Clean living Australia
#16
Originally posted by HiddenPaw
it's not just greenhouse gases - water shortage problems have also been caused by the excessive logging. An independant state govt report in Vic estimates that Melbourne's water will run out by 2012...yet the logging in the water catchment area continues (an industry subsidised by the state govt!!!).
it's not just greenhouse gases - water shortage problems have also been caused by the excessive logging. An independant state govt report in Vic estimates that Melbourne's water will run out by 2012...yet the logging in the water catchment area continues (an industry subsidised by the state govt!!!).
Did you by any chance hear Germaine Greer talking about this very problem, on BBC Radio 4's 'Start The Week' this morning?
Anya.
#17
Originally posted by anya4oz
Yes, it's quite horrifying. I'm sure I'm going to end up joining the local Friends of the Earth campaign group once I'm settled in Oz.
Did you by any chance hear Germaine Greer talking about this very problem, on BBC Radio 4's 'Start The Week' this morning?
Yes, it's quite horrifying. I'm sure I'm going to end up joining the local Friends of the Earth campaign group once I'm settled in Oz.
Did you by any chance hear Germaine Greer talking about this very problem, on BBC Radio 4's 'Start The Week' this morning?
I must be going totally daft, as I find myself going greener as the years go by. Used to be quite the active conservative, politically.
Then again, looking at the Republican party here, it may be that I've stayed where I am, and the politics has been hijacked towards the right...
<check topic, checks board, looks around>
I'm supposed to take this elsewhere, am I not?
<sees nodding heads>
Right...
Mike
#18
Re: Clean living Australia
Originally posted by HiddenPaw
Fat kids in Melbourne get driven 1km to school in their mum's 4x4. There are plenty of big V8s and 4WD in the city!!
Fat kids in Melbourne get driven 1km to school in their mum's 4x4. There are plenty of big V8s and 4WD in the city!!
#19
Originally posted by anya4oz
Yes, it's quite horrifying. I'm sure I'm going to end up joining the local Friends of the Earth campaign group once I'm settled in Oz.
Did you by any chance hear Germaine Greer talking about this very problem, on BBC Radio 4's 'Start The Week' this morning?
Anya.
Yes, it's quite horrifying. I'm sure I'm going to end up joining the local Friends of the Earth campaign group once I'm settled in Oz.
Did you by any chance hear Germaine Greer talking about this very problem, on BBC Radio 4's 'Start The Week' this morning?
Anya.
The impact of the deforestation is horrifying. I don't just mean the water shortages, but also the destruction of habitat, so many endangered species (Tasmanian Eagle...only a handful left, for example).
I was listening to '5 live' this morning!
#20
Re: Clean living Australia
Originally posted by Marakai
I would like to see the official stats on that. Frankly I strongly doubt that Australians have an equal per capita emission rate as US-Americans do. NOTHING comes close to the waste of Americans.
I would like to see the official stats on that. Frankly I strongly doubt that Australians have an equal per capita emission rate as US-Americans do. NOTHING comes close to the waste of Americans.
#21
Re: Clean living Australia
Originally posted by MikeStanton
Although USA has the highest per capita energy consumption, Oz had the highest per capita greenhouse emissions in the world a year ago (I don't think it's changed) - mainly due to almost all their energy generated by burining fossil fuels. In Oz, alternative power sources, such as nuclear and HEP are non (or almost non)-existent.
Although USA has the highest per capita energy consumption, Oz had the highest per capita greenhouse emissions in the world a year ago (I don't think it's changed) - mainly due to almost all their energy generated by burining fossil fuels. In Oz, alternative power sources, such as nuclear and HEP are non (or almost non)-existent.
Mike
#22
Re: Clean living Australia
Originally posted by MikeStanton
Although USA has the highest per capita energy consumption, Oz had the highest per capita greenhouse emissions in the world a year ago (I don't think it's changed) - mainly due to almost all their energy generated by burining fossil fuels. In Oz, alternative power sources, such as nuclear and HEP are non (or almost non)-existent.
