Australian Politics Forum
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl
Political Parties >> Liberal Party >> Greg Hunt nails Tony Abbotts leadership
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1301635955

Message started by Deathridesahorse on Apr 1st, 2011 at 3:32pm

Title: Greg Hunt nails Tony Abbotts leadership
Post by Deathridesahorse on Apr 1st, 2011 at 3:32pm
This is it: ...

STEVE CANNANE: Mick Keogh says that based on these estimates, Greg Hunt's figures don't add up.

MICK KEOGH: To reach the 150 million tonnes per annum of carbon dioxide equivalence would be 75 million hectares at the upside, that is at the two tonnes carbon dioxide equivalent per hectare per annum, or about 500 million hectares at 0.3, which is the lower level of the estimate.

STEVE CANNANE: But when I went back to Greg Hunt today, he said he defines 100 square kilometres as a hundred by a hundred, not 10 by 10.

GREG HUNT: When I talk about the 100 squared, that's all about a hundred by a hundred square kilometres or a hundred kilometres by a hundred kilometres, 10,000 square kilometres, a million hectares. You can play a game, respectfully, or we can be serious about what's the calculation here. A million hectares at a 150 tonnes of C02 equivalent per hectare is the figure that we're talking about, but that's the intensive number.

STEVE CANNANE: Greg Hunt has altered the transcript of the original Lateline interview and posted it on his website to reflect what he says was his intended definition of 100 square kilometres.

Based on this altered figure, Greg Hunt believes 150 million tonnes of carbon dioxide can be abated in one year over one million hectares.

But using the CSIRO's best estimate, you'd need a land mass of at least 75 million hectares to do this. And if you take the CSIRO's figures at the lower end of the scale, then you'd need 500 million hectares, or 65 per cent of the land mass of Australia.

But Greg Hunt questions the CSIRO figures.

GREG HUNT: Well there is a debate, and what we're seeing is that people such as Christine Jones, probably the pre-eminent soil carbon scientist in Australia and one of the world's leading soil carbon scientists, has a very different view. Her view is that Australia can capture an extraordinary part of its overall emissions, far greater than we've proposed. We've been very conservative in our estimates of what Australia as a whole through incentives to farmers could absorb.

STEVE CANNANE: The CSIRO does not take into consideration the field work of Dr Christine Jones because it's yet to be peer reviewed.

Peter Cosier says the Coalition is being irresponsible with their target.

PETER COSIER: We're very much in favour of soil carbon, but I think it's irresponsible to set a carbon reduction target based on information which is not sufficient to give you that target. So I think they're creating false expectations, I think farmers will be very reluctant to enter that market even if it did happen, and when they do, I don't think you'll achieve the volumes that have been promised in the Coalition's policy.

STEVE CANNANE: Steve Cannane, Lateline.

source: http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2011/s3179336.htm

ANTI-MARKET FORCES ABBOTT IS LOOKING DODGIER EVERY DAY!!  :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :'( 8-)

Title: Re: Greg Hunt nails Tony Abbotts leadership
Post by vegitamite on Apr 1st, 2011 at 4:21pm
I read this yesterday on a bloggers website I visit...what a joke.

Title: Re: Greg Hunt nails Tony Abbotts leadership
Post by unbiased_view on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 8:22am

wrote on Apr 1st, 2011 at 4:21pm:
...what a joke.




Not unlike the two of you.......... ;D

Title: Re: Greg Hunt nails Tony Abbotts leadership
Post by philperth2010 on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 8:59am
Greg Hunt has shown the Coalition are not really interested in curbing the effects of global warming and are only concerned with appearances.....There policy is based on doing as little as possible without challenging the big polluters or taking the hard decisions to support the science they supposedly believe in.....The Coalitions policies on climate change have been challenged and found to fall way short of what is required to meet our targets.....This is just further evidence that the coalition are still a do nothing party when it comes to the environment!!!

>:(

Title: Re: Greg Hunt nails Tony Abbotts leadership
Post by mozzaok on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 11:03am
The coalition ARE climate change denialists, but they know what nutty company that puts them in, so they go through this silly pretext of developing a Carbon Policy which is based on smoke and mirrors.

