Jeese and it was getting so productive. Shyer, do you understand the concept of all views being represented in any democracy? I don't vote Green, but I do give my preferences to them when it comes to things like Cleaner Power/resource options, and keeping fair mining remuneration and 'free for all' access on the table.
In all their other faults, No other party is addressing those issues, and green, yellow, purple or orange, they deserve to be put on the table. I will therefore give the Greens consideration simply on those issues alone to keep them on the table in the senate, even after the election dust has settled. Anyone who cares about those issues, should give the greens their second preference so the other two parties don't bury the obvious.
The Greens are a legitimate party with alternative views. They therefore provide a balance when the other two major parties are avoiding the real issues with mining in particular.
Before the names fly, I reiterate. I'm not against mining, I'm for sustainable mining and FAIR remuneration to the Australian people via infrastructure upgrade at the very least. It's a matter of give and take, not just all take.
On an earlier issue:
if they disallowed fishing at Margaret River it could have disasterous economic repurcussions, tourists go there to swim ,surf ,fish ,and do the wineries ....so I would imagine it would have some effect ....
Yes it would Smee, (I spent quite a while there in the early 80's, magnificent place) but an oil spill would be equally disastrous. So the balance would be to declare it protected from mining specifically, not fishing or tourism. That's the threat after all isn't it ? to the environment and the current economy there? Fishing and tourism has never been an issue for the Waussies in that region so far, has it MM? How many tourists want to see an oil rig off shore?
So, Brown will no doubt be expected and amenable to consulting with stake holders. Locals should be emailing him non stop to make sure all views are represented though, not just political ones.
At the end of the day, if he has any influence to stop it, Waussies need to lobby him to use that influence wisely and in league with local elected officials, the community and Chamber of Commerce.
Keep lobbying your local Fed member and State member as no doubt Brown will be consulting them first, and they'll be the ones ensuring the local economy stays intact. Get involved as much as possible is what I'm saying, and encourage other locals to do the same.
LOCO - I agree, far too much of this 'mandate' either way is hinging on insufficient 'justification' for or against. I'm not arguing the science. I do believe we have a global issue, (more likely associated with a Worldwide population now more than four times that of 60-70 years ago) but is the only option to impose an ETS?
What are the other options? The 'Greens' don't find this question too hard. It's Cleaner resources !! Here's a novel Idea. Let's charge the mining company for all that back remuneration they owe the Australian People (Before we were remunerated less than half as much) and invest that into 'clean technology and resources. Wind Power, Storm Water Recycling. The return of the humble water tank (without costing us a fortune), Desalination plants, Assistance in improving Solar storage and that technology etc. I'm sure there are many more ways to produce power and preserve resources more cleanly. Hey, why not just charge the Mining companies more than $1.00 in $7.00 even now, and we can invest that into developing cleaner power. ????
In fact, it just occurred to me. If we went Clean and Green, Would that upset the mining companies and their 'black gold' deposits? Hey, then there's coal. Would the Mining companies suffer if we go green? How about Uranium? Do the mining companies have other 'unsustainable' resource options yet to foister upon on us before we go Green and Clean? Could this procrastination be associated once again with 'overly powerful' economic interests overshadowing common sense?
Could this be the reason the decision makers don't seem to move on this option in any expedient fashion? We haven't used up the polluting alternatives first? I don't know, I'm asking others.
If that be the case, and it does in fact pose a threat to economy, then why are our scientists not working on making emissions of these existing exploitable pollutants (except Uranium) i.e. coal and oil cleaner? filtered? something?. Just asking