why would i read or take seriously an article written by another ANTI-socialist?

This sentence "It was reported in June that Australia received more than $4 billion from foreign governments to fund coal projects since 2007 with Australia being the fourth highest recipient of public finance for coal."

So we're worrying about foreign governments investing in our coal industry? I didn't understand this, but in any case the author doesn't seem aware that $4 billion over that time frame hardly counts - considering the vast surge in investment in the resources industry since then.

As for subsidies, the problem is the diesel fuel excise rebate. the mining industry does not use any roads so it should not have to pay the excise for road use, so it is returned. The global warming industry insists this is a subsidy, but on that logic we're all subsidised by the tax office when we get some of our hard-earned back in a refund. The mining industry pays many billions in tax.

I don't know if Abbott actually said that "coal is good for humanity" as claimed here by a person who is against everything. But, if he did say that he is correct. Without coal, there would have been no advancement or growth in the world; people would have starved or frozen to death. There would never been such things as steel production and all the necessities of life made with steel. More people would have been unemployed; we would have remained in the Dark Ages burning animal dung. If the windmill and solar zealots have their way, we will be back in the Dark Ages before we know it - those of us who survive, that is.

Kellie,

Anyone who doesn't understand that coal is good for humanity is either ignorant, gullible, naive or a Green ideologue.

"Humanity Unbound: How Fossil Fuels Saved Humanity from Nature and Nature from Humanity" http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/humanity-unbound-how-fossil-fuels-saved-humanity-nature-nature-humanity

I think you're on to something here Kellie. I mean we all now know that thorium which we have huge amounts of, is cheaper than coal, and with our reserves we could power the world for 700 years.

We could use this impending calamity to really supercharge our economy. We could stop stalling on the production of biogas/algae/ethanol, with which to power the unwell domestic economy, and what more for a fraction of what we pay now, giving our discretionary spend and dependant economy, the biggest fillup it had in many years!

Thorium power would allow us to save our dying manufacturing industries as well as steel and aluminum smelting/ship and sub building!

Large scale solar thermal projects, given essential economies of scale, compete very favorably with new coal fired roll outs! Even more so when the billion dollar fuel bills start to roll in!

It's not that patently self serving pollies and other Quislings can't share in the wealth created by energy projects!

It's just they ought not be coal or fossil fuel based projects!

I can't see why any attendant technical issue can't be solved thus allowing thorium reactors to power most shipping and what's more for far less than the cost of bunker fuel? Thus conferring a huge advantage for our hard pressed exporters.

The problem is the government is being run by fools with no relevant manufacturing experience. Thus we have this almost maniacal dependance on so call service industries, the very first to go in any major down turn!

And you can bet your bottom dollar, we will have many more of those, given the hopelessly flawed economic boom and bust nature of modern economics!
Rhrosty.

macentristmoderate, whether someone has anything valid to say is not determined by their attitude to socialism (or any other political or economic philosophy).

_____________________________________________________________________________

ttbn, he really did say it.
He wan not correct to use the present tense.
Had he said "coal was good for humanity" he would've been correct.

_____________________________________________________________________________

Peter Lang,

There is no doubt at all that coal was good for humanity, but our technological ability has moved on. We no longer need to rely on coal, yet we're still using vast amounts of it despite now knowing about the environmental damage it causes. Anyone who doesn't understand that coal is now bad for humanity is either ignorant, gullible, naive or an anti Green ideologue.

Posting a link to a Koch brothers funded think tank does not help your case.