Although USA has the highest per capita energy consumption, Oz had the highest per capita greenhouse emissions in the world a year ago (I don't think it's changed) - mainly due to almost all their energy generated by burining fossil fuels. In Oz, alternative power sources, such as nuclear and HEP are non (or almost non)-existent.
For hydroelectricity to work, one must have reliable and swift rivers and water courses. Outside of Tasmania, Australia is lacking.
Still, I'm all for nuclear energy. Australia's stance on it is absurd considering the amount of coal they burn.
#23
Re: Clean living Australia
Originally posted by Marakai
Ugh, I honestly wasn't aware of that. I thought they'd have plenty of nuclear power - the whole country is Uranium rich isn't it?
Mike
Ugh, I honestly wasn't aware of that. I thought they'd have plenty of nuclear power - the whole country is Uranium rich isn't it?
Mike
#24
Re: Clean living Australia
Originally posted by MikeStanton
In Oz, they dig it out of the ground, then ship it overseas. Oz tends to mine, not do the "value add". The only nuclear reactor, Lucas Heights (SW sydney), is used for research and producing isotopes for medical purposes.
In Oz, they dig it out of the ground, then ship it overseas. Oz tends to mine, not do the "value add". The only nuclear reactor, Lucas Heights (SW sydney), is used for research and producing isotopes for medical purposes.
#25
Re: Clean living Australia
Originally posted by Ulujain
Not the only one. They have one in Jervis Bay and and another in the NT somewhere. The last one is a badly kept secret.
Not the only one. They have one in Jervis Bay and and another in the NT somewhere. The last one is a badly kept secret.
#26
Banned
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 4,432
Re: Clean living Australia
Originally posted by Marakai
Ugh, I honestly wasn't aware of that. I thought they'd have plenty of nuclear power - the whole country is Uranium rich isn't it?
Mike
Ugh, I honestly wasn't aware of that. I thought they'd have plenty of nuclear power - the whole country is Uranium rich isn't it?
Mike
The Cooper Basin Project
#27
IIRC, the one in Jervis Bay is/was used for power. Since Jervis Bay is Commonwealth territory, it was immune to the regulations
proscribing nuclear power in the States. I believe it supplied the ACT with power.
I could be badly mistaken too. I might just have to look this one up.
Edit: Was proposed, never built.
http://nuclearsa.ccsa.asn.au/c4.html
proscribing nuclear power in the States. I believe it supplied the ACT with power.
I could be badly mistaken too. I might just have to look this one up.
Edit: Was proposed, never built.
http://nuclearsa.ccsa.asn.au/c4.html
#28
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 11,149
Re: Clean living Australia
Originally posted by Ulujain
Not the only one. They have one in Jervis Bay and and another in the NT somewhere. The last one is a badly kept secret.
Not the only one. They have one in Jervis Bay and and another in the NT somewhere. The last one is a badly kept secret.
Despite letting Britain nuke a good proportion of South Australia, the commonwealth never got nuclear weapons technology. The Americans didn't want the technology leaking through Canberra to the Soviets. At the time Australia was a huge security headache haemoraging intelligence to Moscow. No way was Uncle Sam letting secrets go to Canberra and told the UK to hold back.
#29
Banned
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 4,432
Re: Clean living Australia
Originally posted by bondipom
Australia has steared clear of nuclear because of the high up front capital costs and vested interests in coal. The purposes for the Jervis bay reactor were probably for nuclear missiles rather than an electricity producing reactor. Hence the closure in 1971.
Australia has steared clear of nuclear because of the high up front capital costs and vested interests in coal. The purposes for the Jervis bay reactor were probably for nuclear missiles rather than an electricity producing reactor. Hence the closure in 1971.
#30
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 11,149
Re: Clean living Australia
Originally posted by Megalania
Nuclear power can not compete on price against coal in Aus. Jervis bay was to be a power reactor. The populace did not want it.
Nuclear power can not compete on price against coal in Aus. Jervis bay was to be a power reactor. The populace did not want it.