990s, but its gotten out of control. Its really dissapointing.

 

[Willo]

Here's 4 simple questions Snakey.
1.If Julia/Bob obtain their target of reducing 160 million tonnes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by 2020 what temperature affect will this have?
2. How will the carbon (dioxide) tax improve the economy?
3. How many new jobs (in the thousands, if not hundreds or even tens will do) do you think will be created?
Not replacements for those that are sacked from all the coal mine/power station/support industries
4. How much do you see the average householder paying in 3 years time or even 10 years time?

On your first point re miners losing jobs, yep, it will happen. Mines open and close every day in Australia depending on market conditions. This is a market condition. More importantly, its an economic reform. To get scared because some people may lose jobs is like, as I've already said, its like getting scared that horse dealers and blacksmiths would lose their jobs when the Model T ford took off, like getting upset that radio announcers would lose their jobs when TV took off.. I used to be a printer, computers killed 2 trades in the time I was in the industry, 2 complete trades. (compositers and graphic repos). Nobody cried, things change, things move, technology changes, market demand changes.

Treasury economic modelling says, and its your right to reject it buts its usually at least half right, usually in the ball park, that thousands of jobs will be created in the finance industry, the power industry. The net gain is quite big, can't remember how much but in the thousands pa.

In answer to your 4 questions:

1. Not much in the short term, here is the thing, here is the big test of character: Do we collectively have the ability or consideration to think and or care about the long term? This is a long term thing willo. The global capitalist economy is a monster juggernaut to change. In the short term, that is the next 20 years, its about putting the brakes on carbon RISING, which in turn will slowly slow down climate change, for political and logistical reasons that i the best we can hope for, but it is a huge outcome.

The reform in and of itself is pretty small, the big thing is the shift in thinking. By the violent reaction against a pretty peicmeal policy it makes me think most people really don't give a stuff about the long term, but we'll see.

2. In lots of ways. At the broad long term level, it will slow down or stop climate change. This has all sorts of implications I'm sure I don't need to go into, heaps, shiploads. The tourism industry for example, the GBR won't die, agriculture, we will hopefully be able to grow stuff in the future. At the more direct shorter term level, the reform will foster research and dev, into clean energy, clean cars, low energy building and architectire, lower energy appliances, heaps. AND, the whole scaremongering 'sob sob the rest of the world isn't doing anything' is actually a good thing well they are doing something, but we'll be moving with the trend, at the pointy end, that will be a good thing.

3. see 2

4. Not much. The market mechanisms will ensure our houses, cars, appliances are more energy efficient. I'm guessing it may, may cost us 5-10 bucks a week, but that will be offset by other benefits. It may cost nothing when it evens out, but not much

So government policy is a market condition? You are joking, when a government destroys a viable, economic resource and industry to gain something nobody knows what result isn't a market condition, its criminal.

So a lot of not much's, in lots of ways, but nothing specific.
In reply to
(1) Supposedly, if the target of 160 million tonnes by 2020 is ever achieved, the temperature reduction will be 1/400th of a degree. That will certainly make a difference.

(2) So R&D, tourism, agriculture and... So what will this increase by? Given that tens of thousands will be out of work when Bob/Julia finish off what they started, closing coal mines, coal power stations, shipping, etc etc where will the government get it's money from? How many won't have a taxable income? Less money into the coffers from spending (gst). Who is going to foot the bill for all this new power source? The banks, superannuation corporations, public shares? After decimating those companies values who'd have the money or want to invest.
How much will electricity bills rise by? For Electricity companies are going to have to borrow (if they can) the money for all this new infrastructure? The consumer (us) will pay (dearly) for it

(3) see (2)?? so can't answer that either. How many NEW jobs. Given that closure of coal mines, coal fuelled power stations, shipping, support industries of all those, how many jobs will it cost and how many more will replace them? Net gain (doubt it) compared to the job losses.

(4) Not much? You're guessing $5-$10 a week. It may cost nothing! :rofl
Really?
If its so good how come every country in the world isn't doing it?
I think some people are living in the land of the fairies. Or your name must be Julia Brown.

Surely you're having a lend of us. Surely...

 

[Willo]

What's this "green rating" tax????

$750 home audit slug for green rating
Public Defender David Nankervis From: Sunday Mail (SA) July 16, 2011 10:00pm

HOMEOWNERS will have to have audits to give their home a "green rating" before it is sold or rented.

A Federal Government initiative to give each home a star rating - similar to those found on washers and fridges - was to be introduced later this year.