"100 square kilometres" vs  "a hundred squared kilometres"
you play that game and I call you a deceitful mongrel trying to pull a swifty, because he knows very well that even if he pronounces each word distinctly, virtually everyone who listens to him will hear, and assume he has described a figure of 10 k's by 10 k's, or 100 square k's, and the only reason he even uses the extraordinary 100 squared, is to deliberately try and create the impression that the undertaking of storing 75million tonnes of carbon is a far smaller undertaking than it actually is.
It is the deniers stock in trade, it is to create confusion, and promote misunderstanding, by the use of deceit.
While not wishing to demean the potential for soil storage of carbon, I do not believe that any serious person would take the figures being proposed by the coalition as anything other than deceitfully overstated.
It's not a dirty lie, if you can excuse the pun, but more of a "clean", PR type lie, an advertisers lie if you like, but at the end of the day, the result is the same, everybody knows it is not true.

Title: Re: Greg Hunt nails Tony Abbotts leadership
Post by Andrei.Hicks on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 11:10am
That is utter rubbish.

It is that type of extremism and finger pointing that helps nobody.

I voted for the coalition. I am not a denialist. But I am anti a carbon tax.

I care about the cost of living for ordinary families and the effects on these people's budgets by bringing in a tax for no reason.

Now I hear little of it in San Diego.
I have come to see my parents this weekend - Mozza may have already noted my change in location - and I can tell you that nobody else is as absurdly obsessed about this situation as some of the Left people in Aus are.

People live in the real world. That is not about 50% tax rates, carbon taxes, taxes on air, flood levies, charity to Indonesia etc etc
For goodness sake, how many more taxes must the middle incomes of Australia have on them???

Title: Re: Greg Hunt nails Tony Abbotts leadership
Post by mozzaok on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 11:22am
You reckon it's rubbish Andrei?

Well I reckon the coalition's policy and whole position on climate change is rubbish, and while some in the party are not denialists, the ones steering them at the moment surely are.
The whole point of lying about this is to create the perception that they have an alternative policy that is considered and effective, and they absolutely do not.
Let me put it in really simple terms, the coalition are proposing we do not need a carbon tax, because they reckon we can just dig a whole and bury any carbon responsibility in it, but they are alone in this opinion, as in nobody agrees with them, that what they propose is remotely adequate.

I love the idea of storing carbon in soil, and I like the positives it could have for the rural areas where it is done, but to put it up as your alternative to a carbon tax is the same as claiming wireless is all you need without a fibre network, that is, it is dumb, simplistic, and untrue.

Title: Re: Greg Hunt nails Tony Abbotts leadership
Post by longweekend58 on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 11:26am

mozzaok wrote on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 11:03am:
The coalition ARE climate change denialists, but they know what nutty company that puts them in, so they go through this silly pretext of developing a Carbon Policy which is based on smoke and mirrors.

"100 square kilometres" vs  "a hundred squared kilometres"
you play that game and I call you a deceitful mongrel trying to pull a swifty, because he knows very well that even if he pronounces each word distinctly, virtually everyone who listens to him will hear, and assume he has described a figure of 10 k's by 10 k's, or 100 square k's, and the only reason he even uses the extraordinary 100 squared, is to deliberately try and create the impression that the undertaking of storing 75million tonnes of carbon is a far smaller undertaking than it actually is.
It is the deniers stock in trade, it is to create confusion, and promote misunderstanding, by the use of deceit.
While not wishing to demean the potential for soil storage of carbon, I do not believe that any serious person would take the figures being proposed by the coalition as anything other than deceitfully overstated.
It's not a dirty lie, if you can excuse the pun, but more of a "clean", PR type lie, an advertisers lie if you like, but at the end of the day, the result is the same, everybody knows it is not true.


you have the audacity to deem this a lie when Gillard is still PM after her massive betrayal of trust onthe Carbon Tax???

your bias is showing! pity your balance and integrity arent quite as visible.

Title: Re: Greg Hunt nails Tony Abbotts leadership
Post by dsmithy70 on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 11:28am

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 11:10am:
That is utter rubbish.

It is that type of extremism and finger pointing that helps nobody.

I voted for the coalition. I am not a denialist. But I am anti a carbon tax.

