"The debate is too polarised to be useful, or even interesting, any more"
Except that is probably part of the strategy - FUD. If you give up, the people in control are free do act as they please.
How do you propose to give incentives for development of those things you suggest? Don't you think more expensive energy would make people build more efficient things, recycle better, create cleaner energy?
It is part of the strategy - and one I have no heart to fight. There is simply no point in listening when the signal-to-noise ratio is too low and your chances of effecting the outcome are minimal.
Yes, expensive energy may do that - but is it the best way to do it? I would have thought that anyone who manages to do those things would probably make money from it regardless of whether the government takes a cut or not.
Except that is probably part of the strategy - FUD. If you give up, the people in control are free do act as they please.
How do you propose to give incentives for development of those things you suggest? Don't you think more expensive energy would make people build more efficient things, recycle better, create cleaner energy?