The world as we know it will end on July 1, this year. That is the day the Greens take power in the Senate. James Arvanitakis explains.


Not that long ago, I toyed with the idea of setting up my own doomsday cult. The problem is that I failed to find any of the basic ingredients that attract followers: charismatic leadership, the ability to ask for money from complete strangers, a doomsday message and a specific date to rally support. I have always been fascinated by doomsday cults. Every time I hear that a charismatic leader has picked a specific date for the end of the world – be it the arrival of extra terrestrials or the predicted Rapture – I get out my diary, mark the date and begin to make plans around it.

As readers of The Punch would know, the most recent episode was the claim by the Harold Camping and the crew over at Family Radio predicted the world would end on 21 May 2011. Using the date to rally friends and family, a group of buddies went out for a farewell bonding session a few days beforehand. I also organised a weekend to enjoy time with loved ones just in case. To tie things up I also left a farewell message on my Facebook page and completed all my marking.

The world did not end, but all had a good time.

I had essentially given up on my ‘founder of a doomsday quest’ until just last week. Sitting in a café drinking my long black (no latte here for this ivory tower academic), it dawned on me that I had found a cause that would meet all the above criteria.

Not only are the criteria being met, but also the cause already has a large number of supporters waiting to be saved: from members of the federal government and federal opposition, to certain journalists and radio hosts, as well as business leaders.

The date of course is 1 July 2011. This is the date that the Australian Greens will hold the balance of power in the Senate and the world will undoubtedly end.

In preparation for the Greens Driven Rapture (or GDR) I thought I better undertake research and prepare some advertising material to broaden support for my cult.

Looking at the media over the last months, there seems to be any number of reasons why the world will end on 1 July because of the GDR. For the sake of brevity, I will concentrate on three.

The first is that The Greens want to end all mining in Australia that will see the collapse of the Australian economy. Checking out their website, I disappointingly found no evidence that this was their position. Rather, the policy is to no longer support the opening of new coalmines nor expand existing ones. Their argument is that to tackle climate change means removing dependency on coal as an export earner and plan for this change.

Not much there, so I thought I would be move on.

The second claim is that The Greens are being taken over by radicals who are anti-Semitic. This has been the focus since Marrickville Council Mayor and NSW lower house candidate Fiona Byrne and federal senator elect, Lee Rhiannon, have been driving a boycott of Israel until a just peace settlement is reached with the Palestinian people and the occupied territories.

What – a boycott? I trolled through the website looking for anti-Semitic language and support for any group that is disputing Israel’s right to exist – and nothing! The radical label thrown at the Greens revolves around a decision to ‘not buy’ some stuff because they argue that the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands should cease.

Like me, you may not agree that this is the best policy to be pursued, but when did such a proposal become radical?

Students of mine boycotted university outlets until the on campus cafes purchased ethical coffee. This is not a radical step, but one that allows people to express their political views through their consumption decisions. This is the power of the market: if enough people support such decisions, then things change.

Strike two! Nothing there so I thought I would look at other claims and came across one that is certain to bring about the end of the world: the Greens are not only anti-capitalist, but hard core socialists. They are watermelons: green on outside, but red on the inside.

Again I started looking for the broader anti-capitalist positions of the Greens.

I thought I would start with the Chairman, comrade Bob Brown. In speaking about the budget, I found Bob Brown talking about returning the budget to surplus as soon as practical without threatening Australia’s tenuous economic growth. What, chairman Brown talking about budget surpluses? This cannot be!

Then there is comrade Lee Rhiannon, leading the ‘democracy 4 sale’ campaign demanding transparency for lobbyists and donations. According to former World Bank economist, Joseph Stiglitz, transparency is the foundation of both a well functioning democracy and the free market system. Comrade Rhiannon supporting the infrastructure that supports the free market – I was devastated.

Interestingly, over the last few decades, we have seen the balance of power held by the Australian Democrats, Tasmanian Senator Brian Harradine and Family First. Rightly so, the policy positions of the individuals and parties have come under scrutiny by both the media and the two main parties.

The personal attacks aimed at the Australian Greens in general, and Lee Rhiannon specifically, have been unprecedented. Not even One Nation, whose mantra was anti-Asian immigration and the need to print more money received such a barrage of criticism.

It appears the GDR is destined to fail because I doubt the world will end on 1 July 2011. What will not end, however, is the need for a transition to a low-carbon economy, a more humane approach to dealing with refugees, greater transparency to protect our democracy and marriage rights of same sex couples.

You may not like these policies, but claims that they are radical really do miss the mark.

Disclaimer: the author would like it to be known he has volunteered his time for both the Greens and ALP. In the past, he has also supported various Liberal Party and Australian Democrat candidates. Once he shared a urinal with a high profile (male) member of One Nation where they talked rugby league and dated someone who was convinced she was a Jedi Knight.

225 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Erick says:

      06:17am | 09/06/11

      “Not even One Nation ... received such a barrage of criticism.”

      Your ignorance knows no bounds. One Nation meetings were violently disrupted by left-wing activists, and participants were assaulted. One Nation leaders were arrested and jailed. Did any of these things happen to The Greens?

      Zero credibility to this silly claim. Even you should know better.

    • Kevin says:

      07:52am | 09/06/11

      What?  Because a Green’s meeting hasn’t be disrupted, the whole article is silly!!??  Eric you should no better.
      And while it might have been “left-wing activists” who disrupted a meeting somewhere at sometime (that must have been a big news story), from memory it was on Tony Abbott who was behind the jailing of P. Hanson.

    • Barney says:

      08:19am | 09/06/11

      Eric - you really do need to get help

    • ZSRenn says:

      09:00am | 09/06/11

      Erick The whole article is Newspeak.

      I drink my coffee black so don’t call me a latte sipper

      We won’t close the mines we will just let them fade away.

      We will move you away from coal generation we just don’t know how yet

      We will put the budget in surplus despite needing to pay billions for alternative power sources and Billions lost from mining.

      The personal attacks are unprecedented! Oh I forgot one nation and thats OK because according to Kevin TA put her in jail.

      Huh how does that work Kev

      “Please explain”

      They have a veteran of 16 years propaganda in selling this message on the Climate Commission. Obviously she is training her minions such as James well in the art of Newspeak. .

      They tell us they want to save 0.073% of Global emissions by doing all this.

      Maybe to be in power is the only real aim here!

    • mel r says:

      09:01am | 09/06/11

      @Erick True words.  “arrested and jailed”

    • Kevin says:

      09:26am | 09/06/11

      @ZSRenn

      I’ll let Paulin Explain.

      Transcript of 60 minutes interview with Pauline Hanson:

      “Why do you think the case was brought against you?

      PAULINE HANSON: Tony Abbott said. He said he set up the slush fund. He said we had to stop One Nation.

      TARA BROWN: You don’t like this man.

      PAULINE HANSON: Heaven help this country if Tony Abbott is ever in control of it. I detest the man.”

    • Michael N says:

      09:51am | 09/06/11

      @ Kevin - Erick didn’t state that “the whole article is silly”, he simply rebuffed the outlandish claim that “Not even One Nation… received such a barrage of criticism.”

      OP - don’t confuse ‘anti-semitism’ with ‘anti-zionism’. I hope we can all agree that prejudice based on one’s religion (the former) is abhorrent. Disputing Israel’s right to exist (the latter), however, is perfectly justified noting the regional and global unrest caused by this artificially created nation - especially in its current location.

    • you put your right voter in you put your right vot says:

      09:52am | 09/06/11

      Liberals went after One nation with a vengence as the majority who supported them came from Liberal voter ranks. One Nation caused the Lib supporter base to drop by around 4%.

      Now that One Nation mark 2 (The Mad Katterers Party), is rising it will be interesting to see how the Libs handle it now they are not in governnent.

    • Freeman says:

      10:12am | 09/06/11

      True Erick, one nation endured hysterical opposition. 

      James is right in a way though, The greens won’t bring Australia to it’s knees with 10 senators, they will simply be a nuisance. perhaps they would wreak havoc if they weren’t in such a minority.

    • ZSRenn says:

      10:31am | 09/06/11

      Ah Kev

      They are a pissed off Pauline Hansons words.

      grin

      So after years of calling her an idiot finally everything she says is true?

      Now if you can supply me a link to where TA said it you might have a case.

      Otherwise you’re just one of the Orwells thought police trying to divert the argument.

    • Michael N says:

      10:41am | 09/06/11

      @ freeman. The Greens can, however, block the passage of every bill through the Upper House. Come 01 July, the government will require their endorsement to get legislation across the line in BOTH houses of parliament. This means (even more than before) that every law they try and pass must be consistent with the Green agenda. I think in many cases this will be a good outcome for social justice and the environment and as such, we needn’t move to NZ just yet. But what this means for democracy is that the representatives of no more than 14% of the population are determining how our country is run. There is definitely no popular mandate here.

    • john says:

      11:09am | 09/06/11

      @ Michael N
      “This means (even more than before) that every law they try and pass must be consistent with the Green agenda”

      SO carbon tax by July 1 then? Question now is how much, $20,30,40,50 a tonne?

    • mel r says:

      11:42am | 09/06/11

      Tony Abbott led the push to get rid of Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Party, as he stated in his book “Battlelines”. 
      He also stated that, after the jailing of Pauline Hanson, she received considerable sympathy.  Sympathy!  some compensation for 3 months’ imprisonment.  No wonder she despises him.
      Many will vote for Abbott, purely to get rid of the rabble in power now.

    • Freeman says:

      12:01pm | 09/06/11

      Michael N,

      I think it more likely that no bills will pass through the upper house. not even on the carbon tax. This goverment will not be able to do anything.

    • ZSRenn says:

      12:06pm | 09/06/11

      @ Kevin I stand corrected and thank you we have more proof that the line by James that

      “The personal attacks aimed at the Australian Greens in general, and Lee Rhiannon specifically, have been unprecedented.”

      are not only far from the truth but is an out and out lie.

      One Nation not only had to endure personal attacks but political ones as well.

      Is there no end to the depths that the GALI coalition and especially the Greens go to twist the truth to their own cause.

      I do hope that the words of PM Bob Brown are true!

      “Australians are smarter than this and they do not like to be patronised”

    • curious says:

      12:25pm | 09/06/11

      Michael N - “what this means for democracy is that the representatives of no more than 14% of the population are determining how our country is run.”

      The current situation is Steve Fielding holds the balance of power for a party that got 4% of the vote. Isn’t 10 Greens getting the balance of power an improvement in representation?

    • Nic says:

      12:51pm | 09/06/11

      @Michael
      “Disputing Israel’s right to exist (the latter), however, is perfectly justified noting the regional and global unrest caused by this artificially created nation - especially in its current location”

      No, sorry that’s not justified at all.

      For starters you dispute it’s right to exist, what the hell do you want them to do? Just dissolve the whole country? Just all go wander around for a bit?

      For seconds you’re whigning about the actions of a country, an ally, the sole democracy in the Middle East beset by enemies on all sides. How they act.

      Palestinian apologists are so quick to ignore the missiles fired into Israel on a weekly basis.
      So quick to denounces Israel when every single time it’s Palestine that walks away from generous negotiations.
      So quick to ignore groups like Hamas that state their goal is the complete murder of every single Jew, every single citizen.

      You’re crying that Israel needs to do more to be a good neighbor while glorifying those killing it’s civilians. Yeah, Israel’s no saint but I’m sorry, that’s not justifiable at all.

      And yet another reason Greens and their supporters have no moral standing and are nothing more than delusional hypocrites.

    • Alex says:

      02:29pm | 09/06/11

      @ Michael N - “is perfectly justified noting the regional and global unrest caused by this artificially created nation - especially in its current location.” Dude… seriously are you on crack???  “Artificially Created” - you mean the borders and country defined by the League of Nations (Britain now the UN) Just Like they did to also create Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon then Pakistan, Bangladesh, Kashmir, the current disputed borders between Thailand & Cambodia - Why NOT there - the Hashemites got Jordan, Saud’s, got Saudi Arabia, because of the roots of THEIR Tribes - AND of course they supported the winning team in WWII - So did the Israelis - in 1947 they were MORE than happy to share the area with the displaced peasants (arabic speakers under Ottoman rule were treated as peasants or serfs) - the Majority of the LAND was owned by Ottoman Turks (losing team) or Lebanese - NOT the “Palestinians” - the SOME of which emigrated there over the same period of time the European Jews did, MOST after all the hard work was done - what would you do Mike - dissolve one but not the others?Palestinians also “claim” Jordan and Lebanon as theirs - tho’ Jordan did kill 20 odd thousand of them when they tried to stake their illegitimate claim - Israel is SOFT by comparison!!!

