Earth Hour and others things we can do

I’ve read a lot of fairly negative commentary about Earth Hour, the ‘lights off’ event which is occurring from 8pm tonight. I can understand the cynicism, but I’m always loath to publicly bag anything which might move attitudes and behaviours even a small way in a positive direction, as long as people don’t overstate its impact.

It doesn’t do much in terms of reducing emissions in itself, but no one-off action does. If it gets more people recognising that climate change is a serious problem and increases their commitment to do more in an ongoing way, then it’s not a bad thing. It certainly seems to have grabbed a lot of attention – I suppose it is a concept which is very easy to market and understand.  (the Earth Hour Facebook page has 814 466 people ‘attending’ the event, a figure which increased by over 1000 in the fifteen minutes it took me to type this post)

Of course, if all people do is turn their lights off for an hour and light some candles instead and then use that to feel like they’ve done all they need to to help save the planet, then it would be a negative, but I think you can say that about almost anything.

Still, it’s hard not to feel that some of the actions being done by government bodies and corporations are fairly hollow. I’ve seen various organisations and places (including Parliament House in Canberra) say they will be turning off all non-essential lighting between 8 and 9pm – which is better than not doing it, but does make one wonder why non-essential lighting would normally be on anyway, especially on a Saturday night.

I hope environment groups will push concepts like this further and encourage people to do more things that are not quite so easy or which would have a larger ongoing impact. Things like leaving your car at home for a day (or a week), or going vegan or vegetarian for a day (or a week).

I’ve complained for years that few environment groups highlight the significant greenhouse (and other environmental) benefits from cutting back on meat and dairy products, presumably because such a message wouldn’t be as popular or easily received. But if everyone just went without meat and dairy products for a day – or ideally pledged to halve their overall ongoing consumption, it would have a much larger and more immediate impact than turning off more of our lights more often.

Changing to a more greenhouse friendly diet is one of the easiest things people can do to make an immediate, direct and meaningful impact on greenhouse emissions. Unlike many other things we will need to do to reduce emissions, changing our diet in this way saves money, is often healthier and has no overall negative economic impact. Despite this, it is still not mentioned very often in amongst the various things we are urged to do to reduce our greenhouse impact. For instance, the Earth Hour website gives a range of examples of changes you can make to have an ongoing impact, but doesn’t mention changing your diet, even though it is one thing virtually everybody can do and has a far greater impact than many of the options provided.

Like & share:

38 Comments

  1. I know you think your point is valid about dairy and meat,and I am not going to directly challenge it,except,rather than but,in a consumer sense at point of sale,I would doubt even a day giving dairy or meat up would make a difference,because of refrigeration,and pre-deliveries before sale ,and the whole process of accounting matters that preceed any type of sale.The human walking through a door to a place of storage distribution or purchase,incl. means of transport,if any, would make your argument,a somewhat specious one.As in selective and spacey,rather than specie.Sorry Senator!I bought some Peruvian Cacao powder from Peru this week,and used up my last bag of NZ. yoghurt maker milk stuff,boiled the water and added honey..run out of Sevia.The range of bacterias in milk and yoghurt,are of such quality that pouring them into the soil of ones own garden,for vege growing is a worthy pursuit.Cheese buried away from vermin,may under some conditions be exactly another soil building block as it finally breaks down.Meat,whilst many native animals dont do very well on it,a days serving could be more thoroughly examined to let them eat it.We havent got an emergency food supply for creatures,pets,domestic farm,or ecologic.Who knows if the Sunspot activity now in reverse direction,with a warning in tow,the eleven year cycle is beginning for communication and electric generation failures,may be the big one,leaving us in deep freeze or fry,is it therefore that unethical not to want to feed ,already slaughtered animals to other species in an emergency.The science of Climate Change politics cannot discount the potential,at least,our three G phones could go off the blink incl. computers wireless too.Over.I will not question your ethics Senator!I accept your point entirely,as a adjunct to the matters of Greenhouse Gas Emissions.Over!Now will turn on my ledlight contraption from the post office.It isnt a answer either,but a consumer solution for me.Over.

  2. OH! It felt so good didn’t it boys & girls and assorted lemmings? Can I put the steaks on the BBQ yet?

  3. Yes, put the steaks on the BBQ.

    I save as much power and water as I can every day so that there is enough to go around, but I still don’t believe in “man-made” global warming.

    We are in an interglacial period when everything dies.

