Vote Labor and this is what you will get
100% out of touch with reality. 100% deluded. 100% on another planet. 100% dangerous for the future of Australia. That just about sums up the Greens, who, as we must keep reminding everyone, will have the balance of power in the Senate after their shady back-room deal with Labor (which Jooolia Gillard doesn’t want to talk about for obvious reasons). To propose 100% renewables by 2030 is pure madness – let’s just think for a moment what that actually means: no coal-fired power stations at all (and no nuclear, of course, no, no, no, we can’t have that), no petrol or diesel driven vehicles at all, no natural gas at all, and all within the next 20 years! Not only that, but they plan to rely on fart power and sunbeams instead! Words cannot begin to describe the utter lunacy of this. But this is precisely what they want, and what they will demand when they hold the balance of power in the Senate. As the Sydney Morning Herald reports:
The Greens want to completely replace Australia’s reliance on coal with renewable energy sources such as wind and solar.
Greens Senator Christine Milne said yesterday: “Australia can harness our tremendous resources of the sun, wind, ocean, Earth and human ingenuity to replace our reliance on coal with 100 per cent renewable energy within decades.”
Senator Milne said this could be achieved by 2030 with the right preparation and infrastructure. (source)
And Miranda Devine, also in the Herald yesterday, spelt out exactly what life under the Greens would be like:
There’s a lot more Brown and the Greens want if Labor wins: mandated zero net greenhouse gas emissions, the effective end of coal-fired power generation, phasing out of coal exports, a ban on new coalmines or power stations, removal of GM crops, and active discouragement of cars. They want a ban on the exploration, mining and export of uranium, and closure of the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor, which produces medical isotopes used for cancer treatment. They want to restrict funding of private schools. They want to abolish mandatory detention of asylum seekers, and to expand the definition of refugee to include ”environmental” or ”sexuality” refugees. They want to legislate for same-sex marriage, tinker with age of consent laws, establish ”intersex” as a legal gender, fund gender reassignment, require government to consult lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or intersex people on policy, and provide easier access to abortion. On drugs, they are harm minimisation all the way, with more needle exchange programs and injecting rooms. And be prepared for a barrage of nanny-statism, starting with a ban on junk food advertising [which ACM commented on here].
The Greens’ published policies are carefully couched in escape clauses, to avoid the scare campaigns of past elections, when their extreme social agenda cost them votes. But the effect will be the same. And of course, their big-ticket policy, the one with the most nation-changing consequences, is an ETS or carbon tax, with householders paying the price in soaring energy costs. (source)
I have written to Tony Abbott this morning encouraging him to expose the Greens for the extremist, far-Left, hysterical environmental advocacy group that they are, who are not fit to participate in politics full stop, let alone determining the future of Australia under a Labor government. I encourage all Australians to do the same.
UPDATE: To contact Tony Abbott, go to: http://www.tonyabbott.com.au/ContactTony.aspx, or email: tony.abbott@liberal.org.au (Liberals) or Tony.Abbott.MP@aph.gov.au (Parliamentary). Thanks to Sean for the suggestion.
Australian Climate Madness 
Simon said,
“I have written to Tony Abbott this morning encouraging him to expose the Greens for the extremist, far-Left, hysterical environmental advocacy group that they are, who are not fit to participate in politics full stop, let alone determining the future of Australia under a Labor government.”
It is confounding that the coalition isn’t all over this, warning the public what Labor’s bed mates want for Australia. Simon then said, ” I encourage all Australians to do the same.”
Here is the “Contact Tony” link:
http://www.tonyabbott.com.au/ContactTony.aspx
I think it would be good to add that to your article.
Here is what I sent to Tony Abbott,
SQ:
=====================================================
Tony,
I am quoting form an article that was published in “Australian Climate Madness” this morning”
http://tinyurl.com/2cwdarz
“I have written to Tony Abbott this morning encouraging him to expose the Greens for the extremist, far-Left, hysterical environmental advocacy group that they are, who are not fit to participate in politics full stop, let alone determining the future of Australia under a Labor government. I encourage all Australians to do the same.”
I answered the blog saying that I am confounded as to why the Coalition isn’t all over this, warning the public what Labor’s bed mates (considered term) have in mind for Australia.
