It was billed as the debate of the century, parliamentary session, month week: Peter Garrett versus Malcolm Turnbull on the 7.30 Report. Both of them had been active in extra parliamentary politics before becoming new boys in parliament, where they have both shot to the top of the environment portfolio (and shadow portfolio.)
So how was it for you?
I can’t give much of an opinion. Sorry, but there are limits to my political junkiness and I reached them last night at about 7.35pm. I watched each of them answer the first question and then turned over to Jamie Oliver on Channel 10. Jamie is much more personable and interesting (from my point of view after a hard day at work).
I can’t find any reviews of the debate in today’s online media (correct me if I’m wrong). I’m interested to know how it went, so help me out.
Plus: here’s the transcript.
Bored.
I was out having cocktails and tapas!
But here’s one blog review, quite a comprehensive one and acute as usual, from Modia Minotaur:
http://modiaminotaur.blogspot.com/2007/02/garrett-vs-turnbull-real-climate-change.html
Tim Dunlop at Blogocracy:
http://blogs.news.com.au/news/blogocracy/index.php/news/comments/climate_change_beyond_thunderdome/
Jeff Sparrow at Leftwrites:
http://www.leftwrites.net/2007/02/09/mainstream-thinking-on-the-environment/
I managed to stay awake, but only because I was infuriated by the spineless and pathetic line of questioning by O’Brien.
I had to check if it really was the ABC and is this a portent of things to come with the all new editorial non bias (whatever its called).
The truely sad part is they’ve agreed to a follow up debate; Suz, was Olivers cooking worth watching with all the puckers.
Yes tic toc, it was a very watchable program – Jamie at home on his Essex estate, in his (organic) garden, picking fruit and salad leaves and turning them into delicious (at least, they looked delicious) dishes. I watched it right to the end.
Gianna at she sells sanctuary:
http://she-sells-sanctuary.blogspot.com/2007/02/power-v-passion.html
Jamie’s new show is pretty good, although it makes me pine for the very healthy vege patches I’ve just been forced to abandon by dint of eviction. I just can’t stand the way he talks. He’s gone from engaging and cute to a walking mannerism factory.
I take it this is now a Jamie Oliver thread?
Too little too late. As if there is any debate to be had. It is like debating what colour blue is.
FDB, I feel the opposite – I increasingly like Jamie Oliver and his way of talking.
But no, this is not purely a Jamie Oliver discussion – I’m keen to hear what people thought of the debate.
Mark, thanks for the links.
Turnbull and Howard have decided that they can get away with paying lip service to the idea about treating Climate Change seriously and at the same time manage to actually do nothing about it.
Any proposal for Australian action is dismissed for either of two reasons:
1. being too harmful for the economy or
2. absolutely pointless because China is the cause of Climate Change
Climate change sceptics the world over will be running the same defensive strategy, except in the US, where point 2 does not wash and where Climate Change is taken more seriously.
Australia under Howard, will remain firmly old school and continue to miss out on the benefits to flow from the new energy economy.
Garrett got across the message that the Australian economy must adapt now in order to reap benefits of becoming technology providers and in order to stay ahead of future global CO2 pollution protocols which will penalise Australia’s polluting industries.
Garrett obviously believes that Climate Change is a great threat. Howard and Turnbull do not.
Garret is right to pursue the “crisitunity” angle. Seems obvious to me, but clearly the whole “end-of-days” versus “head-in-sand” strawman competition has a lot of people fooled.
Didn’t see it (watched the quite good Last King of Scotland instead) but reading the transcript it seems like both of them did OK, though Turnbull is indeed playing with a lousy hand given to him by his party and leader.
On another tack, while Bob Brown is talking complete and utter nonsense with his proposal to ban coal exports, it does draw attention to the elephant in the room. Geosequestration not only has to work, it has to work soon, and it has to be cheaper than nuclear power and/or renewables, if the thermal coal industry is to survive. Neither major party is really prepared to acknowledge this yet.
Robert, would you also say that the future of the Australian coal industry will be determined by decisions made overseas rather than decisions made in Australia?
Paul: First I should clarify – Brown is talking nonsense because shutting down Australia’s coal industry won’t result in our customers consuming less coal. It just means they’ll buy it off somebody else.
As to your actual question – yes, in the main. Australia is not completely without influence on the industry’s future, because it will also be determined by whether the research done on geosequestration/IGCC/oxyfuel pans out, Australia has some small influence on that because it does fund some of it.
