Comments on: Peter Garrett: fool now or liar then?

By: John Morgan

John Morgan — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 01:25:55 +0000

Thanks Jeff. Yes, thorium reactors, and uranium fueled fast spectrum reactors like the integral fast reactor, with closed fuel cycles. These are elegant and beautiful designs, and in the long term our only realistic intensive power sources if we are to preserve our environment.

By: Jeff McLean

Jeff McLean — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 22:25:34 +0000

Hi John,

That’s a ripper! You’re talking about Thorium reactors, aren’t you? Now THAT’s a technology, and we’ve gots looooads of it baby!!

For others that are interested…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium
http://www.ensec.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=187:thorium-as-a-secure-nuclear-fuel-alternative&catid=94:0409content&Itemid=342

Cheers,
Jeff

By: John Morgan

John Morgan — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 13:09:26 +0000

“Fool now or liar then”? As someone who handed out how to votes for the Nuclear Disarmament Party in 1983, and who now strongly supports nuclear power, I’m probably open to a similar charge, and I’d say neither, though perhaps with a shade of fool then. But we can all learn.

In the early 80s, we were in the grip of the Cold War, and a nuclear conflict was all too possible. Nuclear war was an existential threat. Now, while that threat has not vanished, it has receded, but another existential threat - global warming - has appeared. The challenge to existence that climate change poses is not a risk, but a certainty, if we continue on our present course. In contrast, a nuclear war, while ever a risk, was never a certainty. GW is the proximate threat today, and calls for desperate measures. I’d like renewable power to be the solution to this, but as best as I can determine, it won’t be, and we need a large expansion of nuclear power.

At the same time I’ve learnt more about the technology of nuclear power, and that technology has also advanced since nearly thirty years ago. Generation IV fuel cycles can be completely proliferation resistant. Their waste can be below background radioactivity in a few hundred years, not tens of thousands. The reactors can consume existing longlived nuclear waste and decommissioned warheads as fuel. Their mining impact is far less than coal. And they can’t melt down or suffer a runaway reaction, even in catastrophic loss of coolant events. Modern nuclear plants are safer than coal reactors (just look at whats happening in Lithgow right now).

Back then, I was what was known as a “deep green”. I still am. My values haven’t changed. But the situation, and the strategy, has. I don’t know if Garrett’s views have developed in a similar direction. Possibly they have. If so, he’s no hypocrite.

By: martin hoare

martin hoare — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 06:37:47 +0000

i thought everyone DID vote for donald duck ?
he runs the show
and mickey mouse runs the treasury!!!!!!!!
and they both went to disneyland high school together {nambour}

By: Geoffrey Ross Fawthrop

Geoffrey Ross Fawthrop — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 05:12:55 +0000

Its easy vote for donald duck and direct your preference against the sitting member in all electorates. then we would never have any safe electorates again.

By: martin hoare

martin hoare — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 03:45:36 +0000

maybe your right and i would really love to see that happen..
but i dont think it ever will.

By: deccles

deccles — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 00:22:20 +0000

Of course we’re allowed to have opinions, I just wish they’d be about the f-cking article rather than tit for tat exchanges that should be taken off line. Garrett doesn’t like the policy but it is Labor Party policy, should he throw his toys out of the pram, give up and walk away? Of course n ot.

Martin what you want is socialism ala Stalin rather than socialism ala John Curtin. Regarding John Howard, we knew that any promise could be non core depending on whether it won votes. Howard destroyed his own party to stay in power, and a weak opposition results in a weak democracy. Garrett eating crow is as enjoyable as any other politician having to eat crow. I wonder how much Garrett would be able to get done as a high principled inflexible independent member in the House of Reps?

By: Heathdon McGregor

Heathdon McGregor — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 23:42:45 +0000

Modern Labour-Talks liberal/ Acts Liberal

By: AR

AR — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 22:32:02 +0000

“Fool or Liar?” I’ll go with both.
“Fool” for throwing in his lot with a Party machine which, when he stood for the NDP in the early 80s (hawke’s first re-election - 84?), exchanged preferneces with the Coalition to stymie him. Without that he would have been easily elected to the Senate and even then it was a close run counting exercise that lasted for days - this was before the insidious “above the line” option that 97% of the electorate now uses.
“Liar” for daring to show his face and mewl rubbish that he knows to be untrue, immoral and utterly destructive of the environment, economy & ethical standards.

By: martin hoare

martin hoare — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 12:20:48 +0000

maybe…
but i use to think socialist partys or so called socially aligned partys
had good moral values and looked after the majority of the people they
served?
bring back johnny !
at least we new where we stood with him………
shit i never thought that would ever come out of my mouth……
better tighten the screws on the hinges……………….

By: David Sanderson

David Sanderson — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 11:44:54 +0000

Hinges a bit loose, Martin?

By: martin hoare

martin hoare — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 11:36:09 +0000

so we’re not allowed to have opinions .

you idiot.
compromises are for the week.
but sounds like you already know and live by that.
poiticians are elected by us to represent US not their own comprimises.
and he was elected by US to stop these actions .in which could
and probably will, end up shooting ourselves in the head with.
i hope you fools still agree with them when they start selling it ti the highest bidders.
or will you all have questionable doubts then?
he is a liar and will never earn any respect off anyone except guys like you . because hes just
lost all the greens that ever had any hope left in him..
and as far as ” go on the abc if you want to winge” deccles..
why dont you get up from that bean bag with your laptop and go outside for a walk
you could do with the exercise and maybe you might enjoy some of the air that is stll relativley
clean….until garret and his mates sell the rest oF SA and QLD to an overseas coal company.

