Politics and activism

Predetermined outcomes

The Howard government is doing it again.

It’s just like the republic debate all over again. Back then it was not Do you want a republic, it was Do you want a republic with a Prez replacing Her Maj and the GG, appointed by a two-thirds majority of parliament.

This time the energy inquiry being set up is not How can we satisfy our energy requirements cleanly and cheaply, it’s Can we go nuclear?

Is it too much to ask to approach these questions without a predetermined outcome in mind?

Apparently, yes.

By Daniel Bowen

Transport blogger / campaigner and spokesperson for the Public Transport Users Association / professional geek.
Bunurong land, Melbourne, Australia.
Opinions on this blog are all mine.

9 replies on “Predetermined outcomes”

I’d rather have a nuclear reactor built across the road in Albert Park than the Grand Prix remain there :-)

Or, (at a State level) how much do we need to spend on roads to improve Melbourne’s transport problems?

The only nuclear reactors that have any chance in Oz are Pebble Bed Reactors.

But why run any risk when you could whack up several thousand wind turbines? Load balancing could be achieved by pumping water back up into the hydroelectric dams when the wind blows, and running the hydro generators when there’s no wind.

It’s clearly Johnny deflecting attention from The Leadership Question.

All that desert, and all that sun, and no-one suggested solar power? I reckon there’s only one reason ANY .gov wants nuclear power stations, and thats because they are planning to build a nuclear bomb or two, it’s the same over here.

>> All that desert, and all that sun, and no-one suggested solar power?

Despite all our advances over the years, solar power is still insanely inefficient. Don’t know the exact figures but there’s like a 98% loss, it’s a nightmare just running a single house off it let alone trying to run entire cities…

Sadly it’s just not a viable option. Wind power is the way to go…

Water-filled solar collectors on the roof of every dwelling in Melbourne would dramatically reduce the city’s dependence on electricity and gas for heating water. This would reduce consumption of coal and gas, freeing up those resources for use elsewhere. It would also keep an army of plumbers employed for a while setting it all up (not that they need the work).

Hey. What are you complaining about? He’s giving you a choice, isn’t he? Nuclear power or a subsistence lifestyle. Your money or your life. With us or with the terrorists. Simple, black and white choices. Or should that be ‘black or white choices’ given that it is Little “Don’t a give a rat’s arse about abos” Johnny we’re talking about? Unfortunately, with Emperor Shrub around, it seems like every little sycophantic satrap is getting on the either/or band-wagon. So, here’s one for Johnny – “Do you want you cabinet to be relocated to one of your refugee prisons or to on top of the reactor you want to build?” Come on, Johnny, make up you mind.

Comments are closed.