I like being a bit controversial.
It surprised me to see on this forum how many intelligent people were going to give their vote to the greens. I always thought green voters were less intelligent, non working, pot smoking, no hopers, but I was wrong. Highly successfull, above average intelligence people were voting green. Mainly in the name of the environment. I think the greens are the worst possible solution for our environment, and here is why I think that.
The labor party thinks we don't need nuclear power in Australia, but uranium mining will continue. Fair enough, I would like to see nuclear power here, to do our bit to reduce our world highest green house emmisions. But no nuclear power in Australia is OK. Rudd wants to develope clean coal. I think clean coal is more a theory than fact, but I hope we can do it. Go Kevin, good luck mate.
However, The greens specifically state that they want to keep uranium in the ground. I assume that means no uranium mining.
The world needs nuclear power now. It needs it to fill in the gap until nuclear fusion, or geothermal, or beaming microwave power down from satellite orbiting power solar collectors, or some other power source that hasn't even been thought of yet. China and India, if they don't get our uranium, they will go coal. One thing is certain, wind and solar will not supply base load power, and ethanol and biodiesel are a joke.
An interesting chart of developed world power sources,.....
Notice the beautifull hydro contribution from Canada. I think New Zealand would be similar. We don't have that option here, as not enough rain, however, if we did would the greens let any more dams be built to harness this clean energy? I doubt it.
I hope the green don't get any real power in this country, because if the developing world that needs our uranium don't get it, they will go coal.
Now to agriculture.
The greens specifically state they encourage organic agriculture, and the reduction in artificial fertilizers and chemicals.
Organic agriculture is great in theory. [but so is communism]... No chemicals, no fertilizer, all natural. But agriculture is not natural. In nature, the soil was never 'mined'. Nothing was taken. Plants grew, they died, everything was recycled. Animals shat back out the nutrients.
Today tonnes of plant and animal matter are being removed and it has to be replaced.
Organic food is so much more expensive, because it is so less productive. As far as grain growing, it's a third as productive. I know two organic grain growers. They have to grow legumes for half the time to provide the nitrogen, and then they have to supply tonnes of manure per hectare per crop for the other nutrients. They also have to plough the soil. They only survive because they get so much more dollars per tonne for their grain, but not triple, so they will end up going bust, while their soil blows away.
Farming today in Australia has undergone a revolution. The soil is either not ploughed, or only cultivated occasionally. Stubble is left on the surface. Worms and microbs have increased now that ploughing the soil is redundant. Yields have increased substantially. Even in this drought, the few Aussie farmers that are left will grow 20 million tonnes of grain this winter crop being harvested now, or almost a tonne per person.
Organic farming will mean a return to the bad old days of ploughing the soil, massive wind and water erosion and reduced yields. It will also burn much more energy from the tractors having to plough the soil again. It will be like going back in time twenty years.
Organic farming is a third as productive as conventional agriculture. And that is with the nutrients that are today obtained from animal manure and organic fertilizer. This organic fertilizer would not exist without oil based conventional grain growing. Without this supply of nutrients from animal manure, I reckon organic farming would be a sixth as productive. Organic farming could feed a billion people, not six billion. Funnily enough, or maybe just a coincidence, the world population was just a billion before artificial chemical fertilizer was invented and the worlds natural fertilizer supplies, [mainly bird crap] were being depleted. There is no going back now.
http://www.hydro.com/en/About-Hydro/Our-history/1900---1917/1900-On-the-brink-of-famine/
Organic farming needs much more land than conventional agriculture to grow the same amount of food. Food production is already struggling to keep up. That's why grain, and milk and meat prices have doubled in the last few years.
Organic farming would be a disaster for the worlds environment. The more productive the current agricultural land, the more land can be saved for forest, wilderness and endangered animals and plants.
http://www.cgfi.org/materials/articles/2002/nov_15pr_02.htm
Labor has romped in. Congratulations, I hope Kevin does as good a job as John did. However, if the greens get too much say in things, our environment will be the big loser. I'm terrified what the greens could do to agriculture, right at the start of a soft commodities boom.
See ya's.