    • Matthew says:

      04:38pm | 09/06/11

      @Michael N, the R rating of video games has already proven that 1 single person can block the law for 22 million others even if the majority of them agree with it.

      Even “BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN???” wasn’t enough to convince him in the end.  Thankfully the nutter is gone and true democracy can happen (kinda).

    • Bruce says:

      05:33pm | 09/06/11

      The greens are the modern evil of politics today. The ALP would not be as hopeless if they did not have the prehistoric, communist greens telling them what to do.

    • Coxy says:

      06:21am | 09/06/11

      I just hope that if the world does end, it happens while I’m on my way to work, not coming home from work, how annoying would that be? Oh and not on a Friday either. Also despite what their website says, the Greens are nutters. I’ll bet that myself and most other country people have planted more trees and done more for the environment than this inner city lefty brigade, yet they claim the moral high ground and preach to us. Now that is annoying.

    • Tom says:

      08:53am | 09/06/11

      It would be good if the Greens planted more trees , climbed up them and stayed there.  Whoever allowed them out of the trees in the first place should face the music..  Robin Hoods mob had nothing on this band of outlaws, where’s the modern Sheriff of Nottingham so urgently
      needed.  They’re stealing from the rich, but making us all poor !

    • Robert S McCormick says:

      10:58am | 09/06/11

      Good one Coxy!
      The Greens Policies are, just like the ever back-flipping flipping ( I would use another F-word but this IS a Family Forum isn’t it & no-one in any Australian family ever uses that word do they?) Gillard-Swan ALP Federal Government,  open for dumping, amending & changing to fit current popular opinions. That those policies at present do not, except in NSW, include the anti-Israeli BDS does not mean that in a short while , despite Bob Brown’s opposition - he does not own the Greens though we could be forgiven for thinking he thinks he does - Lee Rhiannon’s BDS policy won’t become Greens Policy.
      The Greens have always been, as you say, nutters. The problem is they could be very dangerous. They have made no secret - even if it’s not in their Ultra-left Manifesto-posing-as- policies - of the fact that they will not hesitate to force the Federal Government - no matter which of the major parties is actually elected to Govern - to do exactly as the Greens - all 10 of them in Paul Keating’s House of Unrepresentative Swill - order.
      The Greens neither know nor understand the meaning of Democracy, at least our form of it.
      We are supposed to operate under a system which espouses: Government of the People, by the People for the People.
      Not as the Greens would have it:
      Government of the people by the Greens, for the Greens.
      As you say, they are a bunch of city-centric, inner city lefties. They know nothing of the country & those living in the country.
      Just like their sister organisation the ALP the Greens simply don’t know & worse don’t care for anyone or anything outside a radius of 15 kilometres from any GPO in any city in Australia.
      In the House of Representatives they have what? One MP who represents what? Some teensy-weensy percentage of City People?
      In The Senate they’ll shortly have 10 members warming their lardy arses at our expense & holding us all to ransom.
      Nationally in August 2010, thanks to their puppet the ALP, they scored about 16% of the vote. Currently according to the latest Newpoll their vote has slipped down to 12%.
      They simply don’t care about the other 84%, or rather now 88%, of other voters.
      Where I live, a staunchly Liberal seat - that’s not why I live in the electorate for I can’t abide the Liberal Party appointed party hack who got shoved onto us - locals here have, just as they have in your area, planted more trees & done more for the environment than the ill-named Greens have ever done anywhere.

    • ZSRenn says:

      06:30am | 09/06/11

      “Rather, the policy is to no longer support the opening of new coalmines nor expand existing ones.

      Heads up old coal mines only have a certain lifespan and if not expanded that lifespan is reduced. Therefore when the lifespan of the mine is met and new ones are not opened coal mining ceases to exist.

      Their argument is that to tackle climate change means removing dependency on coal as an export earner and plan for this change.”

      Exactly what that power source would that be and how much would it cost to build the infrastructure required. None is available at the moment and none looks to be available before the decline of the existing coal mines.

      “I found Bob Brown talking about returning the budget to surplus as soon as practical without threatening Australia’s tenuous economic growth.”

      How would PM Brown go about this with the Billions lost through the decline of the mining industry? Tax sunlight?

      Give me a break !

      The world may not end but Australia would certainly go down the toilet faster than the proverbial blind mullet.

    • DJ says:

      06:54am | 09/06/11

      Fair trade coffee is not free or ethical James. It usually involves forcing some socialist system on vunerable third world farmers. This is guaranteed to keep them poor and dependent, the usual end game of socialism.

    • Rose says:

      03:15pm | 09/06/11

      Because the previous system offered them so much opportunity?  Pffft!
      Fair trade coffee may not be a perfect system but it sure as hell beats the alternative!

    • Huey says:

      04:38pm | 09/06/11

      What Rose said!

    • Huey says:

      04:38pm | 09/06/11

      What Rose said!

    • Tom says:

      10:01am | 10/06/11

      James Arvanitakis is a typical left “slither-tongue”. The students were voting with their money on the coffee issue.

      Whereas the Marrickville counsel were using their constituent’s money to pursue their own narrow agenda. That action was a breach of trust and a disgusting aspect of the Greens that needs addressing.

      Counsels are empowered to collect the garbage, do the roads not to use ratepayers money to foister unrepresentative opinions on their constituents. Clearly James does not get it.

      “Not even One Nation ... received such a barrage of criticism” Bwaahhhahaha. Anyone remember the day a pensioner, who had gone along to listen to Pauline Hanson talk, had his skull fractured by one of the rent-a-crowd who used a baseball bat on him?

      The left are mob driven cowards. And the Greens with their slick sophistry are grubs.

    • thatmosis says:

      07:16am | 09/06/11

      With the Greens holding the balance of power the Australia as we know will cease to exist if one reads the fine print of the green agenda. These morons lead by Queen Bob would like to see us all go back into the dark ages where coal fired power stations are closed so that inefficient alternative power could be used. I’ll bet that none of these clowns has ever lived on 100% solar power or alternative power in their lives but can tell the Australian people how great it will be, bullshit. Try living the life before you make these grandeous plans and see the pitfalls that accompany it.

    • Reggie says:

      08:17am | 09/06/11

      Once again, .... 80% of the coal that goes into a brand NEW coal burning power station, goes directly to pollution without generating - ANY - electricity for the world beyond.

      To spell it out ... that - leaves - a - gigantic - margin - for - improvement for the “clowns” who really want to address the problem by using other means of generating electricity.

      Current low coal prices reflect this wastage and do NOT allow for the environmental vandalism that it is causing.

    • Willie Mac says:

      08:45am | 09/06/11

      Hang on, are you suggesting that coal plants are in any way efficient? It must be opposite day today.

    • AAAdam says:

      09:17am | 09/06/11

      Despite coals inefficiency, does anyone have a cheaper way for Australia to generate electricity?

    • Aitch B says:

      10:04am | 09/06/11

      @AAAdam

      Therein lies the burning (pun intended) question. Unless the power producers invest tens of billions in R&D and construction or the government subsidises them to do it I can’t see a lower or equivalent cost of electricity at any time in the future.

      All the talk about power conpanies investing in ‘green’ technology due to market pressures from within their own industry doesn’t make much sense to me if none of them can afford the investment.

    • neil says:

      01:07pm | 09/06/11

      Reggie says:08:17am | 09/06/11

      What an absolute load of rubbish, coal power stations are 30-40% efficient depending on age and design. 100% of the coal is burned to make electricity but only 30-40% of it’s energy is converted the rest is lost as heat, this is typical of any energy conversion, nuclear is about 25%, a car engine is also 21% efficient and a solar panel14%.

      Because of the very controlable nature of coal combustion it is in the upper range of efficiency compared to other power generation technologies.

      Saying the energy losses don’t go toward electricity production is like saying 79% of the petrol you put in your car doesn’t go toward driving it.

      The human body is only about 15% efficient, would you say 85% of the food you eat goes directly to polution without generating any work?

      You’re an idiot.

    • Jason Smith says:

      02:04pm | 09/06/11

      Hey Neil. You can grow more food once you eat it. You can’t grow more coal.

      Please see the last line of your statement for further input.

    • grant says:

      04:03pm | 09/06/11

      “% of it’s energy is converted the rest is lost as heat, this is typical of any energy conversion, .... and a solar panel14%.”

      Not to be too pedantic, solar panels are now up to around 18% and the conversion loss is not due to heat loss. It is to do with the band gap energy and photons having more energy than the electron they are displacing. You need to balance the 2 effects to get the best return.

      At least the source of the energy is unlimited and with the exception of manufacturing, we are not generating any byproducts.

    • Bev says:

      04:24pm | 09/06/11

      neil says:01:07pm | 09/06/11
      Slight correct I believe latest generation solar panels are slightly over 20% apart from that spot on.
      Its all right though if the going gets tough the greens will dream up legislation to repeal the laws of physics.  See no problem.

    • Bev says:

      04:37pm | 09/06/11

      grant says:04:03pm | 09/06/11
      At least the source of the energy is unlimited and with the exception of manufacturing, we are not generating any byproducts.

      Trouble is the sun don’t shine 24/7 and we do have cloud cover You need to somehow store the energy for use later. Batteries are viable for a small system but even modern AGM or Lithium batteries have life span of 8 years and disposing of massive amounts of batteries isn’t easy.

      Solar panels just are not an option for large scale power generation.

    • AAAdam says:

      05:11pm | 09/06/11

      Has anyone ever looked into what goes into making a solar panel? They are far from being green. They are filled with some of the most toxic stuff you can find. If even one solar panel ended up in a creek or pond it would destroy the entire ecosystem. And we all know not everyone will dispose of solar panel (and other electronic stuff) properly so it’s just a matter of time before it happens. So what? Well, if coal and solar are both ultimately bad for the environment in different ways, why are we paying a huge tax to move from one to the other?

    • Reggie says:

      06:47pm | 09/06/11

      Gee sorry to make you wait for a response Neil.

      I did round my figures off to a neat 20% for simplicity’s sake.  In the last 50 years with all the advances in technology, over-all efficiency has advanced from 17% (new, with a normal replacement efficiency of 11%,) to top line modern US station having a new efficiency of 31% .

      Pause for Neil to absorb, ....

      Get this Neil, .... Now instead of EIGHT out of every TEN train-loads of coal going straight to the environment, only SEVEN do.  Don’t worry, it seems you have some deep-seated inadequacy if you feel the need to uphold your argument by calling people nasty names.

      Here, knock-yourself out. 

      http://www.netl.doe.gov/energy-analyses/pubs/NETL Power Plant Efficiency Workshop Report Final.pdf

    • neil says:

      09:32pm | 09/06/11

      You’re not the sharpest tool in the shed are you Reggie.

      Modern coal power stations are 40% efficient, many of the USA’s are more than 50 years old hence their average 31%. the fastest and most economical way for the US to reduce emissions is to replace them with new coal statons.

      40% energy conversion is cutting edge for any technology the most amazing is massive diesel ship engines at nearly 50% but gee, they burn oil. How is your tiny brain going to figure out how to transport 14% efficient solar panels from China to Australia without burning fossil fuels?

      Sleep on it I know you are a bit slow.

    • Reggie says:

      07:53am | 10/06/11

      Do you go through life being as offensive as this all the time Neil?

      I suspect you do. Is that you in disguise MarK?

      You obviously have NOT read the results of the conference to which I referred you. The figure is 31.5% and relates to modern coal-burning power stations. Don’t try and support your weary contentions by labeling all US power stations as OLD. No doubt you are a big supporter of coal and blind to its disadvantages. Your bluff and abuse really does betray your blind fervor.

      There is one dismal fact that you may have trouble accommodating and that is that transference of energy from ANY source would be struggling to reach 50% efficiency. It is for this reason that only LOCAL production of electricity which allows the use of waste heat for local heating needs, enables the potential efficiency to rise ABOVE 50%, thus reducing the electrical load and reducing transmission losses.

    • neil says:

      11:19pm | 10/06/11

      Reggie says:07:53am | 10/06/11

      Do you go through life being as offensive as this all the time Neil?

      This is where the aggression came from Reggie; irrational, immotive, incorrect claimes. Alarmist scare mungering.

      Reggie says:08:17am | 09/06/11

      Once again, .... 80% of the coal that goes into a brand NEW coal burning power station, goes directly to pollution without generating - ANY - electricity for the world beyond.

