Julatron's link to the german solar industry is informative but not for the reasons he thinks. The costings on the household solar systems readily explain why there might be some jobs involved but don't, for a moment, think it has anything to do with David Latimers free market.

These household solar systems get a guaranteed price of 53 Eurocents per Kwt hour which, at current exchange rates of 0.60Euro to A1$, is 83 cents/Kwt compared to 8.3 cents/Kwt for off-peak on my last bill. That is ten times the price of coal powered electricity.

I use 1900Kwt each quarter which would put my bill at $1577 or $6300 each year. And you people have the gall to talk about subsidised coal and free markets delivering lower prices. The German solar industry is nothing more than a sexier form of subsidised welfare. They just use silicon cows.

Perseus

Julatrons link is indeed interesting because it leads to others that show that the renewables employment figures vis a vis coal are distorted by the fact that Germany now imports most of its coal from third party countries.

Julatrons silly comments about the Fraser Institute are put in context by David Latimers view on free markets,which many would share.

But back to main theme, I notice that no one has answered anti greens highly relevant questions earlier in the piece

I find it laughable when people talk about subsidies to the renewables industry, and compare the cost of renewables to coal. If subsidies really concern you, check out this short paper summarising the subsidies to the fossil fuel industry, estimated at $6.5 BILLION each year: http://www.sustainabilitycentre.com.au/Subsidies.pdf
The day renewables see anything like this sort of investment and support from the Government, don't be surprised to see pigs taking to the skies - and the cost of renewables plummeting. Wind power is already competitive with coal in progressive countries that have actively supported its development.
But to think that supporting growth in renewables means a lifelong relationship to the purse strings (such as the fossil fuels enjoy), is mistaken. The German solar feed-in rebate that you refer to is reduced by 5% each year – so that as costs decrease with R&D, the market will eventually become self-sufficient. And contrary to Perseus’ alarmist claims, it has increased power costs to householders by an insignificant amount: 12 euros per household in 2003. (See http://www.epia.org/documents/SG3.pdf) It is very much a tool of market forces, and has been staggeringly successful. Germany, with a solar resource only half as good as Australia’s, is leading the world in installation of solar energy systems. What a shame our Government refuses to take up the opportunities for similar growth in such a fast-growing export industry.
Again to Perseus, who apparently can’t imagine how reducing electricity usage might save money, I direct you to this report http://theclimategroup.org/assets/Carbon_Down_Profit_Up.pdf which documents the hundreds of millions of dollars being saved by some of the world’s largest corporations, cities, regions and countries, as a direct result of substantial emissions reductions.
You sceptics are not just up against greenies and the global community of top scientists. You are completely out of the loop on what is becoming standard good business practice in leading corporations and governments worldwide.
As I pointed out before, we have nothing to fear from making these changes and so much gain: new industries, new jobs, export growth, increased profits.
And yes, this message was brought to you by a greenie.

Julowi, which part of "83 cents/Kwt" do you not understand? You keep showing links to what are essentially marketing brochures for the solar industry. Have you noticed that your source material on employment numbers only deals in round 10,000's, not 9,855 or some other number that would indicate that an actual tally has taken place. This is the best indicator of all that the writer simply plucked numbers out of his backside.

But it looks plausible to the gullible, and that is all propaganda ever seeks to achieve. And that is why we call it Gullible Warming.

I am providing links to publications which document what has actually happened (as oppposed to your personal speculations and miscalculations). The figures can all be independently verified, but given your determination to dismiss any evidence that challenges your view, bothering to do so would be a waste of time.
While sceptics absorb themselves in endless attempts to undermine the arguments that are leading to real change, the rest of the world is facing up to the realities of climate change and the opportunities it brings. What are you offering in return?

It would be interesting to know how Perseus can justify such a mind blowingly paradoxical (hypocritical?) love of free markets and in the same paragraph have a problem with a proposed level playing field between solar and coal industries. Such is the garbage spouted by the conservative, IPA types who can somehow manage to convince themselves that a unregulated market will somehow reduce the over-consumption, waste and inefficiency that is at the root of much of these problems.
The non-existent technological fix is constantly worshipped by the right as a solution to all of our problems, yet the most technologically equipped/advanced countries are actually the most wasteful, resource hungry CO2 emitters of all.

Thankfully, for all the obfuscation and flawed arguments for doing nothing coming out of the right, the public at large can see through the empty rhetoric, bamboozling junk-science and vested interests. The right constantly fail to to provide a non-hysterical, plausible 'hidden agenda' or motive that 'greenies' have behind their concern for seeing emissions reduced. Pathetic insults akin to 'putting us back in caves' just shows how marginalised and out-of-touch they are.

Julowi, bennie etc - save your breath, reason and logic dont work on these guys.