ludwig, I see your point on running out of oil, but believe we can replace fossil deposit oil with oils and fuel derived from crops and fuels like coal with nuclear energy.

I suspect that many of the hysterical eco/green types are not interested in solutions to CO2 reduction that does not redistribute wealth or does not allow for suppression of lifesytle.

If they really cared, as you clearly do, about reducing CO2 emission, then nuclear energy, regardless of whatever other problems it brings to the table is zero CO2 when it is running - so therefore has to be of high consideration, but it is not and I do enjoy watching the eco/green AGW hysterics squirm and try to change the debate whenever it is mentioned.

Either it is huge problem where we bring all potential solutions to bear, or it is not - clearly it is not.

When the eco/greens give up trying to fiddle with my lifestyle and address the issue on a massive scale, instead of house by house person by person, the way they do in fora like this, we'll get somewhere.

At the moment, they just rant at people who disagree with them, because that's easy .. it also allows for personal involvement for them that is probably immensely satisfying when clustered together in their cells (like good little socialists! .. sarc/)

Ludwig, if you, & the others talking about peak oil are correct, we don't have to worry about global warming at all, as there is not enough CO2 in the oil [they say] that's left to make any difference.

From the Oz point of view, we have very large reserves in both shale oil, & gas. These may be a little more expensive, but only very little. Still both are also [probably] finite.

We are also in an outstanding position to grow our own transport liquid fuel. Not ethanol, that is a major mistake, but the recently developed bio-diesel technology, using algae grown in ponds.

Our hot, almost rainless, interior with a great supply of artisan water would generate a new major industry for the Oz inland.

Of course it would be ironic if hundreds of thousands of acres of ponds, evaporating massively, gave us local climate change. Just imagine, a green centre that could be generated would mean we could then expand out migrant intake. Funny world, isn't it.

Ludwig

I agree with your point, sustainability is not “a” major issue

It is “The” Major Issue

And it has nothing to do with AGW, climate change or the draconian consequences of Zero Carbon strategies.

it as we both know, “sustainability” has everything to do with the fundamental driver which is behind resource depletion, food scarcity, pollution, deforestation, ocean acidification and most real blights

Global Population Numbers.

But this debate was never about that.

This debate is about the real political motivation being the likes of Bob Brown and his stupid ideas to enslave Australians to the abhorrence of his “Green New World”.

It makes sense to move into alternate energy –for a whole host of reasons.
And even if it means we double or quadruple funding for R&D on solar etc I’m all for it.

BUT!

The Greens and their “Socialist Alliance” & Caldicott fellow travellers will not be sated with that—they have a much more robust appetite.Bob hasn’t mentioned in this speech, but the AGW platform to which he pays obeisance holds all developed nations accountable for the recent floods in Pakistan, the past famines in Africa, the coming mega disaster in Bangladesh --and anything else that goes wrong in between!

And AGW luminaries have aspirations that we will pick-up the tab for all of the above. And, I strongly suspect, the Greens and certainly their socialist fellow travellers would be happy to sign us up to any number of new age covenants that would have us paying through the nose for the underdeveloped worlds bedroom warm and fuzzies ,just as long it gave then the warm and fuzzies too.

Now Bob is a nice guy, talks well ,is very presentable – but just be wary if you are thinking of voting for his party---there is a lot more to the Greens than Bob Browns pretty face --- and not much of it is good!..

However all may not be not lost ,I have a feeling that after Bob retires the potpourri of luddites, new agers and Democrat refugees
( Andrew Bartlett) that make up the greens will simply fade away
(after they hack each other to death).

Stern:
"I do not believe in industry welfare or middle class welfare of any sort and minimal individual welfare, except for those born or acquiring extreme and profound congenital defects or injuries, which prohibit them from being able to support themselves.

less need for government revenue would allow personal and indirect taxes to drop back leaving money in the pockets of those who worked for it"

While this all SEEMS fair and reasonable, your usual fairly astute reasoning is actually absent here, Stern. Your taxes would not be dropping back anywhere, they'd simply be redirected to deal with the problems created by this unworkable ideology. Unless you have some solution for, say for example, the massive increase in crime as a result. Unfortunately we don't have a colony we can send them all off to, and wars have been done to death. Not to mention the hike in food prices; the need for government to take over essential services; longer and deeper recessions etc etc.

Your extreme ideology may be opposite to extreme socialism on the spectrum, but in the real world it's just as stupid and unworkable and damaging.

And I assume your wife's clinic is not medical, for then your three spas and other luxuries would probably have significantly been paid for by Medicare (if not completely), so you should probably give them back. Please tell me I'm wrong, I do actually respect you and would hate to lose that.