Alan,
You said;
However, the outcome of the “modelling” is that moving from 10 per
cent to 15 per cent renewable energy would bring the “efficient cost
for average households (at) approximately 30 cents each week”.

If that is all it costs what is the fuss about? Based on these
calculations could we not have 100 per cent renewables for an
additional $6 a week and go beyond the widest ambit of the state-financed green groups?
Unquote:
What renewables are there that are available 24 hours a day 365 days
a year ?
I venture to say none. Wind and solar or similar sources can only
reach something in the order of 10 to 20 percent of the total power
requirement before they cause instability in the whole system.
As well you need to keep base load stations operating at reduced
effiency just in case the wind drops or clouds come over.

I believe loading the global warning bandwagon with pollies will do
us all big disfavour. We need a proper engineering study to be done
not knee jerk proposals by hyped up greenies and pollies looking
at the next election.
Even the oft mooted pump it up to a dam and then let it run down at
night falls over on the inefficiencies, conversion losses etc.
Anyway, first catch your water and get the dam past the greenies.

"Perhaps - and this brings us back to the WHIRLYGIG - we can replace the lost employment with jobs in economic consultancies."

A nice whimsical conclusion. Do I detect a self-effacing note here Alan? If so - good on you.

I suspect that we are bound to re-discover the lost joys of muscle power, given that this requires food and water as necessary inputs. There aren't too many lifeboats stocked with the requisite amounts of free lunches.

If Titanic had been staffed with "lifeboat consultants", things may have turned out differently. The best seats on the safest lifeboats would have been occupied by consultants of course (always look after your own first).

But then they would have been beset by the need for seamen and navigators to chart the long course home to safety.

- and one suspects that here is the paradigm for the present day -

- how many toilers does it take to support one consultant?

There are two points to be noted about this current fascination on global warming gases:

1. China has announced that it will not be reducing its emissions, as it wants to industrialise. That means that the whole idea is a furphy, as others will not penalise themselves for no benefit.

Note that if China were to have the same living standard as the United States, they would require 400 million barrels of oil per day, and that current (maximised) world production is 88 mbpd.

2. I believe that the real reason that all western politicians are keen to impose green taxes is that they want to impose more consumption taxes, so that they can reduce income taxes.

A couple of good points on China. It is an environmental basketcase and while various green activists might rant on about Australia and how they have not signed Kyoto, most have never visited China and seen firsthand the growth and pollution there. The bottom-line is that we could all go and live in mud huts, ride bicycles and close down Qantas and it would not make one iota of difference as long as China continues to grow and pollute like it does. 21m people versus 1b+ wanting to get to a western standard of living...an 8 yo could work out where the focus should be. China will even overtake the US as a polluter in the next 2-3 years. Here is the catch though, the Chinese people deserve to have the same standard as living as western countries, so how do we enourage China to grow in a more environmentally friendly way? I've yet to hear a green come up with a realistic answer to that and yet that is the real question we should be focused on.

Matt,

Your right about China - they need to get on board.

The only problem is, they didn't put the carbon that is already in the atmostphere, the West did.

We were the first ones to industrialise through pollution so it only makes sense we should be the first ones to clean it up.

Besides, it's a once in a life time opportunity. First we sell them the dirty coal, then the technology to clean it up and produce clean energy.

"The bottom-line is that we could all go and live in mud huts, ride bicycles and close down Qantas and it would not make one iota of difference as long as China continues to grow and pollute like it does. "matt@righthinker.com"

Absolutely RIGHT Matt (and Alan), and thats why i've applied the same thinking to my job. Theres no point me stopping my muggings of starving war widows (a rapidly growing demographic, praise Howard) when theres loads of other Centrelink-breached illiterates out there who wont stop their muggings. So thanks for the RightThink rationalisation, crime has never been so guilt free.