Don’t think the public already knows, they don’t. You can’t just leave it to the paper columnists like Piers Akerman and Miranda Divine, because most people don’t read those articles even when they are put under their noses. They are more interested in the front pages where they can read about Tiger Woods, “Master Chef” and football.
Good luck in the election.
Regards,
Sean McHugh
============================================================
EQ:
In my previous reply, I did an injustice by not mentioning Andrew Bolt’s article on the Greens. It should have been on the front page of the Telegraph, where the masses couldn’t miss it.
Here is the link to it:
http://tinyurl.com/298y5pw
We live in very worrisome times. As has been mentioned, the Greens and the Labor Party have done deals in regard to the Senate.
I myself will be supporting the Climate Sceptics who as well as being anti ETS, also have plenty of common sense policies. Unfortunately, the coalition has to take some of the blame for being very “wishy washy” in dealing with the Greens. They should treat them for the extremists, that they are.
The Greens are Australia’s fifth column!
If someone called Brown is involved, you’re doomed. The UK has just had a lucky escape from “Jonah” Brown – he cursed everything he did.
If the Greens hold the balance, by 2030 Australia will be like Amish County – great clean air (apart from the stink of horse shit) and almost no economic activity.
Ed P, you do the Amish a great disservice. At least they are inventors and at least they are not trying to cram their life choices down everyone else’s throats.
The Greens are fundamentally anti-life. There are no redeeming qualities.
Australian Greens have not declared an policy on environment,economy,and the overall policy on the Aboriginal question of empowering them to seek solutions in the context of their culture which has a long history of environmental conservation .. these are the issues that would decide my vote for the rest of the issues are resolved to win the votes of the greater community and the buzz word is development.
Geez, bile-fest much? Anybody would think that you lot are raging fundamentalist Christians (in the Southern US Bible belt sense of the term) the way you are hammering the “extremist, far-Left, hysterical environmental advocacy group” that is the Greens! This article is reminiscent of claims that ‘the sky is going to fall on our heads’.
I agree that “To propose 100% renewables by 2030 is pure madness”, but to propose that anyone actually said that or is planning to enact that is just as mad IMO! Please give me a link to anyone, anywhere (even a certified crazy person) seriously proposing “no petrol or diesel driven vehicles at all, no natural gas at all” by the year 2030.
Besides why is sustainable such a bad idea? I would’ve thought that regardless of your opinion on anthropomorphic climate change; power stations that produce power from freely available natural resources (such as sun, wind, geothermal and wave/sea-currents) would be desirable. Once set up, they would require only maintenance rather than constantly requiring fuel. Sounds much cheaper in the long term to me! Also once built most of the costs are providing labour rather than fuel so more jobs!
I’d think its a no-brainer as prices of fossil fuels continue to rise as demand outstrips supply (due to population growth and rising standards of living). Regardless of position on climate change, I would’ve thought that it would be in Australia’s best interests to continue to compete with USA, India, China and Europe (especially Spain, UK, Germany, France, Italy, Portugal and Greece) who are all investing heavily in renewables. Renewable energy is globally one of the fastest growing investment sectors and has a capitalisation of over $100 billion/yr. Surely we want some of that cash, regardless of political leanings?
@Jeremy: “raging fundamentalist Christians”? Throwing ad hominems around doesn’t add anything to the debate. How would you describe the Greens then? I think my description is pretty accurate. And by the way, it’s the warmists that think the sky is falling…
As for the 100% renewables by 2030, read the quote. It’s there in black and white. I’m in favour of renewables as much as anyone, but only when it is practical and feasible. If we rely on wind and solar, the lights will go out. The reality is that coal is the only option for baseload electricity generation, and will continue to be so for many decades. Subsidising wind and solar is money down the drain.
Jeremy, thank you for providing a voice of reason in all of this. Honestly Simon, you are entitled to your views. However, even if Jeremy has been “throwing ad hominems arround” you can not truly believe that your arguments are all reasonable or truly representative of the Greens’ views. “They plan to rely on fart power and sunbeams instead”. Come on Simon, grow up. I take some comfort in the fact that any educated person could see through the (if i’m being totaly honest) quite ridiculous statements you have made. Also, if you think that our economic future is at all safe if we continue to rely on fossil fuels, you are delusional.
Don’t make the mistake of thinking that the Australian public is not fully aware of how biased and unreasonable your attack on the Greens is.
