Swagman wrote on Oct 3
rd, 2013 at 9:57am:
Bam wrote on Oct 3
rd, 2013 at 9:16am:
You've been a touch untruthful yourself, methinks
Really, how?
Pay attention and I will show you.
Quote:Bam wrote on Oct 3
rd, 2013 at 9:16am:
Wait, what? Too close to homes and it's just political spin? I think you need to explain this.
If the process mentioned is within 600m of residential properties then it is within the buffer zone and should not be approved. Carrying on like a pork chop about something that has not even been assessed yet is political spin.....savvy?
It is NOT political spin to point out that it is within the exclusion zone. This is one place where you have been untruthful.
If they are being forceful with their opposition to the proposal on reasonable grounds, so what?
Quote:Bam wrote on Oct 3
rd, 2013 at 9:16am:
Buckingham is stating an OPINION.
That's a good one...
![Grin Grin](http://www.ozpolitic.com/yabbfiles/Templates/Forum/default/grin.gif)
Julia was just staing an opinion when she said there'd be "no carbon tax" was she?
This is another place where you have lied. Buckingham stated an opinion, not a fact. Do learn the difference.
As for Gillard's alleged "lie", it is comparable to Howard's lie of August 13, 1998 when he said "The price of petrol will not increase for the average motorist" in relation to the GST. According to the ABS, when the GST was introduced, the price of petrol went up 10%.
Quote:Bam wrote on Oct 3
rd, 2013 at 9:16am:
That is debatable.
So debate it.
Debate what? Where's the context?
Quote:Bam wrote on Oct 3
rd, 2013 at 9:16am:
So can many other cheaper and/or less controversial energy generation techniques.
Bring them on then, it's a free country. If these 'lone ranger' energy sources are indeed cheaper and less controversial then they will be more competitive won't they Bam?
Not when we have a bunch of forkwits in Canberra, beholden to vested interests who are actively and forcefully discouraging investment in renewables just so their fossil fuel donor mates can keep making donations to the Party.
Quote:Bam wrote on Oct 3
rd, 2013 at 9:16am:
False. It increases CO2 emissions because it turns fossil C into CO2. Do try to keep up.
If the use of natural gas replaces the use of other 'dirtier' fosil fuels it will reduce emmissions? Do try to keep up.
There are plenty of energy generation techniques that do not have net emissions of CO
2. Why are you being wilfully misleading over this point by only presenting comparisons among fossil fuels?
Quote:Bam wrote on Oct 3
rd, 2013 at 9:16am:
To whose profit? The government of Singapore?
As I said...the tax payers of NSW. Royalties, jobs, infrastructure, income taxes, investment, consumption = wealth and prosperity.
The Government of Singapore stands to make a lot more out of this than the Government of NSW.
Quote:It is also a buffer for rural communities against drought. Mining royalties and the cash investment and jobs created in rural communities will fund rural commerce and regenerate rural communities and provide diversified income sources in times of drought.
These same rural communities may have difficulty using their bore water due to contamination from CSG. And if anyone is proposing to put CSG wells anywhere near the source aquifers for the Great Artesian Basin they deserve the most severe condemnation.
Quote:Bam wrote on Oct 3
rd, 2013 at 9:16am:
I thought you were against the carbon tax?
I'm against all taxes but they are a necessary evil in a civilised society.
My point is that the natural gas industry creates jobs, people with those jobs spend their incomes and create more jobs and generate profits for local business which creates jobs. Profits and taxes rec'd from individuals and business fund the bloodsucking Govt.
Creating jobs is not the exclusive domain of CSG. All other forms of energy generation also create jobs.
Quote:Bam wrote on Oct 3
rd, 2013 at 9:16am:
So can other energy generation techniques - geothermal, solar, coal ...
Yes they can but do you see me advocating the ban on these energy sources? Go for it I say. If they can be cheaper and more efficient than natural gas bring them on.
How about less controversial? About the only source of energy that is more controversial than CSG is nuclear power.
Quote:Bam wrote on Oct 3
rd, 2013 at 9:16am:
Again, incorrect. This is one of those rare areas of policy where the National Party and the Greens find common ground.
Show me where the NATS want to rule CSG out entirely?
Stop moving the goalposts. I never said that.