Monday, 26 October 2009

Green ban

I have never understood why the idea of a bunch of stalinist union thugs standing in the way of urban development is called a "green ban". Here's one in Union Square in Pyrmont.

The local shop keepers are aghast at the idea of their premises being flattened in order to build a metro train station, so they have allied themselves with the CFMEU in order to stop any work going ahead.

Here's why I think the term "green ban" is so inappropriate here.

The metro is a form of public transport. Public transport is supposed to be one of those Good Things that will save us from global warming, nits, obesity, plagues of frogs and Peak Oil. Who would dare to stand in the way of such a beneficial public good? One that is supposed to reduce car dependence, congestion, oil consumption and waistlines (walking to the train is better for you than driving from your front door)? Are not all these things part of the Green ideology?

Why then is the prevention of a Green project termed a Green Ban? Shouldn't it be called a Capitalist Conspiracy to Hold the World in Thrall to Big Oil, the Big Car Companies and the Gnomes of Zurich?

Just asking, is all.


TimT said...

Also: wind power providers are getting their knickers in a knot over a subsidy to solar power providers.

Love it.

TimT said...

And it just keeps getting better:

For each solar electricity system that a householder installs, the householder actually gets credit for installing the equivalent of five systems. Now that's okay, it's a way of subsidising the householder because they receive certificates for each system.

But the diabolical part is that the four systems that do not represent any new renewable energy are counted towards as contributing towards the renewable energy target. So more than half the target could be taken up with these phantom solar systems that don't actually exist.

So much better than having taxpayers spend their own money sensibly, isn't it.