Accelerate the World's Transition to Sustainable Energy - to fight Anthropogenic Climate Change, page-625

That post is somewhat more conciliatory, explanatory and less heroic than the claim of the first.

You seem to have a victimhood style in your posting and take offence at much less than the stuff aimed by some of your fellow AGW acolytes pile on others.

Tas renewable energy “Has been there”
Its Hydro and always “been there” except for the emergency gas plant near Georgetown, which by the way has been used often in order to maintain power supply to Tas because of the failure of the Bass Strait cable.

The states dams were run down supplying the mainland of Australia at a cost of diminishing Tasmanian state power security running the storage down to circa 20% in the chase to satisfy green credentials to mainlanders and at huge increases in energy costs to Tasmanians.

The wind farm projects at Cape Grim, Musselroe Bay, Cape Portland Lost Farm, Cattle Hill etc Are surplus to Tas’ needs and placed as rent seeking assets to satisfy the North.
These have come at great cost to Tasmanians and their environment and will be exacerbated by the Marinus project (If it comes. about) at further massive environmental degradation including the mooted Robbins Island and Stanley wind farms.
These are unwanted by the few Tasmanians aware of the impending destruction the added projects will cause and as more people become aware will create an issue as big as the ( ironically) Franklin Dam furore of the Eighties IMO.
It should be remembered that Government has a lot of wants in many sectors of the economy and by many pressure groups.
Ones wants need to be considered in the context of the whole.
Expecting your (one’s) wishes over others in one’s own time frame could be considered greedy if it comes at the expense of others .
The Utopia some seek should be viewed with reality glasses, and realisation that all of us want to live in a happy safe healthy world. A simplistic approach to timelines and the aspirations of the proponents must take in to account a reasonable transition period to achieve ‘sustainable’ goals accounting for the dislocations perpetrated on others in poorly thought out approaches.

The idea posited by many here that Scomo is wantonly undertaking a wilful degradation of lifestyles of Australians is simply partisanship - quite superfluous to to the debate you stated you wish to have when you started the thread.
Note:
I have responded to your post and not infringed upon your time in an attempt to ‘derail’ as the formicacae antagonist Ant
has inferred of those not in complete agreement with you and particularly his ascerbic monotheistic ventings.
I have responded in good faith and don’t require an ad hominem attack for my trouble.
Thank you in anticipation.