Modern nuclear power plants are ridiculously safe, only a completely irrational and uninformed person (of which there are plenty) could be the remotest bit concerned about risks of an accident. They essentially don’t happen.

Please don’t quote chernobyl back at me (or rather, feel free to, if you want to talk complete irrelevancies).

(and congratulations if I had forgotten at the time!)

Though if you read a bit of Chaucerian and Elizabethan literature, I reckon English lost something when it fetishised the subject verb object word order!

he speaking yoda, he is

Civil liberties lawyers and economists do not a strong social force make – they exercise influence in other ways, but don’t provide the building blocks for a strong political party.

As one who belongs to the former group I must say, reluctantly, I agree with that statement Herr Bahnisch, but the construction of that 1st sentence, does it not denote some reversion to certain ancestry?

I thought the limiting factors for biosequestration were only short-term problems. ie: the scientific data for each land-type/usage is not there yet. I know it’s being done, or at least it is in some of the ecotypes I work in.

Mind you there are also some really silly things happening in terms of carbon accounting. I heard something about only counting vegetation that’s higher than 2 metres, that’s something that could actually prove to be quite counterproductive, in my opinion. That’s just anecdotal from a land management officer a while ago, it’s possible things have progressed significantly since then.

Also, I was pleased to see some comments in the NFF policy regarding forestry as a landuse.

A carbon negative country? Good luck with that. Are we going kick 153 million Bangladeshis out of their homes and farms and turn the whole country into forest?

Of course not. But lets face it, if there’s a country better placed to have algal farms I’d like to know which it was. 1/3 of the place regularly floods.

Let all of their emissions and sequestration activity be properly accounted for. Those farmers who were doing high quality biosequestration could be paid for their efforts.

Barnaby didn’t say anything sensible at all. Just a pile of blustering hot air. Hopefully the farmers are smarter than he thinks.

Its just excuse after excuse for not doing anything in Australia.

why are we proposing to use ETS to support forestry in other countries, and yet apparently not allow our farmers to claim credits for biosequestration projects here?

No idea. Seems like a win win to me. Perhaps its because Barnaby is running around scaring the bejesus out of the farmers?

I don’t understand the logic. Are the Rudd government and their advisors more interested in the “market” idea than the actual practical implications?

And why aren’t there more stories about “green oil” instead of black oil? Our farmers must have a few spare paddocks that they could devote to green algae farming, if there was a market for it?

But that’s misleading because with forestry projects, or algal farms, for example, we might make them carbon negative. Also some of the emissions of these countries are embedded in the imports they demand, so if we were able to foreclose, for example imports of certain CO2-intensive goods and have them made there near zero …

Of course, I was only doing a for instance … Plainly, we’d want a much wider pool than that.