I care about the cost of living for ordinary families and the effects on these people's budgets by bringing in a tax for no reason.

Now I hear little of it in San Diego.
I have come to see my parents this weekend - Mozza may have already noted my change in location - and I can tell you that nobody else is as absurdly obsessed about this situation as some of the Left people in Aus are.

People live in the real world. That is not about 50% tax rates, carbon taxes, taxes on air, flood levies, charity to Indonesia etc etc
For goodness sake, how many more taxes must the middle incomes of Australia have on them???


So you believe the science but against the tax, fair enough.
Whats your solution?

Title: Re: Greg Hunt nails Tony Abbotts leadership
Post by Ernie on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 11:33am
Even as Hunt tried to defuse his obvious error (is it so hard to say "oops" if you are a pollie?) he then dismisses the CSIRO, who state categorically that there is no evidence that even the larger area could do what Hunt says it will do. He's only out by a factor of 75.

His champion? A non peer reviewed outsider.

This is another hallmark of denialists - when the real authorities aren't saying what you want to hear, bring in an outsider.

Monckton anyone?

Title: Re: Greg Hunt nails Tony Abbotts leadership
Post by Andrei.Hicks on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 11:35am

Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 11:28am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 11:10am:
That is utter rubbish.

It is that type of extremism and finger pointing that helps nobody.

I voted for the coalition. I am not a denialist. But I am anti a carbon tax.

I care about the cost of living for ordinary families and the effects on these people's budgets by bringing in a tax for no reason.

Now I hear little of it in San Diego.
I have come to see my parents this weekend - Mozza may have already noted my change in location - and I can tell you that nobody else is as absurdly obsessed about this situation as some of the Left people in Aus are.

People live in the real world. That is not about 50% tax rates, carbon taxes, taxes on air, flood levies, charity to Indonesia etc etc
For goodness sake, how many more taxes must the middle incomes of Australia have on them???


So you believe the science but against the tax, fair enough.
Whats your solution?



You resolve the problem by a global response.
Tell me why India and China are not being capped back to the same levels as the rest of us?
1990 and 2000 levels. Why are they being given different targets.

I refuse to see why we should tie one hand behind our back vs our competitors.
We are in competition with these people and we are allowing the 1st and 3rd worst polluters in the world to do what they like.

The answer is a global one. Not a country one.

Title: Re: Greg Hunt nails Tony Abbotts leadership
Post by Greens_Win on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 11:44am

philperth2010 wrote on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 8:59am:
Greg Hunt has shown the Coalition are not really interested in curbing the effects of global warming and are only concerned with appearances.....There policy is based on doing as little as possible without challenging the big polluters or taking the hard decisions to support the science they supposedly believe in.....The Coalitions policies on climate change have been challenged and found to fall way short of what is required to meet our targets.....This is just further evidence that the coalition are still a do nothing party when it comes to the environment!!!

>:(




And the Hard Right wonder why The Greens didn't back the Abbott's coalition for government after the last election.

Abbott is anti Australian.

Title: Re: Greg Hunt nails Tony Abbotts leadership
Post by dsmithy70 on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 11:44am

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 11:35am:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 11:28am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 11:10am:
That is utter rubbish.

It is that type of extremism and finger pointing that helps nobody.

I voted for the coalition. I am not a denialist. But I am anti a carbon tax.

I care about the cost of living for ordinary families and the effects on these people's budgets by bringing in a tax for no reason.

Now I hear little of it in San Diego.
I have come to see my parents this weekend - Mozza may have already noted my change in location - and I can tell you that nobody else is as absurdly obsessed about this situation as some of the Left people in Aus are.

People live in the real world. That is not about 50% tax rates, carbon taxes, taxes on air, flood levies, charity to Indonesia etc etc
For goodness sake, how many more taxes must the middle incomes of Australia have on them???


So you believe the science but against the tax, fair enough.
Whats your solution?



You resolve the problem by a global response.
Tell me why India and China are not being capped back to the same levels as the rest of us?
1990 and 2000 levels. Why are they being given different targets.

I refuse to see why we should tie one hand behind our back vs our competitors.
We are in competition with these people and we are allowing the 1st and 3rd worst polluters in the world to do what they like.

