Lady MacGillard steps onto the electoral stage

Crikey readers weigh in on the wealthy giving money away, Julia Gillard blocking the leaks and how quickly immigrants seem to forget the similar plight of asylum seekers today.


The Victorian National Parks Association writes: Re. “What’s the bigger threat to marine parks: fishing or oil spills?” (Friday, item 11) The Victorian National Parks Association (VNPA) strongly opposes oil exploration and drilling in marine national parks.

Free Trial

Proudly annoying those in power since 2000.

Sign up for a FREE 21-day trial to keep reading and get the best of Crikey straight to your inbox

By starting a free trial, you agree to accept Crikey’s terms and conditions


Leave a comment

4 thoughts on “Lady MacGillard steps onto the electoral stage

  1. shepherdmarilyn

    I love the way Gillard is pandering to the selfish and ignorant about ‘our way of life”, which is?

    What precisely?

  2. Rohan

    What happended to the title Viv?

    Are you going solo?

  3. Jonathan Maddox

    For your information, Vivian Forbes, the planet has been subsidising the consumption of fossil fuels by providing various sinks for the resulting carbon dioxide without charging for the privilege. Users of fossil fuels do not pay for this “externality”. You’ll realise just how sustainable the carbon-emission-free energy industry is, when an appropriate carbon dioxide emission price is imposed on the users of fossil fuels.

  4. Michael R James

    Viv Forbes makes some fundamental confusions. The fossil fuel industries, and the 50 year old nuclear industry both continue to receive huge direct subsidies. In Australia (and especially look at Rudd’s frantic visit to WA just before his ouster) this is often in the form of “infrastructure” such as railways whose sole purpose–today or in the future–is to transport the coal or iron ore etc. Rudd was promising to give much of the tax back in this form.

    But the solar/wind example is pure nonsense. If fossil fuels were charged for their real cost to the environment (ie. a carbon tax etc) then wind power would be economic today, and indeed would not need further subsidy. Concentrated solar is also close. But ultimately solar-PV has huge benefits and is still in the realms of needing research to improve its efficiency and reduce its costs. Subsidies to the inefficient versions available today, while arguable, are partly about supporting the industry and its research efforts (some of which can only achieve lower costs under high volume manufacturing).

    Most high technology requires this government support. Almost everything Viv uses in her/his life was developed with government research funds before it moved out into industry. Is it so difficult to understand that this is the way it works–and has been proven to work over and over this past hundred years–because industry and publicly listed companies only invest when the risks are manageable with more certain outcomes.

    What we see exaggerated in Australia is a grotesque imbalance–billions into a loser (clean coal) but too little and inconsistent funding of much more promising technologies, namely solar-PV, concentrated solar, geothermal.

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details