      Stop being part of the problem Reggie, get your facts right and be part of the future.

    • Reggie says:

      10:33am | 11/06/11

      Neil, you keep dodging the FACT that with your idealised 50% transfer efficiency, the theoretical one, still HALF the coal (lets call it carbon for those who wonder) goes directly to the environment.

      May I suggest that YOU are part of the bigger problem for failing to recognise this? As someone suggested there are other methods of producing electricity that are not so damaging. If your words indicate knowledge. rather than just Googling, then you know how important the cooling of an alternator set is.  If that set was matched for maximum transfer efficiency, it would dissipate the same power internally as it supplied to the load.  In reality its output is limited by its temperature rise and the ability of its cooling system to keep it within safe limits. That will ALWAYS be well under the ideal transfer efficiency. eg. There is not a 500 megawatt set that supplies that amount of energy to the external load, that could have a hydrogen cooling system that also dissipated 500 megawatts safely, let alone efficiently.

      Put a figure on it! Because after that we have to begin whittling away the transfer efficiency of the boilers and the turbines and internal energy needs for cooling and operations. Without all sorts of doubtful modifications intended to improve efficiency, I’d suggest a practical total transfer efficiency of about 25%. This is all rather wasteful discussion because at the very best, even accepting your optimistic figures, at least 50% of the coal fed to the burner goes immediately to the environment. I’m suggesting a more practical figure is 75% at the very best.

      Either way the carbon tax is to encourage the replacement of coal with more environmentally friendly methods and I’m sorry if that injures your precious coal industry.  Coal has been under priced for ages to make its use more attractive and in being so, has provided unfair competition for the development of more efficient processes.

      I repeat, it is old fashioned and no longer relevant to accept that inefficient production is ok just because it’s cheap. It has to be done better and a tax on carbon provides the equalisation and impetus to do the research to achieve this. I would hope that Australia will be at the forefront of this potential with these positive steps to drag coal into the era of present-day demands.

    • Static says:

      07:17am | 09/06/11

      Oh no the Greens will have a say oh no. look out Menzies and Santamaria Jones and Hadlee is there any more room under the bed with all those nasty Communists ,Oh and watch out for those tanks driving down George St with Bob Brown at the controls wont you,you know those ones with the little red stars on them. The Commies are comin…Yikes

    • Will Hayes says:

      07:26am | 10/06/11

      Haha, sadly from what ive been readingIi think most people reading this or indeed punching wont even realise your being sarcastic!

    • Dash says:

      07:34am | 09/06/11

      The Federal Greens represent about 12percent of the voting population of Australia. So long as they represent that 12percent and don’t try to tell the other 88percent how to live their lives, we’ll all be happy! Unfortunately, we have a situation where they wield far too much power in the parliament. And a level which exceeds their level of support in the community.The ALP has done a deal with the greens to secure power so perhaps we have an ALP green coalition. Yet again something the voting public were unaware of when the election took place in 2010.  Any chance the terms of that agreement may be made public?

      So the world will not come to an end. Just 88 percent of the population will be held to ransom by a significant minority!

    • Dot says:

      09:06am | 09/06/11

      Shut up and take your medicine.

    • Knemon says:

      09:23am | 09/06/11

      @ Dash - “The Federal Greens represent about 12percent of the voting population” - Believe it or not Dash, that equals 9 senate seats, simple maths shows that this is ‘not’ “a level which exceeds their level of support in the community”

      “Unfortunately, we have a situation where they wield far too much power in the parliament” - Whose fault is that Dash? - The Greens will have 9 seats out of 76, the ALP & LNP have 65 of those seats - are you saying that those 65 can’t out vote the other 9?

      “The ALP has done a deal with the greens to secure power” - Tony Abbott could have done the same, but he was incapable of negotiating.

      It should be remembered how the senate was originally structured and why - it was set-up to represent the states, each state has an equal number of senators, therefore the larger states could not ride roughshod over the smaller states, but of course this has now been over ridden by party based politics - as Paul Keating once said “they are unrepresentative swill” - is this also the fault of the Greens?

      “88 percent of the population will be held to ransom by a significant minority” - As I said earlier, this will only occur if the ALP & LNP allow such.

      The fear that voters like yourself have of the Greens amazes me, do you seriously believe they are out to destroy their own country? As James Arvanitakis quite rightly points out above, most of this fear is based on scaremongering coming from the right, take a read of Green policies and you will see for yourself what they stand for, it’s not that scary.

    • Dash says:

      09:35am | 09/06/11

      Wow - that was a well thought out and rational argument! Not to mention someone who has respect for our democratic right of free speech!

    • Dash says:

      10:12am | 09/06/11

      Hi Knemon, My previous comment was obviously to Dot.

      The Greens hold just one seat in the house of representatives. And they hold that seat because of LNP preferences in the seat of Melbourne. Yet they used that seat to put the ALP into power. As you can tell by the name, that’s the house for members that represent their constituents.

      The point I’m making is that the ALP has had to come to an agreement with the greens after the election. As a result, the position the ALP took to the electorate at the 2010 election has been compromised. The Carbon tax debate is a classic example. As a result, those people that voted for the ALP have seen their policies compromised by the power of the greens.

      The issue I have, is that to my mind, the details of the agreement signed between the ALP and Greens has never been made public. I would prefer that detail to be transparent so that the population understands what it is that has been agreed. I don’t think secret under the table agreements serve us very well at all. The parliament should be allowed to run it’s course (the one you quite correctly highlight) without the burden of side agreements because agreements of that nature undermine our democratic process.

      You are correct that the LNP also had the opportunity to form a coalition with the greens. I guess they wouldn’t compromise their position to the same extent as the ALP.

      I have been to the Greens web site and I am dead against their policies advocating higher taxes for middle and high income earners. And I am dead against their policies for higher corporate taxes. And I am dead against their policy to tax the profits of mining companies more (don’t forget the corporate tax rate is a flat tax) purely because they are successful. I believe they are more concerned about the welfare of animals and trees than they are about Australian families. I do not believe they have a balanced view of sustainable mining nor of Western economies and financial management. They have not been held to the same level of media or financial scrutiny as the major parties. I also do not believe in Euthanasia (more on practical grounds rather than emotion grounds) or the decriminalisation of drugs that are dangerous to the minds and bodies of our children.

      I am definitely not scared of the greens! Mainly because I think the party will be firmly under the spotlight for really the first time. The way they behave in this parliament over the course of the next two years, will make or break their party. They can see it as an opportunity.

      I believe workers should be rewarded and not punished for their success. I believe people should be given the opportunity and encouragement to better themselves. I think the greens and to a lesser extent, the ALP have a tall poppy syndrom which is manifested in their policies. We should be encouraging tall poppies, not cutting them down.

    • Anubis says:

      10:28am | 09/06/11

      To quote P. Keating in relation to the Senate - “unrepresentative Swill”

    • Michael says:

      11:07am | 09/06/11

      Agreed , very well said Knemon.

      The Greens will do no more damage than they are allowed by the majors.

    • Kevin says:

      11:32am | 09/06/11

      What percent of the voting population of Australia does the National Party represent?

    • The Badger says:

      11:58am | 09/06/11

      Kevin
      Nationals represent 3.7 %
      LNP represent 9.1%

    • Knemon says:

      03:33pm | 09/06/11

      @ Dash - “The way they behave in this parliament over the course of the next two years, will make or break their party” - Agree.

      You make valid points regarding some Green policies…differing opinions comes down to our differing ideologies. I don’t agree with all green policies but I would hope that applies to all political party policies and the followers of such not just accepting policy for the sake of the party. No radical policy would ever get through both houses of parliament, regardless of what party proposed it.

      As you said, the world is not going to end, the next two years should be interesting indeed…and the Greens do care about you wink

    • Bev says:

      05:05pm | 09/06/11

      Knemon says:09:23am | 09/06/11
      It should be remembered how the senate was originally structured and why - it was set-up to represent the states, each state has an equal number of senators, therefore the larger states could not ride roughshod over the smaller states, but of course this has now been over ridden by party based politics
      I’ve thought about this.
      Perhaps senators could be given two votes one for themselves and one to vote for what their state wished. It ‘s probably unworkable and is pie in the sky but if a system could be found it would return the senate to some form of its original intent. It would require constitutional change but since it would be percived as returning some power to the states it could get up.

    • Gregg says:

      07:39am | 09/06/11

      If you research things a bit more James, re
      ” Rather, the policy is to no longer support the opening of new coalmines nor expand existing ones. Their argument is that to tackle climate change means removing dependency on coal as an export earner and plan for this change. “
      Any existing coal mine is forever expanding as the initial hole in the ground or seam underground only has so much volume and so the hole expands bigger and bigger.

      It is btw also the source for most of our power so I hope you feel so fine about the Greens if they cause delays to new coal fired power stations such that you end up with a Nuke in your backyard and/or rationing power.

      And then along with removing coal as an income earner for Australia and if we add the live cattle trade to that too, where do you think money will come from so as we can continue to put the welfare of asylum seekers in front of ordinary homeless Australians made so by floods, fire, cyclones etc.

      Oh, just borrow some more do we!, and the surplus!

    • dovif says:

      07:41am | 09/06/11

      a more humane approach to dealing with refugees?

      So the only refugee we see are the ones who can pay $12k to get to our door step. How about the inhumane approach to the refugees who had spend 10 years in camps in Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia, who has no chance to come to Australia, because they cannot afford the $12k?

      transition to low carbon economy?
      How about those people who will loses their jobs, becuase of this scheme that won’t change the amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere, as long as the industrialisation of China, India and Africa continues?
      How about the real issue of overpopulation of the world, and cutting down of vegetation of deforestation, which puts the CO2and O2 balance out of balance in the first place?

      Same sex marriage?
      When did that become a major issue, this would not be in the top 5,000,000 problem facing mankind/

    • Willie Mac says:

      08:49am | 09/06/11

      How about all the new jobs that will be created in renewable energy, electric car battery production and other carbon mitigation strategies?

      As well, discrimination and inequality in all forms has always been an important issue facing mankind. Gay marriage is just the latest frontier.

    • Micky G says:

      09:28am | 09/06/11

      @ Willie Mac, Where will the “electric cars batteries” get their electricity from? If you exclude nuclear (which the Greens have) there is NO alternative power source in the foreseeable future. The australian car industry is laying off workers because we cant compete with cheaper labour overseas now, but you think 25,000 coal industries employees will suddenly find work in an industry which is alreeady uncompetitive and reducing labour? What about the people in all the towns and cities supported by mining? Are you going to encourage battery plants in Karratha? Mackay? People get frustrated because sure, reducing pollution is a good idea, but not unless there is a viable alternative which wont make us worse off. What is the alternative? Anyone? Solar is so inefficient that it doesnt recoup the energy required to manufacture the panels in its lifetime. Who is going to build massive solar plants anyway? Where will the money come from?

    • Markus says:

      09:40am | 09/06/11

      “How about all the new jobs that will be created in renewable energy, electric car battery production and other carbon mitigation strategies?”
      Given that none of these are commercially viable, how exactly will jobs be created?

    • Bev says:

      04:50pm | 09/06/11

      Willie Mac says:08:49am | 09/06/11

      How about all the new jobs that will be created in renewable energy, electric car battery production and other carbon mitigation strategies?

      The greens have had a large say in Germany recent stats put paid to the green job hyph.  Where green policy has prevailed the has been a large net job loss.

    • BMJ says:

      07:51am | 09/06/11

      If the Greens mess it up they’ll eventually get punished. They’ll have to be reasonable once they get the balance of power. They are after all politicians.

    • ZSRenn says:

      08:25am | 09/06/11

      Can I have some of what you’re on.

      It must be good!

    • Gregg says:

      08:25am | 09/06/11

      It will be wonderful irony if Julia or whoever and their crowd cannot handle being even more green and decide to call an election and if not a DD, Liberals getting in will certainly not back away from one if the Greens attempt to continue ruling.

    • Badwolf says:

      09:12am | 09/06/11

      I believe it was malcom that said on qanda awhile back

      None are so pure as the impotent

    • BMJ says:

      09:40am | 09/06/11

      @ZSRenn:

      It’s mine, all mine!!!!!!

    • Reggie says:

      08:03am | 09/06/11

      What a grand opportunity for “Yesterdays Men” to bemoan their creeping irrelevance. Just like the Hammered and Sickled and the Jack-Booted of old, wishing for the return of past glories when the world was their oyster and plundering everyone and everything was their waking thought.

