Pericles,
I disagree with uranium, simply because it is too expensive and takes too long to implement.

Wind is already one of the cheapest sources of electricity in the world per kwh, the only problem is backup power. We can solve that. Uranium, when counted from mining, processing, and disposal of the deadly ores, is one of the most problematical energy sources available. Spend some time on my website under solutions, and learn about other energy sources before you go on about uranium.

But for once I agree with you… we should increase taxes on fuel if only to compensate for all the subsidies the coal and oil industry already gets in Australia! Libertarians often whine at me, “Just let the markets fix peak oil, the government should not be involved in picking winners in the energy market.”

Ahem… it already has. The fossil fuel markets receive billions in funding.

Now, as to the SPA policy… Who are you to dismiss it with such a cavalier attitude?
Can you do better than these suggestions?

3. ratifies the Program of Action arising out of the UN International Conference on Population and
Development (ICPD) held in Cairo in 1994.

10. adopts social and taxation policies (eg maternity allowances) that allow couples to provide adequately for their children but at the same time discourages them from having more than two children

11. through taxation and housing policies, ameliorates the present situation where land speculators reap excessive profits from population growth

13. ensures that the family planning component within ODA is at least 4 per cent, and that greater priority is given to other measures that reduce the birth rate, particularly primary health care and education of women

16. takes steps to reduce our national economic dependence on tourism recognising its vulnerability to rises in the world price of oil and the pollution caused by air and road travel

This list is STILL waiting for:-
1/ An apology for deliberately misquoting Wikipedia
2/ You to ENGAGE the SPA document
3/ You to concede the immigration argument
4/ You to propose your solution.

Nuclear electricity production has the same foibles as fossil fuels. Enormous initial investment, long lead times to implement, based on a depleting resource. It also creates waste that is dangerous for millennium. There are viable solutions to the waste problem, synrock etc, all are expensive. People tend to get very emotional and irrational about nukes, compared to coal it is a beacon of virtue (both environmentally and its safety record - yes including Chernobyl) but I think it is unnecessary and uneconomical.

If you look at the history of nuclear power production you quickly realise that no other energy source has required so much government subsidy, it is truly staggering, in a free market it would be an expensive failure. With Australia's low population density, sun, wind and bio-mass will be ample electricity providers.

Transport fuels, however are another question. Electric cars for commuting perhaps, some bio-diesel for heavy lifting, boating etc no easy answer there, expect huge changes to "lifesyle", and more bicycles, mopeds, scooters etc. People will adapt, they always do, we haven't had the luxury of cars for very long, some aspects of current motoring will be seen as a historical curiosity (or flagrant waste and environmental ruination) by future generations.

Carbon capture with coal may even become an option to create backup power if required, but this should not be pursed to as the main source of power production. If kept small scale, this industry may provide valuable chemical feed stocks as well. Storing CO2 underground could potentially be more dangerous than storing nuclear waste.

Perry - oh P-e-e-e-ry

Good on you for sticking to your silly guns. You are of course totally misguided but, well, I'm bored and this is an interesting debate.

Now, let's look at one of your posts in detail.

Let us return to the subject of the Nokia mobile phone, which is an example of the kind of product a "clever" country like Australia might develop instead of just making itself into a quarry and farm for the rest of the world, and letting its property developers run rampant and throw open the gates of a country they don't own (only three lifetimes ago it was entirely the property of the Aboriginals, who have owned it for 50,000 years).

When I said "we need to invest in smart industries like little Finland" you asked "Who, exactly, is the "we" in this context?"

Answer: we, the people who vote for governments and supposedly have some say in the way our country is run.

You asked: "Does it not occur to you that Nokia could have happened anywhere in the world - there's nothing particularly Finnish about mobile phones."

Well of course there isn't! The point is that if a tiny country like Finland can come up with a clever product and flog it around the world, a somewhat larger country like Australia ought to be able to do the same, i.e. make its money from inventions and good business skills rather than just revert to real estate, based on ever-increasing population, as the dominant domestic commercial activity.

