Fiat currency and backing are different things. All fiat currency is unbacked, but just because a currency is unbacked, doesn't make it fiat.

Backed currency relies on the physical properties of the universe to create scarcity (i.e. anything backed by a physical thing is inherently limited). Fiat currency relies on the authority of the state to create scarcity (i.e. only the state is allowed to print money). Cryptocurrencies like bitcoin rely on mathematical principles to create scarcity. Bitcoin is not backed; it's also not a fiat currency.

Seriously, you can't recognise the name of one of the site's editors?

"The dredge spoils bound for the ocean will be tested before they are dumped to ensure they are safe. GBRMPA says previous testing has already shown there are no identified contaminants in the sediments to be dredged and dumped from Abbot Point."

http://www.theaustralian.com.a...

So, I wasn't quite right, it's not being processed to remove toxic material, it's being tested to ensure there isn't any. Slight difference, same end result.

Yay, more false analogies. Silt isn't asbestos, neither is it radioactive waste, nor is it fossil fuel emissions, as in some other posts analogies. It's dirt. They're moving dirt from one patch of dirt, to another patch of dirt.

"The Tasmania Parks and Wildlife Service and The Tasmania Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water, and Environment report that the total amount of reserved area in Tasmania is 3,064,500 hectares, which is 45% of the state’s total terrestrial area. Of this, 45% of Tasmania’s forests are also protected within its reserve system."

http://natureneedshalf.org/tas...

I should have said 45% of Tasmania is protected. Some of it by world heritage listing, some of it through other mechanisms. Links, one from each side, so you don't go all genetic fallacy on me.

So yeah, closer to an order of magnitude lower than your figure. Even by slashdot standards, you're a hypocrit.

Good thing they're processing it before dumping it at sea then, isn't it?

Do coal plants blow silt and sand now? This is the main reason all the stink about this annoys me. What's happening is that a few million tonnes of sand and silt are being moved from point A to point B (when point B already consists entirely of sand and silt). And the the Green groups and people like Get Up post images of clownfish and coral reefs, with captions about "DUMPING TOXIC SLUDGE ON THEIR HOME!".

It's also about 25km from the reef (the green in this image). It's located at about the midpoint between the port and the reef, at 25km each way.

It's stuff they dug up from the seabed, which they're dumping onto the seabed. It's silt, sand and clay, and it's processed to remove any incidental toxic matter before it's dumped.

For how long? You might get a couple of dusty days until it all settles down again. Hardly a national emergency. The reason they don't dump tonnes of rubble in residential zones is because the land is more valuable as real estate than a dumping ground, and millions of tonnes of rubble takes up a whole lotta space.

They've got plenty of sustainable forestry. But you can't scale up an industry if there's nowhere for it to scale out to - you need cleared land to plant the sustainable-growth forest. I'd have no problem with Tasmania limiting their own industry, if they weren't getting subsidised by the other states to keep them above water while they did it (Tasmania gets about twice the GST revenue, per capita, as most other states - NT being the exception).

You do know that if I said I was dumping a million tonnes of rubble on your house, and then actually dumped it 25km away, your house wouldn't be crushed, right? If the currents are able to move silt from the dump site to the reef, then they are already doing so - nothing's being dumped that isn't already there.

As for Tasmania, almost 50% of the entire state is currently world heritage listed. I don't think de-listing a fraction of a percent of that is going to cause much damage.

And by "reef", they mean a patch of silt 25km away from the actual reef.

Well, yeah. No industry regularly "loses"; if they did, they'd quickly cease to be an industry. The problem is people who consider insurance to be some sort of gamble; if you think of it that way, the fact that the insurance provider always makes a profit makes it seem like a racket. But insurance isn't a gamble, any more than, say, a RAID array is a gamble. It's a hedge against disaster.

If you have enough money that you can cover the cost of the insured item without hardship, you should never insure it, because you don't need a hedge.

That's because modern ICE cars have been under continuous development for over a century. Electric cars had a few early models, then languished undeveloped for a hundred years, before we recently started up development of them again.