|
ABC News just went to Spain to try and continue Uhlmann's dumb as gently caress attack on wind farms.
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 09:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 13:35 |
|
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:ABC News just went to Spain to try and continue Uhlmann's dumb as gently caress attack on wind farms. I thought it was rather positive about wind farms. "Here's Spain, which is the size of South Australia, and they use heaps of renewables and the locals love it".
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 09:43
|
|
|
Doctor Spaceman posted:I thought it was rather positive about wind farms. "Here's Spain, which is the size of South Australia, and they use heaps of renewables and the locals love it". True I guess, I took that as more them failing to do the attack well. Like they'd introduce it as, 'But the electricity price is skyrocketing!' and then cut to a local saying his son put up solar panels and the price is fine. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 10:20
|
|
|
unlike SA people actually want to live in spain
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 10:51
|
|
|
The bombing of Guernica was directly the result of renewables
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 10:51
|
|
|
I've walked across the North of Spain and I was amazed at the places they could stick a wind turbine. I thought they were awesome.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 10:56
|
|
|
Leslie Nassar who, among other things, was responsible for the Twitter accounts Fake Stephen Conroy and the Department of Australia, has died after being struck by a drunk driver 
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 11:04
|
|
|
quote:"Lots of other Human Rights Commissioners have never been heard of, they just got on with their job." revealing on so many levels
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 11:26
|
|
|
Solemn Sloth posted:The bombing of Guernica was directly the result of renewables If you tolerate this, then your renewables will be next
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 13:06
|
|
|
Naziwatch: Apparently still Nazis Sorry if this is rambly, I'm pretty tiredThis semester has been pretty hectic on the workload side of things, so I haven't been able to be as active as I would've liked. I also think that in some respects, the Ultranationalists are losing metaphorical ground because more people are wising up to the actual nature of the UPF/TBC et al. (reaaaaaallly weird views), and this has caused more opposition to the really radical views they espouse (I mean I only got involved because of how poo poo it was). Currently, the UPF/TBC Facebook page is the usual pigsty of poo poo, and it's really barely worth mentioning except for this laffo video where the UPF are using the racist ~Apex gang~ dogwhistle to try to make themselves look relevant. I guess this is happening in Victoria. Honestly because I haven't been keeping up with the news all that much, there's a counter-rally in Eltham, Melbourne on the 5th of November. Apparently, there's a concerned resident's action group (Nick Folkes????) planning to hold a demonstration against refugees using community resources. This action isn't really being pushed outside of the TBC and Nick Folke's circles, which is both weird and unsurprising seeing as the TBC/UPF sometimes don't plug each others events (the UPF were intially seen as more extreme as the TBC, however, the TBC is currently more active on the streets). The rhetoric is more focused on protect the oldies, buuuuuut it's also hectic rambly so it has to be written by Nick Folkes This could be a bit of a scrap, as this will at least bring in some of the most hard-core and violent Ultranationalists, although I don't think the turn out numbers-wise will be anything to write home about (like last time). The TBC is generally getting better at street action (basically at parity with the antifascist guys), so it'll probably draw an extremely heavy VicPol contingent who will allow the two sides to clash briefly, and them proceed to capscium foam all the journos. The comedy gold option would be that no-one but Nick Folkes and his regular turds show up, with them shouting about rapefugees or something for 20 mins and them having to bus it out. It's pretty lol
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 14:27
|
|
|
Morrison: people can't buy houses, no matter how hard they work, but they're not overvalued, wage growth is a-ok. State government planning regulations are to blame because lack of supply and *poo poo bubbles up out of mouth, falls over, gleefully rolls about in own filth*
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 00:37
|
|
|
adamantium|wang posted:Leslie Nassar who, among other things, was responsible for the Twitter accounts Fake Stephen Conroy and the Department of Australia, has died after being struck by a drunk driver Department of Australia is a pro Twitter account, gently caress
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 00:44
|
|
|
Knobb Manwich posted:Morrison: people can't buy houses, no matter how hard they work, but they're not overvalued, wage growth is a-ok. Translation: Continue inflating the bubble for if you want to leave anywhere near where the jobs are, but allow developers to run crazy with poorly planned and under intrastructured sprawl so that we can point to the price of a new shoebox two hours from the city as an example of how there is semi-available housing available.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 00:48
|
|
|
Knobb Manwich posted:Morrison: people can't buy houses, no matter how hard they work, but they're not overvalued, wage growth is a-ok. I'm sure Morrison is wrong, but lack of supply must be contributing to this in some way? If people could buy cheaper houses they would, right?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 00:51
|
|
|
Senor Tron posted:Translation: Continue inflating the bubble for if you want to leave anywhere near where the jobs are, but allow developers to run crazy with poorly planned and under intrastructured sprawl so that we can point to the price of a new shoebox two hours from the city as an example of how there is semi-available housing available. Ding ding ding. open24hours posted:I'm sure Morrison is wrong, but lack of supply must be contributing to this in some way? If people could buy cheaper houses they would, right? Yes, lack of supply drives prices up, but pointing to planning being a bad thing that should be avoided is
