Rusty Catheter,

You need to understand cost-benefit analysis. There is no point massively damaging the economy, reducing people standard of living, reducing Australia's competitive advantage, forcing previously competitive industries to leave Australia and move elsewhere, reducing jobs and employment opportunities, reducing incomes, reducing tax income thus reducing the funds available for defence, hospitals, medical services, education, infrastructure, etc. and all this for not impact on the global climate.

Peter Lang, I don't think you can argue with someone who says that because our contribution is so "small" despite per capita being up there with the best, it should be "easy" for us to address our "share". He doesn't get basic mathematical concepts. The rest of his contribution suffers from the same inability.

Peter Lang,
You need to understand cost benefit analysis is heavily dependent on assumptions. Assumptions about costs, assumptions about usage, assumptions about the value of the benefits, and assumptions about the discount rate. It may original have been designed to make unbiased decisions, but that certainly hasn't been the result. The figure itself is almost useless without the assumptions - except of course to those who are trying to use cost benefit analysis to justify a predetermined conclusion.

You are making three very dubious assumptions:
1) That it would be massively damaging to the economy.
That's a possibility, but a remote one. Renewables are now cheaper than fossil fuels, and their cost is continuing to fall. Much more economic damage stems from our inefficient electricity market, where doing nothing is more profitable than adding capacity.

2) That the government would respond with a Hooverite agenda.
Again, it's possible that a government would behave as idiotically as you describe, cutting services in the futile hope of balancing the budget at a time when the private sector's too weak to pick up the slack. But there's no reason at all do do so - the government doesn't borrow in any currency other than the one it issues, and its value is set by the market. So we need never worry about running out of money. The government can always afford to put real resources (including workers) to good use. And if we ever do become uncompetitive, the markets will adjust our dollar's value downwards until we're competitive again. Conversely if our competitiveness increases, the markets will adjust our dollar upwards.

3) Absence of impact on the global climate.
You seem to assume our actions don't significantly influence others. But our unwillingness to do anything is giving others an excuse for inaction. We could instead exert a positive influence b demonstrating to other countries how to decarbonise economies while still maintaining strong economic growth.

Aiden I am really fed up with being told that solar and wind are cheaper than coal. They simply are not. If they were then our power prices would not keep going up?
They are both totally unreliable and unable to replace current coal and I have been puzzling to understand why idiots like you get away with saying they are a solution.
The filthy traitorous Greens want us destroyed but our equally filthy scientists make money from the lie that we actually increase CO2 when we clearly are absorbing it for China and India.
I await the coming depression which should sort out a lot of this nonsense but would also hope we find a better energy source than coal. I think Alan B is correct about nuclear but I am not sure about Thorium. Although our science community should hang their heads in shame at their corruption in all this debate.

Aidan,

"You need to understand cost benefit analysis is heavily dependent on assumptions."

Did you stop to think about the selection bias underpinning that comment? Have you considered how heavily dependent the GCM projections are on assumptions, and the enormous uncertainty in the climate modelling projections? Have you considered how much greater are the uncertainties when you take the next step to estimate the impacts of global warming?

Do you stop to consider the lack of evidence to support the premise that underpins your beliefs - i.e. the belief that global warming would be harmful, dangerous or catastrophic?

JBower, I agree with your points. Have you read:
'Nuclear power learning and deployment rates; disruption and global benefits forgone'
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/10/12/2169/htm

There is also this opinion piece which summarises the main points and refers to the parts of the paper with supporting details on each main point:
'WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN – IF NUCLEAR POWER DEPLOYMENT HAD NOT BEEN DISRUPTED'
https://www.thegwpf.com/what-could-have-been-if-nuclear-power-deployment-had-not-been-disrupted/