The answer is a global one. Not a country one.


True
So whats your framework for this global response?
Global response is easy to say and write but what exactly is it?
World Government with countries governments reduced to basically local councils?Who would lead and what's the criteria for election?
Military power(USA),lenght of civilisation(China),most Money(China)
No need to lay the whole plan out just a 1st step should be enough.

Title: Re: Greg Hunt nails Tony Abbotts leadership
Post by Andrei.Hicks on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 11:53am
I would have each country sign up a binding agreement that ALL countries are capped to the same % as their 1990 emissions levels.

That would enable countries like Australia to not have to cut so drastically because India and China emissions would fall off a cliff.

Everyone needs to be capped to the same % level as their 1990 level.

That's your benchmark.

Title: Re: Greg Hunt nails Tony Abbotts leadership
Post by longweekend58 on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 11:55am

____ wrote on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 11:44am:

philperth2010 wrote on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 8:59am:
Greg Hunt has shown the Coalition are not really interested in curbing the effects of global warming and are only concerned with appearances.....There policy is based on doing as little as possible without challenging the big polluters or taking the hard decisions to support the science they supposedly believe in.....The Coalitions policies on climate change have been challenged and found to fall way short of what is required to meet our targets.....This is just further evidence that the coalition are still a do nothing party when it comes to the environment!!!

>:(




And the Hard Right wonder why The Greens didn't back the Abbott's coalition for government after the last election.

Abbott is anti Australian.


How did the breakdown over the NSW results go?

Title: Re: Greg Hunt nails Tony Abbotts leadership
Post by Andrei.Hicks on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 12:01pm

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 11:55am:

____ wrote on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 11:44am:

philperth2010 wrote on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 8:59am:
Greg Hunt has shown the Coalition are not really interested in curbing the effects of global warming and are only concerned with appearances.....There policy is based on doing as little as possible without challenging the big polluters or taking the hard decisions to support the science they supposedly believe in.....The Coalitions policies on climate change have been challenged and found to fall way short of what is required to meet our targets.....This is just further evidence that the coalition are still a do nothing party when it comes to the environment!!!

>:(




And the Hard Right wonder why The Greens didn't back the Abbott's coalition for government after the last election.

Abbott is anti Australian.


How did the breakdown over the NSW results go?



He could always go home you know.

I went out for a few beers with one of the visiting sales reps from Auckland and he tells me that John Key is doing an awesome job.

Recently increased GST from 12.5% to 15% and offset that by reducing personal income taxes and lengthening the tax brackets.
Everyday New Zealanders got a tax cut of over 2% as a result.

John Key apparently doesn't draw a salary from the Government either and does the job for the love it.

How refreshing does that sound?

Title: Re: Greg Hunt nails Tony Abbotts leadership
Post by Equitist on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 12:01pm



Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 11:53am:
I would have each country sign up a binding agreement that ALL countries are capped to the same % as their 1990 emissions levels.

That would enable countries like Australia to not have to cut so drastically because India and China emissions would fall off a cliff.

Everyone needs to be capped to the same % level as their 1990 level.

That's your benchmark.



As you well know, that would simply entrench existing unacceptably-gross levels of inequity across the globe - yet you seem to have no qualms whatsoever about advocating same...

The only fair and responsible thing to do, is to set per-capita limits - which would mean that wealthy countries would need to dramatically-reduce their wantonly-irresponsible patterns of over-consumption and waste and allow the poorer peoples of the planet to improve their living standards (with reliable household electricity, clean water on tap and safe sewerage infrastructure being the bare minimum that any human being should be entitled to)...


Title: Re: Greg Hunt nails Tony Abbotts leadership
Post by mozzaok on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 12:05pm

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 11:53am:
I would have each country sign up a binding agreement that ALL countries are capped to the same % as their 1990 emissions levels.

That would enable countries like Australia to not have to cut so drastically because India and China emissions would fall off a cliff.

Everyone needs to be capped to the same % level as their 1990 level.

That's your benchmark.


So the relative difference between the commercialisation in India and China over the last twenty years is comparable to everywhere else in the world?
You probably cheat at patience too.
What about setting levels on per capita carbon output, and what india and china had in 1990, becomes the target for all industrialised nations, I mean it is still 1990 levels, just coming at it from a different angle, would that seem as fair to you as you think your proposal is fair to china and india?