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 00:54
|
|
|
Yeah, I guess it was pretty shortsighted of me to assume that increasing supply would mean increasing supply in places people actually want to live.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 00:58
|
|
|
open24hours posted:Yeah, I guess it was pretty shortsighted of me to assume that increasing supply would mean increasing supply in places people actually want to live. It's worth noting that Bob Day was a big proponent of the let's sprawl this motherfucker into the ground mentality.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 01:00
|
|
|
open24hours posted:I'm sure Morrison is wrong, but lack of supply must be contributing to this in some way? If people could buy cheaper houses they would, right? as long as investing in housing is profitable, all increases in supply will be snatched up by speculators, not owner-occupiers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 01:29
|
|
|
Also greenfield developments only maintain some semblance of affordability because they do not reflect the real environmental/social/infrastructure costs they incur.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 01:58
|
|
|
open24hours posted:I'm sure Morrison is wrong, but lack of supply must be contributing to this in some way? If people could buy cheaper houses they would, right? From my understanding there's actually starting to be an oversupply of apartments. I've also noticed that housing doesn't work anything like a classical supply-demand market. It is full of people for which it is the single largest sunk cost they will ever make (not to mention the emotional investment people put into homes). It is controlled by businesses who know to a high degree how much people are borrowing and spending, and have an incentive to keep the prices growing. You get screwed at both ends. From the developers/investors who aren't looking to sell at a discount (and have the capital to sit on properties), and from regular owners who need to make back their mortgage and can't take a big loss. It is one of the most irrational markets that the average person deals with. open24hours posted:Yeah, I guess it was pretty shortsighted of me to assume that increasing supply would mean increasing supply in places people actually want to live. This is the other part of the problem. Lots of people still like the idea of living in homes, and the apartments might not always be in a nice area. Hopefully it will put some pressure on rental prices, but you can't count on it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 02:01
|
|
|
If anyone was serious about fixing housing in this country they would start with strengthening tenants rights so renting was a viable way to live rather than a ridiculous never ending roller coaster of poo poo (Northern European countries especially have this poo poo down)
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 02:04
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 02:27
|
|
|
Solemn Sloth posted:Also greenfield developments only maintain some semblance of affordability because they do not reflect the real environmental/social/infrastructure costs they incur. Can you elaborate on these costs at some point? Doesn't have to be hugely in depth with sources, but some further info would be cool.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 02:29
|
|
|
Not wanting to put words in Sloth's mouths but mainly Greenfield developments are often outside public transport routes, place unplanned and unintended pressure on road infrastructure, place people away from shops and recreational facilities, remove children from easy access to sporting facilities and organisations. All of these tend to have a knock on environmental and psychological impact. The way the original suburbs in Canberra were laid out takes all of this into account and (despite Canberra having a reputation as a boring poo poo hole), for a family, the 'way of life' is outstandingly good.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 02:35
|
|
|
Knobb Manwich posted:Can you elaborate on these costs at some point? Doesn't have to be hugely in depth with sources, but some further info would be cool. Not Solemn Sloth, but some quick ones off the top of my head. Environmental costs: Sprawl eating up green space and useful farmland. Sprawled suburbs promote increased car use for long journeys, adding to pollution. Social: Housing developments cut off from easy access to community and cultural organisations. Increased transport times cutting into peoples available time. Decreased feasibility of walking or cycling as transport resulting in an unhealthier population. Infrastructure: Sprawled suburbs need a lot of roads, and when people inevitably complain that transport times are high the state or federal government will end up bearing the cost of highways. Public transport will either be subpar, or high quality and be much less efficient than it is closer to cities. You end up with lowered quality of services overall as resources are spread thin, higher costs, or both. Power cables, telephone lines, sewage systems, all have to be maintained over an increasingly larger area.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 02:41
|
|
|
Cartoon posted:Not wanting to put words in Sloth's mouths but mainly Canberra is a great place to live inhabited by absolute shitheads. There are even nice bars and restaurants (that are scary overpriced because the disposable income in Canberra is so loving high), but a lot of the ones away from the centre of Civic often end up becoming ultra-bogan and the ones that are in the middle suffer from "public-service-lifers" disease. If the climate was nicer, and there were more "I'm not the public service" employers in Canberra, it has the potential to be a really nice place to live.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 02:47
|
|
|