      Where has the piratical nonchalance gone.? You’re such a tease James. wink

    • ZSRenn says:

      09:07am | 09/06/11

      I am not a man of power.

      By all standards I am poor.

      My family has never been in any way associated with government.

      I am a 9th generation Australian.

      I am a descendant of convicts.

      I am an Australian that does not want to see the hard work of his ancestors go down the shit shoot.

      The direction this government and with the Greens in power in the Senate will send us!

    • Reggie says:

      09:52am | 09/06/11

      ZSRenn, ponder this….

      There was a time when it was not a matter of asking -how well- it was done, but simply one of marveling -that it was done at all-.

      THAT ... is the old world philosophy to which you cling. The days of the Clipper Ship, as marvelous and inefficient as they were, have passed, they were replaced by more efficient means of achieving the same and even BETTER. Sometimes “better” does not mean more cargo, it means greater efficiency and less distributed damage.

      Your words suggest that you are convinced that Australian society has reached its pinnacle and has nothing better to achieve. Your thinking is old fashioned and no longer relevant.

    • loulou says:

      11:55am | 09/06/11

      @Reggie   Ponder this -  your words suggest you may not be as wise you believe

    • ZSRenn says:

      03:20pm | 09/06/11

      @ Reggie I would speak but you have filled my mouth with words I did not say.

      As I sit at my keyboard using my 21st century technology
      I often think that Australia could be better.

      I would like to see an end to pollution.
      I would like to see the growth of our great nation.
      I would like to see Australia lead the way in alternative technologies.

      I don’t want to see our wealth and the wellbeing of our people whittled away whilst we grab at straws.

      I don’t want to see it destroyed by stopping those industries which keep us wealthy before we have developed new technology. 

      Australia can be better. It can be a greater nation but not with these policies and defiantly not with policies they impose a massive imposition on its people with the aim of saving 0.073% of global emissions.

      I do not like those that lie to us with Newspeak and who researches a broad range of areas including hope, trust, globalization and political theatre and then use these forums for his research and at the expense of Australia’s well being.

      I had a Human Rights Lawyer friend of mine die not that long ago in Afghanistan I find this author in condescension of the great works that man did in situations that were dire by calling himself a human rights activist and then using humans as guinea pigs in his own little experiment.

    • maryellen says:

      03:50pm | 09/06/11

      @Reggie/ZSRenn
      ......“I would speak but you have filled my mouth with words I did not say…...”
      I love this

    • The Badger says:

      06:02pm | 09/06/11

      Maryellen
      ZSRenn could speak if he wanted to.
      Foreign words in his mouth should prove no hindrance.

      He usually speaks out of his arse anyway.

    • maryellen says:

      07:25pm | 09/06/11

      @The Badger.  I hadn’t heard this before -  and I’m looking forward to using it!
      I’m also taken with his “I am not a man of power…...”  sort of like a Creed, isn’t it? 
      Now I’m confused, Badger -  you’re saying he’s not clever?

    • Reggie says:

      10:01pm | 09/06/11

      Out of your own mouth ZSRenn; “I am an Australian who does not want to see the hard work of his ancestors go down the shit chute.” (Corrected.)

      Pardon me for interpreting your words as portraying your ancestor’s achievements as something -more- than just another outdated part of history. No-one is that important, but congratulations on having a convict ancestor, something to be proud of.

      loulou; Thank you for your misdirected navel gazing but what do you really know about my beliefs, or for that matter, even your own?  Next time, be more daring and put them out here, rather than shelter behind a few cowardly comments.

    • Joan says:

      08:17am | 09/06/11

      You`re right po-faced Bob Brown is no charasmatic leader, but has managed to gather a group of like-minded noodles,  noodles who want to take Australia on a road not forecast this time last year.  Preelection August 2010, Australia was promised a No Carbon Tax and there was no broad discussion of gay marriage, euthanasia, as policy issues to be attended to in 2011. The voters were cheated of their right to vote on important social changing issues.  Now that the BB Greens are in position to dictate change to society from a minority position they will treated like Labor or Liberals, the hard questions will be asked, they better have a good answer, and if they don’t, ridicule will follow.

    • Sideshow Joan says:

      09:14am | 09/06/11

      Oh my god she says (running around flailing her arms wildlife in the air)
      The sky is falling, the sky is falling.
      Finally she stops her tantrum as she realises she lives in a democratic country and is seeing that democracy in action.

      No Wait, he she is running in ever decreasing circles again wildly flapping her flabby arms and shouting the sky is fall, the sky is falling.

      People look on in amazement, shake their heads ... and then go about their business.

    • Joan says:

      10:17am | 09/06/11

      Sideshow Joan:  Sadly it is the sideshow clowns and misfits from sideshow alley are running the country if this were a real democracy the majority would rule not the minority clowns in place today

    • Sideshow Joan says:

      10:45am | 09/06/11

      It’s called democracy Joan.
      Get used to it.
      Most people didn’t want a gst and howard gave us one.
      Prices went up ten percent overnight.

      Keep on dancing and flapping your arms and jaws.
      Love that conservative opposition hoedown dance.

    • Blind Freddy says:

      11:14am | 09/06/11

      @Joan
      You, and your kind, don’t have any hard questions to ask. To ask a hard question you need to have a grasp of reality. Your tirades of abuse and name calling merely prove your stupidity not your point.

    • Joan says:

      11:21am | 09/06/11

      Sideshow Joan; Nah it ain’t democracy, you know it ,I know it…. like all good scammers the government of misfits is using every trick and lie to push through garbage policies not presented to the people pre 2010 elections. Liars and sneaky snakes, misfits in charge of country, worse than any sleazy used car salesman

    • Casey says:

      11:55am | 09/06/11

      Sideshow Joan: You say that people didn’t want a GST, but Howard went to an election with it and won. Do you see Gillard or Brown going to an election with their mandate? I don’t think so…

    • Sideshow Joan says:

      12:25pm | 09/06/11

      Casey
      Recently come into the world did you?
      Howard needed that cheating lying scumbag Meg Lees to get the GST through.
      She didn’t support the GST prior to the election.
      Welcome to the world of politics. - Soon you’ll be old enough to vote.
      Vote wisely

    • Anubis says:

      01:20pm | 09/06/11

      @ Sideshow Joan “Prices went up ten percent overnight”

      What a crock of garbage. The GST replaced a raft of different sales taxes. Some of these were as high as 21% dependent upon the goods involved. Some prices went up 10% but the majority of items stayed at around the same price and many actually dropped at the retail point. Research before you type. Howard took the GST to an election, which he won. Yes he did get Meg Lees to help him get the vote through (which was the start of the end of the Democrats). He did not try to hide the GST it was a central policy platform. Workchoices on the other hand was done the same way Gillard is trying to do the Carbon Tax - by mugging the electorate. The differences there is that John Howard was always vocal about making changes to the industrial lanscape where as Julia went to the election pronouncing loudly and boldly that “there will be no Carbon Tax under a Government I lead”. There can only be one conclusion to that and that is she lied deliberately to gain extra votes.

    • Joan says:

      01:42pm | 09/06/11

      Blind Freddy…. Yep none so blind than those who can’t see and are easily fooled by the liars and scam artists running this country. The government that doesn’t listen to majority who say NO means NO and not YES   Po-faced BB bleating bah, wah, its not fair…now that voters scrutinise and ask the hard questions .
      Meg Lees saw the light of day that the GST makes certain everyone pays some tax , that the parasites who lived off the taxes paid by hard working Australians now also pay some. I call that democracy.

    • kirsty says:

      08:19am | 09/06/11

      On another note I have yet to read one of your articles where you don’t refer to yourself as an academic.  Talk about your back door brag!

    • Reggie says:

      11:36am | 09/06/11

      It’s academic. I either missed or ignored that little bit of distraction or perhaps this is the tall poppy syndrome poking through the turf.

    • James1 says:

      08:02pm | 09/06/11

      James should stop telling people what he does for a job if you stop telling people about your work at MacDonalds.  Sounds fair to me.

      I might not agree with the author, but tall poppy syndrome is just thinly disguised envy.

    • Patrick Kelly says:

      08:24am | 09/06/11

      Ivory tower academic.

      More like undergraduate smartarsery actually. Could have come straight out of the pages of a forty year old copy of Honi Soit or Tharunka. Or even my old school paper The Stewed Ant.

    • Rossco says:

      08:29am | 09/06/11

      and the author thinks the greens are stupid enough to put all they say on the website?, mate, take a look at yourself, these guys are not only very funny but pretty well out there and dangerous, forget the website, listen to the spoken word. Its like buying a holiday to Vanuatu, havent you heard it is sinking at a rapid rate, Cate Blanchett has bought land there, oops its not on her website, cant be true.

    • bob slighly green says:

      08:40am | 09/06/11

      what a load of idealistic crap, Utopia is a myth, and the greens do not have a monopoly or mandate to force idealogical changes

    • Jay says:

      08:53am | 09/06/11

      Show me one country which has a Socialist/Green slant and is doing well?
      Spain I hear? Basket case with a 45% youth unemployment.All their Green policies have failed and cost them billions. I suppose they got their Gay marriage bill through. Woohoo. Greece? Bankrupt. The Greens want a Carbon Tax which we will all pay for as these so called big polluters pass on the costs which will send inflation through the roof, which will result in exhorbitant wage claims for those lucky enough to have a job and interest rates of 12-15%. The other option is simple. They close down as much of their infrastructure and move offshore.  Again can someone tell me how they intend to spend the 6 billion dollars the Govt will receive from the Carbon tax after they have laughingly compensated the masses? Who gets the money? What criteria wil be used? Will Professor Flannery and his accolytes be rewarded for all their hard work for the cause? Your passion is compelling but your reasoning that a Carbon tax will miraculously convert our economy is seriously flawed.If you want to win the argument, start explaining: how, where, when, how much, who gets the funding.

    • Josh says:

      10:13am | 09/06/11

      Germany in particular, and much of Europe are doing exceptionally well under Green policies.

      You are wrong to suggest that Green = Socialist.

      Australia is the envy of the world in terms of resources that can be exploited. Even if the brakes go on the Coal Industry, there will always be a massive mining industry in this country. Talk of them shutting down and inflation due to a carbon tax is just scare mongering.

    • Blind Freddy says:

      11:48am | 09/06/11

      Australia

    • Vaunted says:

      12:16pm | 09/06/11

      Early days, Josh, let’s wait and see how industrialised Germany and their Green policies get on when they get rid of nuclear and have to rely on windmills for base load. That’s what it is about the Greens and their policies, so mindlessly simplistic it would be laughable if it wasn’t so potentially dangerous. BTW, the ‘massive mining industry’ you refer to is no doubt WA’s iron ore for steel production, which in turn relies on Australian metallurgical coal for its manufacturing process. No coking coal = no steel. But hey, let’s not allow practical considerations get in the way of simplistic, feel-good, dinner-table rhetoric.

    • Josh says:

      01:31pm | 09/06/11

      More scare mongering by Vault. Coking coal will still be available.

      It is also scare mongering to say that base load power cannot be generated from renewables. This statement would be like NASA (in the 50s) saying that they could never make it to the moon – simply because they haven’t built the rocket yet. The fact is that it has been done and is being done. There are no technological hurdles left, only economic hurdles and the plants just need to be built. The most efficient way for this to happen, is to send gradual and sensible price signals to the market (such as with a carbon tax).

      Reading material for you - http://www.sustainabilitycentre.com.au/BaseloadFallacy.pdf

    • Micky G says:

      02:17pm | 09/06/11

      @Josh, do you think the Greens will be OK with Coking Coal mines still operating? LOL.
      Europe has a massive population tightly packed. A ‘green’ power plant like windmills in Spain can sell electricity to a viable market because the electricity grids are all interconnected.
      In Australia we have a tiny population spread massive distances apart. You cant build a ‘green’ plant in any place and reach enough people to make it viable. That’s why the carbon tax cannot encourage alternative energy suppliers in this country. Its not economically viable here. The initial investment is so high that they can never earn enough money for anyone to consider building the infrastructure. The tax will just be passed from the coal using electricity companies down to the end user…us…and nothing will change except the price of the electricity.. Its just so frustrating… Someone please tell me what this magical energy source is which will replace coal. If there isnt one, or isnt even a foreseeable one in the next 50 years, can we please drop this whole silly carbon argument?