Title: Re: Greg Hunt nails Tony Abbotts leadership
Post by dsmithy70 on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 12:10pm

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 11:53am:
I would have each country sign up a binding agreement that ALL countries are capped to the same % as their 1990 emissions levels.

That would enable countries like Australia to not have to cut so drastically because India and China emissions would fall off a cliff.

Everyone needs to be capped to the same % level as their 1990 level.

That's your benchmark.


Again an easy thing to say but lets just break it down.
The whole reason that India and China are producing so much CO2 is that they are emerging from 3rd world to 1st world countries.The populace in those countries want what we have.
So the question becomes do you make that percentage so we lock in poverty to those nations or reduce our standard of living to theirs?
Who makes the biggest sacrifice us or them?

Title: Re: Greg Hunt nails Tony Abbotts leadership
Post by Andrei.Hicks on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 12:12pm
Per capita is a ridiculous argument.

You'd basically enable countries who dramatically increase their population to pollute much more.

No, per capita does not work.

1990 levels worked in 1990, they can work again.

Sorry but why did we start to formulate policy positions which help our competitors and rivals?
India and China are not our friends, we owe them nothing.

Title: Re: Greg Hunt nails Tony Abbotts leadership
Post by Andrei.Hicks on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 12:14pm

Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 12:10pm:
The whole reason that India and China are producing so much CO2 is that they are emerging from 3rd world to 1st world countries.The populace in those countries want what we have.
?



Again - how is that our problem?

It's basically in our interests both environmentally and for competitive advantage to have these countries have a lower cost and standard of living than we do.

I fail to see why we should be helping out India and China - how is that our responsibility?

Title: Re: Greg Hunt nails Tony Abbotts leadership
Post by Andrei.Hicks on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 12:16pm
By the way let me know if any of you blokes float a company.

Formulating policy to help out your competitors, I'd happily forward-trade your company shares betting on serious losses.

That is not how to run a business.

Remember - we have to run countries like economic businesses.

Helping out China and India??? Why?

Title: Re: Greg Hunt nails Tony Abbotts leadership
Post by dsmithy70 on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 12:19pm

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 12:12pm:
Per capita is a ridiculous argument.

You'd basically enable countries who dramatically increase their population to pollute much more.

No, per capita does not work.

1990 levels worked in 1990, they can work again.

Sorry but why did we start to formulate policy positions which help our competitors and rivals?
India and China are not our friends, we owe them nothing.

And there's your biggest problem, we don't live in separate bubbles immune from each other actions.
1990 levels aren't the benchmark to halt the reactions they are just the least painful for western countries to achieve.
Are you serious or not, by localising it shows your not, as you yourself said it's a global problem requiring global solutions.

Title: Re: Greg Hunt nails Tony Abbotts leadership
Post by Andrei.Hicks on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 12:20pm
I'm not localising it.

I am saying the solution is to return to where everybody was in 1990 or to a % based on that.

Title: Re: Greg Hunt nails Tony Abbotts leadership
Post by Andrei.Hicks on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 12:23pm
The problem in China mate is dire.

Even the other week a Captain who bases out of Hong Kong was telling my dad how bad visibility is there now.

This fella has been there since the 1980s when he was a wee 2nd officer and has seen what has happened.

It's all the carbon producing factories that China has sprung up everywhere. Why are we allowing that to happen?

Have you seen the stats of Chinese respiratory cases?
Even the Communist Government's adjusted figures are frightening - god only know what the real numbers are.

There is the problem.
Not in Australia.

Title: Re: Greg Hunt nails Tony Abbotts leadership
Post by dsmithy70 on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 12:25pm

Quote:
You'd basically enable countries who dramatically increase their population to pollute much more.


You might want to compare birthrates of the 1st world to the 3rd world.
As a country becomes more prosporus the birth rate falls.
No longer do they need to have 10 kids because 4 die in infancy and they need 6 to work the fields to eat.

Title: Re: Greg Hunt nails Tony Abbotts leadership
Post by Equitist on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 12:30pm



Who wants fair or humane solutions, when the lop-sided global economy, as we have come to know believe it, is at stake!?

