Good News & Bad News, page-4931

I agree, lots to be done, and if one has a plan for the transition, capital/subsidies could be reasonably and fairly allocated.

Lets entertain that the climate science is reasonably accurate, and weather events are going to be more severe and occur more often, therefore the cost of doing nothing could significantly outweigh the cost of implementing a long term transition plan, which should be designed to address employment, retraining, etc and all the other components.

IMO, I do not believe government should be tasked with making decisions wrt climate change, given the short 3yr term in office. Look at some of the FW's in government, they know the politics, but that's about all. I would be much happier with an independent body made up of specialists capable of driving a long term transition plan, say looking forward 20 years. This independent body would be funded by both federal and state governments, advising the respective states/regions/economic sectors on how to transition .

Now I'm not saying this is an easy task, in fact it's mammoth, but as above, if the science is correct, and we get this wrong, jobs, grids, etc. wont mean jack.......