You know, I was just thinking the other morning how strange it is that I’ve seen/heard virtually nothing from the Greens on the issue. It’s like the taling points in the debate has been completely monopolised (duopolised?) by the (H)ALP and the Coalition.
To be sure, this could be because I get the bulk of my news from The Oz. But that rag usually likes to give the Greens a run for a bit of a laugh, and usually I get my greens-fix from my supplementary news sources in any case.
So is the above proposal from Bobby (albeit, it’s the first I’ve heard of it) the only thing from the Greens to have penetrated the mediasphere, or am I imagining it? If the former, what’s going on I wonder? If the latter, have they had anything new/interesting/pertinent to say?
Here’s an ABC Online story about it. I may do a post on LP about it, and will try to keep the snark to a minimum (but Bob Brown does make it difficult sometimes).
I’m just not sure about it. What’s with this hippy gardener that Jamie found down in the tool shed.
And how come he thinks he’s Peter Cundall all of a sudden? If that little spiv tells me one more time that his garden is “organic” i’m likely to bring up my dinner. Fresh bocconcinis and all. And don’t start me on those anti-terrorism ads…
Is that what we are talking about?
It looks as though the attempts by Howard, Turnbull and the Murdoch press to wedge Labor and the coal mining workers over the issue are unlikely to succeed. The CFMEU has already declared itself.
Crikey gives it to Garrett.
I was watching a thunderstorm, (no tele). But read the transcript and blogged about it here.
Gianna sure has a knack with the catchy post titles (pretty obvious that one). And I agree with her. Garrett’s years of experience and knowledge of his subject held him good stead. Even on a reading of the transcript Malcolm seemed shrill and out of his depth.
Vertical integration joe2.
But some Libs still think that the issue can still be spun their way.
Yet another pathetic Crikey article. Really, what is the point of them these days?
An alternative to MSM that is virtually the same as the MSM except that they don’t publish a hard copy version. I see.
The idea that if we stopped coal exports, that it would have no effect on world markets is ridiculous.
There is a very good reason we sold $23 billion of coal last year.
If the world price of coal goes up, then that is a great contribution to lowering the relative cost of cleaner energy sorces. Australia has a massive say in the Climate Change equation – despite what Howard would have us believe.
Discussions about imminent threats to global survival may be all well and good, but have nothing to do with the tragic loss of dazzling individuals who have made giant contributions to the understanding of the human condition http://wonkette.com/politics/anna-nicole-smith/national-day-of-mourning-for-anna-nicole-smith-235220
Actually, I feel sorry for her baby, I really do.
Garrett made the interesting point that several Australian energy companies are poised to make a profit from carbon trading if only Australia would sign up to the carbon trading system. Shame on O’Brien for not putting this to Turnbull.
“The idea that if we stopped coal exports, that it would have no effect on world markets is ridiculous.
There is a very good reason we sold $23 billion of coal last year.”
No..That statement is ridiculous! Indonesia alone will be bringing on a number a major mines over the next ten years that will make Australia’s output look like two blokes with a shovel. Not inluding one major mine mine planning to ramp up from 30 million tonnes a year to 50 million tonnes over the next two years.
It is only the rampant corruption and legal morass of mining regulations that has slowed things so far.
If you ain’t in the game you have no effect on the rules.
Garrett missed an opportunity to wedge Turnbull over the drought. All he had to do was mention El Nino. Garrett could have made the case that global warming increases the frequency of El Ninos which are responsible for Australia’s drought. Does Garrett not know this?
I dont think Garrett is yet quite with it – but his deficiencies are giving him a nice anti-politician vibe which will play well in
boganbattler town, along with his records.But the real turnup is how crap Turnbull is. Desperately long cliches, wholly illogical rhtetoric inherited from the Howard ten-year Climate Coma eg “A global system is essential. Thats why we wont join”. Admittedly, his material (the coalition policy) gives him nothing to work with.
I want to hear Rudd say “John Howard has confused ‘realism’ with head in the sand, non-innovative, business-as-usual thinking. They are two entirely different things. Realism is accepting our economic prosperity wont survive gloabl warming projections. Howard’s ‘realism’ is completely out of touch with that reality.”
Good evening ladies and gentlemen, Ray Warren with you. It’s a humid night and the fans have been streaming into Canberra Stadium for hours, many having camped out outside all day in anticipation of this much talked about contest. I think the organisers could have done a better job and opened the gates a bit earlier.
