I had to chuckle at this one, Arjay.

>>Much of this pollution can be reduced by manufacturing goods here within Aust<<

Here's an exercise for you. You will need a sharp pencil and a calculator.

Given that, as you point out, "Shipping accounts for 90% of the world movement of goods.The world's 90,000 ships produce 260 times more sulphur dioxide than do the world's 760 million cars", could you please work out for us - roughly - how much "of this pollution can be reduced by manufacturing goods here within Aust"?

Once you have done that exercise, you might like to jot down on the back of another envelope - roughly - how much Australians would need to invest in the businesses that produce the replacement goods - i.e., the ones that we will be manufacturing here instead of importing..

That will give you a pretty neat, and quite useful equation, that you could state as "in order to reduce sulphur dioxide pollution by x%, we would need $y billion of investment".

You might then turn your mind to the problem of actually raising this amount of money, without recourse to the Banking system that you despise so much.

In the course of these exercises, if you are diligent and true, you will learn much that is useful to you, grasshopper.

Don't panic Arjay;
Globalisation is coming to an end anyway.
Already because of shipping costs manufacturing is moving out of China and back to the USA and Europe.
It will not happen in a rush but gradually for goods dependant on their cost of shipping vs value and volume.
It is caused by increasing fuel costs.
One of the drivers of fuel costs is the large increase in diesel use.
The refineries to produce more diesel then have to produce less bunker fuel and so ships are forced to purchase
a mixture of diesel and bunker oil which is a more expensive mix.
Ultimately as oil gets very much higher in price and the airlines move
out of the freight business manufacturing will become local again.
This is the basis of the localisation movement that is now gathering momentum around the world.

Chuckle all you want Pericles.Much of the pollution created by shipping we use can be reduced.I was not talking about world wide pollution created by all countries.Our pop makes up only 3% of the world's pop.If there was less needless trade,there would be far less toxic pollution.

You have lost many debates on the Global Reserve Banksters who steal money via stealth.President Woodrow Wilson of the USA lamented that he'd sold out his own country when he let the likes of Rothschilds Rockerfellers,amd Morgans own and produce the US currency.

It is the banks via the fractional reserve banking system who create inflation.Inflation dilutes the value of our currencies hence our savings and purchasing power.Banks create money in their computers.Yo cannot deny this Pericles since who creates all the money for pop increases,GDP increases,and inflation.You cannot do it since it is considered counterfeiting.The Global Reserve banks are the chief culprits.

We here in Aust should be producing all our own currency needs.Instead we borrow form OS to cover wealth and pop increases.This means we are letting the foreign banksters own our GDP and loan it back to us with interest.This is why we are in so much debt.Keating should never have sold off the Commonwealth bank since it was creating currency for its people.He in my book was a traitor.A perepetraitor of bankster theft.

My analogy is thus;it is like letting your neighbour steal from you and then loaning your hard earned money back to you at interest.

Your facist mates Pericles,have set in train the seeds of their own destruction.The really big fear is that they will take all humanity with them.

My chuckle was not about pollution, Arjay, but your blinkered and simplistic "solution".

>>Chuckle all you want Pericles.Much of the pollution created by shipping we use can be reduced<<

Of course it can.

The only teensy fly of reality in the ointment of idealism is its cost. If you care to do the simple exercise in arithmetic that I suggested, you will see this.

>>If there was less needless trade,there would be far less toxic pollution.<<

Also true.

Unfortunately, someone has to decide which part of trade is "needless". We presently allow our own people to determine this, through their demand for the specific goods that require importation. It would be interesting to see a political party selling the alternative - "your government will decide which imports are 'needless'".

And again, whatever they decide, there will be either the cost of local production to consider, or their absence from the shelves.

If you'd like to ponder how this might work - because it can, of course - take a look at Castro's post-1959 Cuba. The only remaining question would be whether you feel this is a great way to live.

>>You have lost many debates on the Global Reserve Banksters who steal money via stealth.<<

Your powers of recall must be better than mine, Arjay.

I can't remember a single one where the discussion didn't end with you baling out. But please feel free to refresh my memory.

The issue is not debatable anyway, in any real sense of people arguing a point. You have so little grasp of the mechanics of finance that you are only able to employ slogans.

As indeed, you do here.

>>We here in Aust should be producing all our own currency needs.<<

Another concept - or slogan, in fact - that cannot bear a moment's scrutiny. You wouldn't, for example, even be able to articulate what "producing all our own currency needs" actually involves.

It's no bad thing to keep asking the questions, Arjay.

But you might also benefit occasionally if you were to listen to the answers, and to try to understand them.