But it has now been delayed to give the Government time to introduce two more audits - one to rate greenhouse gas emissions and the other to test water efficiency.

It is not known how much the extra two tests will cost, although the initial energy rating is expected to cost around $750.

The Real Estate Institute of SA said it had not been aware gas emissions and water use had been included with the energy rating - which it opposes - saying the costs will be passed on to buyers and renters who are already struggling with housing affordability.



Chief executive Greg Troughton said the added costs of rating energy and water use, and greenhouse gas emissions, was an unnecessary burden for owners who were "already finding things tough".

"And there is no doubt in my mind that rents will go up to cover the cost," he said.

"We already have concerns about housing affordability and all these requirements will do is push the affordability index through the roof."

The mandatory requirements will co-incide with the introduction of the Federal Government's carbon tax - although homeowners will get no concessions on the cost of the three audits.

The energy rating will be a "star rating", and will be the first of the audits to be introduced from early next year.

The Federal Department of Climate Change website says its policy requires "Australian homes to provide energy, greenhouse and water performance information to buyers and renters" from next year.

The State Government will ultimately decide the rating systems to be adopted here and administer the scheme.

State Energy Minister Michael O'Brien said he favoured a system already being used in the ACT in which homes are rated from one star - or low-energy efficiency - to six stars by an accredited professional.

He said rising energy and water costs and the imposition of the carbon tax would make a rating system an increasingly important factor in people's decision on which home to buy or rent.

"Ultimately this scheme is designed to change people's behaviour when using energy," he said. "Already in the ACT, homes with a higher star rating attract a higher sale value."

The rating system will encourage people to improve their home's energy efficiency before selling or offering a home for rent, Mr O'Brien said.

"People may decide to replace an electric hot water system with a solar one or put in north-facing windows to improve the home's energy rating," he said.

[email protected]
link http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/home-audit-slug-for-green-rating/story-e6frea6u-1226095951403

Ahh Randle McMurphy, julia Gillard and Bob Brown, 3 peas in a pod.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

$750 home audit slug for green rating
Public Defender David Nankervis From: Sunday Mail (SA) July 16, 2011 10:00pm

HOMEOWNERS will have to have audits to give their home a "green rating" before it is sold or rented.

A Federal Government initiative to give each home a star rating - similar to those found on washers and fridges - was to be introduced later this year.

But it has now been delayed to give the Government time to introduce two more audits - one to rate greenhouse gas emissions and the other to test water efficiency.

It is not known how much the extra two tests will cost, although the initial energy rating is expected to cost around $750.

The Real Estate Institute of SA said it had not been aware gas emissions and water use had been included with the energy rating - which it opposes - saying the costs will be passed on to buyers and renters who are already struggling with housing affordability.



Chief executive Greg Troughton said the added costs of rating energy and water use, and greenhouse gas emissions, was an unnecessary burden for owners who were "already finding things tough".

"And there is no doubt in my mind that rents will go up to cover the cost," he said.

"We already have concerns about housing affordability and all these requirements will do is push the affordability index through the roof."

The mandatory requirements will co-incide with the introduction of the Federal Government's carbon tax - although homeowners will get no concessions on the cost of the three audits.

The energy rating will be a "star rating", and will be the first of the audits to be introduced from early next year.

The Federal Department of Climate Change website says its policy requires "Australian homes to provide energy, greenhouse and water performance information to buyers and renters" from next year.

The State Government will ultimately decide the rating systems to be adopted here and administer the scheme.

State Energy Minister Michael O'Brien said he favoured a system already being used in the ACT in which homes are rated from one star - or low-energy efficiency - to six stars by an accredited professional.

He said rising energy and water costs and the imposition of the carbon tax would make a rating system an increasingly important factor in people's decision on which home to buy or rent.

"Ultimately this scheme is designed to change people's behaviour when using energy," he said. "Already in the ACT, homes with a higher star rating attract a higher sale value."

The rating system will encourage people to improve their home's energy efficiency before selling or offering a home for rent, Mr O'Brien said.

"People may decide to replace an electric hot water system with a solar one or put in north-facing windows to improve the home's energy rating," he said.

[email protected]
link http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/home-audit-slug-for-green-rating/story-e6frea6u-1226095951403

Ahh Randle McMurphy, julia Gillard and Bob Brown, 3 peas in a pod.

So it is a star rating. What's the big deal? The quote was a "green tax", clearly this isn't. It's a sticker.

 

[Willo]

So it is a star rating. What's the big deal? The quote was a "green tax", clearly this isn't. It's a sticker.

A sticker? A sticker?