Mal Turnbull, from silvertail territory and starting this fight from the Sport Institute end should win this one handily, but in Peter Garrett he has a wily opponent who loves to get in close and then get out again.
What do you say, Fatty?
You’re right Rabs, Silvertail won’t want to get in close with Garrett, that shiny, bony skull is an awesome weapon.
Thanks Fatty for those words of wisdom. Well, the referee Mr O’Brien has come out of the tunnel now. I don’t think he is going to stand for any nonsense from either of the combatants in this contest. Although I must say he’s been accused of being one-eyed by the Conservatives fans. Bit like the late Barry Gomersall from Queensland.
The clock is clicking down but first, Mandy Vanstone with her own rendition of the national anthem.
* * *
We’re back ladies and gentlemen, for this season-opener. God forbid, but I reckon we’re gonna see some claret on the floor before the night’s out. How do you see it Sterlo?
Thanks Rabs. Yes, neither of them can afford to lose this one as it’s gonna set the pattern for them in this very important Shell Oil Environment Series. I think you underestimate Garrett at your own peril. I know Mal has the experience but Garrett is no stranger to the big arena, no nerves from him and the bigger the crowd the better he likes it. Turnbull prefers a smaller venue, like Edna’s Table.
Thanks Peter. The crowd is certainly baying for blood, anybody’s blood. Okay, Mr O’Brien’s blown his whistle and they are off in this fascinating contest that is promising plenty of biff and grapple.
Turnbull has taken the ball in a long curving run but he’s not making any headway. It seems he’s avoiding Garrett, so he’s not making any real progress. A very long approach and I think he’s already lost his game plan. I can see the team boss, John Howard up in the box reaching for the phone. This is not a good start from the Young Turk of Paddington.
Ooooh!!! Crunch!!! The Skull has got him amidships. Stopped dead in his tracks. Looks a bit winded. It’s a turn up for the books. But no. Garrett is not going to go on with it and seems to be looking to the new coach Kevin Rudd. Get on with it son, don’t look upstairs! Go on your own! An opportunity gone begging.
Turnbull is back on his feet now. He makes a quick dart, more a scoot really, towards the Mal Meninga Stand, weaving as he goes, and keeping his head down. He won’t win like this but he’s conserving his strength. Sterlo, what’s his gameplan?
You’re spot on Ray, he wants to last the distance and perhaps pull something out of the bag at the end…
Excuse me Sterlo, but the ref has intervened. He’s called Turnbull out. Okay, it’s play on. Turnbull is making the running again. He’s more cautious but he’s still playing the man. Garrett sidesteps but it’s not enough. He’s been tackled. Boy, he’s been tackled on the science. Well that was to be expected.
But the Silvertail has run out of tackles and Mr O’Brien’s signalled a handover. No score yet but it’s not going to be a walkover we all predicted. Now, Garrett with the ball. Can he put points on the board? Oh no, he’s gone to water as well. He’s dropped the ball. Or is it a steal, Sterlo?
I think you’ll find it’s one on one, quite legitimate, Ray.
Thanks Pete. Yes, Mr O’Brien has signalled a change of possession. So it’s Turnbull to play the ball. Oh, he’s dropped it. Must be nervous. That’s unusual, he’s usually a big match man. Before he switched codes, he handled big occasions. Remember the Republican series, fellers?
Well, he lost that one, Rabs.
Yes, okay, Fatty, I don’t want to argue the toss now. Garrett with the ball, he’s making headway and using his head. Smart move, global warming. It’s easy for him, the crowd is with him. Nice set, he’s within cooee of the line. He kicks but it’s fielded by Turnbull. Now Turnbull again in possession. He’s making very similar moves to his opponent. Ah, that’s his game! He wants to make himself indistinguishable from his opposing team.
Crrrunch! Here’s another tackle from the Bald One. He’s a freak that kid! He’s a Houdini!!!! One minute he’s defending than this. How good was that? How good was that? Turnbull is groggy on his feet. Will he get up? The trainer is on the field. The ref stops play. How do you see it so far, Sterlo?
Well Rabs, the hits are all well and good but Garrett has to score himself. This is just tit for tat, Ray.
Brilliant, incisive comment, Sterlo. They seem to be playing very similar moves. There’s nothing new here except that Garrett is better at it. And here is Turnbull again, making his way into Garrett’s territory. He’s taken off at a tangent but he is straightening out now. Garret’s waiting for him and he swings but misses. Oh boy, if that connected he would taken the Silvertail’s head right off. Whew. They are wrestling now. Garrett is not as powerfully built as Turnbull but he’s rangy and he’s fitter. Turnbull’s going the grope. The ref’s blown the whistle. Penalty. It’s close enough, will he take the tap? No, he’s elected to shoot for goal. Fatty? Was that wise? Should he have taken the tap?