Title: Re: Greg Hunt nails Tony Abbotts leadership
Post by Andrei.Hicks on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 12:31pm

Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 12:25pm:

Quote:
You'd basically enable countries who dramatically increase their population to pollute much more.


You might want to compare birthrates of the 1st world to the 3rd world.
As a country becomes more prosporus the birth rate falls.
No longer do they need to have 10 kids because 4 die in infancy and they need 6 to work the fields to eat.



Really?
Would you explain to me why in Britain the birth rates of South Asian families is over 3 times that of white British people.

Or are they living in squalor?

Title: Re: Greg Hunt nails Tony Abbotts leadership
Post by Equitist on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 12:32pm



Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 12:31pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 12:25pm:

Quote:
You'd basically enable countries who dramatically increase their population to pollute much more.


You might want to compare birthrates of the 1st world to the 3rd world.
As a country becomes more prosporus the birth rate falls.
No longer do they need to have 10 kids because 4 die in infancy and they need 6 to work the fields to eat.



Really?
Would you explain to me why in Britain the birth rates of South Asian families is over 3 times that of white British people.

Or are they living in squalor?


Clearly, you wouldn't accept the explanation - since you didn't come up with it first...


Title: Re: Greg Hunt nails Tony Abbotts leadership
Post by dsmithy70 on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 12:34pm

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 12:31pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 12:25pm:

Quote:
You'd basically enable countries who dramatically increase their population to pollute much more.


You might want to compare birthrates of the 1st world to the 3rd world.
As a country becomes more prosporus the birth rate falls.
No longer do they need to have 10 kids because 4 die in infancy and they need 6 to work the fields to eat.



Really?
Would you explain to me why in Britain the birth rates of South Asian families is over 3 times that of white British people.

Or are they living in squalor?

Don't pick a subgroup out that changes the argument.
Look at the Islanders here they punch out on average 6 kids but Australia's and Britians overall birthrates are in decline.
FFS we have to import 100k of immigrants a year to keep our economy moving along and maintain our standard of living.

Title: Re: Greg Hunt nails Tony Abbotts leadership
Post by Equitist on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 1:02pm


Dunno about your family, Android, but most Aussie (and Western) families could probably look back at their own familial birth records and note a similar pattern of dramatically-reducing birth rates amongst their own extended families...

In my generation, there were an average of 4 children per family (I'm speaking siblings and cousins - one of my cousins died in infancy of meningitis) - and none of my uncles nor aunties is childless.

In my parent's generation the average number of births per couple was closer to 6 (one of my would-be-uncles died in infancy, also of meningitis). None of their siblings nor cousins was childless.

In my grandparents' generation there were as many as 8 births per family (several dying in childbirth and infancy from different causes).  Again, none of those who survived into adulthood were childless.

Now, to consider the breeding patterns of my own generation, the average number of children to me, my large number of siblings,first cousins and in-laws has been 2 - most having a neat 2 but some having none, others having 1 (so far), one 3 and only one having 4.

Curiously, those who have had more than 2 children, were those who had one or both spouses grew up in households with a stronger religious upbringing.

The reason that I suggest this overall pattern applies across the nation (and Western World), is that the birth rate statistics basically follow that trend...

There have been estimations that a full 1/3 of my children's generation will never breed at all and probably another 2/3 of the remaining couples will have only 1 or 2 children - which will probably create an even-smaller generation of even-more egocentric, selfish, materialistic and unsociable people than the current GenY...



Title: Re: Greg Hunt nails Tony Abbotts leadership
Post by mavisdavis on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 1:06pm
The title of this topic tends to make Greg Hunt appear rather gay don`t you think?   Doesn`t do an awfull lot for Abbott`s rep either ?

Title: Re: Greg Hunt nails Tony Abbotts leadership
Post by Wattle Grove on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 1:35pm

mavisdavis wrote on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 1:06pm:
The title of this topic tends to make Greg Hunt appear rather gay don`t you think?   Doesn`t do an awfull lot for Abbott`s rep either ?



well Abbott was a training to be a priest enough said

Australian Politics Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.5.2!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2024. All Rights Reserved.