    Humankind has probably made a small contribution to global warming, but the vast bulk of the problem has not been caused – and probably will never be solved – by humans.

    Now has anyone FINALLY thought of a way to pump the greenhouse gases out of the Earth’s atmosphere?

    Getting rid of the cows wouldn’t help us. Instead, it would have other negative impacts.

  4. Sorry for being one of the suspects ,that show up and mug you Senator on this issue.I will state again,I am a lacto-vegetarian type.Veganism is a real alternative,the problems of the world,are not the hyperthick clotting blood of badly chosen meats cooking and oils thereof.I think your veganism is an admirable discipline,worthy for the more strongly willed and physically sound,others need to think ,more evidentially before by inference suggest all of Senators thoughts connecting diet to climate change are the same process.There are many products in the market place today that suggest that veganism or meat eating variants are the two extremes..they arent.Being really unhealthy or starving without a choice are.That is why carbon dioxide usage into soil is a good idea,and why in my opinion,where-ever humanity can it should be converting carbon dioxide to good uses to push more effective energy systems whatever type they maybe.I am fully knowledgeable and self-acknowledging that cattle,incl. dairy are intelligent clever creatures..bulls seem really smart for all their hulk,rather than bulk.Other days,I am for giving them the status of the Gods.And swearing my not too elegant mouth off at them.Barbecue systems if they can cook snags etcetera,should by design be capable of doing more than that,this one function design stuff is a real blinder to solving energy and emission problems.A incandescent light bulb can do better,and its on YouTube.Try teaching the turkey to do something other than being a turkey is another solution.How to cook a turkey with a light bulb..YouTube.And think about it because this Hacker site allows for some inspirational multi adaption.If only the experts on water recycling would discover houses have standardised guttering,and water can be pushed up hill by some very cheap,in comparison, poolside technologies and others.To be water wise may not always be a Wiesner.I cannot really stand repeating myself,I am not a Galah.SMH report today about costs.

  5. I think “earth hour” is / was a total crock. Preaching to the converted – the rest don’t give a shit. Seriously – people who care about the environment / future of the planet knew about it, but they’re the ones already doing something; the rest didn’t even know it was happening. Did the governments and corporations turn anything off?

  6. It’s unsurprising to see the cynics out already. Of course turning off our lights for an hour once a year isn’t going to reduce our elecricity use much. But I’m optimistic about people’s intentions to reduce their impact on the earth and hope they will think about the rest of their lives.

    I don’t think there’s any argument that on a fairly simple level, eating vegetables rather than meat will reduce greenouse gas emissions. However I think food is really a bit more complex.

    For example, how is the vegetable or meat grown? Where is it coming from and how did it get to your plate? It can become very complex, and it may be that eating a chicken grown in your backyard is better than a vegetarian meal that mostly came from South America.

    There are other issues as well, such as government subsidies, pollution, pesticides and raising people from poverty. That said, I have reduced my own meat consumption primarily for this reason and cope just fine.

  7. Thanks Andrew for this great post.

    I was surprised there were so many cynical critics slagging off the event rather than telling people in a positive way that more things need to be done to save the environment. After all, we’re on the same side: cutting down energy consumption to slow global warming!

  8. I agree that the value of such events is the educative and consciousness raising. We turned the lights off and the kids sat aorund wiht candles.

    In truth unless the acutal power stations are turned off all that turning our lights off did was reduce our particualr consumption for that hour, it didnt affect the grid as the powere is and was alwasy being generaetd. It simply is used somehwere else or bled off.

    Its a shame that the marketing of this has overtaken the physiscs, but I suppose not surprising given the alignment of green self promotion and commercail organisations.

    Consuming less if fine but unless we generate less it matters not.

  9. Lorikeet #3: Thanks for helping with the power & water. As to the negative impacts of a reduced bovine population, I’m a novice on this one but arguments for and against wiping them out could have some potential for a new blog thread. Meantimes, I’ll prop up (no negative economic impact) farmers and the GDP and “eat more beef”.

    Priscilla:

    After all, we’re on the same side: cutting down energy consumption to slow global warming!

    On the same side? Are you sure Priscilla?

    Could it be that we’re at the point of no return?

  10. I don’t know Ken if power stations were turned off or (as I suspect) not, but if sufficident numbers of people use significantly less power regularly, there will obviously be less need for power in the future.