Perry - oh P-e-e-e-ry (2)

You said "Nokia started as a wood-pulp company in 1865, and dabbled in many different markets (rubber, cable) before nearly disintegrating in the nineties. It received no government assistance. The fact that it had enough nous and business acumen to pick the market when it did, was down to individuals."

What is your point? Do we have no individuals in Australia.? In fact Nokia is an excellent example of a company that started off as a resource trader and then got smart. Oh, and did I at any stage say our companies should get government assistance? No, so why did you raise the subject?

You went on to say "let's try again. How do "we" create the next Nokia in Australia? You see, it is just another example of pathetically woolly thinking."

My friend, woolly thinking is what started this great nation of ours. Goodnight, and good luck

Thermo, you obviously understand neither business nor government, so it is a very long shot on my part whether you will be able to get your head around this post. But being the charitable and caring guy that I am, I'll give it a try.

>>When I said "we need to invest in smart industries like little Finland" you asked "Who, exactly, is the "we" in this context?"

Answer: we, the people who vote for governments and supposedly have some say in the way our country is run.<<

So, is it we, the voters, as individuals, who are going to invest in smart industries?

Or are you proposing that we should vote in a government that goes around investing in smart industries on our behalf?

I'll let you into a secret here. Getting hold of money from individual voters to back an business idea is quite difficult. You see, to be a "smart industry", you have to do something different, as did Nokia. Most people are more interested in shoving their cash into super funds and unit trusts that into untried, untested ideas. Been there, done that. Still doing it, in fact.

But if you mean "the government should invest in smart industries", you will have an even bigger shock awaiting you. The vast majority of voters would be extremely reluctant to vote for a government whose platform is "give us your taxes, let us invest it in risky business for you"

You see (and this is where you have to concentrate really, really hard) setting up a new industry, particularly of the "smart" variety, is actually quite risky.

The reality of the situation is that when we go to the polls, no matter who we vote for, we end up electing a politician.

Simply standing in a corner with a damp hanky, wishing the world were different is not at all a good look, Thermo. The fact is, there are hundreds of good ideas out there, and one day, one will work. But it won't be the result of you whimpering “someone ought to do something....”

And as for you eclipse, I doubt very much that >>this list is STILL waiting for...<< anything from me. They have all long ago seen through your little “pretend-he's-a-troll” games.

>>1/ An apology for deliberately misquoting Wikipedia<<

My quote was accurate. It was cut and paste, even.

>>2/ You to ENGAGE the SPA document<<

Surely, the point of such a document is to engage me, not vice-versa. Its fundamental problem is that it is based upon the assumption that everyone already agrees with its theories, so it doesn't need to make any effort to “engage me”

The part on global warming, for example, uses only data that are based on the assumption that the temperature increase that has occurred in recent years is entirely due to the rise in man-made carbon dioxide emissions. But this assumption somehow fails to explain the decrease in northern hemisphere temperatures between 1945 and 1965 of 0.2C.

So it may, or may not, be true. But it is shaky grounds to base statements like “increased temperatures, extreme weather events and less rainfall in the southern part of the Australian continent will reduce its capacity to sustain a large population..”

I find it difficult to “engage” with such flimsy material.

>>3/ You to concede the immigration argument<<

Which one? Of all the paragraphs in the SPA document, those dealing with immigration are the most confused.

“Recommendations... That the Federal Government... implements an integrated population policy that is based on environmental sustainability and encompasses immigrant intake, natural increase, biodiversity protection, aspirations of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, tourism, foreign aid, internal migration, and education”

Simple, really. Why didn't anyone think of it before.

>>4/ You to propose your solution.<<

To do that, you need to define the problem. Since I have yet to agree with any of the problem statements you have put together, it is tough for me to provide glib slogans that have even the remotest bearing on reality.

That's your job, and you do it extremely well.

Except for the reality bit, of course.