Ray, little fish are sweet. Take the points, I’d say. It’s early days yet.
Thanks Fat Man. Well it’s in line and he’s judged the wind real nice. The ball is coming around. Two points.
Back to the centre. It’s a short kick off by Turnbull. He regains possession. A kick and chase. Well that was unexpected. A thrilling finish, a bold move by Turnbull. But he’s too slow to take advantage of it. Too slow. An opportunity gone begging and he’s squibbed it. The time’s about up, Mr O’Brien is about to blow time. Yep. it’s all over.
We’ll be back after this.
* * *
How did you see it Sterlo?
I think it was never in doubt, Rabs. The Bald Man controlled the contest throughout. He’s an experienced public performer and crowds energise him. I thought he was little bit overawed by the occasion as the main playmaker – but they are both new to this code, let’s face it. Then again, Ray, they were stars before they came to play in this league. This is not over by any means. It’s gonna a be grudge match for the rest of this season. I think Garrett is gonna play the spoiler, he’s not playing for as high a stakes as is Turnbull who has his eye on the captaincy.
Excellent analysis as per usual from the master tactician himself. Thanks Sterlo, thanks Fatty, see you next time on Nine’s Wide World of Sport.
This election campaign will sound the death-knell for The Greens. Just an both Labor and the Libs cannabalized One Nation’s ideas, so too they will gobble up The Greens r’aison d’etre. Look out for Bob Brown appearing on “Dancing With the Stars.”
Not doubt about it Sir Henry, the game of promoting the environment was the big winner on the day.
Vale Barry Gomersall – the greatest. league. refereee. evah.
In league, black armband history LIVES! QUEENSLANDAH !!!
I’m inclined to agree with Aussie Bob over at Surfdom http://www.roadtosurfdom.com/2007/02/09/see-that-wasnt-so-hard-was-it/#comments:
Climate change has clearly taken off as an electoral issue, and Howard wants to flick it away with half-baked schemes for nuclear power (25 years away, if it’s economically viable) and geo-sequestration (10 years away, if it works).
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t have any particular objections to either, and geo-sequestration could be valuable for economies like China and India. But in Australia the situation calls for a portfolio of energy solutions, including geothermal and solar, not to mention energy solutions for households. And none of that’s happening.
The less said about Brown’s suggestion the better. Let him tell that to the miners, power-station workers, coal-train drivers in the Hunter for instance.
The debate left me with two impressions:
1. Turnbull doesn’t know enough about environmental science for someone in his position.
2. Garrett doesn’t know enough about economics for someone in his position.
Meanwhile, in the ten years (and it is only ten, at maximum 20) we have to do something about this issue, they and their successors will continue to talk shit until it’s too late. If only they’d both shut the hell up and get together to do something. Australia is one of the biggest CO2 emitters per capita on earth – for Howard and his cronies to blame this on China and the US is ridiculous and completely misses the point.
Quite frankly, this issue is too important to play politics on. The “solution” (can we really call it that when the damage already done can’t be reversed?) can’t simply come from politicians. People have to start making tough choices regarding their consumption and lifestyle habits. I’m sick of everyone looking to Garrett or Turnbull or Howard or Rudd for some “action” or “solution”… Unless people make the right choice regarding these decisions here and elsewhere, it doesn’t really matter if we’re in Kyoto or out of it, if we are “realists” or not, or if we start our own separate “6 nation” carbon trading scheme: it ain’t going to make a difference – only difference makes a difference. In reality people might say they care about climate change in the polls, but they still leave their appliances on standby all day, drive the 2km to the train station or work, crank up the air conditioners full blast all day, buy 4WDs in record numbers and would rather buy a new pair of shoes each month than pay extra for a guarantee that their electricity company is sourcing more energy from renewables.
This is one issue that politicians and people can’t afford to crap on about. Tentative steps have been taken in Europe by both groups. However, China, the US and Australian politicans AND citizens just don’t seem to be making the connection – and it’s future generations that are going to pay the price.
Actually I’ve had a bit of a rethink. The solution is dams. If only to shut Bolt up.
I guess I worried that Garrett would get done over by a slicker and smarter debater, but he did OK. He dodged the bullets, stayed calm and on target and was obviously more comfortable with his material.
