Apparently we’re trying to claim 42%. Should they tell us we’re dreaming?

Bubblecar said:

Apparently we’re trying to claim 42%. Should they tell us we’re dreaming?

How many cartons of beer does that work out to be?

Bubblecar said:

Apparently we’re trying to claim 42%. Should they tell us we’re dreaming?

Our Environment minister seriously thinks there’s Walruses in Antarctica.

Perhaps ‘they’ should tell us to take the thing seriously or fuck off.

He might have meant Walrusauruses from the dinosaur age that have mysteriously survived on just a few icebergs.

He says Australia’s Antarctic agencies should be looking at ways to attract additional income for research into the Walrus population and Penguins.

We live in an age of diminishing expectations…

land is the essence of the state

those that seek to diminish it work only for the fifth column

For anyone interested in a relatively modern view of Australian Antarctic Territory and how it relates to government policy, I can thoroughly recommend the very-readable non-fiction book “Sitting on penguins: People and politics in Australian Antarctica” by Stephen Murray-Smith. I have a copy I can lend to forumites.

Rule 303 said:

Bubblecar said:

Apparently we’re trying to claim 42%. Should they tell us we’re dreaming?

Our Environment minister seriously thinks there’s Walruses in Antarctica.

Perhaps ‘they’ should tell us to take the thing seriously or fuck off.

Jesus.

Tell me that is a joke.

This govt is hilarious.

dv said:

Rule 303 said:

Bubblecar said:

Apparently we’re trying to claim 42%. Should they tell us we’re dreaming?

Our Environment minister seriously thinks there’s Walruses in Antarctica.

Perhaps ‘they’ should tell us to take the thing seriously or fuck off.

Jesus.

Tell me that is a joke.

This govt is hilarious.

It is what we are paying for. So laugh long and loud.

I hope he set some money aside for the protection of Eskimos

I thought we’d indulged in some sort of treaty-signing type of behaviour that effectively sets aside territorial claims?

Deevs, did you see my bon mot on the subject?

ON topic, I said in chat that there’s no prospect of the international community accepting territorial claims, especially if anyone starts acting like the possession is meaningful. OTOH there’s no likelihood of claims being renounced so, unlike DV, I think we might be with the Antarctic Treaty for a while yet.

MartinB said:

ON topic, I said in chat that there’s no prospect of the international community accepting territorial claims, especially if anyone starts acting like the possession is meaningful. OTOH there’s no likelihood of claims being renounced so, unlike DV, I think we might be with the Antarctic Treaty for a while yet.

Oh no, Tony Abbot is setting up Liberal Party voting electorate there any day soon.

MartinB said:

ON topic, I said in chat that there’s no prospect of the international community accepting territorial claims, especially if anyone starts acting like the possession is meaningful. OTOH there’s no likelihood of claims being renounced so, unlike DV, I think we might be with the Antarctic Treaty for a while yet.

Well I suppose we’ll see.

Mind you, I am not married to the idea.

It will depend on commodity prices, probably. Last couple of years, oil production has outstripped demand a bit and it is hard to foresee the price of crude going much over 100 again for some time. If it keeps like that we may see the treaty stand.

Bubblecar said:

Apparently we’re trying to claim 42%. Should they tell us we’re dreaming?

there’s plenty of Antarctica to claim with the record sea ice extent.

global warming bubbacar

The problem with handing over precious territory that requires to be left alone is that backward nations do the opposite , they end up fucking places up. That’s why it’s necessary for Australia to retain territory , you could throw the southern ocean into that, if it hadn’t been given away the Japanese wouldn’t be allowed in to hunt whales.

Allowing other nations and “ cultures” into Antarctica will only make matters worse

dv said:

Mind you, I am not married to the idea.

It will depend on commodity prices, probably. Last couple of years, oil production has outstripped demand a bit and it is hard to foresee the price of crude going much over 100 again for some time. If it keeps like that we may see the treaty stand.

And likewise, I can certainly imagine scenarios in which the treaty falls apart and territorial activities/resource extraction start. But if that happens it will be a free-for-all. As I said, there is zero chance that countries like China, India and Brazil – or for that matter the USA – will just accede to the current territorial claims and wave through a monopoly on resource extraction. They will all claim every right to extract as much as the next person. It would be chaos with significant potential for flash points. Things would have to get pretty tight for this to look a good option for anyone.

I can also imagine a situation in which the Treaty is replaced by a more consolidated international management regime with all territorial claims revoked, but this seems the least likely of these options.

cops in America are sometimes not even cops, just a good citizen voted in by the townsfolk. Sometimes they subsidise thier pay by busting tail lights.

AwesomeO said:

cops in America are sometimes not even cops, just a good citizen voted in by the townsfolk. Sometimes they subsidise thier pay by busting tail lights.

—

Um

burp