By: deccles

deccles — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 10:37:52 +0000

Crikey I wish people would declare their labor party membership before they posted (Keith?) and they kept their posts related to the article. Take you bickering off line or go and post it on the ABC website with the other young liberals and young labor ideologues.

Garrett had to compromise today. It’s the art of being a politician, something you don’t have to do as a young idealistic musician - lawyer. It’s much easier to criticise the decision when you’re not accountable for it.

By: Tom McLoughlin

Tom McLoughlin — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 10:02:40 +0000

Here it is reposted today given those funny gremlins, for readers to cry, laugh, cry, laugh, ….as well as a classic Cornwall from crikey in fact back in the day ….

http://www.sydneyalternativemedia.com/blog/index.blog/1926532/confused-minister-garrett-captured-by-nt-news-back-in-1998/

By: Tom McLoughlin

Tom McLoughlin — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 08:43:23 +0000

Curioser and curioser - I was going to share a link of an image of Garrett that appeared in the NT Times back in 1998 next to a confused cross dresser in dress at the Jabiluka protests. It was on my blog and if you google this:

“Here is a picture of Garrett same issue of the NT News which did not lead under the heel of CLP Stone’s regime, tucked away at p6” (global search, US host server)

.. you will get my blog address. But the story has been redirected or wiped somehow. Stay tuned ….. Back to the home office to the pic file.

It’s a cheap shot at Garrett who actually was in compassionate mode, which I do respect, but then as he said today ‘I joined the Labor Party … ’ and took their shill too.

By: Keith is not my real name

Keith is not my real name — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 08:14:29 +0000

I do agree with what he’s doing along with many others, perhaps this will help you understand better.

http://tinyurl.com/8thbh

By: David Sanderson

David Sanderson — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 08:12:32 +0000

Garrett is neither a fool or a hypocrite. He is simply someone who wanted to get things done and not always just barrack from the sidelines. Jeff Sparrow is someone who will never get anything done and will thus always be able to maintain a self-glorifying, but false, personal purity.

The kind of leftist who sneers at democratic compromise has much in common with the the tyrannical temper of the far right. They are closet fascists but delude themselves into believing they are the truest lovers of humanity.

By: martin hoare

martin hoare — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 07:32:27 +0000

if he really disagreed with the mining .i mean REALLY disagreed .. he would resign in protest and go to the back bench!!!!!!!!! then he would get some well needed RESPECT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
IF YOU AGREE WITH WHAT HE IS DOING THEN YOU ARE JUST LIKE HIM…….
maybe a move to nth korea for you..i hear there is cheap housing available……………………………………………..

By: David1

David1 — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 07:25:12 +0000

What are you smoking Martin? Must be good.

By: martin hoare

martin hoare — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 07:22:01 +0000

so after reading everyones comments including those who oppose me, even though i know he had to conform to his partys wants and desrires. i just thank god steve irwin never became a member of the australian labor party because if his form was like peters ..we would be harvesting whales for palmolive soap !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

By: Geoffrey Ross Fawthrop

Geoffrey Ross Fawthrop — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 07:17:36 +0000

You deluded fools are cracked. Anybody who would vote Liberal, Labour, National or Green is mentally ill.

By: David1

David1 — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 07:05:02 +0000

Hear hear daveliberts, well said.

By: daveliberts

daveliberts — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 06:56:53 +0000

Peter Garrett motivated many thousands of Australians to activate on issues such as uranium, justice for Aborigines and US military bases. Even right-wingers agreed with the issues in ‘Blue Sky Mine’. That’s a fantastic achievement. It is in no way undermined by Garrett’s current role, and he’s carefully explained his current role to his fans. Some are inevitably disappointed, and everyone understands this, but the fact remains that his current role is one in which his capacity to activate is reduced and his KPI is how Australians as a whole regard the administration of environmental safeguards and policies, not just those engaged in the issues Garrett used to sing about. He’s a very successful, very honest guy by any standards, not just those we use to judge politicians.

By: David1

David1 — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 06:35:00 +0000

Jim Reiher you are obviously a bit slow, a greens member or both. Minister Garrett made it very clear he would be a team player when he entered Parliament and has been true to his word. No amount of your bleating will change that fact. He is if nothing else, true to his word and honesty in a politician is to be treasured. If you dont like the Governments collective decision then say so. The Minister is following the will of the majority of Cabinet, he is a junior Minister by rank, hardly in a position to throw his weight around, YET.
Then we have the melo dramatics from Liz45, may I suggest you grab a tent, a sleeping bag a billy and head into the bush, find a nice big gum tree and make camp away from all the nasties that make up living in 2009. Wonder if your gran kids will join you? doubt it. Read Geff McLeans posts again, he says it all clearly.
The Greens are out in force today.

By: martin hoare

martin hoare — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 06:25:58 +0000

gold jeff
pure gold !!!!!