@Eb: sorry, but READ THE POST:
Why is quoting something the Greens are saying themselves “quite ridiculous”? I stand by my original comments.
Simon, I read the post.
To recap, your statement was: “no coal-fired power stations at all (and no nuclear, of course, no, no, no, we can’t have that), no petrol or diesel driven vehicles at all, no natural gas at all, and all within the next 20 years!”.
This is quite different to the quoted: “Greens Senator Christine Milne said yesterday: “Australia can harness our tremendous resources of the sun, wind, ocean, Earth and human ingenuity to replace our reliance on coal with 100 per cent renewable energy within decades.”
Senator Milne said this could be achieved by 2030 with the right preparation and infrastructure.”
Where in this quote or even the source it comes from does the senator suggest that we can replace petrol or diesel driven vehicles and natural gas by 2030?
@Eb: if you think the Greens will stop at replacing coal with 100% renewables, when oil is far more “evil” then you are sadly mistaken. If you wish to vote for Ms Milne, that is your prerogative. It’s a free country.
Sorry Simon, again you misunderstand me, and you seem to be avoiding the core issue. I simply pointed out the fact that your statement was false, and that the senator did not suggest that the replacement of petrol or diesel vehicles and natural gas could be achieved by 2030. That will take time, but it is achievable, and it is inevitable. Fossil fuels won’t last forever.
@Eb: I acknowledge your point. Yes, she refers to coal only, so my comments regarding vehicles was incorrect. However, that doesn’t change the central point about renewables – namely that they have to be competitive in the market, and not subsidised at huge cost to the taxpayer. For the foreseeable future, the only option for baseload electricity generation is coal or nuclear – neither of which the Greens will accept.
@Eb – You’re welcome and thank you for persevering to make the point I initially set out to.
@Simon – Sorry if I offended you, I was trying to make a point, the irony of which seemed completely lost on you. But thank you for acknowledging that your original comments were misleading and contained errors of fact. Sorry I have not addressed your question regarding my opinion of the Greens, I will gladly answer that in another post if you would particularly like me to. But first I would like to address a couple of issues you have raised in your comments: Energy subsidies and base-load power generation.
G-20 nations have already agreed to eliminate subsidies for fossil fuels. Currently US taxpayer funded fossil fuel subsidies are approx US$12 billion/yr. The well respected Bloomburg Finance recently reported on recent global energy subsidy research: ‘“One of the reasons the clean energy sector is starved of funding is because mainstream investors worry that renewable energy only works with direct government support,” said Michael Liebreich, chief executive of New Energy Finance. “This analysis shows that the global direct subsidy for fossil fuels is around ten times the subsidy for renewables.”’ Once the taxpayer funded fossil fuel subsidies are removed we will see renewables becoming much more competitive and I’m sure the ‘level playing field’ will result in a surge of investment into this already rapidly growing field.
The base-load power generation problems associated with renewable energy sources are misconceptions for two reasons. Partially because they are based on the simple logic that the sun doesn’t shine all the time nor does the wind blow all the time. Whist I certainly wouldn’t argue the contrary, wave activity is relatively consistent, tidal flows more-so and even wind is quite consistent in some areas (they don’t call it the “roaring forties” for nothing!) Geothermal power can be produced night and day regardless of other factors. There are also other available technologies such as solar-thermal storage and chemical energy storage systems which can collect solar (or other) energy and release it as required.
The other reason, is that the notion of base-load power has been developed because of the nature of steam powered generators (ie coal/gas/nuclear power stations). As it takes days for these power generators to get ‘up to speed’ they can’t be turned on and off whenever required, and thus because of their inefficiency must produce power 24/7. Many base-load power uses have sprung up to make use of this otherwise wasted energy. Power companies have encouraged this base-load power usage by reducing the charges during ‘off-peak’ times. They can afford to do this because it would be wasted anyway (which actually costs them money). The vast bulk of power demands occur during ‘peak’ times (generally 7am-10pm – much of which time there is access to solar photo and/or thermal generation. Point in fact: in recent years, the biggest peaks in power usage have consistently been during hot days.
Personally I don’t understand why coastal Australians cities with water issues aren’t investing in dual purpose solar-thermal desalination and power plants. Seems like a no-brainer to me.
@Simon. Thanks, just trying to be fair and make sure everyone was getting the correct information. I’m glad that you can admit when you are wrong, that’s very difficult for some people.
