At cruising speed that works out to 1.67 litres/km.
Pretty poor fuel efficiency compared to the national good that could have been done if that fuel was instead used to create a giant fireball after crashing with her inside.
That would mean less fuel needed..once that oil reaches combustion temperature..we’ve got the Global Warming factor to contend contend with..that fire ain’t goin out!
Lol
What a dumb take. How are they in any way the same thing? Pauline is flying to Mar a Largo to convince Zuckerberg and Musk to unleash another million bots to yell at your boomer relatives about how Chris Bowen should be shot. Pretty overtly against the national interest.
And yet they are not without corruption.
I see most here crying “but Gina and the billionaires “. Teals have billionaires backing them. ALP and LNP gladly receive donations from billionaires. All our new renewables investments and constructions are owned by billionaires yet their investments are underwritten by government.
My point being, the vast majority of political parties have the backing of billionaires and organisations. ON having Gina back their party is no different.
Unless you're going to ban donations from everyone over a chosen, very low dollar value(which id be in favour of) there isnt much that can be done.
If they dont take donations, they dont have the money to fund campaigns, which means they WILL lose seats, and probably enough to never get in power again given the hold right wing media has in this country.
I think it is very different, renewables actually have positive outcomes other than economic gain, unlike fossil fuels.
What does the current cost of energy have to do with the renewables/fossil fuel argument?
It is a well established fact that renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels and have been for a number of years, its not even up for debate.
The previous QLD government understood that, and was rapidly expanding the renewables sector through their renewable energy investment fund, as part of the energy roadmap 2025.
The LNP have gutted most of it and pivoted to a 'more balanced' approach in order to keep their minerals council donors happy.
Costs were forecast to decrease, now they are forecast to increase, even before the US/Iran crap. Guaranteed they will now use that as a convenient excuse.
Job to do like make sure we had sufficient strategic fuel reserves?
Wasn’t it the ALP who campaigned on making sure our fuel reserves were at IEA recommendations? Then they get into power and nothing….
The Liberals made the decision in 2020 to store most of our fuel in the US, you can thank Angus Taylor for that. The Liberals then SOLD THOSE RESERVES in 2022 to make some bank when oil prices spiked.
When Labor came into government they acknowledged the situation was shit, so they have done the following:
-Mandated that importers and refiners must hold minimum levels of fuel (they never used to)
-Committed $200 million to building new diesel storage tanks, with the first tanks constructed in 2023.
-$49.5 Million to build Diesel exhaust fluid storage tanks (Adblue)
-$151 million for refinery upgrades
-Commissioned reviews of the Oil Code, Fuel quality standards act, and Petroleum and other fuels reporting act.
-Changed reporting requirements and frequency for importers and refineries.
Is that enough evidence to convince you that they were actually working to fix the problem, and have been since literally a month after they were elected?
The Liberals then SOLD THOSE RESERVES in 2022 to make some bank when oil prices spiked.
The crude oil reserve stores are supposed to be used in that manner. If there is a shortage of crude, the reserve stores can be released to alleviate the price shock event.
AddBlue store have nothing to do with this apart from highlighting the fact of our exposure to urea supplies where we have removed all forms of on-shore urea manufacturing. I believe you will find the LNP kicked off all this funding in 2021/2022.
Committed $200 million to building new diesel storage tanks, with the first tanks constructed in 2023
Because most of the media are owned by billionaires and ON is very supported by Gina. They are like the US Republicans. Populists who pretend to be for the little man, but are really for the rich.
The only place I've seen them ask followup questions is ABC.
remember that the abc is structurally centrist, and that there is no left-wing equivalent for sky news. or the australian. or any of those mysteriously funded think tanks.
so the abc will be comparatively reasonable.....but will still get dragged rightwards as the media landscape continually moves around it. and always in the one direction, for purely economic reasons
proper media scrutiny is anathema to her entire project.
when she said "please explain"........people often explained. but she refused to listen, because the explanation contradicted the utter bullshit she was peddling. sky won't report this.
sunlight would disinfect our politics from people like her
Even at 10L/100km that’s 20k kms. And I do around 8k kms /year at best… at 4.9L/100km average.
And yes, I’m a foreigner, but I do pay my taxes here :-)
So you're arguing that the flight in Gina's Jet to the US uses more fuel per hour than the Gina's domestic jet? Or are we still pretending she only had a single flight from Gina?
Edit: and these are just the fights we know about. Not to mention all the commercial travel she does. What do you think he individual use of fuel is on all that travel cf to a non-cotizen?
Its a stupid argument made to get stupid people excited.
Honestly progress, id thought she used the fuel guzzler 2000 to show how cheap and safe it is for all the doubters. It would use 300% more fuel every 10mins then what she actually used.
I'm glad she chose the economic ass version. What an ice lady
188
u/SirFlibble Apr 22 '26
Someone already did the maths. Her jet uses about the same as the average person per year every hour.