Finally, I can legally rock up pissed to my local primary school.

or the ABC, Q&A, the7.30 report....;) ;)

My ex had me all hyped up to vote with Facebook pics of her local polling booth with fucking pork on the spit.

Went to mine, zero food, queues for ages in the sun, and Family First were the only party doing HowToVote

It's true, ABC does lean to the right and they are calling out Babbott too.

Julie Bishop reopens nuclear debate as route to cut carbon dioxide emissions

Date November 29, 2014 - 11:15PM

Foreign Minister Julie Bishop says nuclear energy remains an option for Australia, describing it as an "obvious direction" as it considers how to cut carbon dioxide emissions after 2020.

Ms Bishop called for a an open discussion about the feasibility of nuclear power, given Australia's abundance of uranium, but accused Labor of resorting to a scare campaign when the issue was raised during the Howard government years.


It's a big call for our leaders to engage in this debate, but a good one because it will take some time for communities and industries to get comfortable again with the current and future generations of nuclear technology

"It's an obvious conclusion that if you want to bring down your greenhouse gas emissions dramatically you have to embrace a form of low or zero-emissions energy and that's nuclear, the only known 24/7 baseload power supply with zero emissions," she told Fairfax Media when asked about Australia's options for reaching future carbon-reduction targets.

Ms Bishop flies to Lima, Peru, in just over a week to attend the annual United Nations climate conference, where Australia will face pressure to announce its climate targets for beyond 2020 and it's understood the Prime Minster has personally requested Trade Minister Andrew Robb chaperone Ms Bishop so he can factor in the economic impacts of any new targets Australia considers. Mr Robb, with three major trade deals under his belt, was due to be in South America at the time. Mr Robb was instrumental in influencing the coalition partyroom against former Leader Malcolm Turnbull and his support for Labor's emissions trading scheme.

But new pressure has mounted on Australia in the wake of a recent agreement between the US and China, designed to build momentum for an international treaty due to be struck in Paris in December 2015.

The Liberal deputy leader said without a zero emissions baseload power source, Australia's reduction effort would rely on the 2020 renewable energy target – which the Government is attempting to cut – research and making the energy supply smarter and more efficient.

"I always thought that we needed to have a sensible debate about all potential energy sources and, given that Australia has the largest source of uranium, it's obvious that we should at least debate it," she said.

The Liberal Party and its base strongly supports considering nuclear power, but the Coalition has avoided reviving the debate until now. Ms Bishop lamented the result of a 2006 review, commissioned when she was science minister.

"The debate didn't go anywhere. It descended into name calling about which electorates I intended to place a nuclear reactor in, and would I rule out Cottesloe Beach – that kind of puerile debate. So it didn't ever get off the ground," she said.

The review, headed by businessman and nuclear physicist Ziggy Switkowski, found nuclear power was "a practical option for part of Australia's electricity production" and, if supported, could see plants built within 10 to 15 years.

Dr Switkowski praised Ms Bishop's comments and said "nuclear power simply has to be in the mix in Australia's energy future" given its negligible carbon footprint and Australia's geological stability.

"It's a big call for our leaders to engage in this debate, but a good one because it will take some time for communities and industries to get comfortable again with the current and future generations of nuclear technology," he said.

Dr Switkowski said community sentiment towards nuclear power had been warming in Australia until the Fukushima disaster in 2011.

But he said advances in small modular reactors could make nuclear commercially viable for Australia as early as next decade because they addressed the main concerns people typically held about reactors – waste, their proximity to population centres and the risk of a catastrophic accident.

"The small modular reactors will provide a real opportunity to consider nuclear power again because they are a tenth of the size of a nuclear or coal-fired powered station," he said.

But he agreed that if there were improvements in wind and solar technology over the next two decades to make them more reliable around the clock, renewable energy sources could be more viable than nuclear. "It's a bit of a race, given the time that's been lost due to Fukushima," he said.

