I prefer the interests of Christian Zionists who concentrate on keeping Israel intact against a US realignment facilitating Iranian nuclear weapons pointing back at Israel.

Now the most disconnected part of this toxic miss-think, is the half of resident Israelis who are in support of their own destruction.

To my way of thinking, this article well points out dangerous disconnected thinking that gains its legitimacy from a position of fear, and its inability to confront this fear without introducing panic as solution.

And finally, it well highlights who pay the painful cost of the knee-jerk reactionaries policies: always the poor and those least able to resist the dire outcomes on society.

It beggars belief hat these types have captured the power base of Politics, and used that capture to drive their mad antisocial agendas, in this case, in the name of God.

God damn them and quickly!

Dan

What happened to separation of church and state? How would these naìve clerics feel if Albanese wrote them an open letter telling them what they should be doing? Albanese, a 'non-practising Catholic' - so not particularly interested in religion - won't be taking any notice anyway.

Without fossil fuels and the income, jobs and defence that they provide, these pompous idiots might find themselves having to provide the actual Christian charity that their political activism has pushed aside: there won't be any government money to do it.

Poor churchmen. In Australia, few care any more, what they think about women, gay and trans, same sex marriage, abortion, assisted dying.

What to do? Via a selfless process of solitary introspection and painful moral soul searching, why not climb on to the biggest bandwagon of the 21st century? Yep, you guessed it, United Nations "Net Zero".

Well, they are entitled to a view, if we would have Net Zero and without tanking the economy/destroying our manufacturing capacity, the only solution with a snowflakes chance in hell of fulfilling those parameters, is nuclear.

Not just any nuclear and not fueled by uranium but by four times more abundant thorium in MSR technology. Thorium is the most energy dense material on the planet, almost everyone has some.

Just 8 grams of thorium contains enough recoverable energy to power your house and car for a century. The cost of mining/refining those 8 grams of metal, around $100.00. That my friend is just $1.00 a year.

Whereas a conventional solid fueled nuclear reactor needs tons of uranium over a thirty-year operational lifetime, creating tons and tons of nuclear waste.

MSR thorium will only needs a few kilos and create grams of far less toxic waste, Waste that's eminently suitable as long-life space batteries.

Thorium delivers everything fusion promised but never delivered, may never will? Thorium is so abundant that we can never run out of it, will never ever need to transition to anything else. It is carbon-free and cheapest form of energy we can ever transition to. Moreover, it is 24/7 reliable.

When Alvin Wineberg the first nuclear reactor and held the patent. It was the only one in the world! Nobody then asked, if it's so good why doesn't everyone have one.

When the wright brothers flew the first plane, the usual detractors said, if man were meant to fly, they'd be born with wings. None of whom would have would have imagined a giant 747 taking off almost vertically, jets routinely doing Mach three or better.

Vested interests/the naysayers (same animal) will always come out with self-serving detractions and reasons we shouldn't have or do!

MSR thorium carbon-free power is so cheap to produce it can be retailed by private interest, very profitably or as little as 3 cents PKWH.

We should mass produce them here for export/the domestic market. Particularly now that all the remaining bugs, corrosion/tritium have been ironed out/sorted!
Alan B.

Hi Graham,

You obviously feel very strongly on this subject. However,
I beg to differ. You say the church leaders are not experts
on this subject. Most of us aren't on many subjects - but we
all have our views nevertheless. You suggest that they should
stay away and stick with moral issues. Perhaps to the church
leaders - they do see climate change as a moral issue and they
are resolved to consider ways to reduce their own contributions
to climate change?

"We seek the flourishing of this whole of God's creation and
all of its creatures. We act to renew the Earth from the damage
done and stand in solidarity with people most impacted by
human-induced climate change. Governments, churches, businesses
and the wider community work together for a sustainable future."

Sounds like a plan with a moral vision to me!

Unfortunately a bit of LNP 'back in your kennel' stuff from the author.

Church leaders have been rightly speaking out about issues like this for a hell of a long time. An example:

"Christian leaders call for Morrison to reverse planned foreign aid cuts"
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/christian-leaders-call-for-morrison-to-reverse-planned-foreign-aid-cuts/c185u0df0

The threat to these poorer nations from climate change is real and of deep concern particularly to many island nations in the Pacific. Recognising and acting on this is a moral duty in most non-partisan people's eyes.

So to be telling Church leaders to butt out because "Without a proper understanding of the practicalities, there is no way to make moral pronouncements." is just inane.

Look, the LNP has form on this threatening the funding of groups who spoke out about them in government. Not having that power now sees articles like this trying to make the case on incredibly spurious moral grounds.

Read it for what it is.