The Forum > Article Comments > Coal has a role yet in keeping economies as healthy as possible > Comments
Coal has a role yet in keeping economies as healthy as possible : Comments
By Gary Johns, published 24/2/2017A developing country could spend its money trying to abate carbon dioxide emissions or it could invest in enough resources to adapt to climate change successfully.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- Page 3
- 4
- 5
-
- All
"Coal is the only reliable, cheap, baseline option for electricity generation in Australia for the foreseeable future."
If that's all you can foresee then you're very shortsighted!
"It's also a great job generator and export earner."
...and health wrecker.
You misunderstand my position completely. I'd actually like electricity to be cheaper. We're already close to (indeed I believe we've already reached) the stage where it's only the funding inefficiencies which make renewables a more expensive power source, and technology is still pushing the cost down further. Meanwhile the overall effect of the RET is unclear - the NEM is so inefficient that the RET is known to drive costs down, but AFAIK there's no definitive answer on how that benefit compares to the cost of the RET itself.
If you think I regard wage owners as slaves, your comprehension level's even worse than Jardine's! What I'm not sure of, though, is whether it's my position or reality you fail to comprehend. If you think all duty is slavery, it's the latter.
It is simply a statement of fact that when someone has paid tax, they no longer own the money they have paid; the government does. Conversely, the taxpayers are not liable for the government's debts; the government is. The government is accountable to the people (indeed it should be more accountable than it is) but legally it is a separate entity. And (although I doubt anyone who self identifies as a "pure socialist" would regard me as one) like most socialists I want the government to be in a symbiotic relationship with the people, and I don't want the government to waste its money.