Fake green jobs
You see? Julia and Greg are right – the rest of the world is “rushing ahead” and Australia will be left behind [sarc off].
So just as Australia is careering headlong into a pointless carbon taxation regime, the government of the UK is waking up to the grim reality of the non-existent “green economy” and cutting solar subsidies. “25,000 green jobs cut” they shriek, but it probably means three times that many real jobs saved:
Hundreds of solar companies are likely to go bust by Christmas after the Department for Energy and Climate Change confirmed it is looking to halve subsidies for new panels.
Greg Barker, minister for climate change, said the “feed-in tariff” subsidies are currently too generous, because the cost of installing solar panels has fallen.
The proposed cuts, due to come into force from December, will see the amount earned from each panel fall from 43.3p per kilowatt hour of solar power to 21p. This will save energy customers around £23 a year – or £700m in total – because the subsidies are funded through electricity bills. (source)
More at WUWT.
Australian Climate Madness 
The company I work for is hit badly by the crap.
This UK action begs the question, do ALL legislators and their party members ever think through a proposition or just simply sign off an endorsement with out due care so as to dutifully follow a party line?
how about spend some money on thorium research and beat Russia/China/India to it?
Ever wondered why solar panels are so expensive? Well they take a massive amount of energy to make. The electrolysis to get the aluminium for the frame, They need to smelt the silicone, for the photocells and the glass. Glass and aluminium forming. All processes done via either gas burning ovens or powered by coal fired power stations. Then transported overseas in massive oil burning ships, freighted by diesel burning trucks. Carried by diesel or petrol burning tradesmen vehicles to the installation site. Panels degrade, they are only guaranteed half the output in 20 years. And they really do not output much energy at all, when you take into account they are in a fixed position, so their output is a product of the sine to the angle of the sun. Combined with dust, leaves, cloud cover, and the fact that half the time is night time. There is what they are rated at, and then there is the actual amount of power you will get from them averaged over time, which works out to be about 10-15% of the panel rating, depending on the conditions they are in. Ignoring the fact that I can’t find any convincing evidence that CO2 drives the climate, Did anyone even do a feasibility study on the total CO2 to make a panel, from minerals to rooftop, vs the actual amount of CO2 that it will offset. It’s what, 8 years until 2020 now and they set a target of 5%, I doubt they will even offset their own creation in that time?