    • AJ says:

      03:15pm | 09/06/11

      Josh, Germany is doing exceptionally well importing nuclear power from France.  And much of Europe is doing well?  Depends on your definition of doing exceptionally well I guess.

    • Vaunted says:

      05:22pm | 09/06/11

      Tell you what Josh, you give us a bell when renewables are even remotely capable of supplying base load power and I’ll be the first to sign up. Till then, run along and paint a placard or something. Maybe something along the lines of “The world will be flooded”, or “It’s never going to rain again”, or “The Barrier reef is doomed, doomed I tell you”’, or “ANU climate scientists receive death threats from flat earth redneck deniers”.  (ICB ICB ICB ICB)

    • Bev says:

      05:56pm | 09/06/11

      Josh says:01:31pm | 09/06/11

      It is also scare mongering to say that base load power cannot be generated from renewables.
      You have to plant the crop somewhere. They are burning down and tearing out the forest in South East Asia to plant palm oil plantations.  Trouble is jungle soils are very poor the nutrients they contain came from rotting vegetation. No jungle no nutrients in the soil after a few short years.  So move on burn more jungle.  Yep thats great for the planet. I just wish greens would do their homework somtimes.

    • Bev says:

      06:01pm | 09/06/11

      Josh says:10:13am | 09/06/11

      Germany in particular, and much of Europe are doing exceptionally well under Green policies.

      According to the figures Germany has had a net loss of jobs because of green policies. Trouble is green say oh look we have created X jobs they don’t tell you Y jobs have been lost.

    • mel r says:

      09:06am | 09/06/11

      “Not even One Nation…......received such a barrage of criticism”?
      Arvanitakis must’ve been out of the country.

    • Reggie says:

      12:24pm | 09/06/11

      Come off it Mel R, this right-wing divisiveness over a carbon-tax and the moaning about being out of power has been weighing PUNCH down for months now. Contempt for One Nation was a sparrow-fart that passed in the night by comparison.

    • mel r says:

      12:57pm | 09/06/11

      “Right-wing divisiveness”?  over a tax? 

      Hope you get to march in the streets chanting “Tax me!”

    • B says:

      10:01am | 11/06/11

      Reggie.  Your a a charming one aren’t you.  You really should be charged for treason.

    • Reggie says:

      11:59am | 11/06/11

      Thank you B. I presume your mention of my charms is one of honesty rather than one of sarcasm, otherwise you’ve labeled yourself as “full-of-shit”

      You may wish to qualify your ridiculous claim of treason though. I presume my comments have struck a raw nerve or you are expressing a lack of analytical capacity that leaves you crying treachery. 

      meh   More name calling from the right.

    • Markus says:

      09:12am | 09/06/11

      The Greens website does not give detail of anti-Semitic policies? Well then the whole Marrickville boycott fiasco must never have happened!

      Seriously, is this what qualifies as an argument these days?

    • Gareth says:

      09:56am | 09/06/11

      Anti-semitism is hostility or prejudice designed to displace or destroy Jews as Jews - i.e. an attack on Jewish people and their culture.

      So how was the Marrickville boycott anti-semitic? It was put in place in an attempt to force Israel, a nation-state, to take certain political actions. Where in that is there an attack on Jews as a culture? By your logic, for example, the PETA campaign to boycott Australian wool products is an anti-christian activity.

      To quote something I’ve read somewhere, ‘seriously, is that what qualifies as an argument these days?’...

    • Brad says:

      09:13am | 09/06/11

      The Greens are absolute nutters and total hypocrites. I’d bet that none of those noodles have ever lived a truly sustainable life all living in homes that would have some stage destroyed bushland, all dependent on power fueled by fossil fuels. Unfortunately like most things in this country it’s a small handful of do gooders that stuff it for everyone and cause red tape for good policies and procedures. And as for boat people, don’t get me started. Our government spends up to $80K per year to house illegal immigrants while average Aussies are crippled with rising costs of living and ripple effects from the GFC which by the way ISN’T OVER !!!  Wake up Australia

    • Daniel says:

      09:15am | 09/06/11

      Very funny article but essentially you are right. One Nation never got the hammering from the media the Greens get and the media gets out and claims Bob Brown is a whinger about biased media. Is it any wonder why nearly all Greens feel that way. Great article.

    • Markus says:

      09:53am | 09/06/11

      One Nation never had 12% of votes, or 9 seats in the Senate.
      The scrutiny is directly proportionate to the amount of power the party holds.

    • Static says:

      10:25am | 09/06/11

      AAh well you see the media are like the bully that goes whining to his mother. She asks him why he is crying and he says ” It all started when he hit me back”. Bob hit back and rather effectively I might add.

    • Nafe says:

      11:36am | 09/06/11

      Well if Bob Brown feels like the media are continually attacking him, i’d hate to see him when he gets the scruitiny that Abbott receives

    • Daniel says:

      03:10pm | 09/06/11

      Nafe,

      He wont make half the errors of judgement that Abbott makes so it will be ok.

    • N8 says:

      09:18am | 09/06/11

      Wow, that is some remarkable investigative journalism. You looked at a website and read some marketing material and concluded that ‘well their ads say it, so it must be true, no need to look at this any closer’. Damn fine work, because as we know, if you read it on the internet, it must be true. For the Greens we should ignore the obvious inconsistencies between party line and the words and actions of their mps, and simply take them at their word and assume that their promotional material really is all there is to see?

      You know what, while we are at it red bull really does give you wings, the best cold beer is Vic and mars does help you work, rest and play.

    • Mythica says:

      09:20am | 10/06/11

      Ha ha ha Nate, that’s funny love a bit of dry humor in the morning!

    • Col the Pariah says:

      11:43am | 10/06/11

      Its not investigative journalism, its a no-research number, he’s an academic, just ask him; actually you don’t have to, he tells us in every piece in case we can’t manage to read a byline (if we thought it was important)

    • Ian says:

      09:24am | 09/06/11

      The Greens will not ‘control’ the Senate.  They will simply have numbers which may be used to assist pass legislation.  Last time I checked, they were a minority party in the Senate.  Labor will simply continue to express a ‘friendly ally’ approach, and then knife them repeatedly behind closed ‘binding caucus’ doors like they always have.  The fact the Greens are more likely to support Labor than Liberal is pretty much due to the fact that Liberals present to them an honest face and oppose their politics, whereas Labor are inherently duplicitous seemingly aligned but considering them a joke.  You watch Labor continue to undermine the Greens where they have won House of Rep seats, and desperately claw back their diminishing Catholic base.  Trust Julia?  Ha ha ha…

    • Nick42 says:

      04:10pm | 09/06/11

      Liberals present an honest face - HA HA HA. Thank you I needed a laugh late in the day. They are politicians they do not know how to be honest. You did get it right when you describe what Labor is going to do to the Greens but I love how people think one party (Libs, Nats, Labor, Greens & Independents) lies and not the other. Politicians are liars by default until proven otherwise.

    • Badwolf says:

      09:24am | 09/06/11

      I know how to take the power from the greens just hear me out people’s.
      We will start a Meow party!!! It will be popular trust me, it’s sole purpose will to meow penny Wong.

      I just know people would vote for meowers over greens any day it will be bigger than on nation.

      Bahahahahahaha

    • gus says:

      09:28am | 09/06/11

      Marrickville Council decision was anti Semitic.why single out Israel.China oppresses Tibet and I bet that the Members of the council wear Chinese made clothes Use Telephones made in China etc.(There is few Jewish votes in Marrickville and and plenty of Chinese)

    • Gareth says:

      11:55am | 09/06/11

      So you’re suggesting that the only reason the council chose this particular campaign was because Israel is predominately Jewish. What support do you have for that assertion? That the council is inconsistent in its choice of campaigns? Inconsistency of action is everywhere in politics and other spheres. Again, how is this an attack on Jews and Jewish culture? So any criticism of Israel’s actions as a nation-state is automatically anti-semitic? Again, following that logic, any criticism/attack of Australian political actions is anti-christian or anti-bogan or anti-North Shore elite or [insert favourite Australian cultural identity here].

      Interesting leap of logic….

    • Gaz says:

      09:28am | 09/06/11

      Objective - write an article extolling my love of the Greens.  To do this I will need the following:

      1. Pick 3 completely ridiculous accusations from some nutjob… Check
      2. Use 1 biased reference point, the Greens website… Check
      3. Conduct rudimentary search of said website looking for evidence of ridiculous accusations and find none… Check
      4. Waffle on for a bit when actually saying nothing and appear worldly at the end by adding useless disclaimer

      Job done and I feel so happy with myself.

      Pathetic journalism…

    • Check! says:

      10:09am | 09/06/11

      5. Google “Greens Bestiality Victoria”

    • Static says:

      10:44am | 09/06/11

      6. Go to fox news in the USA for inspiration

    • free citizen privileged with paying taxes says:

      12:11pm | 09/06/11

      @Check!
      Excellent search. Greens and theirs “post species” Darwinistic religion and ethics revealed.
      No doubt they will try to impose Singer’s crap , who thinks it is ok to “f*&k a pig if it s not cruel to the pig and you do not dominate it ” , on all of us.

    • John says:

      09:39am | 09/06/11

      Lets bite the bullet and go back to the polls in both houses.No party can govern in the present circumstances.The mad monk with his pocket full of negatives and Julia Gillard with the greens holding her to ransom.Whichever party gets in at least the greens this time will be blown to oblivion where they belong.

    • CJ Morgan says:

      09:44am | 09/06/11

      Very droll, James - but all too true, I’m afraid.  Full marks to The Punch for publishing your piece, but it will undoubtedly work more as troll-bait than to balance their prolific anti-Green disinformation campaign.

      The “Extreme Green” meme that they have carefully cultivated falls down very quickly when you look at actual Greens policies and actions.  Bring on July 1, after which the National Parliament will be a better place.

      Meanwhile, let’s enjoy the fear and loathing campaign.  Be afraid, be very afraid!  wink

    • jimmyvanilla says:

      09:54am | 09/06/11

      “You may not like these policies, but claims that they are radical really do miss the mark.” Huh? Did I miss something or was your article about everything except these policies (you even went so far into lala land you spent half your time talking about doomsday cults). This is why the greens get the media thrashings you’re complaining about. Blah, blah, blah - say nothing relevant to the real issues, then slip in a one liner at the end of your speech that everyone should just agree with you. The problem is the greens have no actual ‘policies’ just a lot of BS with no thought for how the issues of minority groups should be accepted by the other 99% of the population.

    • Harquebus says:

      10:08am | 09/06/11

      Another climate warrior who, hasn’t got a clue. Not surprising since James is stupid enough to use that Flash cr@p.
      There is no such thing as green energy. Anyone who thinks there is, is a fool. I guess that makes James a stupid fool.
      Peak oil mate, peak oil. It will kill far more people and is happening now.

    • Michael says:

      11:14am | 09/06/11

      How about photosynthesis? raspberry

    • CJ Morgan says:

      11:36am | 09/06/11

      We really need to harness the energy of all that Flash crap.

    • Stuart says:

      10:08am | 09/06/11

      Any radical changes that are caused by the Greens gaining power in the senate will be the death nell for the Australian Labor party.They will be the ones that will have to carry the blame for anything that upsets the Australian public which will kill off Labor for all time.I talk to thousands of people in my workplace and most are of the opinion that anything that upsets their lifestyle or their childrens lifestyle will result in a massive support for the coallition.

    • Stan Wills says:

      10:14am | 09/06/11

      Fear and loathing we’ll all be rooned

    • Matt says:

      10:16am | 09/06/11

      “The first is that The Greens want to end all mining in Australia that will see the collapse of the Australian economy. Checking out their website, I disappointingly found no evidence that this was their position. Rather, the policy is to no longer support the opening of new coalmines nor expand existing ones.”

      Actually James, they specifically state on their website that they will abolish all exploration for, and the mining and export of, uranium in Australia. So there is some truth to that assertion.

      As for the accusation of socialism, you need look no further than their “economic initiatives”. Increase taxes, reduce concessions and incentives for investing, and increase government-controlled assets.

    • free citizen privileged with paying taxes says:

      10:17am | 09/06/11

      Congratulation James on dating the convinced Jedi Knight.!!!  Ha Ha Ha. Bet the Knight was a member of Green religion of Gaia.

      Apart from that , “anti semitic fascists” ( “eco “in our case ) sound s kinda familiar…

    • Tim says:

      10:24am | 09/06/11

      I personally can not wait until July 1 when the Greens extort the nation and force their leftist ideologies upon the 88% of people who did not vote for them.
      They will insist Labor implement economy destroying policies, then when the people have to bear the cost, they will finally wake up and turf the lot of them into political oblivion. The result will be a thumping victory for Abbott.