    As to GZG’s comment re cows, I quote from The Omnivore’s Dilemma by Michael Pollan:
    “If the 16 million acres now being used to grow corn to feed cows in the US became well managed pasture, that would remove 14 billion pounds of carbon from the atmosphere each year.”

    You can still have your steak and save the planet.

  11. I agree with the comments of Muzz, GZG and Ken.

    GZG:

    We’ve already had some threads on cows. Perhaps you could look in the categories on environment, climate change, water issues and animal welfare.

    We can go back to feeding the cows fresh (or pelletised) grass, which would make a big difference. The meat might also be leaner, and the cows will certainly be happier in a field – much better than standing and gorging themselves in a feedlot all day – with a quicker trip to the abattoir.

    Are we past the point of no return? Of course we are – unless someone finds a way to pump the greenhouse gases out of the Earth’s atmosphere.

    According to my scientist friend, there are serious drawbacks to sequestration (pumping carbon back into the ground), and I’m personally still worried about the possibility of it causing “internal problems”.

    In relation to your link, the 2007/2008 summer in Brisbane has been the coolest I can remember experiencing in 52 years.

  12. muzzmonster: Re the Michael Pollan quote.

    So much to learn ….it seems grain fed beef is preferred by us (and US of A) carnivores, but on the plus side, “grass finished” cows produce healthier (less fatty) beef. Make it rare whichever way.

    I’m all for the odd healthy practice and avoiding obesity, but atmospheric CO2 comes & goes (like the weather).

  13. But why is it preferred, GZG? Is it because the corn fed to cows (in the USA at least) is heavily subsidised, and the fact that the grain fed cows can be kept in intensive feedlots that don’t have to concern themselves about pollution problems, thus making it cheaper?

    So many environmentally damaging things are cheaper because they’re dishonestly priced. Our children will be paying for all those things that producers currently don’t have to factor into their prices.

    If they had to pay for what they currently externalise, we’d probably be buying things that are better for us and the planet that were cheaper than the alternative.

  14. I’ll have another go at that link

    Its sobering to think that human activity could have such a profound global effect on the composition of the atmosphere in so short a timeframe.

  15. Feral:

    It isn’t sobering at all – because human activity HAS NOT had the profound global effect on atmosphere that you and many others are so willing to believe – even though the idea defies any kind of reasoned logic.

    Please everyone, take note of the fact that Feral’s link (although interesting and appreciated) has been released by the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE.

    Muzz:

    Grain fed beef has a marbling of fat running through it, which makes it more tender when cooked.

    There’s a company which promotes its grain fed beef at the Brisbane Ekka every year, giving away free samples every day at the Meat Pavilion.

    They have only a certain number of independent butchers who supply their grossly overpriced beef.

    I guess some people are fussy and spoilt, with far too much money to spend. I wouldn’t pay those prices even if I was a millionaire.

    Never think that any kind of capitalists are going to sell you anything that’s cheaper (for you – not them), unless there is a short/medium term gain (for them – not you).

    GZG:

    The CO2 will go when we are all dead, and the Earth’s poles start freezing up again.

    Finding a way to pump the greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere might buy us a bit of extra time – but I’m not offering a money back guarantee.

  16. No Feral Abacus, there’s no profound global effect shown by a graph depicting atmospheric concentration of an essential trace gas increasing by 0.0060% over 40 years to 2005. Mind you, the 45 degree angle of the graph would impress some without review of the axes.

    Then there’s that odd one about temperatures falling despite the “profound” rise in CO2.

    Muzzmonster asks why is grain fed beef preferred; 97.8% of Neanderthals admit to a predilection for tasty juicy marbled Wagyu steaks (500 days of grain feeding before slicing). Doesn’t mean it’s healthier of course, but a glass of a fine red with the meal balances things.

    For the animal lovers, there was a Jan ’08 local announcement that “unfavourable market conditions has led to a further 14% reduction in cattle numbers on feed since the previous quarter”

    Lorikeet #12: You say we are past the point of no return but I note expressions of ambivalence alongside a sense of CO2aphobia. Relax, enjoy the cool summers, and if the weather surprises us and changes getting a little warmer, well, even a Brisbane winter can be cold to the bones (so there’s an upside).

  17. Well, sadly I must do a job on the NSW govt, because it made me really angry. My mate lives in a Dept of Housing complex, where the electricians inadvertently left the outside security lights on. He rang both the local office & the national maitenance telephone number, only to be told, that it wouldn’t be ‘fixed’ until after the Easter weekend. So, instead of calling them back(just prior to lunch time)the 6?outside security lights stayed on night AND DAY for 4 days!I was disgusted! So much for their commitment to global warming, and the philosophy of Earth Hour! Couldn’t give a hoot!Next thing they’ll put the electricity costs up and blame us!

