Graham: Good luck with winning an argument with a willfully blind idealogue like ChristineMac, whoever he is! Nothing that grows or is made, is not made, without an energy quotient.

Plants absorb raw energy straight from the sun, the rest by the absorption of water/minerals from the soil they stand in. We humans do something similar, by absorbing/converting food material from plants/animals into the sugars proteins etc. that we convert internally into energy or human tissue, as we add to our volume/energy.

Einstein's, Unified field of energy, contemplates an entire universe and all in it including us, you/I All else as just various collections of positive negative or neutral energy. everything.

Every time humanity has come up with a new source of energy, many slaves were liberated from bondage. With the advent of steam, we made carbon our slave instead of our fellow humans.

Now some of that trend seems to be reversing as some of us are so wedded to profits they turn a willfully blind eye to the harm we do with our choice of energy.

To the point of, instead of liberating the "slave class" we are once again forcing them into bondage as cogs in a mindless machine, designed only to transfer wealth from those among us with the least. To those among us with the most.

As for growing the gross national product?

Just add endlessly reliable, Cheap safe clean carbon-free nuclear energy and with it, endlessly reliable water. Couple that particular energy-related paradigm to cooperative capitalism, watch as our economy heats up, goes into overdrive.

That makes the Chinese Economic miracle just a pale shadow in comparison to what, free market, private enterprise capitalism is actually capable of! If rolled out as almost replicating the first model of cooperative capitalism as presided over by progressive conservatives,

The like of who abolished slavery/child labour, just to name a couple of what we were capable of when we really did adhere to the golden rule of ethical Christianity! None of us, poorer for it!
Alan B.

The reference to Rome is appropriate.
Romans, once the most powerful people in the world, began 'living the good life'.
We are, or clearly have begun that same journey.
SSM is just one such example.
Roman men engaging in sex with other men AND small boys.
So sodomy and pedophilia were the norm back then, and look where they ended up.
Allowing the 'nut jobs' to run the asylum, may be politically expedient, but it is most definitely wrong.
This is what has been happening in Australia for decades.
Politicians giving in to stupid people and their stupid selfish, self serving demands.
I expect mature, level headed men with common sense and the ability to reason.
If these factors were in play over the years, we would not have seen the stupid laws we have and the changes to the constitution.
Why do we have parents, that deny their children frivolities such as candy, going out at night, and demand they are respected?
Instead of realising it is in the interest of them ALL if they do as their parents say.
It's so obvious, it would be laughable if not for the fact so many girls have died at the hands of 'baddies', that would still be alive today had the system not given children the right to 'think'?
Discipline has been discarded by such vial things as PC, and virtue signalling.
The latter of these you can shove up your a&$#.
All virtue signalling does is give the signaler the false feeling of thinking they are siding with someone they don't have the courage to disagree with openly and publicly.
In other words those who practice virtue signalling are not only lying to themselves but everyone else as well.
So the mainstream SSM YES voters were not actually in favour of voting Yes, but felt obligated by a lack of courage and a fear of alienating their peers, who also did not know the 'true' mindset of their friends.
Given that Australian politicians are just scum who derive from the people, what does this say about the Australian people?

The shortcomings of GDP are exaggerated by its detractors.

GDP is a measure of economic activity. If it rises after a natural disaster, it means there is more economic activity following the disaster. That is of course a plausible scenario - people must be paid to clean and fix things. But if there was not so much economic activity before the disaster, it's indicative of economic mismanagement.

A long slow disaster like the climate getting worse will not increase GDP at all. Money will be spent, but it's money that could be put to better use. Ultimately productivity will suffer.

Imagine Adian, how much more economic activity the would be if we emulate mother nature herself and just recycle everything. And I do mean everything

. All that prevents just that! Is a source of reliable dispatchable power. That's not chained to the variables and vagaries of wind and sunlight.

And there on demand day or night at the flick of a switch. Moreover, never dependant on rainfall numbers to fill and overflow dams. It sort of narrows the field quite dramatically doesn't it? Even more so if the business case and basic economics demand that it also has to be both affordable and earn a return that enables it to be self-sustaining and profitable.

Perhaps even as China and similar developing economies experience a continuing 30% wages inflation, renewables will continue to get cheaper?

Perhaps with some real abracadabra magic, say?

Failing that what is the only remaining alternative and one we will never ever run out of?

And to qualify, it has to be on demand and 24/7!

You are a very clever chap, and have access to links some of us can't find or have never ever heard of? So put your thinking cap on and see what else you can find that we could deploy inside the next seven years.

Perhaps we could line the entire equator with solar panels in the knowledge that part of the equator will always be in full sunlight then transmit the power we'd create through marine cables then charge the end user, say 2cents per KwH

. And if you can't do that then you and your every like-minded renewable enthusiast can dig deep into their own pockets ALONE, to provide a subsidy that will make it so!

Pity though, if you can no longer afford food clothing and housing or medicine, at least the solution would be both green and pure?

And no, I'm not the one being completely ridiculous, that my friend is your particular forte.
Alan B.

"like the measurement used in Bhutan - Gross National Happiness"

OTOH since:

"Bhutan is becoming a destination for sex tourism for people from the West and India ."

maybe it should be renamed the Bhutan Gross National Happy-ending index.

Ah yes, Mhaze. Gross national happiness. there is nothing finer for putting the food on the table and a roof over the head. Educating the ignorant and healing the sick and or dying.

And as thousands of homeless underfed folk wander aimlessly through the night looking for a tourist to root for a few cents more or a rubbish bin to raid for some tasty titbits, or yesterday's news to pack inside their meagre rags so as to try and stay warm.

They can all break out into song with tha well-known classic, Don't worry, be happy. Or the other ones, smile though your heart is aching, even though it's breaking. Or, all you need is love. Or, livin on sunshine.

Now if only we could teach the world to sing and adopt a happiness index instead of fundamental economic well being, we could possibly drive humanity all the way back to the stone age and cave dwelling!? Such practical people aren't they, the tree-hugging greens?

I mean, only the most impractical dreamers on the planet could dream up stuff like that or suggest that all we need do to feed the world is print mountains of money and grow the national debt by a trillion or so a year to (feed the poor or) grow the real economy.

Maybe they're on to something? I mean that approach seems to be working for D Trump and the ultra-right-wing conservatives?
Alan B.