    • Thumper says:

      10:48am | 09/06/11

      Excellent impression you gave us with a thumping Rabbott Tim.
      Well done.
      Green influence is good for Australia.
      Bring it on, their numbers can only go up when we realise the sky doesn’t fall in and the major parties are jerked back to the centre.

    • dave says:

      12:37pm | 09/06/11

      better than the 96% of the population who didn’t vote for Family First being held to ransom.

    • Bill says:

      10:30am | 09/06/11

      NOT the end of the World but definitely the End of the Greens

    • Greens Goblin says:

      05:43pm | 09/06/11

      Yawn, is that the best you can offer Bill? - thirty years and counting…end of the Greens, every election is the end of the Greens and every election their vote keeps increasing. Must be time for some new slogans, how about we start spouting ‘end of the major parties’

    • LC says:

      10:36am | 09/06/11

      We have little reason to be worried in the long term. The Greens have reached their political peak, from here thier influence will only decline, because people now can see what they really are.
      I am not a Green voter, but I preferenced them higher than other parties in both houses. A mistake I will not repeat next election.

    • Ray says:

      10:55am | 09/06/11

      Why should the author start a doomsday cult, when he can join an existing one, the GREENS.

      Who could forget Bob Brown stating that coalmining was responsible for the recent floods and cyclones?

      Who could forget Bob Brown stating that we should all become vegetarians, so as to control climate change?

    • Green Goblin says:

      05:59pm | 09/06/11

      ...Who could forget Tony Abbott saying ‘climate change is crap’

      Who could forget Tony Abbott saying ‘don’t believe anything I say’

      But hey…shit happens.

    • B says:

      10:48am | 11/06/11

      Green Goblin.

      Who could forget that the Greens/left would lie and deceive the public?  Oh yeah.  Only the stupid follow the greens so it makes sense.  Also I dont think tony ever said either of those two.  Another lie from the loony left.

    • Reggie says:

      12:50pm | 11/06/11

      While loony B and his bag-o-bones continue charging windmills.

      Does you mummy know what you’re up to you little B?

    • Blind Freddy says:

      11:18am | 09/06/11

      The Laborials still command a vast majority in both houses and can deny the Greens anything that they can agree on TA might have to stop saying ‘no’ to everything- and suggesting nothing.

    • Micky G says:

      12:54pm | 09/06/11

      Freddy, if Labor tried to side with the Libs to deny approving Green policy in the Senate, the Greens will withdraw their support for the Gillard government in the House of Reps, forcing another federal election which Labor will certainly lose. That’s why Labor is suddenly adopting Green Policy as their own; to retain power whether they believe their policies or not. 88% of Australian voted for parties who promised no carbon tax. 12% of people voted for Greens who were the only ones who had it as policy - now we are getting a carbon tax rammed down our throats. Gillard is not governing for the majority of Australians. She is not doing what she believes in. She is compromising what she thinks is right (i.e. sticking to election promises) to retain the Greens support to stay in government. Thats not democracy…I dont know who Labor represents anymore other than themselves.

    • Matt F says:

      02:56pm | 09/06/11

      will they micky G? The odds of the greens keeping the balance of power in both houses after the next election is extremely low, even if they were maintain/increase their total vote they wouldn’t hold the deciding votes in both houses like they do now. I doubt they’d cause an early election which would more then likely result in them getting less power then they currently have, over one or two issues.

    • Loud & proud says:

      11:20am | 09/06/11

      I personally cant wait until Tony Abbott becomes PM and has to face a Senate controlled by Labor & the Greens. He has been so happy to be completely obstructionist as Opposition Leader, it will be hilarious to see him get some of his own medicine as he tries to get legislation through an obdurately hostile Senate. Me thinks the nice-nice Tony persona he is currently affecting wont last long under those circumstances.

    • Warwick says:

      12:27pm | 09/06/11

      Loud and Proud, we need to engineer a double dissolution. In the following election the Labor - Green alliance would be crushed.

    • LC says:

      02:21pm | 09/06/11

      If they decide to be stubborn in the senate, Tony could just call an immediate double disillusion.

      If the does soon enough after he topples the Gillard government, it would be easy to translate anger required to do so into another victory to clean out the Senate.

    • Michael says:

      11:28am | 09/06/11

      Doomsday or Fundamental Injustice day? Sorry that is 23 June.

    • Pete says:

      12:12pm | 09/06/11

      Is it?  I’m really pissed now, I’m going to miss my birthday

    • steve says:

      11:33am | 09/06/11

      “What will not end, however, is the need for a transition to a low-carbon economy, a more humane approach to dealing with refugees, greater transparency to protect our democracy and marriage rights of same sex couples.”

      Now I’m not anti gay marriage but I really have the way it is always grouped in with these big important issues.

      Apparently (according to wikipedia) 2-3% of australians identify as being gay.  I doubt all of them went to get married, so it’s an issue that affects <2% of the population.

      They already basically have equals rights with defacto status (or so i’ve been told, correct me if i’m wrong), which leads me to believe the only reason they would want to get married is religious, which doesn’t make sense.  So to me it seems like a pointless issue that affects hardly anyone.

      Why does this get so much attention? And can someone explain why it is apparently so important?

    • Warwick says:

      12:32pm | 09/06/11

      Steve,
      It is a shibolleth. It is a symbol of your being modern, of your having advanced beyond hatred of gays and lesbians. It is a way of being seen to be on the side that’s winning, without spending any time or effort thinking hard about the matter. The global warming scare gets very many of its supporters in the same way.

    • Greens rule the house already says:

      11:36am | 09/06/11

      oh loud and proud - you have just shown and proven what the average ALP/Green voter thinks of Australia, your attitude is truely reflective of the way you lefties really think. Bugger Australia as long as the idealogues stuck in the 19th century get your way. The Govt of Australia should be for all Australians not just 2 minority parties (14% and 33% of the popular vote). I personally can’t wait to see Julia Gillard have to whore herself to the Greens to get anything done come July 1, we have already seen our prime minister sell her soul to keep the job of PM, mind you she didn’t have much of a soul left after the shafting of Mr Rudd last year, I wonder if the western bulldogs still have an opening for the ranga.

    • thatmosis says:

      11:36am | 09/06/11

      Im not suggesting that coal fired power station are efficient but at least they can handle peak power loads without too much trouble. Alternative power as seen by the Greens means solar and wind and if the sun dont shine and the wind dont blow we would be up the proverbial without a paddle. I spent a considerable amount having stand alone power at my place and I know first hand the limitations that this type of installation incurs. One of the main things is the Governments insistance that an extra large battery charger and generator to run it are part of the deal so even they realise that its not the be al and end all for power. The only real alternative is nuclear power but that wont sit well with the Greens at all.

    • Eddie says:

      11:54am | 09/06/11

      Career academics and their naivety makes for some funny stuff to read.

    • Static says:

      12:23pm | 09/06/11

      As do rightwing naysayers

    • Warren says:

      12:45pm | 09/06/11

      I’m amazed how often anti-intellectual opinion is expressed in Punch. I think it’s true that learning and knowledge do not necessarily lead to true wisdom, but without sober reflection we are left with such brilliant insights such as:

      - Julia Gillard is a communist.
      - Barack Obama is a Muslim.
      - Climate change is a conspiracy by scientists to garner research dollars.

      To the tools who think education is for tossers, if you can read this, thank a teacher.

    • Eddie says:

      01:37pm | 09/06/11

      You are of course entitled to your opinion but I find it interesting that you assume I am a “rightwinger”.  Lefty’s are idealists and righty’s are realists in my simplistic opinion.  Both have their place but this poppycock about the Greens is just too much.

      If you think that the Greens wouldn’t close down the coal industry today if they could you are dillusional, just as if you believed the Libs wouldn’t shut down the unions today if they could.

      Of course education is important Warren and it comes in many forms, not just from a book.  These career academics who believe they know everything because they read it in a book have their head in the clouds.

    • White Noise says:

      04:36pm | 09/06/11

      Warren
      I think you missed
      The world is only 7000 years old.

    • B says:

      10:58am | 11/06/11

      @Warren Im amazed at the pure arrogance at idealists that assume they actually know something about everything.

      Im also amazed how you assume your position is right.  Without ANY evidence to back up the claim at all.  I think you may need to go back to school.  Oh wait.  Thats where this leftist spiel comes from.

    • Reggie says:

      01:16pm | 11/06/11

      Strewth B is singing a new tune now. Up to now he’s been the only one who knew everything with random charges of treason based on his assumed wisdom.

      Now he-she or it is targeting the wise. Perhaps Eddie’s mirth comes from his totally inability to comprehend a word being uttered. I know a bit about lots of things Eddie ... B, but not everything about everything, apparently that is your forte.

      WN; I thought it was 10,000 years? Live & learn.

      Hey Whitie… did you know that we alternate breathing through one nostril then the other, with the change governed by the same sort of erectile tissue as ..umm… down there?

      Better than that, if you exhale through the left nostril it stimulates your right hemisphere and encourages artistic endeavour.  But exhaling through the right nostril is not good news. Your left hemisphere tends to suffer oxygen starvation.  (Raising eyebrow.)

    • Aussie Wazza says:

      12:11pm | 09/06/11

      What? The world didn’t end?

      Very nice. Someone could have told me.

      I sold all my chattles and put the money in the bank like Harold Camping, (the predictor.) put the millions he has gathered.

      I figured he must have found a way to take it with him, or maybe have it waiting on the other side.

      Now I’m told it didn’t happen.

      Yeh, just another letdown.

      Or did it? Can’t really trust the media.

    • Glen says:

      12:50pm | 09/06/11

      “Checking out their website, I disappointingly found no evidence that this was their position. Rather, the policy is to no longer support the opening of new coalmines nor expand existing ones.” - Only a moron or a communist would think this is a GOOD thing. So no more new enterprise in the mining sector hey?

      Yep I can see no problem there…

      Once again Labor/Green voters, don’t blame me for what is to come, I voted LNP.

      Oh and mining union workers who voted Labor - jez did you guys back the wrong horse!

    • Gomez12 says:

      01:16pm | 09/06/11

      Glen,

      “So no more new enterprise in the mining sector hey?”

      I hate to have to be he one to point it out, but the earth contains more resources than coal.

      Calm down, I know it’s a shock.

      But maybe, just maybe, the miners could continue mining Iron, Bauxite, Uranium, Copper, Oil, Natural Gas, Tin, Gold, Opal, and all sorts of other things. Like they do right now.

      And Maybe, just maybe, new enterprise in the mining sector would focus on these minerals?

      Or maybe you’re right and the mining sector will collapse, destroying our economy and laying waste to thousands just like it didn’t when we stopped mining Asbestos?

    • Glen says:

      09:40pm | 09/06/11

      Gomez12 - you sir are an idiot. I want to start a mining company tomorrow, but I have never been in the sector before. I will supply hundreds of families with incomes. According to Green policy Bob Brown will say no. This is not “no to asbestos”, this is no… TO EVERYTHING! Including logging! If that is the Australia you want THEN I DEFY YOU by declaring myself a traitor and freedom fighter against YOUR Green communist tyranny!

      I urge every other patriot here to do the same! This is real and its dangerous.

    • Tator says:

      11:59pm | 09/06/11

      gomez 12,
      try that it is Greens policy to shut down all uranium mines, including those like Olympic Dam and Prominent Hill which are predominantly copper mines and uranium is basically a economically profitable by product

    • Gomez12 says:

      10:16am | 10/06/11

      @Tator

      True, it is. And I disagree with that policy. But I’m also pretty sure that those mines would survive anyway since we aren’t talking about an industry without some clout. The may lose the revenue from exporting Uranium, but the price of Copper alone would keep them viable.

      As I’ve posted elsewhere, I don’t actually vote Green, but am more incredulous at what passes for political discourse on them - they (at this point) claim to represent something like 17% of the voting population (and therefore by extension, 17% of the population), which is around 3.75 Million people.  Surely we can have a rational discussion of the merits or otherwise of their policies? (You are, it’s the Glen’s of this forum I’m looking at)

      @Glen
      Were you actually frothing at the mouth when you wrote that?

      You want to start a mining company and you’ve never been in the sector? One of us is indeed an idiot. I would imagine that a lack of capital, lack of experience, lack of knowledge and a lack of something to mine and somewhere to mine it shoudl probably be bigger concerns than what the Greens think on the matter.