  18. Now I’m confused Lorikeet. You say at the start of your post that human activity hasn’t had a profound effect on the atmosphere, yet at the end, you say the CO2 will disappear when we’re dead.

    Surely it cannot be both.

    And for those cynics who reckon Earth Day will change nothing, should we also criticise Walk Safely to School Day: http://www.walk.com.au or given them a cheer for trying to change things.

  19. GZG – as shown in the graph, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is now about 20% higher than it was circa 1960.

    Sure its a trace gas, but due to its ability to absorb re-radiated heat that would otherwise escape to space, it has a strong effect on the energy balance of the planet.

    And before getting too cocky about falling temperatures, I suggest you have a look at the exceptional heatwave conditions experienced in WA, Vic and SA during March.

    Lorikeet, I’m not sure what your point is re the url that I linked to. I haven’t checked, but wouldn’t be surprised if the NOAA (the organization that has been collecting these data) had not been housed within several different govt departments over the years.

    I’d also be interested to hear where you think all that CO2 is coming from.

  20. Very valid suggestions Andrew. To any doubters, please check out the April issue of THE MONTHLY magazine (“Australia’s leading magazine for thinkers”) for a very interesting and disturbing article entitled “Confounders” relating to the high red meat CSIRO TWB diet, including discussion on health and GHG emissions.
    http://www.themonthly.com.au

  21. Coming soon is the inner knowing that the killing of animals for food and sustenance is forever off the agenda. Watch and wait. Blessings to all earth siblings. That means you! Nancy.

  22. GZG:

    I am not ambivalent about who has caused what, but I see no reason to either compound the Earth’s problems or waste resources. I said that humankind had probably made SOME contribution, but not a major one.

    I am not CO2aphobic, just well aware of the net effects of an interglacial period.

    Feral:

    In my experience of government departments, they generally only “house” organisations with which they have a direct link.

    For example, Queensland Health has hospitals, dental clinics, breast screening clinics, maternal and child welfare clinics, rehab facilities – also Queensland Institute of Medical Research.

    My point is that there is a definite link between greed and global warming. Otherwise the US Dept of Commerce would not be “housing” it – and our friend Lord Haskins would not be trying to purloin prime grazing land for his own financial purposes.

    Muzz:

    The CO2 will disappear at the end of the Interglacial Period, before the Earth enters a new Ice Age and the poles refreeze.

    I think as the Earth continues to warm, the CO2 will escape out of the atmosphere as the ozone layer continues to be destroyed by outside influences.

    This will probably happen long after the people, animals and trees have all died from droughts, pestilences, floods, earthquakes, human stupidity – and probably nuclear wars over who has destroyed what belonging to whom.

  23. The Feral Abacus, and GZG,

    After reading the report in the Australian on the 22 March 2008 re the IPCC getting their modles wrong and declaring that the world is actually cooling and now the US Atmospheric Administration showing that almost all the “lost Ice” has come back (Over 13million sq Km) “Daily Express UK, February 18,2008.
    I would like to put to you this question.
    What has the current “Minister for Climate Change and the prevous Minister for Y2K have in common ?

    Tony

  24. Naomi Cartledge: Your vocabulary has broadened I see. If the heinous act of a few lights left on “disgusts” you, we’d better hang on to our hats cause there must be more gnashing of your teeth yet to come. Perhaps the local tradesmen were attending to maintenance matters of a higher priority rather than bowing to the Mecca of Holy Mother Earth Hour (use your imagination before conceding the possibility).

    Feral Abacus: My comment regarding the tiny bit of extra CO2 in the atmosphere (over 40 years) stands. Regarding recent hot weather in some locations, one swallow does not a spring make (this works both ways of course even with a cool QLD summer behind us and “China having its worst snowstorms in nearly 50 years” just a month or two ago).

    Sharon: I’m not inclined to pay the $40 sub fee required to access the Confounders article. Perhaps you could share a salient point or two from the article?

    Nancy Jakeman, “Aum”, I don’t know that I’ll be holding my breath.

    Tony: Tricky question …. anything to do with dodo’s?

