"It won't be a matter of being taken over by China, it will be our own mob becoming like China."

Exactly.

If you can't look after what you've got, someone else will....just not for you.

ttbn,
>The wildest goals come from Extinction Rebellion: zero emissions by 2025
That's NET zero emissions by 2025.

> To achieve this, and retain an ASSURED electricity supply, would require Australia to
> build 33 nuclear power plants each year from now on.
Firstly, those would be very small nuclear power stations. And large ones are generally better value for money, despite the ongoing attempts to make SMRs cost effective.

Secondly, building some big batteries would drastically cut the number of nuclear power stations required.

Thirdly, nuclear power is an expensive option and there's really no need for it here. We can achieve better results much more quickly and cheaply with renewables. There would need to be an overbuild but that's not a bad thing, as it could become the basis for a hydrogen industry.

Do you see the problem with the way you're thinking? You're overstating the constraints and assuming there's only a single solution available. In reality there are many, and nearly all of them are much cheaper and more practical than yours.

_______________________________________________________________________________

runner, why are you so eager to kill the messenger?

'runner, why are you so eager to kill the messenger?'

actually Aiden I think Trump is an absolute champion in dealing with the gw religion. Why are you eager to kill the messenger?

What the hell does 'zero net emissions' mean anyway?
Seems to me the only way to achieve that is if we're all dead.

I'd be willing to take more of a 'plan for the worst, hope for the best' approach to the entire matter if I didn't think their claims were overstated.

When I really think about it, there's a kind of metaphor I could apply to the way I feel about the whole climate debate.

Think of when you start to lose control of a motor vehicle if it slides out.
If you back off, you'll lose control completely.
What you need to do is power out of it.

In a way that's the way I feel about all this climate stuff.
The current approach is to cut back on emissions, or back off;
which has the inevitable result of destroying the economy and we'll never be able to afford moving to the better greener technology.

We need to power out of it.
That means not destroy the economy over token gestures that will never be enough anyway if we entertain the alarmists claims.
Power up the economy at the expense of the climate crap;
in order that we can move to greener technology sooner.

Greta Thunberg says "Richer countries such as Canada and Sweden need to get down to zero emissions much faster so people in poorer countries can heighten their standard of living by building the infrastructure we have already built".

What shes saying is we have suffer so the third world can build up.
What she's promoting is wealth redistribution and destruction of sovereignty under global treaties.

Who rules us?
Who decides what's best for us?

Australians or the UN?
So they run a clever marketing campaign to brainwash, peer-pressure, coerce, threaten and guilt-trip and hold 'us' ransom by XR so our views are aligned with theirs?
That's not really 'us' deciding anything.
That's being 'imposed' upon.

There is a petition on the Parliamentary website calling for Australia to leave the Paris Climate Agreement.

aph.gov.au/petition_list?id=EN116.

The Minister for Energy and Emissions is Angus Taylor:
angus.taylor.mp@aph.gov.au