      “I will supply hundreds of families with incomes” - If you manage to overcome the aforementioned issues, then great, I’m sure you will. Go for it champ.

      “According to Green policy Bob Brown will say no”. - He will if it’s coal or Uranium (Or Asbestos, we don’t mine that anymore either - But Liberal & Labor support that one), Otherwise there’s nothing to support that. Mining is a major industry and will continue to be.

      Besides which, Bob Brown has NO SAY in what mines do or do not get approved, it’s up to the relevant minister and department. So unless the Greens win the house of Reps (They have 1 seat, it’s not really “imminent” now is it?) then you’re pretty safe.

      No to everything? If everything in your world is made of Uranium, Native Timber Woodchips and Coal then your’e in strife. Probably cancer-ridden and dusty too…. But for the rest of the nation we’ll probably manage on the Plantation timber than now comprises the lions share of our logging industry, the Native timber for furniture and construction will remain available (Just not woodchipping) and the other minerals and fuels in the ground. IF in some weird distant future the Greens win power…

      It’s not the Australia I personally want, so I didn’t vote for them. But I’m not going to get hysterical about the prospect of 9 Green Senators.

      “I DEFY YOU by declaring myself a traitor and freedom fighter against YOUR Green communist tyranny!” - Well, I’m sure the Hessian-soled Jack-boots are beating a path to your door right now. You’d best secure the perimeter, you won’t hear them coming in their cunning electric cars. Maybe you’re being a tad moledramatic about 9 Senators. They could block the passage of a bill (with the support of the Liberals - Those crazy commie-lovers!), but they can’t pass one of their own.

      “I urge every other patriot here to do the same! This is real and its dangerous.” - I urge you to seek prompt mental help. Your paranoia is real, and it is dangerous. If nothing else getting that worked up about not much can’t be good for your health!

    • Bloggs says:

      12:55pm | 09/06/11

      Ah well, we get what we ask for…... and the electorate asked for the ALP.

      With all their past scheming spendthrift history, they were always going to scheme and spend again.  The scheming includes the Greens and no-one saw that coming…. and yes, the Greens are really that bad no matter what this Green sympathiser of a writer says here… we expect no better form him.

      The world won’t end, but it will last until the next election and woohoo!, with Abbott in change next time things can only get better.  I can make that statement because they cannot get any worse than the Green/ALP coalition crud we have running the place now.

    • Graeme says:

      01:04pm | 09/06/11

      You can’t argue with people who only use one hemisphere of their brain - which is why you cannot and must not ever argue with any of the following:
      Greenies
      Leftwingers
      Socialists
      Women
      They don’t have a working understanding of logic and reason. Their brains simply cannot understand it - they are totally at the whim of their touchy feely emotions all underwritten by a deep seated guilt. They suffer a psychological disorder.

    • Your name:Iain says:

      06:42pm | 09/06/11

      Not all conservatives are stupid, but most stupid people are conservative. ..  This entire thread is a perfect demonstration that John Stuart Mill was absolutely correct.  Or was he just a stupid lefty incapable of logic or reason?

      The truth is you can’t argue with bigoted, ill informed idiots on comment threads as they are fantasy rather than reality based.

    • Gomez12 says:

      01:10pm | 09/06/11

      I love how the Green-Haters know so much more about what the Green’s “Really Believe” Than the Actual members of the Greens party. I didn’t realize Mind-reading was such a common trait here.

      Then we have those Bitter souls complaing that tha ALP and the Greens have done some filthy, underhanded deal that tarnishes them all because TWO political parties have had to come together to win the election and both have had to compromise on their policies in some way. Well, If you hate it so much, you can always vote for the COALITION of the Liberal and National parties because they would never do such a thing….....

      Personally I didn’t vote for them, but I can live with the fact that they hold seats in the senate representative of the portion of citizens that DID vote for them. It’s this new-fangled concept of Parliamentary democracy where we each vote for the party that we’d prefer to represent us! How crazy is that eh?

    • Tracker says:

      01:57pm | 09/06/11

      I don’t hate Greens, I pity them. We cannot control those neurons in our brain and when they get out of control and start connecting to the wrong places it is just so sad to see but I am going to try and help.. The COALITION as you put it is a coalition and they publicly admit it (to the people) and in fact.. heaven forbid, they actually go to the election as a COALITION. The ALP/Greens COALITION doesn’t. Now get those neurons working so you can comprehend that simple statement my little Green martian friend grin

    • Gomez12 says:

      02:50pm | 09/06/11

      @Tracker,

      If you don’t hate them, Obviously my comment of “Green-Haters” was not directed at you. Confusing stuff I know.

      My point was actually that the Coalition (By it’s own words) compromises between the needs and policies of the Nationals and the Liberals - It’s a “Broad Church” and therefore it’s hypocritical that some posters are claiming this is some dirty tactic on behalf of the ALP/Greens to hold power. It’s simple politics. ALP need the Greens to govern and have reached an agreement. So what?

      The Liberals are incapable of winning an election without the National Party and so have reached an agreement. Again, So what?

      And if we’re heading onto the topic of what governments Promise Pre-election and deliver Post election then The Greens actually hold up the best since they have never had the power to make or break their own promises (unlike either the LNP or the ALP), Liberal - Workchoices & Labor - Carbon Tax spring to mind.

      As I said in another post, I didn’t vote for the party, but the fear misrepresentation and vitriol ditrected at a relatively minor and mainstream party does baffle me.

      The Green are exactly the same as any other party - they have a platform and policies, they will attempt to implement them - it’s called politics, in a democracy. Don’t like ‘em? Don’t vote for them! Now get those neurons working so you can comprehend that simple statement my little confused friend.

    • Shit For Brains says:

      01:34pm | 09/06/11

      So if the Greens are pursuing the same policies as the other parties, for instance: capitalism and support for the state of Israel, then you must be implying that there is no reason for them to exist. But a brainy academic like you were probably just trying to fool the readers. Clever you. So clever you know the Greens aren’t watermelons at all because clever academics know that when you add the colours green and red together you get brown. The same colour as turd.

    • Exposed turd says:

      04:34pm | 09/06/11

      And the same colour as what’s in your head.

    • Richard says:

      01:39pm | 09/06/11

      (As a special favour to you James, I have reproduced here an email that I just wrote to Greenpeace. Hope you enjoy it :D)

      Ok, Thanks for replying to me for starters. Greg Combet never did and I don’t think so-called leaders should be trying to dodge debate on this issue. But look here, you have not put any deep thought into your stance by the looks of it, you are just glossing superficially over the whole thing and forsaking considered analysis for trite clichés and slogans.

      Firstly, I have never disputed the science of climate change. While its true that so-called “climatology” is a spanking brand new branch of science, and a highly disreputable one at that (in the context of the climategate email affair), which is certainly hotly contested (note the 11,000 independent US scientists disputing the consensus in a petition recently), but I myself do not dispute or contest the science of climate change.

      But I mean, climate does change, doesn’t it? Ever heard of the Ice Ages, the Medieval Warming Period, etc.? There is an old saying which goes something along the lines of “the only constant is change”, and there is another one which says that “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself”. I simply do not accept that that we need to be quivering in fear right now about the manifest fact that the climate is changing. Is man causing the climate to change? Of course! But it doesn’t necessarily follow that we need to be shaking in our boots about it. A far better approach would be to deal with it rationally and logically, not fearfully and emotively.

      The real failure of correct cognition in your response to me is the part where you say “A carbon price taxes big polluters, raising money to fund a transition to clean energy and compensate consumers who face short-term price rises. Polluting becomes more expensive. Clean energy gets cheaper. It’s a no-brainer. We need a price on pollution now. We know that the pollution from burning coal is making climate change worse. And we know we need to act urgently. But how do we reduce this pollution when our economy currently depends on it? “

      Nonsense. Firstly, they are not “big polluters”, they are Big Producers: without the products they produce our country would be as insolvent and bankrupt as Greece and England and America. An extra tax on them to reduce their productivity is like inviting an economic depression to hit Australia and hit us hard. And for what? In the context of the lack of international action, its pointless! We all know that the environmental problems in the world stem from the largest ever industrial revolution unfolding right now in China, from overpopulation in India, from deforestation in Brazil and Indonesia. We know they are the real problems, and putting a productivity tax on our home-grown Big Producers like BHP addresses precisely NONE of these problems.

      The thing is, without a carbon tax well north of $40, nothing will change. Nothing will change at all, except that power bills, which are already too high, will sky-rocket even higher. And it’s impossible to compensate for that, because the price of energy permeates through every atom and molecule of the economy. Rampant inflation will break out, living standards will erode: you can’t compensate for that by handing out bureaucratically a few hundred extra dollars to a few thousand families living on less than 80k per year. And all for no reason…

      You are the one who is a no-brainer. You want to impose a bureaucratic socialist “solution” to an energy problem, but economics doesn’t work like that. History has proven this. Over time, new scientific innovations will bring the cost of clean energy down, we are an ingenious species. But only if the free market is left to its own devices. If you meddle in it, tinker with it, manipulate it, corrupt it, you will prevent it from working properly, and you will damage the living standards of all, for no good reason. Where as if you just butt out of it, everything will be fine. “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself”.

      Sincerely

      Richard

    • LC says:

      02:04pm | 09/06/11

      So…what do you think would happen to power prices, not to mention the prices of everything else, if we introduce a carbon tax of well north of $40?
      How may other countries have a carbon tax of above $10/tonne, let alone above $40?

      What’s so wrong with a carbon tax of $5-10/tonne, with no compensation and at least 75% of the revenue raised going towards R&D into and construction of sustainable energy sources?

    • LC says:

      02:11pm | 09/06/11

      Oh, my apologies, didn’t read the whole post until just then smile

    • Iain says:

      06:51pm | 09/06/11

      ‘Climategate fake scandal’ + Oregon Petition of fake scientists plus -ve understanding of local versus global climate (MWP) = credibility 0

    • Richard says:

      08:14pm | 09/06/11

      Iain, as I said I do not dispute the scientific consensus, thus my credibility remains intact even according to your totalitarian judgement.

      But it is a reality that the brand new branch of science called “climatology” is a highly contentious field. It is. I will defer to the experts on this one (the experts on both sides mind), but I hasten to add that eventually when the science finally does settle, I do believe it will come down somewhere in the middle between the two opposing camps who shrilly attack each other at the moment. It seems to me that science will eventually confirm that human CO2 emissions do affect the climate, but that endogenous negative feedback loops allow Gaia to maintain homeostasis quite acceptably over time.

      But you are quite unreasonable Iain, because Climategate was not a fake scandal, and the Oregon petitioners were not fake scientists, and there is no evidence that the MWP was a localised isolated case. So really your attack on me was uncalled for.

    • neil says:

      01:51pm | 09/06/11

      The Greens having control of the senate will almost guarantee Gillards carbon tax will not get through. They will reject it unless the price is so high that it will be rejected by the ALP. There misguided ideology will shoot them in the foot yet again.

    • BobM says:

      02:09pm | 09/06/11

      @ neil - I don’t know about that. Gillard will no doubt promise the Greens that the tax will start at $20 and then they’ll crank it up from there once it has been passed in Parliament. Wouldn’t put anything past the sneaky red-head.

    • LC says:

      02:14pm | 09/06/11

      While I know the Greens did that with the ETS, but knowing how desperate Gillard is to maintain power right now, it’s not something I’d count on.

    • Warwick says:

      07:30pm | 09/06/11

      As soon as they are blinded by some good ‘ol pork barrelling ( as long as the pork is barrelled in a humane way) the Greens , under the influence of love, the belief in peoples’ inner good being triumphant in the face of evil, and the misguided opinion that they actually matter, will once again stuff up what was once the masses’ idea that by voting for the Green( good branding, poor judgement), they would bnlock some really evil force from power.

    • bikinis on top says:

      02:05pm | 09/06/11

      On July 1 2011 may the Liberals and Nationals rest in peace.
      We shall remember them. May they rest in peace.
      The Liberal Party Born 17 October 1944 Dead July 1 2011. Aged 66.
      They died of old age and old alcohol.

    • Fanny by Gaslight. says:

      11:23am | 12/06/11

      While yearning for a return to gas and gaiters.

    • Lukew says:

      02:09pm | 09/06/11

      Pointing out propaganda and picking holes in it does not provide any credible substantiation for the ill thought out and narrow minded policies that are on the Greens web site.  Not only are their policies short of the mark, they have no idea of how to implement them or the negative fall out that will result.