  25. Lorikeet, could you provide any scientific evidence of CO2 escaping from the atmosphere? It’s something I’ve never heard of and find incredibly difficult to believe, given the gravitational pull of the earth.

  26. Lorikeet: take something like forestry; it tends to get moved around from Agriculture to Primary Industries to Natural Resources and so on. Health is more likely to be the exception than the rule due to its political leverage.

    I’d agree there’s a link between global warming & greed, but for quite the opposite reasons that you hold. I recall discussing this with you not long ago. Your insistence that it is scientists, rather than carbon-based economies, who have the greatest financial stake in the greenhouse debate is simply the most far-fetched argument that you have ever made on this blog.

    And I’m still interested in hearing your ideas on the source(s) of increased atmospheric CO2.

    GZG – isn’t the ‘tiny bit of extra CO2’ a mere 6 million-odd tonnes per annum? I hope that you don’t hold the same trivialising attitude to other environmental trace substances – like arsenic in water, mercury in fish, plutonium in dust, etc.

    Re the single swallow, I agree. A cool summer, or a warm winter etc is of little meaning in this debate. On the other hand, Adelaide’s weather this March was exceptional: 15 consecutive days over 35 degrees C (previous record was 8 consecutive days). 13 of those days were over the old century mark (37.8 C). And this occurred in early autumn; not at the height of summer.

    None of which offers proof of climate change. But that event is such a long way out of pattern that it gives pause to think.

    Tony – Sorry, but if you want my attention you will need to do more than propose a debate on newspaper articles.

  27. Feral:

    Forestry, agriculture, primary industries and natural resources are all linked – that’s why they’re put together.

    Your claims about the Health Dept are incorrect. Most (if not all) state and federal departments only house organisations with a direct linkage. I have worked in several of them.

    Yes, truth is stranger than fiction. What you consider to be a far-fetched argument today could be tomorrow’s reality.

    I will reiterate that none of the highly intelligent people I know (top 2% of the population) believe the IPCC’s load of codswallop as to who or what is causing climate change. These people range in age from 15 to 70.

    They believe the issue is mostly based on circumstances beyond the control or influence of human beings, except for those who choose to deceive us for their own gain.

    I think the main aim of the IPCC is to create mayhem, in order to put in place a new global government.

    Only last week, a spokesman for the Centre of Independent Studies said we were already moving towards centralised government in Australia. I believe that’s only the first step towards something much more harmful.

    When I watched “The Great Global Warming Swindle”, both sides tried to sway the argument in their own direction by picking out certain (different) periods of time as proof.

    Fifty years is nothing in the scheme of things, if an interglacial period lasts for 10,000 out of 100,000 years. Even 100 years is little more than a drop in the ocean.

    Scientists can’t even decide (or concur) on whether or not the poles are freezing or thawing. Perhaps they are doing both at the same time?

  28. It’s said that you can tell a tree by it’s fruits. The fruits of meat eating include:
    1. Almost every single Australian creek/river slimy with nitrogen-enrichment from sheep/cattle droppings.
    2. Human heart attacks from clogged arteries.
    3. Massive bloodshed requiring huge amounts of water to wash up.
    4. Vast amounts of Australia is now treeless pasture. Less trees = less rain.
    5. I have seen with my own eyes that much of this cleared land is now eroding, especially hilltops.

  29. GZG says:
    April 3rd, 2008 at 1:39 pm
    Naomi Cartledge: Your vocabulary has broadened I see. If the heinous act of a few lights left on “disgusts” you, we’d better hang on to our hats cause there must be more gnashing of your teeth yet to come. Perhaps the local tradesmen were attending to maintenance matters of a higher priority rather than bowing to the Mecca of Holy Mother Earth Hour (use your imagination before conceding the possibility).

    No,It’s the hypocrisy and bull shit that disgusts me, coupled with 12 years experience of the hopeless & inefficient Dept of Housing, not just in regards to me,but others in different areas! The answer from the Dept was, that they wouldn’t be recalled (they’d just left)and wouldn’t be ‘fixed’ until after the holiday weekend. We also have a State govt that gives lip service to concerns about climate change,while they’re intent on selling off the states electricity assets, which, history in other states & countries has proven, profits will be the goal of private companies, and as a pensioner living on a pittance, will cost me more while the planet is stuffed up for my grand kids – that’s what disgusts me! I wouldn’t mind paying a bit more if the goal was more renewable energy sources? Again the bloody hypocrisy!I get so angry I could SCCRREEAAMM!