Anytime you've got to pay something to the government its a bloody tax.
What's a levy? its a tax
What's Stamp Duty? Its a tax
What's an audit slug, its a tax.

Geez they've got you covered Knighter.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

A sticker? A sticker?

Anytime you've got to pay something to the government its a bloody tax.
What's a levy? its a tax
What's Stamp Duty? Its a tax
What's an audit slug, its a tax.

Geez they've got you covered Knighter.

Geez, who's got me? Condesending much willo? Other than some broad references in an SA newspaper article where is the evidence of a plan for mandatory testing of existing dwellings at the owners cost? Standard bluster and scare mongering. I've checked the govt website and the policy reference material and the only place it is mentioned is in this article.

 

[Harry]

CT? live it up, trash the joint and leave. who cares, someone else can clean up the mess.

good posting TigerSnake. need to get smarter and cleaner. first little steps. if bills go up, so be it, go on a lower phone plan, reduce foxtel, bring lunch from home, or go back to general seating tiger membership. needs to be a greater push for clean energy.

 

[ssstone]

1. Bob isn't. But hes got more influence than the greens have ever had, which reflects the proportion of the vote he got and political realities, ie, a coalition effectively. If we had a proportional rep system the greens would have a fair few seats, around 15-20. Besides, the Nationals have wielded far more power than their vote indicated for decades via the coalition.
2. Not quite sure what you mean there by FF smear sheet. If you are trying to insinuate that the age and SMH are lefty, geez, you are a serious redneck.
3. Yes he did, but its never 'end of story'. Howard broke heaps of promises and changed his mind, remember 'non core and core promises'? But you do make a good point. Hewson put up the GST and got done. Howard had a go later and got up.

I reckon a similar thing will happen here. The carbon tax, like the GST, has to happen. I reckon Labor will get it through, and JG will convince a lot of people in the wash up, but not quite enough. Abbott will win the poll by a bees *smile* and not repeal the CT. He might re-name it or water it down but he won't repeal it, like Beazley wouldn't have repealed the GST. Labour will get back in and put the CG back the way it was. Job done. The environment and the economy will still be around.

1 bob is,they dont have 15 seats thank christ,fair point
2ask theo about smear.snakey i read all 3 papers that i sell here every day,the age is as left and as one sided as it gets ,the hun is toilet paper,the aus gives you both sides .typical name calling you leftard
3he got it end of story,fair point i agree
4 it wont get through in its current form,jg couldnt convince a fish to swim,the electorate is waiting with shotguns for labor at the next election it will be a wipeout for labor and that aint a good thing for politics in this country
5 in 18 months we will be in recession i think ct or no ct ,and the enviroment will do what it wants like it has since time immortal regardless of us

 

[tigersnake]

So government policy is a market condition? You are joking, when a government destroys a viable, economic resource and industry to gain something nobody knows what result isn't a market condition, its criminal.

So a lot of not much's, in lots of ways, but nothing specific.
In reply to
(1) Supposedly, if the target of 160 million tonnes by 2020 is ever achieved, the temperature reduction will be 1/400th of a degree. That will certainly make a difference.

(2) So R&D, tourism, agriculture and... So what will this increase by? Given that tens of thousands will be out of work when Bob/Julia finish off what they started, closing coal mines, coal power stations, shipping, etc etc where will the government get it's money from? How many won't have a taxable income? Less money into the coffers from spending (gst). Who is going to foot the bill for all this new power source? The banks, superannuation corporations, public shares? After decimating those companies values who'd have the money or want to invest.
How much will electricity bills rise by? For Electricity companies are going to have to borrow (if they can) the money for all this new infrastructure? The consumer (us) will pay (dearly) for it

(3) see (2)?? so can't answer that either. How many NEW jobs. Given that closure of coal mines, coal fuelled power stations, shipping, support industries of all those, how many jobs will it cost and how many more will replace them? Net gain (doubt it) compared to the job losses.

(4) Not much? You're guessing $5-$10 a week. It may cost nothing! :rofl
Really?
If its so good how come every country in the world isn't doing it?
I think some people are living in the land of the fairies. Or your name must be Julia Brown.

Surely you're having a lend of us. Surely...

Of course government policy is a market condition willo, always has been and always will, tariffs, subsidies, deregulation, privatisation, all government policies that have fundamental effects on markets. But here is the thing, which I apologise for repeating, the CT actually fixes a MARKET FAILURE (look it up) of no price on pollution.

