A worth of the Australian-produced “professionals” is known worldwide.

That is why you are being kept aside in Australia.

At some stage of my employment history I was blessed by a real international professionals’ working advice, of/by those writing the UN/World Bank papers: anything can be expressed with an APPROPRIATE language acceptably-comprehendible by the VARIOUS top officials worldwide.

Back to your question, one should gain in this case a particular ENGINEERING practice at certain levels of a real personal responsibility to be convinced the pure economics is a tool of particular surrounding, not a technical process itself: money itself makes no good in jungles.

It is not mentoring by any way - it is a difference in mentality between still assuming a world as an accustomed lackey at their service on their doorsteps, and those approaching the same things practically, realistically, those, who understand, that no gold substitutes fresh air and making a move towards charging for a fresh air is digging a grave to generations oncoming.

The same story with any other unrenewable natural resource: coins themselves hardly move vehicles, but petrol.

Maybe, you hear, a couple of decades ago there is a calculation executed of a planetary resource global worth in the US dollars, already in the USA.

Money cannot be burnt instead of a coal, but pollution of a particular physical place can’t be dissolved in situ with money paid to a distant recipient not having own coal to pollute own surrounding at levels permitted by foreign or/and even local academics theoretically.

For example, what do you mean by:”complete substitution of a natural resource with monetary equivalent”?

I don’t think Garnaut has suggested burning cash instead of coal.

And what responses on particular issues did you suppose to hear from economist convinced, as one could understand, in complete substitution of a natural resource with monetary equivalent?

Think of it if your Australian (UK-?) education allows such a process at all.

Of this post grammar / spelling check was undertaken as usual. Enjoy context, please.

He also mentioned that he was “using middle ground models”.

Peterc, I’ve noticed he uses the phrase “mainstream science” quite a lot.

He mentioned carbon capture and sequestration as part the technology solutions worthy of more serious attention - singled it out in fact. When queried about why he was promoting R&D in something so risky and with a late time frame, he stated he thought it would “arrive much sooner than some predictions”.

No mention of efficiency measures in his overview.

He said that emissions trading “on balance” was better than a carbon tax, but that “a weak emissions trading scheme would be inferior to a good carbon tax”.

He also mentioned that he was “using middle ground models”.

He didn’t really address questions about the latest climate science indicating that we are now outside of previous worst case scenarios for climate change, or the economic cost of a 1m sea level rise.

He said in response to a question about why the Brumby Government has just approved another coal fired power station that his report is “not constraining state governments”.

I don’t have much faith that this process is addressing all possible actions to address climate change - it is overly focused on emissions trading - which may not actually reduce emissions and has a long time frame.

I will put a YouTube video up of his intro tonight; I don’t think it was webcast.

A tax on carbon emissions helps to progress in a direction of decreasing an effect of a human activity on nature akin gambling requires really educated, skilled and professional engineers capable to resolve this paradox of civilisation.

Read “Oceans are the main regulators of carbon dioxide” by Prof.L. Endersbee, for instance.

Fucking stupid. Who knew that small population completely trumps having significant resources and issues relating to Australia’s approach to climate change?

If any Melbourne LP readers want to have a chat afterwards that’d be great