Top English environmentalist wants air travel rationed

[Platy]

Actually there is a difference. If it was user pays - i.e. $10 per tone of CO2 _ I would be happy. The more you consume - the more you pay - not a problem. I have a major issue with upscaling tax rates - I have never understood why someone on a higher income has to pay a higher rate of tax - I am happy with a higher absolute amount but have never agreed that simply because you earn more a great share of your income is taken from you.

That's exactly what I was trying to say.

[simongr]

That's exactly what I was trying to say.

Apologies - I misread your comment.

[comint]

Some would argue that the lack of elected individuals in the upper house is a good thing as they are less tied to political decisions/motivations.

Many argue the same about Benevolent Dictatorships or Constitutional Monarchies (if there is a difference). But these are quite simply not democratic principles.

But I do agree that different mechanisms should be in place to elect politicians in a bi-cameral system, ensuring maximum representation (not just territorial/constituency based representation). Countries like New Zealand and Germany present interesting alternates for uni-cameral parliaments.

I am personally shocked that a country so small in population as Australia wastes so much in resources by having so politicians (upper and lower house in each state AND a federal level AND local councils ) with an associated infrastructure that could be better directed at providing services.

Aside from a checks & balances argument, I don’t necessarily disagree (except that Qld is uni-cameral).

I am not sure how the British suffer or how our society is so much worse through not having an elected upper house.

In day to day life maybe they don’t. In fact they are “well kept” in terms of health, housing, education & other social safety nets. The lack of elected representation is a merely a self-determination issue. You either believe it’s a human right, or you don’t.

[Platy]

Apologies - I misread your comment.

No worries mate (it's good to be on the same page!)...

[Platy]

In day to day life maybe they don’t. In fact they are “well kept” in terms of health, housing, education & other social safety nets. The lack of elected representation is a merely a self-determination issue. You either believe it’s a human right, or you don’t.

And, arguably, Elizabeth Windsor is exceptional in taking the responsibility of her position with the utmost professionalism (a few unfortunate exceptions, such as reaction to Diana's death accepted). I say that as a republican (and nouveau Aussie)

[Robert Barlow]

I just love these images. Makes me imagine the Queen sitting on a Throne in Buckingham Palace like Monty Burns "excellent..." Just exactly what tangible benefit are you going to get from holding elections for this Head of State? - who makes decisions then? the PM or the elected Head of State? If the head of State - why bother with the PM? What would you rather have a couple more doctors in Hospitals or an election for a figurehead?

I think that Barack Obama is a bit more than a "figurehead" don't you? One hopes that our American cousins get tangible benefits from electing thweir president as head of state every four years. Our PM is not our head of state. Constitutionally, Queen Elizabeth is our Head of State. She is not even an Australian. She also happens to be head of state for a country whose foreign policy, economic policy and general political direction may be completely opposed to ours. (remember Churchill in WW2 - let the Japs have Australia. The war in Europe must be won first - and the Falklands War in 1982. The UK was at war with Argentina while Australia was not)

[simongr]

I think that Barack Obama is a bit more than a "figurehead" don't you? One hopes that our American cousins get tangible benefits from electing thweir president as head of state every four years. Our PM is not our head of state. Constitutionally, Queen Elizabeth is our Head of State.

Any chance [again] you could clarify what those tangible benefits are for me?

And [again] if you elect a President - is there any point electing a PM?

She is not even an Australian. She also happens to be head of state for a country whose foreign policy, economic policy and general political direction may be completely opposed to ours. (remember Churchill in WW2 - let the Japs have Australia. The war in Europe must be won first - and the Falklands War in 1982. The UK was at war with Argentina while Australia was not)

All fair points. Just one thing under the UK's system of government the Head of State does not actually influence foreign or economic policy. In relation to the Falklands War - was Australia actually opposed to the war?

[drron]

Found this interview with Finnair's VP for sustainable developement.A few interesting comments.And I found out where another of my sources gets his information!
elliott.org | “We cannot go on paving roads and laying rails forever”