all good, if you want to use word socialism to describe a liberal democracy's behaviour, go for it.

Dear Chris Lewis,

Now you are being churlish.

Liberal democracy is a framework only, one that can certainly encompass a socialistic ideology. Some liberal democracies do not but many do.

For instance Costa Rica has kept 80% of its banking sector in public hands. The the third largest bank is wholly own by Costa Ricaian workers.

“Banco Popular was established in 1969 by the Costa Rican government to promote economic development. The bank emerged from a tradition of solidarity, and continues to reflect that today. Its mission is to serve the social and sustainable welfare of Costa Ricans.

BPDC is a distinctive, public-like cooperative bank that is worker-owned and controlled. Any worker holding a savings account for over a year has the right to share ownership in it. It combines commercial and developmental functions with clients that include workers, peasants, micro-, small- and medium-sized enterprises, as well as communal, cooperative, and municipal development associations.”
http://theconversation.com/costa-ricas-banco-popular-shows-how-banks-can-be-democratic-green-and-financially-sustainable-82401

This country has obvious socialistic aspects to its culture and its politics. It is an exemplar in striving for environmental sustainability and have enshrined it in their constitution. Those socialist values are part of its success. For you to ignore them in any decent exploration of what the global environment will look like in 2050 would be doing the task a disservice.

From my point of view and following the experience of the last half century, the best policy that we can adopt to obtain a better environment both here and throughout the world is to get the government the hell outta the way.

Things are moving in the right direction as is and government intervention is almost guaranteed to make things worse or less good.

Let the market resolve the renewable issues. Let economic growth resolve the population issue. Let technological advancements allow us to do more with less in agriculture and manufacturing.

Chris, from

Jack Houghton

The world shuns old energy in pursuit of clean alternatives, a very toxic problem has been building in the background. During construction of solar panels the soft, silver, and highly ductile metal cadmium is compressed between sheets of glass – vital to how sunlight is converted into electricity so that environmental leaders like Zali Steggall can charge their hypothetical electric cars.

It is a process that many – consider to replacing coal.

The issue is cadmium is carcinogenic and considered roughly ten times more hazardous than the lead which sits next to it in a typical photovoltaic panel.

Panels which are shattered in storms break into fragments and the silver metal which once created energy is transformed into a dangerous health hazard.

Like the 16,000 destroyed by hurricane Irma in the Virgin Islands in 2017.
These panels last about two decades. After that becomes useless hunks of toxic waste which will collectively weigh 1500 kilotonnes by 2050 in Australia alone.

That figure is roughly 300 times what a nuclear power plant would have created to produce the same energy.

But surely those seeking to radically reform Australia’s energy grid through a Green New Deal must have considered this ecological crisis?

Well, no, according to authors of a study released last year titled “Drivers, barriers and enablers to end-of-life management of solar photovoltaic and battery energy storage systems: A systematic literature review”.

As the study provided a meta-analysis of 191 research papers into solar panel waste management. Its findings were damning.

“PV panel and BESS contain hazardous materials such as lead, lithium, tin and cadmium which can harm the environment and human health.

“Exposure to these technologies will cause various negative health effects.

“For example, cadmium is associated with its impact on lung, kidney and bone damages once absorbed into the body whilst exposure to lead will cause damages to nervous system.”

The authors even suggest that the technology should not really be classified as renewable because the issues with waste and the fact many rare minerals cannot be salvaged, and must be mined again.

Cont

The current linear take-make-consume-dispose economic system practised within PV systems will inevitably undermine renewable status of this technology without an effective end of life strategy,” they said.

Questions were also raised about the true CO2 impact of solar panels considering the role mining plays in their formation.

These issues don’t mean solar won’t form a crucial part of Australia’s energy grid.

What they do mean – however – is we must be far more reasoned and cautious before rapidly seeking to switch 81 per cent of our energy grid from fossil fuel sources to emerging technologies.

What is dramatically unhelpful is failed politicians such as Malcolm Turnbull using the tragedy of bushfires to attempt to speed up this process before adequate solutions are found.

“Have we now reached the point where at last our response to global warming will be driven by engineering and economics rather than ideology and idiocy,” he wrote in the Guardian last week.

“Our priority this decade should be our own green new deal in which we generate, as soon as possible, all of our electricity from zero emission sources.

“If we do, Australia will become a leader in the fight against global warming. And we can do it.”

This process should not be rushed and leaders in the Coalition must resist calls to do so – especially by those who wish to re-write history as environmental saviours.

There are quite incredible solutions to climate change being discussed in academic circles and according to all the science this writer has read – the climate catastrophe is still a long way away.

And there are far bigger fish to fry over in China before we should be despairing about our tiny geo-centric emissions tally.

Let’s pause and reflect before we poison the next generation with the very technology we hope will save it.

..use word socialism to describe a liberal democracy's behaviour,
Chris lewis,
What will it be called when they run out of other peoples' money ?