Greens prove they want to keep the "crazy" tag
After a week or so of sustained, serious debate about climate change, water and energy, the Greens have decided to get some free media… by suggesting a 3-year phase-out of coal mining in Australia.
Senator Brown said the tobacco industry was being phased out because its fumes ruined people’s health.
“The coal industry must be phased out because its fumes are wrecking the planet’s health,” he said.
This policy, cooked up with Dr Tim Flannery, shows two things:
-
The Greens are desperate to get into the “environmental” media debate, and will say almost anything to get air time; and
-
The Greens are afraid of losing their status as the “environmental” party to Labor, and are willing to go to “the extreme” in order to make it seem that they are better on the environment than anyone else.
The reality is that no Australian government is going to phase out coal mining. Furthermore, it would not decrease coal use globally.
Of course, Australia should move to genuinely renewable energy, such as solar, geothermal, tidal, hydro and wind (etc). Our reliance on coal should be reduced, and reduced quickly. The money that Howard would use to introduce nuclear power stations should instead be used to invest in renewable energy technology.
With this policy however, the Greens have merely added a shrill, unconvincing and attention seeking media grab to the national debate on renewable energy and climate change.
Oz wrote:
I’d actually like the Greens to actually put out a coherent policy for once. They define only themselves by saying they’re anti-this anti-that without any details.
The other thing that irks me is the suggestion that coal mining jobs can be converted into renewable energy jobs and people shifted over (same with the forestry workers). Reeks of free market thinking that labour can be shifted across sectors easily.
arleeshar wrote:
This amused me, mainly because I have recently developed a mild obsession with the online game nationstates. I was hooked into the game by my friend Interbreeding Mark, and I have been shaping my nation through picking one of three available courses of action in response to automated “issues”. The available courses of action are phrased mainly as suggestions from extreme interest groups, and the Greens’ response to this issue reads exactly like one of the game’s crazy crazy courses of action.
That being said, if this issue came up in nationstates as opposed to in real life, I would almost certainly choose the Greens’ response.
yes, I have officially gone the Garrett.
Post new comment