I happened upon a learned article by a liberal castigating
Murdoch. The narrative went something like this..
"Rupert does not directly control his
editors, or even necessarily provide guidelines. He chooses his
editors because they will propagate his message, and will anticipate
his attitude and then use their editorial powers to edit Journalistic
output so as to conform with RM's viewpoint".
Now that is very persuasive. However we are talking about the
most successful newspaper owner on the planet. Since choosing the
right editor would, prima facie
appear to be a relevant part of making a successful newspaper, perhaps
we could consider the hypothesis that most readers do not want an
exclusive diet of liberal claptrap. So just perhaps Rupert is
choosing his editors for their perception of their reader's interest.
I gathered that the same liberal managed an "independent" environmental
group. Just coincidentally she also managed a "research group" on
the environment. She remarked words to the effect "our
independent scientists confirm climate change". One wonders what
qualifications were necessary to be employed? How many engineers,
specialists in fluid mechanics, thermodynamics, radiation, heat engines
etc were employed? And what proportion were economists and had
other liberal arts degrees?
It was reported in the Australian December 11th that (Deep Storage a
Viable option) carbon capture and storage (CC&S) had been
achieved. Apparently 65,000 tonnes of CO2 had been injected
into an old gas mine at a cost of about $40 million. That works
out at only a bit more than $600/tonne. Perhaps somebody should
float an IPO to do CC&S at the government offered price of
$23/tonne? If there are people who really think CC&S is a
viable option, perhaps they can be persuaded to put their money where
their mouth is?
As a mechanical engineer I have always been extremely suspicious of the
economics of CC&S. Separation alone (from flue gases) would
be an expensive procedure. Offhand a more viable option would be
incomplete combustion of the carbon fuel and the capture and sale of
the soot resulting. That might only cost about $100-$300/tonne
(in redesign and lost power).
The choosing and subsidising of "green power industries" is also likely
to result in extremely expensive options. As witness the
extremely expensive subsidies for photoelectricity, or the high
electricity costs and noise pollution by wind turbines.
Of course the real solution to
the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere
is a carbon tax that provides just enough finance to deal with the
(predicted?) problems resulting from the increase of CO2 in the
atmosphere. For instance:
And so on. You get the idea.
- If the sea level rises, get Dutch
Engineers to build dikes.
- If increasing temperatures causes
older people to cark it, then give them subsidised air conditioning.
- If food crops start failing because
of changing weather patterns, then encourage the farmers to move to
regions where intensive agriculture is becoming viable, or subsidise
their changeover to hydroponics.
RTA ROAD WORKERS
Cycling up Oatley Road Paddington I noticed a lot of workers digging up
the footpath. A ten ton truck was parked in the Renny street
roundabout leaving enough space for a car to pass. A couple of
men were operating a small dozer and a shovel. What grabbed my
attention was the fact that there were five RTA persons redirecting
traffic. Given that traffic could pass the truck, I was surprised
that there was any need for traffic redirection, apart from a couple of
"Men at Work" (or "People at Work") barriers.
I decided to photograph the scene, and immediately drew the attention
of one of the (female) traffic control officers. She wanted to
know what I was doing, and demanded my name (I said "no") then
proceeded to call the police. I waited around for ten minutes,
So now I know how my traffic fines are spent. They are wasted on
five unnecessary traffic control officers, who would be better employed
wheeling barrowloads of dirt or making tea for the two workers rather
than generally annoying the public by unnecessarily redirecting traffic.