As others have said mostly Environmental costs are the most straightforward ones: cities have generally built up around fertile agricultural land, expansion of the cities destroys the most fertile land. This increases food miles (a term for the cost in getting food from producer to consumer: petrol, refrigeration, labour etc), and means farming is now done on less suitable land, which increases the dependence on fertilisers, water, pesticides and herbicides. It also means more native vegetation gets cleared, reducing biodiversity, creating isolated ecosystems which are no longer viable (you need a big enough linked population of species to be viable long term) etc. this has flow on effects as removing/altering some species can have catastrophic effects (bees are really the go too example for this, European agriculture is having to spend billions on replicating what they once got for free due to the drop in bee populations) By removing vegetation in favour of pavement (for residential greenfield you are generally looking at 27.5% of the footprint being roads/sidewalks) and houses you have a big environmental effect. First building materials like concrete store heat more than biomass does. They collect heat from the sun and then re-radiate it causing the Urban Heat Island effect which has a significant warming effect on microclimates. This is generally not great for stuff living there, and of course causes higher dependency on active cooling systems (air con). You also vastly decrease the amount of permeable ground in the area, which means that when rain falls rather than being absorbed it will run off the land and collect a bunch of gross poo poo on the way too before eventually entering a river system increasing the flow and reducing the quality of water loving everything up. Development also tends to start at the bottom of a hill and move up it with land releases, so as the top gets developed the amount of runoff increases which will lead to flooding if you don't take it into account with things like retarding basins. Greenfield sites also don't have public transport infrastructure, and are built at low densities which make active transport (walking, biking etc) less viable. Both of these contribute to higher levels of car dependency. They are also poorly provided for in terms of social facilities. This has direct effects (schools, medical facilities etc) as well as less immediately apparent ones, a lack of things like sporting clubs, community meeting areas etc contributes to social isolation, which is a predictor for poor physical and mental health outcomes as well as contributing to things like substance and gambling abuse.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 03:03
|
|
|
Brisbane is a great example of a sprawling shithole, especially on the western side. There's been a ton of housing developments and the road/transport infrastructure is extremely inadequate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 03:04
|
|
|
Cheers folks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 03:24
|
|
|
I love reading that underemployment is becoming more and more of a thing. Because I'm one of them and I have no idea if I'll ever get more than 3 days a week of work.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 03:26
|
|
|
Supposedly there is a lot of apartments sitting empty in Melbourne city. Negative gearing is one tool that can address issues of supply, which is why its better implemented on new builds than across the board. Instead it's an investment tool, and, depending on your tax structure, the more loss you take on it, the better. Hence empty apartments. Supply is an issue now insofar as rampant investment snaps up anything that hits the market.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 03:36
|
|
|
Oh, and housing is one side of the issue. Never mind the budget black hole negative gearing has become.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 03:39
|
|
|
On the grounds that everyone needs a place to live I'd be totally okay with taxing the gently caress out of owners of vacant dwellings.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 03:48
|
|
|
I'm on phone and can't look up but it's not just Melbourne, but iirc they have proven it in Melbourne specifically with water usage analysis. A slightly leaky tap uses more water than a reasonable % of constructed inner city apartments
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 03:53
|
|
|
G-Spot Run posted:I'm on phone and can't look up but it's not just Melbourne, but iirc they have proven it in Melbourne specifically with water usage analysis. A slightly leaky tap uses more water than a reasonable % of constructed inner city apartments https://www.prosper.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/11Final_Speculative-Vacancies-2015-1.pdf The Prosper Australia Speculative Vacancies report.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 04:06
|
|
|
Solemn Sloth posted:If anyone was serious about fixing housing in this country they would start with strengthening tenants rights so renting was a viable way to live rather than a ridiculous never ending roller coaster of poo poo (Northern European countries especially have this poo poo down) loving agree with this. Most of Europe have great rental laws. I hate having to go through fights and constant emails trying to get things done, and having the land lord wins most of the time with most tenant laws in this country
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 04:16
|
|
|
Rentals are hilarious. After it having been brought up by my agent that volunteering to repaint my unit would be really helpful to my relationship with both agency and landlord, plus positive future referrals, they jacked up my rent because the property value rose once I repainted the bad rooms.  I'm such a loving rube.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 04:26
|
|
|
Clawtopsy posted:Rentals are hilarious. After it having been brought up by my agent that volunteering to repaint my unit would be really helpful to my relationship with both agency and landlord, plus positive future referrals, they jacked up my rent because the property value rose once I repainted the bad rooms. Lol
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 04:29
|
|
|
I would blow Dane Cook posted:https://www.prosper.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/11Final_Speculative-Vacancies-2015-1.pdf That's the one. Reading the actual report instead of the articles written about it is much more brutal. They talk about wanting to try the same thing in Sydney but the method just isn't supported by the limitations of the data, due to water meter legislation in Victoria only, so you can pretty much guarantee every other capital city will keep it that way so they can sweep the problem under the rug.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 04:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 13:35 |
|
|
have you bought any guns yet to stick it to "the man"???
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 04:44
|
|