Willo, the specifics are in the PC report and the treasury modelling, as I said, even if its half right, many more jobs will be created than lost, heaps more. Also, no industry will be destroyed, phased out over 50-80 years at worst. I work for a coalminer, a bloke who owns multiple coalmines, he factored in the CT a decade ago. Just another overhead, and not that big a one at that. Remember native title? Those pesky blackfellas were gunna destroy farming and mining. 2 mining booms later....

As for the cost, yes you may ROFL all you want, but what do we want to do here? Whats the worst that could happen? We are all $10 a week worse off? Thats the worst. But this is the first toenail-sized baby step toward cleaning up the planet. I'm happy to pay $10 a week, happy to pay 20 or 30, and I'm not on that good dough.

Its huge, its exciting, get on board.

 

[Wildride]

On the cost issue, all energy prices are going to rise carbon tax or no carbon tax over our lifetime anyway as non-renewable energy sources become harder to obtain. Hopefully by reducing our need for these fuels, we can mitigate the cost increase in the future.

 

[tigersnake]

On the cost issue, all energy prices are going to rise carbon tax or no carbon tax over our lifetime anyway as non-renewable energy sources become harder to obtain. Hopefully by reducing our need for these fuels, we can mitigate the cost increase in the future.

exactly. spot on. correct.

This has been talked about very little. If the CT gets up, market mechanisms will foster an efficiency rush. The price of energy is only going to keep going up, its only a matter of how much. Think about it for a second. We are paying a CT, starting a .07% and going up as it beds in, I dunno say 3% in 10 years. But if fuel is 20% dearer... do the sums. There will be a substantial net benefit.

But if Abbott gets in with his wasteful ineffective joke of a policy, there will be no incentive to create greater energy efficiencies, and fuel still skyrockets. THEN people might be having a sook about a bit more than a couple of bucks extra a week.

The point you make is at the crux of the biscuit wildrider

 

[tigersnake]

1 bob is,they dont have 15 seats thank christ,fair point
2ask theo about smear.snakey i read all 3 papers that i sell here every day,the age is as left and as one sided as it gets ,the hun is toilet paper,the aus gives you both sides .typical name calling you leftard
3he got it end of story,fair point i agree
4 it wont get through in its current form,jg couldnt convince a fish to swim,the electorate is waiting with shotguns for labor at the next election it will be a wipeout for labor and that aint a good thing for politics in this country
5 in 18 months we will be in recession i think ct or no ct ,and the enviroment will do what it wants like it has since time immortal regardless of us

2. Why so precious? Fairfax papers are not left. The are on the conservative side of moderate. They do have some reasonable analysis which does tend to upset right wingers, because usually right wing causes don't stand up to scrutiny.

4. It will get through, and there wont be any shot guns. She may well lose, but the current huge margin will be reeled in as the crazy hysteria dies down and the mechanics of the actual policy sinks in. its 2 years out, a veritable millenium in electorate-memory years. Like I said, 30% of people would still love to shoot her, they always will.

5. Maybe, but as with all Aussie recessions, that will depend on global factors. We've been doing pretty well thus far.

 

[Willo]

Of course government policy is a market condition willo, always has been and always will, tariffs, subsidies, deregulation, privatisation, all government policies that have fundamental effects on markets. But here is the thing, which I apologise for repeating, the CT actually fixes a MARKET FAILURE (look it up) of no price on pollution.

Willo, the specifics are in the PC report and the treasury modelling, as I said, even if its half right, many more jobs will be created than lost, heaps more. Also, no industry will be destroyed, phased out over 50-80 years at worst. I work for a coalminer, a bloke who owns multiple coalmines, he factored in the CT a decade ago. Just another overhead, and not that big a one at that. Remember native title? Those pesky blackfellas were gunna destroy farming and mining. 2 mining booms later....

As for the cost, yes you may ROFL all you want, but what do we want to do here? Whats the worst that could happen? We are all $10 a week worse off? Thats the worst. But this is the first toenail-sized baby step toward cleaning up the planet. I'm happy to pay $10 a week, happy to pay 20 or 30, and I'm not on that good dough.

Its huge, its exciting, get on board.

It seems not all agree.

Iemma predicts carbon calamity

FORMER NSW premier Morris Iemma has become the most senior Labor figure to oppose Julia Gillard's carbon tax.

Mr Iemma says the carbon tax that forms federal Labor's platform for re-election in 2013 is environmentally marginal, economically costly and likely to lead Labor to a historic electoral train wreck.

"One thing is sure -- it won't change the world, but it could change the government," Mr Iemma told The Australian.

Mr Iemma accused the Gillard government of betraying the Hawke-Keating legacy of economic reform, instead embracing the environmental policies of the Greens' agenda.

