Now, not to suggest that the PM has a history of using popular misunderstanding of technology to play on people's fears, but wind farms aren't the first thing he's crusaded against. Indeed, in the mid-90s he was all about stopping the demonic encroachment of mobile phone towers, which as we know gave off powerful radiation that did… um, things. Sure, it might look like a deeply silly witch hunt, but how can we know for sure that mobile phone towers and wind turbines don't cause terrorism, huh? Answer us that, Dr McScience! The problem with wind farms

Sure, wind farms are comparatively cheap and quick to set up, with the average time from beginning of construction to actually generating electricity being measured in weeks rather than years. Unfortunately, they also don't support the coal industry - and as we know, coal is good for humanity. So good, in fact, that it's better for humanity than actual food - which is why the government OKed the digging up of prime agricultural land for Chinese mining companies last week. That was despite protests against the plans for the Shenhua Watermark mine coming from the Minister for Agriculture, Barnaby Joyce: who failed to protect the region from the government's decision despite a) being the MP for the electorate in which said development is taking place, and b) just to repeat, being the Minister for Agriculture in the government giving approval for the project. Great job there, Barn! At the coalface

Agriculture, forestry and fishing, conversely, employed 320,600 people - which you might notice is more. In fact, mining employs a bit over a quarter the number employed by the construction industry (1,025,600) a fifth the number employed in retail (1,216,500), a bit over a quarter of those in manufacturing (945,900) and education and training (907,700) and a third of science and technology (884,200) or hospitality (742,900). Health care? That employs 1,417,000. Weird that one's nowhere near as politically important as the other, huh? Heck, mining employs half that of postal and warehousing (590,400), and significantly less than the number employed in banking and insurance (419,500) or admin and support services (377,900). Indeed, there's almost as many people involved in the arts (207,700) as in mining. So, y'know. Perspective is good.

Cleaning up However, the government's edict to the Clean Energy Finance Corporation not to fund any wind-related projects has another goal: killing the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. The government's fondness for the CEFC isn't great. Indeed, it failed to eliminate it last year despite two attempts (which could yet be used as a trigger for a possible Double Dissolution, incidentally). Because if there's one thing our pro-business government hates, evidently, it's a profitable financial organisation that returns dividends to the Commonwealth. The call has supposedly split the front bench since it was made without consulting Greg Hunt, the "Environment" Minister - although Hunt has angrily responded on Twitter that "I fully support the changes to the CEFC investment mandate and any suggestion to the contrary is categorically wrong." and "Claims that I have been 'angered' are a complete, absolute and utter fabrication." And fair enough too: why, Graggles would hate to give the impression that he'd oppose a short-sighted, vengeful campaign against clean energy. Why, that stuff would be the responsibility of the Environment Minister - whoever that is.

Questions without answers Also, on Friday it seemed like Tony Abbott was ready to budge on his no-minister-may-appear-on-Q&A command (just after Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull pulled out from Monday's panel despite confirming his appearance two days earlier) provided that the ABC moved Q&A to the news and current affairs division. There has been much speculation as to why this move might be desirable, from that it would require the show to have more "balance" (nope: ABC edicts on political impartiality cross the entire network) to that it would require more editorial oversight (doubtful, given the level that already exists) or maybe that it would demonstrate Commonwealth control over the ABC's impartiality (perhaps, except the move was already flagged in the last review). In fact, as best as anyone can tell, it seems like this would have zero practical effect beyond making it look like the PM had extracted some sort of concession from the ABC instead of just backing down after making a bit of a git of himself. Maybe the PM should just insist that Tony Jones can't wear blue ties or something? Look, a win's a win!