Dear foxy

Quote Tor Hundloe
"All the energy we ever use ends as heat and it has to go
somewhere. This is a law of physics and has nothing to do
with technology, politics, or economics."

The laws of physics actually state that the earth loses heat to space by radiation thus creating a nice balance for us between the incoming heat from the sun and the heat we lose all the time to space Unfortunately increasing levels of greenhouse gases particularly CO2 interfere with the loss of heat to space thereby increasing surface temperatures.

Adrian
"warmair, why do you call it a VST?"
Simple typing error or possibly because I am dyslexic or both.

Dear Aidan and Warmair,

I am glad that both of you take pollution seriously.

In the early 1970s - decades ago - the Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) recommended the
use of pollution taxes. Over 80 years ago one of the last
century's most eminent economists, Pigou called for the
same thing.
The irony is we have so few - and in this country the
current government appears not to believe in them.

Yet experts tell us that this is a tried and true way of
reducing and, if need be, completely curtailing adverse
environmental impacts. Taxes on pollution reduce
consumption - we're told. If high enough they curtail it. Most economists
prefer pollution taxes as the preferred means of dealing
with environmental harm.

It took the medical profession from the 1960s to the present
era to get the public and the governments we elect, to act on
the toxic, life-taking effects of tobacco. Eventually sanity
prevailed, although it took decades.

It is clearly time for economists to commence their campaign for
pollution taxes. With all their power and influence in
society and government, economists are still sitting on their
collective hands.

It is time that things changed.

Here is an interesting website on what Australia's
energy future may look like.

It's worth a read:

http://theconversation.com/what-will-australias-energy-future-look-like-16412