Australia's largest stock trading and investment forum Australia's #1 stock forum

what’s annoying about this is that if we had gone nuclear...

First 9 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
pintohoo

80,482 Posts.

75

26/02/20

18:08

Post #: 43170436
Share

Originally posted by bacci ↑

I notice politicians playing a verbal trick on uneducated media listeners.

The trick is to say "the cost of action versus inaction". Shallow listeners will assume that action or inaction are opposite alternatives of the same thing, they are not. Australia will pay both.

The cost of "action" is the cost to Australia of action by Australia. The cost of "inaction" referred to is the cost to Australia of inaction by the world. Hence by paying for "action" Australia will not avoid the cost of "inaction". We will pay both because (if you believe in global warming) China and India have no intent of changing course.

bacci

Expand

what’s annoying about this is that if we had gone nuclear decades back including remote waste storage - we would have emission free power fully paid for

What a beautiful position to be in now that would be
4 Upvote

Reply

There are more pages in this discussion • 30 more messages in this thread...

First 9 Last