Thanks Foxy for the reply.
As I said I don't believe you can call co2 a pollutant.
Without it plants die. We breath it out. Glasshouses buy co2 bottles
to increase the co2 level.
You said;and if pollution and resource depletion
continues at an increasing rate

Well it won't, as we can already see, nearly all developed countries
have falling fuel consumption.
As prices increase consumption will fall.

The US oil consumption has fallen from approx 22 million barrels a day
to about 18 million barrels a day.
Coal also is costing more to mine.
It is these costs that will reduce world emissions of co2.

Your points are supported by a presumption of growth increasing to
pre 2007 levels. It will not happen because it just cannot.
There is not enough cheap fuels to do it.

Paul,

This credit card was given 6 years ago with zero debt and a positive balance to this fellow we will call Whine. After 6 years of incompetence, Whine is fired but not only leaves the credit card maxed out, but bought a pile of crap that still has to be paid for. Joe who new gets the credit card has to raise the limit to avoid bills not being paid, and losing the credit rating, and needs to return the crap that Whine bought.

Joe considered the debt ceiling a limit, Whine considered it a target.

Eleventy Joe "now" says "The credit rating is what matters".

Which is code for "bugger the debt - that was only our angle to garner votes from the nongs".

SM, you're a scream! We've had an AAA rating under Labor's fiscal management - something which you always ignored when screaming about debt.

Now you say "Joe who new gets the credit card has to raise the limit to avoid bills not being paid, and losing the credit rating..."

Tell me why Eleventy had to max it out to $500 billion, when $400 billion would have sufficed for a party planning on tightening the belt?

........

Here's Tone's latest"

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/news/2013/10/24/politics/pms-dept-grow-part-reform

"Prime Minister Tony Abbott's own department will more than quadruple in size by December 31 under a plan that comes alongside the Abbott government's plan to cut some 12,000 public service jobs over the coming two years, according to The Australian Financial Review.

The newspaper reported that the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet will grow from 552 staffers as of August 31 to about 2,250 staff by the end of the year as part of a plan to see the department take on expanded duties."

Yep - belt tightening is only for the plebs.

"Tell me why Eleventy had to max it out to $500 billion, when $400 billion would have sufficed for a party planning on tightening the belt?" Poirot what's a $100 billion between friends, besides Julie might have to pop out during a cabinet meeting to pick a packet of Iced Vo Vo's for the men's arvo tea. That's her job isn't it? Gotta have something in the petty cash, lots of wedding, bicycle races, holidays in the Bahamas etc on the horizon for Libs and Nats to attend. Someone has to pay, who do you suggest pays for that kind of important government business, Tony!

Maybe if we can rise for a time above the petty political point scoring.

While successive Secretaries of PM&C have spoken about the need for a 'whole of government approach' and 'being the preferred source of advice to government' (as do their counterparts in the UK), what the PM&C mandarins really mean is PM&C giving that advice, and PM&C being chockers with Senior Executive Service executive managers to do it. All of that jacks up the prestige and remuneration of the Secretary of the PM&C. However it isn't about the pay, it is the power and there is jockeying to do with the mandarins of Finance et al.

The tone was set at the top by Gough Whitlam who didn't trust the public service and trusted his ministers even less (more so because they were not as imbued with his 'mission' as he saw it). Gough was a benevolent dictator. Other centralist and statist PMs who followed him have done the same. The present PM is not a statist, one would imagine. Or is he, with a different slant? He is a centralist from what I can see so far. The rhetoric is opposite.

Since Whitlam made it so and he was a dominating figure, particularly after William McMahon, there has been far too much attention and decision-making focussed on the PM and Executive. It is anti-democratic, excluding the participation of ministers outside of the small circle of annointed ones. Backbenchers become marionettes, there to put the hand up (and nod as the women do, why?) when ordered by the party Whip.

Parrot,

The coalition under Howard were the ones that got the AAA credit rating for the first time, and that Labor under Juliar and Whine were warned by both S&P and Fitch that they were in danger of losing their credit rating because of their unrestrained spending and failure to meet their promised surplus. So Labor is in no position whatsoever to lecture the coalition.

A loss of credit rating would mean that the interest on Labor's debt would rise from the $8bn p.a. it is now.

As for the office of the PM increasing, you are being dishonest again. The article you linked explained why the staffing was increasing, and it was because of the additional responsibilities that were moving from social services (aboriginal) to the PM's office, and the associated staff were moving too. This is standard shuffling with the public sector, not Abbott adding handservants and tea boys.