Some of the behavioural changes necessary to achieve the loony Left, Bowenesque plans - ontop of the money and the destruction of the environment, are said by Cambridge University to be:

"construction sites would have to do without CO2-intensive bricks, glass and cement ....  all flying and shipping must stop, beef and lamb are to be severely rationed, along with home cooking and heating. Car traffic (even when it’s all electric) must fall by 60 per cent."

As well, the International Energy Association says that "the world’s mining industry can’t possibly output the extra metals and materials needed", anyway.

There might be an unexpected solution to all the problems we are experiencing under a dysfunctional Albanese government: Albanese has "not ruled out a double dissolution".

Albanese has gone all pouty about the Greens refusing to support his housing Bill; but any chance to get rid of him would be welcome.

"If you really think that the environment
is less important than the economy,
try holding your breath
while you count your money."
(Guy McPherson).

"But he wouldn't be able to be mobile without the
artificial leg. So isn't that a good thing?"

Sorry Foxy...you missed the point. He only needs the artificial leg because he cut off his good leg without any purpose. Ditto, Texas only needs so-called clean sources to work because they cut off all the reliable sources of power.

Dear mhaze,

You surprise me.

I would not have thought that you'd use the old
status quo arguments promoting fossil fuels.
What a shame. It polarizes the public and then that
makes it harder to get consensus and progress.

I would have thought that you would not support any
effort to postpone or halt ambitious climate action.
I would not have thought that you would
want to protect business as usual.

Foxy, again you misunderstand.

I wasn't and don't promote fossil fuels. I was simply pointing out that carrying on as though the so-called clean sources have saved the day when all they did was replace, by legal enforcement, power sources that for a century saved the day every day, is ridiculous.

I don't support fossil fuels. And I don't oppose fossil fuels. I know that our modern society is based on cheap, reliable and expanding power. I am agnostic as to where that power comes from. If coal/oil is cheap and reliable, I support it. If wind/sun are cheap and reliable, I support them. What I don't support is government intervention to favour one proven source over another unproven source based on unproven prognostications.

"It polarizes the public and then that makes it harder to get consensus and progress."

I think you're confusing consensus and progress with agreeing with you. If ony everyone agreed with me, we'd have consensus.