It surprised me to see on this forum how many intelligent people were going to give their vote to the greens. I always thought green voters were less intelligent, non working, pot smoking, no hopers, but I was wrong. Highly successfull, above average intelligence people were voting green. Mainly in the name of the environment. I think the greens are the worst possible solution for our environment, and here is why I think that.
The labor party thinks we don't need nuclear power in Australia, but uranium mining will continue. Fair enough, I would like to see nuclear power here, to do our bit to reduce our world highest green house emmisions. But no nuclear power in Australia is OK. Rudd wants to develope clean coal. I think clean coal is more a theory than fact, but I hope we can do it. Go Kevin, good luck mate.
However, The greens specifically state that they want to keep uranium in the ground. I assume that means no uranium mining.
The world needs nuclear power now. It needs it to fill in the gap until nuclear fusion, or geothermal, or beaming microwave power down from satellite orbiting power solar collectors, or some other power source that hasn't even been thought of yet. China and India, if they don't get our uranium, they will go coal. One thing is certain, wind and solar will not supply base load power, and ethanol and biodiesel are a joke.
An interesting chart of developed world power sources,.....
Notice the beautifull hydro contribution from Canada. I think New Zealand would be similar. We don't have that option here, as not enough rain, however, if we did would the greens let any more dams be built to harness this clean energy? I doubt it.
I hope the green don't get any real power in this country, because if the developing world that needs our uranium don't get it, they will go coal.
Now to agriculture.
The greens specifically state they encourage organic agriculture, and the reduction in artificial fertilizers and chemicals.
Organic agriculture is great in theory. [but so is communism]... No chemicals, no fertilizer, all natural. But agriculture is not natural. In nature, the soil was never 'mined'. Nothing was taken. Plants grew, they died, everything was recycled. Animals shat back out the nutrients.
Today tonnes of plant and animal matter are being removed and it has to be replaced.
Organic food is so much more expensive, because it is so less productive. As far as grain growing, it's a third as productive. I know two organic grain growers. They have to grow legumes for half the time to provide the nitrogen, and then they have to supply tonnes of manure per hectare per crop for the other nutrients. They also have to plough the soil. They only survive because they get so much more dollars per tonne for their grain, but not triple, so they will end up going bust, while their soil blows away.
Farming today in Australia has undergone a revolution. The soil is either not ploughed, or only cultivated occasionally. Stubble is left on the surface. Worms and microbs have increased now that ploughing the soil is redundant. Yields have increased substantially. Even in this drought, the few Aussie farmers that are left will grow 20 million tonnes of grain this winter crop being harvested now, or almost a tonne per person.
Organic farming will mean a return to the bad old days of ploughing the soil, massive wind and water erosion and reduced yields. It will also burn much more energy from the tractors having to plough the soil again. It will be like going back in time twenty years.
Organic farming is a third as productive as conventional agriculture. And that is with the nutrients that are today obtained from animal manure and organic fertilizer. This organic fertilizer would not exist without oil based conventional grain growing. Without this supply of nutrients from animal manure, I reckon organic farming would be a sixth as productive. Organic farming could feed a billion people, not six billion. Funnily enough, or maybe just a coincidence, the world population was just a billion before artificial chemical fertilizer was invented and the worlds natural fertilizer supplies, [mainly bird crap] were being depleted. There is no going back now.
http://www.hydro.com/en/About-Hydro/Our-history/1900---1917/1900-On-the-brink-of-famine/
Organic farming needs much more land than conventional agriculture to grow the same amount of food. Food production is already struggling to keep up. That's why grain, and milk and meat prices have doubled in the last few years.
Organic farming would be a disaster for the worlds environment. The more productive the current agricultural land, the more land can be saved for forest, wilderness and endangered animals and plants.
http://www.cgfi.org/materials/articles/2002/nov_15pr_02.htm
Labor has romped in. Congratulations, I hope Kevin does as good a job as John did. However, if the greens get too much say in things, our environment will be the big loser. I'm terrified what the greens could do to agriculture, right at the start of a soft commodities boom.
See ya's.
Last edited:
