Squeers,

The concept of "Contraction" is great, but the question is how? While China and India (and pretty much everyone else) is in development and expansion mode, and the West forging ahead, how can any contraction of worldwide capitalist expansionism possibly be achieved? (Short of WW3 and world holocaust.)

Perhaps nuclear power is the only answer? If so, could this be what will finally bring down the human race, and a lot more besides?

On the other hand, I have always had faith that alternatives could provide the time necessary for population to be reigned in (by natural attrition), and for fossil fuel consumption to be scaled down to modest levels. My faith in alternatives has of course been challenged many times over, on the basis of cost, consumption of non-renewables to implement, scale, and capacity (especially of base-load capacity). However, the naysayers have not put any alternative forward, other than to re-iterate that population must be slashed. (The preferred method put forward for the latter being chemical neutering - albeit temporary. Even if this could be done, could it really do more than just delay the inevitable need for change?)

Oz appears to be blessed with a range of viable alternatives options, except for agreement as to what to implement and how to pay for it.

As the raison d'etre is to reduce emissions (a national issue), and as coal is the main target (a major export commodity, and hence, also a national issue), perhaps all coal mining should be under national regulation, with all relevant royalties and taxes being national, and being utilised exclusively to develop and implement alternative technologies. Note: coking coal should not be exempt from this, as it is also a major emissions producer. With coal under national regulation, the question of export trade implications could be comprehensively addressed, and within the context of alternatives planning. Naturally it would be best if a worldwide agreement could be struck on the cost and use of coal.

As a national issue, surely a national plebiscite is called for.

Saltpetre, what did we do to make you hate us?

Only someone who hates Oz could possibly consider, even for a second, giving that bunch of total incompetents in Canberra, control of anything we can keep out of their hands.

Perhaps you are a NSW league fan, & would be prepared to do, or suffer, anything to damage QLD, after 6 series losses.

What ever it is, I have never heard anything more ridiculous than giving Julia control of anything we don't want broken.

That woman, & her party could break an anvil with a feather.

Saltpetre,

sorry so slow responding. I've had no computer--and been rather busy besides.

I don't pretend to offer any solutions above. I'm just trying to get my objection out there: that in the global context "economic growth "cannot" be maintained in tandem with cuts in emissions". Similarly, emisions cannot be reduced in the context of economic growth. AGW is primarily an economic problem.
One would think that this thread (which offers the banal juxtaposition of "market based" and "direct action" approaches--both purblind in the extreme) is the perfect forum to have my submission constructively criticised, but it just doesn't compute for the protagonists.
What else can you expect from economists, politicians, minimifidianists, and even scientists. None of them are properly disinterested.
So be it.

Squeers

For what it’s worth, I don’t think it’s feasible, given our society’s dependence on economic growth, to live in an environmental and ecological sustainable way – despite the cries of 'alarmists' and shill of 'denialists'.

It’s a conundrum - politicians and economists don’t know how to deal with it because it would require a paradigm shift - a shift that most voters and the ‘market based economy’ aren’t prepared to make, yet.

I look forward to an answer to my question to, and from, the other Mark.

Thanks bonmot,
your one poster I've hoped to get a response from on this issue--which I've raised before.
It will have to be dsebated one of these days, but it seems a great deal of prevarication has to be indulged yet before people start waking up.
In the meantime, I hope to be proven wrong.

Mark/Curmudgeon

Gone awol? If not, any chance of responding?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12290#212349

.

Squeers: Yep, don't hold your breath.

Seems Curmud's gone m.i.a.