The government is likely to increase its uranium trade to China and India, and has in the past sold the resource to Russia.

Mr Bishop said: "Other countries are embracing nuclear power as part of their energy mix in order to meet the kind of reduction in greenhouse gas emissions that is being considered.

"France is considered as one of the greenest countries on earth [and] has a significant proportion of its energy from nuclear energy."

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/julie-bishop-reopens-nuclear-debate-as-route-to-cut-carbon-dioxide-emissions-20141129-11w17k.html

Julie Bishop reopens nuclear debate as route to cut carbon dioxide emissions

Date November 29, 2014 - 11:15PM

Foreign Minister Julie Bishop says nuclear energy remains an option for Australia, describing it as an "obvious direction" as it considers how to cut carbon dioxide emissions after 2020.

Ms Bishop called for a an open discussion about the feasibility of nuclear power, given Australia's abundance of uranium, but accused Labor of resorting to a scare campaign when the issue was raised during the Howard government years.


It's a big call for our leaders to engage in this debate, but a good one because it will take some time for communities and industries to get comfortable again with the current and future generations of nuclear technology

"It's an obvious conclusion that if you want to bring down your greenhouse gas emissions dramatically you have to embrace a form of low or zero-emissions energy and that's nuclear, the only known 24/7 baseload power supply with zero emissions," she told Fairfax Media when asked about Australia's options for reaching future carbon-reduction targets.

Ms Bishop flies to Lima, Peru, in just over a week to attend the annual United Nations climate conference, where Australia will face pressure to announce its climate targets for beyond 2020 and it's understood the Prime Minster has personally requested Trade Minister Andrew Robb chaperone Ms Bishop so he can factor in the economic impacts of any new targets Australia considers. Mr Robb, with three major trade deals under his belt, was due to be in South America at the time. Mr Robb was instrumental in influencing the coalition partyroom against former Leader Malcolm Turnbull and his support for Labor's emissions trading scheme.

But new pressure has mounted on Australia in the wake of a recent agreement between the US and China, designed to build momentum for an international treaty due to be struck in Paris in December 2015.

The Liberal deputy leader said without a zero emissions baseload power source, Australia's reduction effort would rely on the 2020 renewable energy target – which the Government is attempting to cut – research and making the energy supply smarter and more efficient.

"I always thought that we needed to have a sensible debate about all potential energy sources and, given that Australia has the largest source of uranium, it's obvious that we should at least debate it," she said.

The Liberal Party and its base strongly supports considering nuclear power, but the Coalition has avoided reviving the debate until now. Ms Bishop lamented the result of a 2006 review, commissioned when she was science minister.

"The debate didn't go anywhere. It descended into name calling about which electorates I intended to place a nuclear reactor in, and would I rule out Cottesloe Beach – that kind of puerile debate. So it didn't ever get off the ground," she said.

The review, headed by businessman and nuclear physicist Ziggy Switkowski, found nuclear power was "a practical option for part of Australia's electricity production" and, if supported, could see plants built within 10 to 15 years.

Dr Switkowski praised Ms Bishop's comments and said "nuclear power simply has to be in the mix in Australia's energy future" given its negligible carbon footprint and Australia's geological stability.

"It's a big call for our leaders to engage in this debate, but a good one because it will take some time for communities and industries to get comfortable again with the current and future generations of nuclear technology," he said.

Dr Switkowski said community sentiment towards nuclear power had been warming in Australia until the Fukushima disaster in 2011.

But he said advances in small modular reactors could make nuclear commercially viable for Australia as early as next decade because they addressed the main concerns people typically held about reactors – waste, their proximity to population centres and the risk of a catastrophic accident.

"The small modular reactors will provide a real opportunity to consider nuclear power again because they are a tenth of the size of a nuclear or coal-fired powered station," he said.

But he agreed that if there were improvements in wind and solar technology over the next two decades to make them more reliable around the clock, renewable energy sources could be more viable than nuclear. "It's a bit of a race, given the time that's been lost due to Fukushima," he said.

