Our Sponsors

Our Friends

 
Home arrow Opinion Archive
Report a comment

Thank you for taking the time to report the following comment to the administrator of this site.
Please complete this short form and click the submit button to process your report.

Name
  
E-mail
  
Reason for reporting comment
  
   

This is a captcha-picture. It is used to prevent mass-access by robots. (see: www.captcha.net)

Type the characters that you see in the box (5 characters). The code can include characters 0..9 and A..Z.

  

I cannot read the characters. Generate a

 

Comment in question

Response to CCC reply

By: anne_elk (Registered ) on 15-10-2007 08:21

To Phil Johnson - Climate Change Coalition's Qld Senate Candidate: 
 
Further to your reply in the comments section: 
http:// globalclimatechangeaction.org/ node/120#comment-1555 
 
It is good to see where you stand on the issue of nuclear power generation when you say: "I am committed to pursuing clean energy technology and therefore I do not support a nuclear powered energy solution because nuclear technology does not offer any benefit for energy supply and the problems with mining and waste management only compounds this lack of benefit."  
 
You did not mention the water requirements for nuclear power generation which is also a very real issue, please see: Nuclear Power and water scarcity: http:// globalclimatechangeaction.org/ node/122 
By Dr Jim Green. 
 
You did not address the issue of nuclear mining. 
Will you support an expansion of the nuclear industry or do you wish to see uranium remain in the ground? 
 
You also mention biofuel cell as power generation but omit geothermal. I had hoped that a political party running on a climate change mitigation ticket would be placing goethermal power very high on their list of clean energy supply systems, particularly for industry. 
 
You did however mention "Biofuel". 
Biofuels are costly to our agricultural land and also to our native forests. Land used for food production is needed to produce food for humanity and our livestock.  
 
Land under native forestation is currently sequestering CO2 (as it always has). Removal of established native forests for biofuel production will obviously not reduce CO2 from our atmosphere. Considering the production process for bio-fuel, eg. removal of existing vegetation, ploughing, planting, watering, feeding, harvesting crop, transportation of crop to the final stage of burning/processing into fuel ... all stages of production adding CO2 to our atmosphere. 
 
Does the CCC really want to be a proponent of Bio-fuels? 
 
You also omitted to answer Greg Hopwood's question: "CCC Preferences" at http:// globalclimatechangeaction.org/ node/120#comment-1554 
 
I would also be interested to know who you will give your preferences to in the Qld Senate. 
 
Regards 
Anne Goddard

» Report this comment to administrator

 
»  Go back to the article


mXcomment 1.0.2 © 2007-2009 - visualclinic.fr
License Creative Commons - Some rights reserved