"We embraced economic growth, and the benefits of economic growth, in the Hawke-Keating era, but we're fighting this battle on the Greens' turf, not our turf. Bob Brown wants to replace the Labor Party as a major party."

Mr Iemma accepted the science of climate change. "Yes, we should take action, but we should not get so far out in front that we injure ourselves," he said.

He rejected the government's view that Australia's carbon tax was similar in scope to actions being taken by other countries.

"Every day there are reports of growth and development in China, its growth in emissions will far outstrip our total emissions," Mr Iemma said.

"The carbon tax at best reduces the rate of increase of emissions slightly."

Mr Iemma said the Greens had wielded excessive influence on the government's policies, pointing to the $10 billion Clean Energy Fund, which excludes carbon capture and storage.

"We ought to be fighting the Greens on the Left with Labor environmental policies and Labor economic policies, not on the Greens' terms. We've adopted a policy which is part of the Greens' agenda.

"And the Greens' agenda is anti-growth and anti-investment. Lower growth and lower investment lead to lower incomes and fewer jobs."

Mr Iemma said the sidelining of federal Resources Minister Martin Ferguson was "quite disgraceful".

"We should always be standing shoulder to shoulder with steelworkers and miners and factory workers before we stand shoulder to shoulder with the likes of Bob Brown and Christine Milne," he added. "One of the reasons previously rusted-on Labor voters are parking themselves somewhere else is that we've confused our identity."

Mr Iemma said that NSW would be particularly hurt by the carbon tax in smelting, steelworks and manufacturing in western Sydney. "Voter reaction ranges from unease and uncertainty to outright hostility. I went down a coalmine myself recently and all the guys I spoke to were uncertain of their futures."

Mr Iemma said the NSW Greenhouse Gas Reduction Scheme, instituted by his predecessor Bob Carr and extended while Mr Iemma was premier, offered federal Labor a far more effective, practical and reasonable template than the carbon tax.

The scheme has resulted in 80 million tonnes of carbon abatement at relatively little cost and without substantial economic dislocation. "The NSW government started with a policy to constrain emissions, not an ideological position to constrain growth."

Mr Iemma's comments reflect the growing dismay of many Labor politicians in private.

It also demonstrates a particular bitterness in NSW that Ms Gillard's February announcement of a carbon tax -- breaking an election promise -- made NSW Labor's March election defeat much heavier than it would have been.

He is the most senior Labor figure to come out publicly against the carbon tax and his comments represent a devastating setback for the government.
Link http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/iemma-predicts-carbon-calamity/story-fn59niix-1226098657315

 

[Willo]

Geez, who's got me? Condesending much willo? Other than some broad references in an SA newspaper article where is the evidence of a plan for mandatory testing of existing dwellings at the owners cost? Standard bluster and scare mongering. I've checked the govt website and the policy reference material and the only place it is mentioned is in this article.

Sorry mate. I didn't mean to be condescending.

I certainly don't know where they've hidden all the details. ;D
Is the article factual? I don't know, I merely posted the report. I've yet to see any rebuttal of the article.
We may have to wait until it's announced.
Perhaps they don't want too many of Bob's policies announced at the same time. They've got a hard enough job getting the general population to swallow the carbon tax. One tax at a time.

 

[evo]

"We should always be standing shoulder to shoulder with steelworkers and miners and factory workers before we stand shoulder to shoulder with the likes of Bob Brown and Christine Milne," he added. "One of the reasons previously rusted-on Labor voters are parking themselves somewhere else is that we've confused our identity."

Mr Iemma said that NSW would be particularly hurt by the carbon tax in smelting, steelworks and manufacturing in western Sydney. "Voter reaction ranges from unease and uncertainty to outright hostility. I went down a coalmine myself recently and all the guys I spoke to were uncertain of their futures."

Quoted for poignance.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Sorry mate. I didn't mean to be condescending.

I certainly don't know where they've hidden all the details. ;D
Is the article factual? I don't know, I merely posted the report. I've yet to see any rebuttal of the article.
We may have to wait until it's announced.
Perhaps they don't want too many of Bob's policies announced at the same time. They've got a hard enough job getting the general population to swallow the carbon tax. One tax at a time.

Accepted, game on!

 

[tigersnake]

Geez, give me strength. Maurice bloody Iemma. Another in the conga line of inept, corrupt NSW power brokers. How is the glib line, quoted by evo, in unreconstructed Marxism? what a joke, especially coming from him.

And the Allan Jones line of 'this won't cool the planet next week, so why bother?', egads.