Amononite and Ludwig,

. . . stop arguing and DO something. We ARE polluting our environment, we ARE going to run out of oil and minerals - one doesn't need to be a scientist to figure that. And transitioning to sustainable technology will take COOPERATION between government, private business, universities and the average citizen - all of which is a paradigm shift that extreme capitalists and communists find near impossible to make."

Australia is perfectly located to allow for 100% energy from renewables. On-shore and off-shore wind farms, photovoltaic power plants, wave energy, geothermal, biomass, biogas, you name them. Even in Canada, a 100 MW photovoltaic power plant was bult last year. (The technology allowing for up 1 GW is being now evaluated.) They might be a little bit dearer than a void in the ground and smokey stacks. However, transition to renewables would generate, economic growth, high-tec jobs, as well regional development.

Nuclear energy is still unsafe, never be and has now ALTERNATIVES. Germans will phase it out and replace by renewables. Moreover, there is a stronger evidence between movement of tectonic plates and inevitable climate change.

Nothing else justifies our inaction and inertia than the energy sector greed and the government and media corruption. Maintaining status quo will not help our country. We need bottom up initiatives.

I agree entirely Rob Canoe. Thank you again for your substantial contribution with this post.

And hi Kerryanne. Who's tony from tony's research?. Some truth I guess, and the Hawke one seems very plausible to me. The media barons are a worrying constant.

*Nothing else justifies our inaction and inertia than the energy sector greed and the government and media corruption.*

Ah Rob, there ya go, blaming everyone but yourself. Its a human
foible. People are of course free to install solar powered hot
water systems, solar cells on their roof, increase their insulation
etc. You too can do it tomorrow, if you think it matters.

Energy companies are not greedy, simply realistic. If you want
alternate systems of power, it will cost an arm and a leg. You
the consumer, would be the first to complain if your power bill went
up 5 fold to pay for it all.

Thinker 2 et al would of course be screaming for a pay rise, to
pay for their extra power charges. Companies would need to pass
on those extra costs, inflation would set in. Its one big circle in
the end.

Meantimes reality rules. Even if all Australians dropped dead tomorrow
and used no more electicity at all, globally it would hardly make
a scrap of difference. For of course 90 days later, the world would
have an extra 20 million people to feed from population growth
alone

Yabby,

Your view surprises me again. You only consider the short term economic bottom line of the energy sector. I write about sustainability, triple bottom line and intergenerational equity. Otherwise, we do not have a chance to survive on this planet as a species by the end of this century.

Even with the free market and economic bottom line, it is not so simple. Well-known economists admit that they have been inundated by data which are inconclusive. There are many examples that protectionism, tariffs and taxes can actually generate growth. In this context, I write about the renewables.

Chicago School of Economics (Milton Friedman, etc.) and their free market / shock doctrine has caused so much harm worldwide. It is taken 30 years of interventions of the Chilean government to stabilise the economy there. Also, Putin in Russia had to intervene following 'Chicago boys' free market doctrine 15 years ago. Wall Street or Greece bailout and giving money the banks are a joke.

However, the issue is that we have to get out of the box rather than maintaining current status quo with climate change issues and renewables. If the government does not show enough leadership. We need bottom up initiatives.Household solar panels you suggest, are a drop in the ocean.

@ Rob Canoe:

One thing I've noticed about the self-appointed economic pundits at this site, is that very few of them are interested in sustainability beyond the next decade or so.

Good luck, and welcome.

*Otherwise, we do not have a chance to survive on this planet as a species by the end of this century.*

Well Rob, then you need to address the elephant in the room, which
remains population. I saw a great documentary yesterday on the
history of crude oil. 100 years ago there were around 1.5 billion
on the planet. Crude changed everything. Suddenly now we are
heading for 9 billion. Hardly sustainable. I have been on about
this for the last 30 years, which Morgan conveniently ignores.
He seemingly thinks that slugging dairy farmers a fortune for
their electricity, while fatcat public servants don't get slugged
the same, is going to save the world. I have news for him.

Everything today is based on cheap crude. The crunch will come
when the crude becomes expensive for everyone, not just some.

Meantime 70% of Australians don't even bother with a solar water
heater, which I've had for around 30 years now. Don't blame
corporations if people who could do something tomorrow, really
don't care to do it.

Australia spends 4 billion, shortly rising to 8 billion on foreign
aid. None of it goes to family planning in the third world. So
we keep adding a quarter a million people a DAY to the global
population. Frankly Rob, whatever you do, or Austrlia does,
with those kinds of elephants in the room, is little but a feelgood
measure to let you sleep better, its not going to change anything.

I am a realist, that is all.