Soren wrote on Oct 23
rd, 2011 at 8:05pm:
1. Zero net immigration. Drastic cut in family reunion.
2. Carbon dioxide tax on all goods, including all imported goods and coal exports.
3. Proceeds to be spent excusively on achieving clean energy independence, R&D on renewables and skills education
4. No ETS and absolutely no transfer of funds overseas in the guise of 'carbon credits'.
5. Dam all rivers that can be dammed.
6. All domestic energy (for heating, running domestic appliances and lighting) to be locally produced solar
These are explicitly environmentally progrssive ideas in Australia's national interest. I don't see how anyone could construe them as teasing.
Unless, of course, you have a great deal of difficulty with conflicting PC pieties wrestling for your progressive heart.
I just see the first one as being simplistic and agenda driven. We'll probably depend on immigration to maintain any kind of sustained level of economic activity. We are still drastically short of engineers for example. If we end up bankrupt, then our hands will be tied economically. We'd probably depend on China for assistance - and that's the way the whole world is headed. So if you agreed, you'd allow some professionals, but not their immediate families? c'mon.
2 and 3 are too much aligned with my own way of thinking for me to try to dispute, but there are problems with the details. Political survival is the biggest.
4. Agree with most, however I can see that a well supervised ETS for bigger polluters
only can be a good thing. I know of one company that is hanging out for an ETS just to install some new low carbon technology. We need the carrot and the stick approach but we need to learn from the lessons of Europe. Do I trust the current Department of Climate Change to get it right? No. They have to the most inept bunch of recent graduates that I've ever had the displeasure to deal with. They are "green" in more ways than one. Some of them are very very smart, but they were obviously not chosen for their practical knowledge or social skills.
5. That's woefully simplistic. I'm surprised at that statement coming from you. The opportunity for hydro electric generation is very limited in this country due to patchy rainfall for one thing. Again it's a balancing act. Everything has to be considered in terms of overall justification.
6. Yes, but there's solar and there is solar. The solar PV scheme was great, but it's a totally wasted use of funds. More efficient alternatives are available. We should be mandating solar airconditioning and smart design (ventilation etc) in all new buildings over a threshold size - here I'm talking about office complexes.