|
|
|
|
|
by nicoburns
1827 days ago
|
|
Of course there's a cost, but there's a cost to climate change too. The barrier reef is one of those costs. So if you're not paying the cost of reducing climate change, then you can't claim you're looking after the reef. Australia has very sunny weather plus significant deposits of lithium. They could very well invest in PV + storage technology if they wanted to. Instead they have been actively protectionist of the coal industry. I'm from the UK, we had our own shutdown of the mines in the 70's, and it's still scarred into the collective psyche of the working class. But it doesn't have to be like that. If the jobs had been replaced and investment had been put into alternative industry then it would be a very different story. That's what should be happening. |
|