Home > Regular Features > Monday message board

Monday message board

November 26th, 2007

It’s time for the first Monday message board of the Rudd era. Civilised discussion and no coarse language as always, but feel free to share the festive mood.

Categories: Regular Features Tags:
  1. gandhi
    November 26th, 2007 at 08:21 | #1

    I’m waiting to hear Rudd announce some inquiries into Iraq, AWB, WMD, etc. Time for some real accountability, methinks…

  2. November 26th, 2007 at 08:36 | #2

    To transfer this over from yesterday’s discussion, we won’t be seeing moves towards Australian nuclear power in the next three years. What a major success for the environment.

    Uranium mining is another question… I don’t think we’ll be seeing it coming to Queensland… what of the other states? Any new mines to open?

  3. Timothy J Scriven
    November 26th, 2007 at 08:41 | #3

    While I want to celebrate I can’t. I’m too worried about family first sharing the balance of power and about the possibility that the effects of a global economic downturn could be unfairly blamed on Australia. I think we may have won a pyrrhic victory; though the situation is better than it has been in years.

  4. Chui Tey
    November 26th, 2007 at 11:53 | #4

    I was expect a better speech from Rudd, but all I heard was “future” and “new page” interspersed with calorie-free words. The only part I cheered for is the promise of governing for all Australians.

    Labor will unfortunately come to regret that they were voted in on kitchen table economics of dissatisfaction. Australians aren’t really going to be happier even if bowser prices drop below $1.00. At the heart of the issue is the roaring economy is making everyone time-poor. It used to be when a good harvest means the end to lean years, and people can kick back and grow fat. Kicking back and growing fat is taboo nowadays, and until we figure out how to make people feel good again, all this talk about money will go no where.

    Talking about Kyoto ratification, what are it’s practical implications for businesses and investors in Australia? Back in 2005, there was some report in New Zealand that it will have to purchase .5B in carbon credits. I haven’t found out much since.

  5. Ian Gould
    November 26th, 2007 at 11:58 | #5

    John Howard was rightly proud of his stewardship of the Australian economy.

    So it has to be yet another blow for the poor man that the markets have responded to Labor’s election by pushing up the ASX and the dollar.

  6. Thomas Moore
    November 26th, 2007 at 13:07 | #6

    http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,22787680-5012321,00.html

    Today is indeed a sad day for those of us who watch the Hitachi Building with zeal. All in the name of climate change?

  7. November 26th, 2007 at 13:36 | #7

    Turning the weather beacon off is a good first step. 200 tonnes of CO2 per year will now be saved. Awesome!

    Though some may argue that it’s a drop in the ocean, it’s worth remembering that the ocean is made up of a millions of drops.

    If this and every other wasteful light was turned off, we’d save a hell of a lot of CO2 from entering the atmosphere, and save a hell of a lot of money too. Not to mention the human and natural damage that we will have stopped if we manage to stop climate change happening.

    We’d also be able to see a lot more stars in the city. Yes please!

  8. alan
    November 26th, 2007 at 16:07 | #8

    Hat trick!

    Howard gone, Vaile toothless, Costello exposed as an entitled whiner and rendered ineffective.

    I spent most of this year saying that a change of government would not be enough: I wanted Howard utterly crushed. I got what I wanted but, strangely, I don’t feel elated. Sunday morning felt as if someone had lanced a boil. I agree with Keating: I don’t feel happy, but I do feel relieved.

    Now that the Liberal Party has rid itself of a frightened, resentful, vindictive control freak, I hope they can rediscover how to be thinking liberals instead of unthinking Liberals.

  9. gordon
    November 27th, 2007 at 12:10 | #9

    I’m all excited about the Encyclopaedia of Earth website and its associated Earth News, Earth Portal and Earth Forum sites. Maybe everybody already knows all about them, but here’s the link anyway.

  10. Andrew
    November 27th, 2007 at 15:31 | #10

    An interesting feature of the election result is the fact that the ALP did so well in the primary vote (+6.3% swing to 44%). The ALP picked up votes from just about every other party. The greens didn’t pick up many extra votes (and indeed went backwards in NSW – down 0.4% to 7.7% of the primary vote).

    I would have expected the Greens to do better – the Democrats have collapsed and climate change was a dominating factor in the campaign.

    Any views on why there wasn’t more of a shift to the Greens?

