(Yes, EC, I stole your inimitable description of Turnbull’s stupid policy.)

Moderator: link fixed – tigtog

MALCOLM TURNBULL: I don’t think it’s quite as bad as that, but it is very significant. It is a very significant reduction in economic growth. You’ve got to remember Tony when you look into that crystal ball 50 years hence you are making assumptions of enormous heroism. Nobody can predict what the economy is going to look like in 10 years time. People have to make forecasts because you’ve got to plan. But a 50-year forecast, you’re making heroic assumptions. This is the foolishness of these token targets because the one thing Mr Rudd knows is that if he makes a commitment to a target in 2050 by the time 2050 comes around he’ll be contributing to the carbon cycle himself. We all will be, we won’t be here.

That would indicate that anyone under 40 is not on Mr Turnbulls radar.

The quote shocked me when I heard it. Does anyone know if he is Rapture Ready?

I’m really angry about this. If Turnbull and Howard somehow imagine they’re capturing the votes of greenies like me with such a cynical exercise (Outsourcing environmental policy to Indonesia, FDB, that’s a great way to describe it), they are sadly mistaken.

TOOLS.

I think there ought to be some kind of overseeing body that could withdraw the operating charter of corporations behaving badly. Gunn’s should be wound up.

I haven’t heard anything from Rudd and co about the Tasmanian matter but on the deforestation initiative they have followed Bob Brown in calling it hypocritical.

Listening to parliament they were not given a copy by Turnbull’s office until after the beginning of Question time.

Comedy’s loss I say.

No end in sight for my spamification – every single time I go in moderation, then someone has to fish me out, and akismet doesn’t seem to be learning.

Boo hoo.

In which case he might look something like this:

http://warriorlibrarian.com/PIX4/johnny2.jpg

Since no evidence can be found that CO2 affects the climate one way or the other this amounts to a positive thing for biodiversity.

To maximise biodiversity at the least cost we want to maximise the extent of the rainforest.

Not to prevent the use of resources within mind you. A single train line here. A single road there. A paddock in the middle somewhere engulfed by the surrounding jungle.

It is not these things which wipe out biodiversity.

Rather it is the practice of one mans property running flat up against another without a nice wide nature corridor in between.

They ought let exploitation go on within and buyback the equivalent amount of land on the fringes.

Never let anything more then 100m X 100m be cleared in any one place and have a four hundred metre buffer of jungle around that.

No burning ever.