Soon, there wont be a market for fossil fuels. I say we get ahead now in sustainable power generation, be the market leaders. That’s how we secure the future of our economy.
Many good points Jeremy 😀
Having read through these comments, I think Simon is being too nice.
When Milne says “Australia can harness our tremendous resources of the sun, wind, ocean, Earth and human ingenuity to replace our reliance on coal with 100 per cent renewable energy within decades.”
and “this could be achieved by 2030 with the right preparation and infrastructure.”
I take that as applying to oil and gas, too, as most would not define them as renewable.
I do not think it’s possible to overstate the desire of the Greens to undermine (forgive the pun!) the core pillars of our economy. Their policies are scary, and if implemented, would do much damage to our economy AND our environment.
Oh, also, Jeremy, could you please provide a reference for your statements and quote about subsidies of fossil fuels? Thanks
[snipped – please keep comments relevant to original post – thanks]
Greens want 100% renewables by 2030
Maybe Greens know something we don’t ?
@Gent – How you equate a clear policy statement of replacing coal power generation with renewables by 2030 “as applying to oil and gas, too” is beyond me. No doubt the Greens would like to see reductions in oil use, probably gas as well. But they have not set a clear time table for that to the best of my knowledge. To rationally suggest that they are actively trying to sabotage our economy seems bizarre to me! Even if you think it’s misguided, surely you must realise that they genuinely believe that their policies will benefit Australia. Could you please tell me which policies in particular you think “are scary, and if implemented, would do much damage to our economy AND our environment”? I’m very curious to know.
The quote I supplied was from the Bloomberg website (I apologise for my misspelling above). The full article can he found here: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-29/fossil-fuel-subsidies-are-12-times-support-for-renewables-study-shows.html
In case you were wondering, Bloomberg is well known and respected financial information company founded in the early eighties. It provides a significant proportion of the worlds financial data with clients including government treasuries and investment banks as well as the trading floors of most stock exchanges. It was founded by incumbent New York Mayor; Michael Bloomburg. He remains a senior partner in the company.
Could you please tell me which policies in particular you think “are scary, and if implemented, would do much damage to our economy AND our environment”? I’m very curious to know.
Jeremy, I refer you to the article, “Election 2010: The Greens Want 100% Renewables by 2030” on the Australian Climate Madness website. But I’ll change it up a bit for you…and quote Senator Cory Bernardi:
“The Greens are committed to supporting a carbon tax that could double the price of electricity and lift the price of almost everything else, without any benefit to the environment.
“They’ll also be looking to introduce a death tax and increase Labor’s proposed new mining tax. They oppose uranium mining in Australia – a position that could jeopardise South Australia’s largest mining venture at Roxby Downs. They want to increase company tax rates, redistribute wealth and remove capital gains tax relief.”
That all sounds like significant damage to our economy. Because the environment gets better cared for the better off a society is, negatively impacting upon the economy bodes ill for the environment, too. It’s simple, really. Efficiency and better care for our environment are not mutually exclusive. They go together by definition.
Thank you for the education on who Bloomberg is, btw. It’s so benevolent of you to take care of us mere mortals by sharing your wealth of knowledge.
Tipping my hat to you,
Gent
So, the Bloombergy article was a bit short on detail (and references), so I went to the International Energy Agency report mentioned in the one sentence in the Bloomberg article that dealt with “fossil fuel subsidies.”
http://www.iea.org/files/energy_subsidies.pdf is that report. Less than 2 pages. Hmmm. Short on references and detail.
You’re being disingenuous, Jeremy. You are implying that western countries subsidise fossil fuels (the IEA “report” states over $500 billion globally as compared to about $46 billion to “renewables.”), but it’s Iran and other oil-rich countries that are providing fuel to their people for under the world oil price. (And until I see the detail of the IEA report, and understand the methodology of how they arrived at their “subsidy” figure, I’m even dubious of that.)
When I traveled through Venezuela, I saw that this was happening there. Unfortunately for those people, the despot in charge was rolling in oil money that allowed him the luxury of making decisions that were very bad for their general economy — AND the environment of that country. It was heartbreaking to drive through the countryside and see no development, very little agriculture, and horrendous environmental degredation.
Chavez, anyone? I’ll bet he’d love you Greens.