  11. Ian Gould
    November 28th, 2007 at 16:50 | #11

    Just an idle thought: Iran insists it has no plans to develop nuclear weapons and its sole interest is in civilian power production.

    Thorium reactors are theoretically safer than uranium reactors and Thorium is much harder to make into bombs.

    Thorium technology has never been developed past the test-staged but i wonder if Russia or China could sell the Iranians on a joint project to develop Thorium reactors for use and for export.

  12. melanie
    November 28th, 2007 at 18:56 | #12

    Andrew@10,
    Outside Tasmania and the hippie communes of northern NSW, the Green vote is concentrated in inner cities and in safe seats (both Labor and Liberal). In other words, people are not single issue voters, but they’ll vote Green when they can to make the point that this is something they care about. This view does not, however, seem to have reached the outer suburbs or the countryside where CO2 is less efficiently emitted.

  13. Peter Wood
    November 28th, 2007 at 22:24 | #13

    Re #11: Thorium has been put into use as a way of disposing of plutonium by combining the two elements into fuel rods suitable for use in pressurised water reactors.

    http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fsb/fsb_archive/2006/03/01/8370335/index.htm

    From what I have read this method seems to be a much cheaper and safer way of dealing with leftover plutonium than mixed oxide fuel (MOX).

  14. Peter Wood
    November 28th, 2007 at 22:32 | #14

    Re #2:

    Marathon resources wants to build a very large (30,000 tons of yellow cake) uranium mine at Mt Gee in the Arkaroola sanctuary in the Northern Flinders Ranges. This area is also habitat for the vulnerable yellow-footed rock wallaby.

    http://www.arkaroola.com.au/mining.php
    http://unknownsa.blogspot.com/2007/07/and-heres-secondary-testing-post.html
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/24/2068407.htm
    http://www.flickr.com/groups/save-arkaroola/

  15. Ian Gould
    November 29th, 2007 at 16:10 | #15

    20% of US army recruits fail to me basic standards:

    http://iht.com/articles/2007/11/27/america/army.php

  16. Katz
    December 3rd, 2007 at 08:11 | #16

    Just an idle thought: Iran insists it has no plans to develop nuclear weapons and its sole interest is in civilian power production.

    This is unlikely to change the mind of anyone important.

    1. The Bush Administration (and probably any likely successor US administration) is bent on a policy of regime change for Iran. The Bush Administration, at least, appears to believe that confrontation of Iran over the issue of its nuclear program is a fruitful line of attack. So, even if the Iranians developed the most benign nuclear program imaginable, the Bush Administration would still use it as a casus belli.

    2. China and Russia have made it quite clear that the UN will never give the US a fig-leaf for its regime-change policy against Iran. The Russians and the Chinese have told the US that if the US wishes to commit an overt act of war against Iran, then the US must do so unilaterally.

    3. China and Russia do not want a settlement in Iran where Iran is seen to back down under US pressure. Both countries want the US to continue to be trapped in a no-peace-no-war stance against Iran. It serves Russian and Chinese interests for the US to act as a belligerent, aggressive neo-colonialist power in the Middle East, especially in light of the fact that they are so incompetent at it.

    a. The US is losing hearts and minds across the Islamic world.

    b. The US is forced to bolster its alliance with the Saudi regime, a fact that infuriates Islamists throughout the region.

    c. Russia and China (and where possible India and Japan) are sowing up oil deals which rely on the piping of oil away from the Persian Gulf and North through Siberia.

    This story:

    http://in.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idINIndia-30325120071104

    gives some indication of the pressure that the US administration is putting on India and Japan to keep them out of Iran and the Russia/China energy orbit.

    The Bush Administration has been unsuccessful in its efforts to dissuade Russian involvement in developing Iran’s huge oil fields:

    http://www2.irna.com/en/news/view/line-16/0711064629150810.htm

    China, Russia and Japan know that the great game in the Middle East is all about oil. These countries are quite candid about it.

    Now that the US has proven itself to be utterly incapable of creating political and cultural outcomes consistent with its publicly stated ambitions at the time of the toppling of Saddam Hussein in 2003, it simply remains for the US to acknowledge that, even if its policy in Iraq and the wider Middle East wasn’t all about oil in 2003, in 2007 it is all about oil.

  17. December 5th, 2007 at 11:00 | #17

    Hi!
    89.com

Comments are closed.