The government is likely to increase its uranium trade to China and India, and has in the past sold the resource to Russia.

Mr Bishop said: "Other countries are embracing nuclear power as part of their energy mix in order to meet the kind of reduction in greenhouse gas emissions that is being considered.

"France is considered as one of the greenest countries on earth [and] has a significant proportion of its energy from nuclear energy."

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/julie-bishop-reopens-nuclear-debate-as-route-to-cut-carbon-dioxide-emissions-20141129-11w17k.html

I SAY YES TO NUCLEAR POWER

Nuclear power combined with renewables is an absolute must for a green future.

Maybe take those posts to the infrastructure thread, Joff?

agree, definately the way to go

Bill Shorten Lost in the Parliament House Basement





Hide Grid
IMAGE 1/ VIDEO AUDIO
By The Backburner
28 NOV 2014 - 11:43 AM UPDATED 28 NOV 2014 - 12:23 PM

According to an urgent report issued today by security officials, Opposition Leader Bill Shorten has become lost in the labyrinthine catacombs below Parliament House in Canberra, and with every passing moment only travels deeper into the bowels of the building.

“Bill was on his way to Question Time and I guess he must have taken a wrong turn,” said one security guard. “We’ll be honest – it’s not the first time he’s done this. Last time he was gone for weeks, wandering endlessly in the maze-like caverns.”

“Help!” Shorten was heard to say, his voice echoing through the halls of Parliament. “I’m trapped down here!”

+ wind, solar and tidal technologies.

Funny old week when Karl is doing the heavy hitting :lol:

[youtube]lxK4m9_-0r8[/youtube]

-PB

Expect "intergenerational theft" to get a good run in parliament over the next few months.

Trigger the DD Tonez, do eeeet.

The obvious weakness in using that two word slogan is their environmental policy and their determination to see the youth unemployment rate rise and rise.

He has six months to prove himself, otherwise Julie will get his job.

Obvious weakness has never stopped them before.

Fuuuuuuuuuuckkkkkkkkkkkk no haha.

-PB

Karl hardly had to do anything. Tonez hung himself pretty much.

It's either her, Hockey or Morrison. Malcolm given free rein would take the centre on a number of issues and win the next election.

At the end of the day whoever takes the job will have to come up with a better explaination than 'a good governmnet lost it's way.'

"I would like to ask the Australian public that we move on from the unfortunate period of Australian politics that was the Gillard-Rudd-Abbott leadership era. Let us all start fresh and focus on the future of this great nation."

Then just talk about the new policies and new direction of the government. People will move on quickly once Tonz gets the flick, provided his policies are not implemented before the change.

The Liberals have pretty clearly tried to burn any credibility Turnbull had with the other side of the spectrum but making him minister for communications though.

Be great to have a fresh start - lets also makes changes to the voting system, not compulsary and preference votes abolished.

The problem with non-compulsory voting is vocal, organised and motivated minority groups can garner votes disproportionate to their actual relevance or acceptance.

For example your Fred Nile types could get together, for instance, to ban abortion............




............or even more outrageous ban GTA V from Target stores.





Edited by MUNRUBENMUZ: 4/12/2014 05:05:11 PM

The Australian published a picture of Larissa Waters' 6 year old daughter in a pink fairy costume to score political points. So creepy and wrong on so many levels. ](*,)

The problem with non-compulsory voting is vocal, organised and motivated minority groups can garner votes for issues that I don't agree with.

Like banning R+18 games for example.

I don't get it. You started a thread whinging about vocal minorities putting you out and now you're bagging me for pointing out this is exactly what you can expect if you have non-compulsory voting.

If anything I'm on your side. A parliament full of squawking, minority, nutjobs elected by non-compulsory voting would give you the nanny state you vehemently oppose.

You need to think more before you post.

Actually it gets you what happened in Sweden yesterday. A budget that nobody agrees on.

So like Australia then?