They are probably evenly matched on water, Garrett has a definite edge on climate change, but if they ever got onto the biosphere I imagine Turnbull would be all at sea. He’s probably the least likely environment minister since Graham Richardson. But Richardson knew politics and power. That’s about all Turnbull has going for him, but he looked a bit of a novice to me.
If you want to hear the full Bob Brown interview, it was with Fran Kelly on Breakfast. Brown reckons they are polling at 13% in the Senate and will have the balance of power for sure.
TURN BACK TEH RIVERS!
Brian, you must have kept your head down during the Wilson Tuckey interregnum in Forestry and Conservation.
Wise move. Irony may de dead, but that wont stop some banging its corpse.
My favorite was Robert Hill of Jabiluka fame. Another bright spark, full of ideas that rose and fell in spectacular fashion. Howard knows how to pick them.
Cripes, LE, I thought that was a bad dream!
But I must confess that Robert Hill and Ros Kelly also seemed a bit improbable.
I’ve just remembered the scene at the Sustainability Conference in Jo’berg in 2002 when the environment ministers were dancing around and hugging each other after escaping having their whole show taken over by the World Trade Organisation. We were represented by Dr David Kemp. Imagine how exciting it would be to get into a clinch with him!
Enough jaded cynicism. I’ll have you know that we who are born to rule have always been most sensitive to matters of ski-fields, pheasants, rolling green pastures, polo, and whatnot country matters.
My opponents are simply attempting to frighten the masses, somewhat in the manner of Peterloo, over easily understood matters of sunshine and rain.
Rest assured, atoms are the answer. And in any case we only contribute 1% towards global warming so none of this really matters anyway.
All most amusing. Now back to the fields with you.
Thanks your Lordship, but I think you’ll find its closer to 2% – and thats some twenty countries emit a similar amount.
Is that your counsel to each of them? Thats 40% of global emissions not worth bothering with.
You see, there’s a reason we took over the castle in 1688, old boy. Thats about the time governance got more complex than bossing villeins around the tenant farms.
Then the villeins and the ploughmen have got to have the lord’s consent!
Yeah!
Yeah the villeins and the ploughmen have got to have the lord’s consent…
[RAVE OUT AND FADE TO APPLAUSE]
Cross posted from JQ.
I foolishly read the Garret/Turnbull ABC debate transcript. Conclusion? Turnbull hasn’t got a clue, Garret can’t get his point across.
In a nutshell
Carbon trading- a useful tool to fund early renewable technologies. Drawback limited life, and will become the vehicle of monumental fraud.
Carbon sequestration- sweeping the dirt under the rug not significantly available for many years.
Clean Coal- desulphurised coal
Clean Coal technologies- some minor benefits but in general a way of spending huge amounts of public money on research resulting in a disguise for dirty coal.
Solar power- comes in many forms. Bypasses the whole carbon issue all together.
Wind power- another type of solar power.
Geothermal energy- use the energy from the earths core for power.
Ethanol and bio fuels- turn bad CO2 into breatheable air and useable fuel.
Nuclear power- takes life threatening material that is safely stored underground and spreads it all around the surface. Generates some power for a short time.
Geosequestration versus ethanol and bio fuel.
ethanol is converting 2 billion tonnes of CO2 into oxygen now and can be expanded many fold quickly while employing many people.
geosequestration may work and may be available in 10 to 15 years
Solar thermal versus nuclear
Solar thermal is proven totally safe and reliable, produces base load, can be implemented rapidly to supply all of Australia’s electricity. Complementary to geothermal.
Nuclear is a very expensive possible supplier of some of Australia’s electricity. Produces base load. Politically sensitive, not popular with the public, many years from implementation.
Our scientists are telling us that our need is urgent. The best approach to this is to expand the good technologies while progressively reducing the bad technologies. No loss of jobs, no reduction in GDP or GNI. With that in mind which Fuel technology and which electricity production technology would you use?
Final conclusion: I can’t get my point across either.
WBB, by the time we stopped shipping coal other miners around the world would have expanded to fill the slack.
In fact, the mine machinery would probably be shipped straight to Indonesia or China to expand production there.
“WBB, by the time we stopped shipping coal other miners around the world would have expanded to fill the slack.”
Well at least we wouldn’t have the coal on our hands.
There is such a thing as leading by example, despite the financial cost, and if things are as dire as it seems at least we can be seen to have made one highly principled decision. As surprising as this would be to the rest of the world, given our recent form on a range of issues.
joe2, it would be a spectacularly pointless gesture.
We cannot control the amount of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere by other countries by refusing to sell them our coal. We can control the amount of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere here in Australia. If you want to make a gesture on climate change, how about one that actually makes a bloody difference instead of an empty one?
The point is, we CAN control the CO2 emitted into the atmosphere by AUSTRALIAN coal here and abroad, by not providing it. That’s what we have to do. Don’t be like Johny ……always looking to escape responsibilty for ones own actions by looking next door. Time to start rapidly phaseing out this No1 atmospheric polluter instead of those crocodile tears for coal miners employment prospects.
No time for more bullshit, pragmatic, excuses while we practice what we preach, by immediately rolling out and manufacturing solar panels for all our houses. Just for a start.
P.S. Robert M ,
Mr good guy, Richard Branson, was on the news tonight using a similar argument to your good self.
Though he is a born again ‘save the worlder’, he is not proposing to rid himself of his major polluting aircraft fleet because some other company will just take it over, anyway.
Gawd!
That is so obvious. Joe2, you deserve a part of the Branson-Gore award.
“That is so obvious. Joe2, you deserve a part of the Branson-Gore award.”
Thanks silkworm.
“Brilliance is spotting the turning bull on the street and returning to the garret”…………old joe2 saying.
I humbly accept.
Would that mean I get to meet Jamie Oliver and his new hippy gardener?
My love, you get to meet all the Virgin hostesses.
Personally I think US$25 million is chickenfeed.
Silkworm, lets meet all the Virgin hostesses and see if we can raise it to US$35 million, darling.
Will anyone realise we have sold out?
I thought that Malcolm was a bit wooden. He didnt seem to be convinced by his own arguments. I too switched to Jamie. In fact I made his baked potatoes and onions in balsamic vinegar tonight. Very tasty.
I am seeing ‘Pinocchio’ when Mal is around Jacinta.
Yep,”wooden”.
And strings pulled by MacBank.
I’m with Robert on this one.
Me too. Seems like Brown is upping the ante to get some airtime as climate change goes mainstream.
Boycotts are pure fantasy stuff. Here’s a better idea: make the old technology redundant and cost-inefficient (eg cease the masssive public subsidy which allows them to pollute without charge), and people will stop buying, using, and exporting it.
And until coal pays its own way, we have a very good argument for substantial public subsidies to solar and wind R&D. Its called the level playing field.
Renewable energy is already cheaper than nuclear (so much for Hoqard’s “realism”) – and with near-free raw inputs it wont take too many technological advances till the protected industry known as big coal is heading for el chop chop.
I might put up a post on Brown.
I think Brown has been suffering from attention deprivation, but he’ll crash and burn if he keeps this up. I think Flannery just got in ahead of him by suggesting that coal would become like asbestos and lose it’s social licence. OK for an academic, perhaps, but politicians are expected to be more practical.
I’ve just found a book review of George Monbiot’s Heat by Gar Lipow (sounds as if a bloke should read it.) Monbiot is really pressing the panic button, saying we have to lick this thing by 2030. He sees every country being given a carbon ration based on population (hence world equity), which in the UK’s case means a reduction of 90%.
From another source taking a similar line I understand Australia needs to reduce by 95%.
I suspect Monbiot’s timeline is what we need. I ended up thinking Stern was a bit slack.
I’m getting pretty pissed off about all the economic argument. We do want to live, don’t we?
So the question is, is this thing politically doable?
Brian, the correct ârealistâ? response to a sinking ship is not to get off. Its all about jostling for a first class cabin.
My take on Brown:
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/02/11/mr-brown-do-you-really-want-our-kids-smoking-marijuana/
joe2
Richard Branson is five levels smarter than our regular politicians. He proposed to develop renewable aviation fuels for his fleet of aircraft. It seemed to me that the price of oil took a jump down immediately after his announcement. Now he doesn’t haveto replace all of the fuel for all of his aircraft to be doing good. He could replace some of the fuel for all of his aircraft or all of the fuel for some of his aircraft. Either way we all win. And don’t think that it is not possible. It is very do-able. Gas turbines are the most fuel tolerant of all engines. The fuel just has to be clean, have some lubricating properties and yield the same energy for weight. Bio-diesel comes very close to these properties.
It was ever thus. That’s how (and why) civilisations go down according to Ronald Wright in his A short history of progress.