    While I’m at it! The recent real estate catalogue showed no less than 5 (former? current?)dept of Housing residences, when there’s families living on the street? Seminars on housing shortages, affordability etc?

  30. I am regularly amazed by the almost manic criticism of anything to do with the publci service, yet in the same breath most of the most vehemnet critics of the public services (in the case above unionised worlk to rule conditions) hysterically oppose any other alternative form of service delveiry.

  31. At comment 28, the Feral Abacus said to Lorikeet “Your insistence that it is scientists, rather than carbon-based economies, who have the greatest financial stake in the greenhouse debate is simply the most far-fetched argument that you have ever made on this blog.”

    Whoa!! Given all the possibilities on offer, that’s a hell of a big call, Feral A!

    Just five minutes of searching turned up this beauty – “It’s a well known fact that meat eaters outlive others by an average of about 12 years”

    Or even “For the ordinary home owner, there is no capital gain on selling your house.” from just yesterday?

  32. Lorikeet – it seems we are talking somewhat at cross purposes re govt depts. AFAIK forestry, agriculture, primary industries and natural resources have not all been simultaneously housed within one department in Qld for many years, if ever. Its much the same story in other states. Primary industries and natural resources are usually in separate depts, and forestry and especially parts of agriculture tend to be shoved around with every cabinet reshuffle.

    BTW whatever makes you think that I’m not among those highly intelligent people who are in the top 2% of the population?

    As for the IPCC aiming to create mayhem, I’d have to say your belief to that effect reflects a very particular world view that I do not share. And don’t you think that John Howard has contributed far more towards centralising the powers of govt in Australia than anything the IPCC has done?

    Christine – I’ll concede that Lorikeet has something of a penchant for overstatement – at least IMO. That’s OK in itself; perhaps she’s hoping to induce people to chat with her, and after all the desire to communicate is a very human trait.

    But my defence is that there are billions – more likely trillions – of dollars to be lost by the major mining houses if known coal deposits are not exploited as a consequence of concerns re climate change. Whereas all the scientists can hope for is – at best – a little extra short term research funding. They certainly don’t stand to gain any personal financial benefit. So although Lorikeet churns out the odd corker or three from time to time, I reckon the one I cited at #28 tops the lot.

  33. Christine:

    For one moment there, I thought you were my friend, Christine, from whom the information on meat eaters came.

    If it weren’t for the presence of carbon in almost EVERYTHING, including the human body, we would not even be alive to have this discussion. It was created along with the rest of the solids, liquids and gases that make up the Earth and its atmosphere.

    If you sell your house and have to buy another, perhaps with a higher interest rate, there definitely won’t be a capital gain. You will be worse off after paying solicitors, real estate agents, removalists and new connection fees for utilities – to say nothing of mortgage repayments. You might even have higher transport costs and Council rates. Try to find a capital gain amongst that!

    If you move into low or premium care in an Aged Care Centre, THEY get the proceeds from the sale of your house, and keep all of the interest earned for themselves, besides being able to pocket a certain percentage of the principal for 5 years. Sounds unfair? Then they charge you most of your pension as well!

    In future, please try to think for yourself.

    Feral:

    I was not suggesting that all of the departments would be lumped together in the one basket at the same time. My point is that they are linked and could belong together, very unlike commerce and environment.

    I made no suggestions AT ALL as to your level of intelligence, but you don’t mind continually insulting mine.

    A lot of the people on the IPCC are not scientists. Any or all of them could have other affiliations.

    I don’t think John Howard played into the hands of environmental organisations. I think Kevin Rudd has done more of that already.

    You are right to be worried about trillions of dollars being lost via the mining industry. If you want to rule the world, you break individual countries financially.

    NB the projected income-earning capacity of superannuation funds this year is -4%. Yes, that’s a minus sign.

  34. Naomi Cartledge #31: I do feel a little sorry for you as (across various threads) you seem to be an inherently angry woman, usually with an axe to grind (maybe a little “SCCRREEAAMM”ing out bush could be therapeutic – just a thought, I’m not a counsellor).

    “no less than 5 (former? current?) dept of Housing residences [for sale], when there’s families living on the street”

    What’s your point? Do you present this as irrefutable proof of a reduction in public housing? Could it be that the government sometimes sells properties in order to purchase new ones elsewhere? If they buy/sell strategically, they could get 2 for 1 and then there’d be no need to gnash teeth!

Comments are closed.