Is this any way for a government minister to behave? The fact is, Greg Hunt is a AGW denier like the rest of his lunatic fringe party. He says he accepts the science underpinning climate change but then flags and implements policies that don’t reflect the science. He is either a fraud, completely incompetent or stupid…..or all three.
from Graham Readfern at the Guardian.
Maybe Maurice Newman was hoping nobody would check.
In an opinion column yesterday, the climate science denying (yes, I just said it right up front) former ABC chairman and head of the Prime Minister’s business advisory council launched into another of his embarrassing attacks on climate science and the laws of physics.
Given we’ve been here before, I’m starting to think that Newman might actually have written some clever computer code that first scrapes climate science denial blogs for conspiracy theories and common misrepresentations and then turns them into 950-words for The Australian newspaper.
Originally posted on Quartz:
This post has been updated.
It looked like it was over, but the interstate battle to secure Tesla’s $5 billion “gigafactory” battery plant rolls on.
Last month, Tesla confirmed that the facility, which is being designed so Tesla can produce more lithium-ion batteries—and, ultimately, more cars—was basically Nevada’s to lose. But officially, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas (whose governor, Rick Perry, has been lobbying hard for the facility), and the electric automaker’s home state of California are still in the running. Founder Elon Musk has said the company will break ground on a second site in one of those states as a hedge. The approach is clever, from a shareholder perspective, because it also means Tesla can secure more concessions and inducements from the states in contention.
And that’s already happening. The LA Times reported yesterday that California governor Jerry Brown is negotiating with the automaker to exempt it from aspects of the California…
View original 423 more words
From the comments at the bottom of the story I would like to highlight Biff. He says…
Originally posted on Jackie Trad MP:
Ms TRAD (South Brisbane—ALP) (8.28 pm): I rise to contribute to the debate on the North Stradbroke Island Protection and Sustainability and Another Act Amendment Bill 2013. From the outset, I will put the position of the Labor opposition, which is that we will be voting against this legislation.
Government members interjected.
Ms TRAD: It does appear that people are a little bit frisky tonight. Maybe there was not enough food down at the members’ dining room.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Watts): Order, members! I remind the member for South Brisbane to address the bill.
Ms TRAD: I will, as soon as my esteemed colleagues can contain themselves. As I said, the Labor opposition will be opposing the North Stradbroke Island Protection and Sustainability and Another Act Amendment Bill. Again, this bill’s title is a complete misnomer. Really it should read the ‘Sibelco continuation of sandmining on Stradbroke Island bill…
View original 8,389 more words
So, how does Queensland Premier Campbell Newman repay the miners who donate to his party? By creating legislation that gives them unfettered access to coal deposits with no community consultation. That’s how. If this isn’t corruption I don’t know what is….
from Queensland Country Life
Legislation definition prompts warnings
COMMUNITY groups are set to lose the right to object to an overwhelming majority of mining projects if a new bill is approved in state parliament, according to Environmental Defenders Office principal solicitor Jo-Anne Bragg.
Passage of the Mineral and Energy Resources (Common Provisions) Bill 2014 will mean 90 per cent of proposed projects would not be open for community comment or objection.
There would also be no public notification of small-scale projects.
The bill is currently in its consultation phase and submissions to the Agriculture, Resources and Environment Committee closed on July 9.
The committee is now considering those submissions before making recommendations that will be considered and debated in parliament.
Jericho beef producers Bruce and Annette Currie wrote a submission to the committee, raising their concerns about the proposal to limit objection rights to only directly affected landholders.
The definition of a ‘directly affected’ landholder is unclear, they said, and the flow-on effects of mining should be considered.
The couple, who operate 25,000-hectare property Speculation, at Jericho, understand the importance of objection rights and were involved in the Alpha coal case in the Land Court.
“We believe it is extremely important that all sectors of the community can comment, object and have appeal rights to government decisions made on ‘regional interest areas’,” they said.
“Our current situation is that if the mines in our area are given the go ahead our cattle property could potentially have its ground water impacted by coal mining; if this occurs then it will destroy our business.
“It is imperative that individuals and community groups can decide if they wish to appeal a government decision. We need and want a right of appeal.”
A diagram from the Environmental Defenders Office about the potential changes.
The Environmental Defenders Office represents landholders and conservation groups on issues ranging from environmental planning to mining and coal seam gas.
EDO principal solicitor Jo-Anne Bragg said the proposed changes would only benefit mining companies.
“Essentially people’s rights are being stripped away without any justification,” she said.
“Cases like the Alpha coal case show how landholders and community groups alike act responsibly and lead to finding that some projects should not go ahead based on groundwater impacts and uncertainties.”
Natural Resources and Mines Minister Andrew Cripps said the Mineral and Energy Resources (Common Provisions) Bill 2014 was about getting the balance between resource development, landholder rights and environmental protection right.
He said the bill contained a number of key benefits for landowners that didn’t previously exist under the former Labor government.
“For the first time, directly affected landowners will have the right to give or withhold their consent for activities to occur close to their homes or businesses,” Mr Cripps said.
“This will provide a clear ‘line in the sand’, increasing the protection from 100 metres to 200 metres for mineral and coal projects.”
Read the original article here