      Just goes to show that people will believe anything.

    • Dezman says:

      02:23pm | 09/06/11

      If you want your own doomsday cult, you should jouin a Global warming rally!
      Won’t the world end if we don’t act?

      We just need to set an act by this date or dir and we’re rolling :D

      :-p

    • James says:

      02:28pm | 09/06/11

      Certain people like Alan Jones (and friends) don’t need facts to slander the Greens, heavens no, having a good shout at someone is their crack cocaine and they really feel it in their gut that the Greens are, in fact, very naughty people.

      People like Alan get very angry at the very mention of facts, I mean isn’t it obvious that the Greens are the lesbo, pinko, atheist, commie, white man hating, freedom hating, treehugging vangard of the new world order, I mean many of them have dreadlocks, ah what more evidence do you need.

    • B says:

      07:04pm | 11/06/11

      Yeah.  He doesnt need facts.  The Greens do enough damage to themselves.

    • James says:

      01:07pm | 15/06/11

      I hope to goodness you aren’t enrolled to vote

    • James says:

      01:07pm | 15/06/11

      I hope to goodness you aren’t enrolled to vote

    • Carl Palmer says:

      02:53pm | 09/06/11

      I’m absolutely ecstatic, that you as a teacher – lecturer – whatever won’t be let loose near my boys. Your thoroughly researched, analysed and systematic investigation re the above is something to behold. You wouldn’t by any chance have a gig with a mob called the IPCC.

      Seriously, as a teacher you scare me.

    • James says:

      03:39pm | 09/06/11

      Yeah he might also start telling your kids that the world is not 7000 years old, what an idiot.

    • Carl Palmer says:

      09:04am | 10/06/11

      @James says:03:39pm | 09/06/11 – “…what an idiot” – you got that bit right.

      As for the rest, well if you want to expose your kids to this nonsensical propaganda crap from a dopy teacher, that’s up to you. I’ll go and find someone else.

    • James says:

      09:53am | 10/06/11

      Yeah I mean why would you expose them to propaganda like science, that would just be crazy.  I personally get all my science from the bible, if it ain’t said by Jesus it ain’t worth a knowin’ yerrrp.

    • ausspud says:

      02:54pm | 09/06/11

      STOP!
      i cant believe we are still having this discussion,we are not the centre off the universe and if we cut our emmissions the the world will be saved.we can close down all coal powered station and it will make no difference,and please dont give me this bullshit about needing to do our bit.
      all this nonsense is being pushed by a party thats desperate for funds & the greens to be relevant otherwise what do they have- gay marriage.
      now im going to knock myself out & pull me out of a coma at the next election.

    • Cade Foster says:

      05:22pm | 09/06/11

      The Greens (and Labor) stance on “anthropogenic climate change” adds weight to the “watermelon” characterization of a Greens member.  There has been no real debate about climate change between climate alarmists (e.g. Australia’s Professor Will Steffan) and climate realists (termed “skeptics”, e.g.  Australia’s Professor Bob Carter). The realists keep asking the alarmists for a public debate but the alarmists always seem to find some lame excuse to avoid these debates or the alarmists think they are “above” debates.  There is no reason why we have to take our climate policy marching orders from the UN’s IPCC when we have perfectly capable scientific researchers who are able to give the government it’s own climate policy. If you hear a scientist talk about a consensus on a phenomenon (e.g. climate change) then that scientist is not a true scientist (e.g. independent in thought) but a person who is being manipulated through means possibly such as easy grant money or having lost objectivity by being too passionate about a certain hypothesis leading to a tunnel-vision view of reality. As a person with a doctorate in an applied science discipline, I have spent enough time in academia to see this unfortunate effect.

      Science is based on experimentation, research, transparency, etc.
      There exists prominent climate alarmist researchers that have not been transparent for many years (Re: CLIMATE-GATE scandal 2009) all contributing to the “global warming” scam. There exists prominent scientists that believed global warming might be happening (pre-CLIMATE_GATE) and now (post-CLIMATE_GATE) have to re-assess their own work (e.g. also maintaining their own temperature record and being transparent about the manipulations done on raw experimental data while checking/testing climate-based statistics/models, unlike the non-transparent CLIMATE_GATE-related researchers).

      As a scientist I find it preposterous that government-based climate change policy is largely dictated by the results of computer-based simulation of climate since these non-validated computer models are based on assumptions to handle our lack of knowledge of aspects of climate.

      Years ago climate alarmists began with the question “How does man affect climate ?”  while climate realists (i.e. the inquiring skeptics) began with the question “What affects climate ?” .

      From this, who do you think the “real” scientist is ?
      If you did not instantly realize it was the latter (i.e. the climate realist) then you
      have confirmed your own scientific illiteracy.

      And that’s another good point !
      The climate alarmists realize that many people do not have a background grounded in science or engineering or a relevant technical discipline and, unfortunately, many people would not realize the significant difference between computer-simulated results and experimental results. It is crazy to allow simulated results (with many holes of knowledge in the preparation of these results)  to predominantly affect government policy.

      There exists disclaimers in “climate change” reports from climate alarmist research groups (e.g. CSIRO, Bureau of Meteorology) that imply that the authors of the report are not responsible for the accuracy of their temperature projections since the computer-modelled (i.e. simulated) data is based on assumptions for those aspects of climate where man’s knowledge is lacking.


      You think, in a relative sense, many people realized the massive fraudulent ramifications of the climate-gate (2009) scandal (apart from leftist media outlets trying to whitewash/avoid the scandal) ?

    • Harry says:

      05:25pm | 09/06/11

      As an environmentalist I am offended that Brown’s party is even allowed to call itself the ‘Greens’. 

      Where are their environmental credentials?  What practical achievements have they made to care for the Earth.  I would guess many times less than the average Aussie nanna who plants trees and cares for her plants and vegetables.

      The Greens should be made to change their name to reflect their POLITICAL beliefs which are Socialist/Marxist.  The ‘Green’ name is a cover for their true agenda.

      Ask some of the founders of the ‘Greens’ who have left what they think and you will be shocked.

    • Warwick says:

      07:23pm | 09/06/11

      somehow a gay civil union equals green

    • Mother Earth says:

      05:37pm | 09/06/11

      Mother Earth to humankind….

      “If I want the climate to change baby there ain’t nothing you little bald monkeys can do”. 

      Now p!ss off and eat some bananas.

    • bananabender says:

      06:21pm | 09/06/11

      When the Berlin wall collapsed Comrade Gorbachev told his worried Politburo colleagues that communism wasn’t really ending but was simply being re-branded (as Green politics). Gorbachev is now one of the leading heroes of the Green movement.

    • Static says:

      07:22am | 10/06/11

      oh oh here come the tanks with the ussr red star down george st again

    • Warwick says:

      10:43am | 10/06/11

      Banana Bender, your comment is very insightful. The Russian Socialist system was an attempt to remake the world in the image of Marx and the like. Greenery is the attempt to remake the world in the image of Suzuki and the like. Both are crazy ideologies. One has no understanding of the way that we humans really are and the other is based on a misconception of the functioning of the natural world. And both rely on lies, fraud, propaganda and force for their survival.

      Marxists thought they would bring in a Golden Age where human self-interest no longer functioned; the Greens think they can bring in a Golden Age where most humans will be eliminated and the remaining few will live in a kind of eco-fundamentalist Rapture of Communion With Nature, or Gaia.

    • Reggie says:

      07:45pm | 11/06/11

      Warwick; “One has no understanding of the way that we humans really are and the other is based on a misconception of the functioning of the natural world. And both rely on lies, fraud, propaganda and force for their survival.”

      “No one knows…understands… etc,” except Wizard Warwick apparently, who has been granted the wisdom and pomposity to expound his wider comprehension than most. Thank you Wizard Warwick for granting we miserable creatures a moment of your precious time. 

      If only Einstein had lived long enough to benefit from your insight.

    • Capt Col says:

      06:37pm | 09/06/11

      I’ve just read through some of the comments on this thread and would like to say to all the right wing nut jobs - you poor delusional fools, I can only imagine the sad little pathetic lives you lead.

    • terry says:

      08:07pm | 09/06/11

      The solution to base load power production isn`t all that elusive.
      As a nation, we need to round up all these know all, green minority, left wing hippies and strap them to exercise bicycles fitted with small generators connected to the grid.  They run on lentils, are worth next to nothing and they are renewable.
      It should be motivation enough for them to suggest an economically viable, real world solution.

    • Mark William says:

      10:40am | 10/06/11

      I can just see your cult James- let’s hold hands and chant om while simultaneously devising a market based carbon abatement scheme powered by the solar powers escaping your sanctified rear ends smile Hallelujah! Praise the James!!

    • Micky G says:

      11:31am | 10/06/11

      Its just sad…Over 200 comments and not one pro-Green/Carbon Tax voter can offer a single realistic foreseeable alternative energy source to Coal to provide power to Australian homes and businesses…We all know solar and wind cant cut it . Whats the magic solution which the carbon tax is going to encourage and why? Anyone?

    • terry says:

      01:52pm | 10/06/11

      OK here`s a viable research path.  We build a massive pyramid structure of stone and earth, as many hectares on the base as we can afford, and take it up to a fine gold point where the voltage will peak forming an electrical discharge visible at night. Then measure the current available back to external ground to see if the power is sufficient for practical use.
      The physics is sound, the question is how big does it need to be in order to be useful.
      I think this was done somewhere before though…...like about 10,500 years ago in what became known as Egypt.

    • B says:

      08:10am | 11/06/11

      You started out sounding like you knew what was going on.  Then spiralled into an article based on oh so familiar Labor spiel.

      Go wank somewhere else mate.

    • B says:

      11:06am | 11/06/11

      Right of revolution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_revolution

      “In political philosophy, the right of revolution (or right of rebellion) is the right or duty, variously stated throughout history, of the people of a nation to overthrow a government that acts against their common interests”  - I think this sums up this ALP<->greens coalition.

    • Reggie says:

      07:26pm | 11/06/11

      B, Satursday night!

      Shouldn’t you be out chalking ETERNITY on the footpath somewhere?

    • Ethica says:

      06:31pm | 14/06/11

      AFAICT you’ve cvroeed all the bases with this answer!

    • Justin says:

      12:15am | 18/06/11

      There’s some smart people on here. And there’s some dumb statements that are being made.

      “The Greens can, however, block the passage of every bill through the Upper House.” - Michael N

      Well, no, not if the bills receive support from both major parties.

      “they are a bunch of city-centric, inner city lefties. They know nothing of the country & those living in the country.” - Robert S. McCormick

      http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2010/03/03/a-closer-look-at-the-greens-vote/

      What’s that you say, the vote outside the cities is only slightly less high than the vote inside the cities? Ignore that, let’s have baseless stereotypes!

      “As an environmentalist I am offended that Brown’s party is even allowed to call itself the ‘Greens’. Where are their environmental credentials?  What practical achievements have they made to care for the Earth.  I would guess many times less than the average Aussie nanna who plants trees and cares for her plants and vegetables.” - Harry

      The Greens in its first incarnation rose to power in response to the Franklin Dams Case, taking action as a part of a group of movements to secure a fragile ecosystem. Since this time, the Greens have irrefutably brought environmental issues to the forefront - the fact that environmental issues even have political dialogue around them is largely due to the increasing focus on the Greens in Australian politics.

      That’s three. I don’t want to rant, but these seem to cover the majority of this comments section.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Daniel Piotrowski

@ToryShepherd there's always time for Din Tai Fung.

ToryShepherd

@drpiotrowski will be there just in time for Din Tai Fung

Daniel Piotrowski

@ToryShepherd I hope that's in your piece tomorrow. Also - are you coming over this week or laaaaaater?

ToryShepherd

@drpiotrowski yes, Snowtown Abbey should be given an entirely segregated feed...

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Deep down we’re all unionists, even the haters

Deep down we’re all unionists, even the haters

Bill Kelty made a memorable speech last week. Addressing the ACTU Congress Dinner in Sydney, the legendary…

Craig Thomson speaks. Meanwhile, in Australia…

Craig Thomson speaks. Meanwhile, in Australia…

Speaking of yourself in the third person is usually a sign that you’re suffering from delusions…

South Australia. It’s the middle bottom bit.

South Australia. It’s the middle bottom bit.

If South Australia had just arrived in the world, red and wrinkled and mewling, what would we call it?…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

241 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter