The despair grows.
Fruit, vege and grocery shopping today almost made me sick. I was the only person to be using a "Green" bag. I had one of them (I perhaps should have had two due to the amount of f and v I bought) and everyone else (10 groups) had atleast 10 plastic bags each. They casually watched them being 1/4 filled by the check out staff who didn't want to offend their customers by mixing items that might be odd, and they casually placed them into their trolly. A couple groups
It's 2 thousand and fucking 06 people. Plastic bags are a thing of the 80's. Grow the fuck up, work it the fuck out. Sorry for using the "f" word so much but it scares the fuck out of me that if people can't make the simple change to NOT using plastic bags then what hope do we have. A couple years ago there were maybe twice as many people using Green bags, but now that is not the case. I no longer think it is trendy. We are living in the times of the 30 second concentration span.
Saturday, November 25, 2006
Monday, November 20, 2006
Liberal and Labor set to give each other preferences
Leanne Daharja Veitch of Climate Change Action writes:
30 October 2006
Hi all,
Due to the incredibly increasing popularity of the Victorian Greens, it is looking like the Victorian Liberal and Labor parties are going to give each other their preference votes, in an attempt to crush the Greens, who stand a very real chance of winning several major seats and a balance of power.
What this means is that instead of preferences flowing to smaller parties (as per normal), preferences for the two major parties will flow to each other, thereby eliminating any competition from other parties altogether.
So if you vote Labor (Bracks) and you are in a Liberal area, your vote could end up going to the Liberal party (Ballieu). If you vote Liberal and are in a Labor area, your vote could flow to Labor.
This sort of thing is done when a third party grows strong in a two party system. The two major parties collude to crush the third option, and then it's back to 'business as usual'. It keeps the status quo, which is exactly how the major parties like it.
Be careful how you vote. Preferences make a *real* difference - this was seen in the last Victorian election when Labor preferences went to Family First, and as a result a large number of long-time Labor members resigned their membership in disgust at the deal that was done without their knowledge. Family First ended up with a seat despite very small electoral support - all on Labor preferences.
If you really care about the environment, vote Green. It's that simple. The only chance the Greens have is people voting for them *directly*.
Preferences have not yet been confirmed, and will not be confirmed until the 11th of November, but this is the talk in parliament. Last state election there was a swing towards the Greens of +8%, and this swing is set to increase substantially, according to the latest polls.
Vote Green, and make a real difference to Victorian politics.
Cheers,
Leanne Veitch
30 October 2006
Hi all,
Due to the incredibly increasing popularity of the Victorian Greens, it is looking like the Victorian Liberal and Labor parties are going to give each other their preference votes, in an attempt to crush the Greens, who stand a very real chance of winning several major seats and a balance of power.
What this means is that instead of preferences flowing to smaller parties (as per normal), preferences for the two major parties will flow to each other, thereby eliminating any competition from other parties altogether.
So if you vote Labor (Bracks) and you are in a Liberal area, your vote could end up going to the Liberal party (Ballieu). If you vote Liberal and are in a Labor area, your vote could flow to Labor.
This sort of thing is done when a third party grows strong in a two party system. The two major parties collude to crush the third option, and then it's back to 'business as usual'. It keeps the status quo, which is exactly how the major parties like it.
WHAT CAN YOU DO?
Be careful how you vote. Preferences make a *real* difference - this was seen in the last Victorian election when Labor preferences went to Family First, and as a result a large number of long-time Labor members resigned their membership in disgust at the deal that was done without their knowledge. Family First ended up with a seat despite very small electoral support - all on Labor preferences.
If you really care about the environment, vote Green. It's that simple. The only chance the Greens have is people voting for them *directly*.
Preferences have not yet been confirmed, and will not be confirmed until the 11th of November, but this is the talk in parliament. Last state election there was a swing towards the Greens of +8%, and this swing is set to increase substantially, according to the latest polls.
Vote Green, and make a real difference to Victorian politics.
Cheers,
Leanne Veitch
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
Nuclear power 'a threat to water supply'
From SMH
October 29, 2006 - 12:29PM
Australia's crippling drought will worsen if the Howard government succeeds in its push for nuclear power, Queensland Premier Peter Beattie says.
Addressing the New Zealand Labour Party conference in Rotorua, Mr Beattie said an independent study commissioned by the Queensland government showed a nuclear power station would use 25 per cent more water than a coal-fired power station.
"At a time when our farming communities are hurting badly, it is a folly for (Prime Minister John) Howard to be entertaining the thought of nuclear power stations in Queensland or anywhere else," he said.
"Many towns and shires in our state are struggling to get enough drinking water, let alone enough to satisfy the amount a nuclear station would need to guzzle."
Mr Howard established a review, headed by former Telstra boss Ziggy Switkowski, in June as part of his push for nuclear power to be considered in the nation's future energy mix.
Mr Beattie said a coal-fired power station produced up to 1,400 megawatts of electricity a year and used around 19,500 megalitres of water to condense and recycle steam.
He said a nuclear power station producing the same output would need about 25,000 megalitres.
"That is the equivalent of at least an additional 5,000 Olympic-size swimming pools a year," Mr Beattie said.
"It is water that we simply cannot afford when drought and climate change are drying up water supplies."
He said nuclear power stations needed a guaranteed water supply and a strong connection to an electricity grid, implying a nuclear power plant would need to be close to the eastern seaboard.
"Where is Mr Howard planning to put it? Is it Townsville or Mackay or perhaps further down along the coastline on the Sunshine Coast or Gold Coast?
"Even then a guaranteed water supply to meet minimum safety concerns would be a tall order.
"A guarantee like that is tough at the best of times, let alone in the middle of the worst drought on record."
Mr Beattie is on a three-day trip to New Zealand to boost trade and economic ties.
© 2006 AAP
October 29, 2006 - 12:29PM
Australia's crippling drought will worsen if the Howard government succeeds in its push for nuclear power, Queensland Premier Peter Beattie says.
Addressing the New Zealand Labour Party conference in Rotorua, Mr Beattie said an independent study commissioned by the Queensland government showed a nuclear power station would use 25 per cent more water than a coal-fired power station.
"At a time when our farming communities are hurting badly, it is a folly for (Prime Minister John) Howard to be entertaining the thought of nuclear power stations in Queensland or anywhere else," he said.
"Many towns and shires in our state are struggling to get enough drinking water, let alone enough to satisfy the amount a nuclear station would need to guzzle."
Mr Howard established a review, headed by former Telstra boss Ziggy Switkowski, in June as part of his push for nuclear power to be considered in the nation's future energy mix.
Mr Beattie said a coal-fired power station produced up to 1,400 megawatts of electricity a year and used around 19,500 megalitres of water to condense and recycle steam.
He said a nuclear power station producing the same output would need about 25,000 megalitres.
"That is the equivalent of at least an additional 5,000 Olympic-size swimming pools a year," Mr Beattie said.
"It is water that we simply cannot afford when drought and climate change are drying up water supplies."
He said nuclear power stations needed a guaranteed water supply and a strong connection to an electricity grid, implying a nuclear power plant would need to be close to the eastern seaboard.
"Where is Mr Howard planning to put it? Is it Townsville or Mackay or perhaps further down along the coastline on the Sunshine Coast or Gold Coast?
"Even then a guaranteed water supply to meet minimum safety concerns would be a tall order.
"A guarantee like that is tough at the best of times, let alone in the middle of the worst drought on record."
Mr Beattie is on a three-day trip to New Zealand to boost trade and economic ties.
© 2006 AAP
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
