I have a guess, maybe he was talking about corruption.

And one person's personal income for one year in Australia could actually provide every single household in Australia with solar panel systems.

....and she's getting her money selling bits of Australia to one of the world's biggest polluters....whilst wanting to use cheap-imported labour and rile against the Carbon Tax.

Gates in his career has about 70 billion.

This cow made 19 billion last financial year - alone.

God forbid anyone taxing her income.... meanwhile my retired mother of 94 was being taxed still....right up to when she died.

....and beyond.

Sorry if that was too cryptic for some.  Ekko is getting the drift, though.  The 'state' doesn't support anything - only your fellow citizens support such things, either voluntarily or via compulsion.

EDIT: Replies come faster than I can catch them at times.  myfist0 also picked up on it.

Since it looks like Hungarians pay a whopping 50% income tax, I'd say give the guy a break on getting slightly cheaper solar panels.

Hopefully the university tuition is at least free like many other EU countries with taxes that high...to pay those tax rates and have student loans would be crippling...

I don't think a change towards solar energy should be done on a personal level and not one home at a time. I also think that there should be no subsidies, regulation will be enough.

For example, a government could place a ban on building new fossil fuel plants. This will force energy companies to invest in other forms of energy. I think it can really be as simple as that.

I would prefer that big companies take care of it and build large solar array plants. Then you've the advantage of scale. Maintenance will be easier too. It will also be easier to handle excess power on site (and not wasted on transport)

Another necessary development might be the need to build superconducting cables from deserts to large cities. In that way, transport loss of electricity can be reduced.

http://www.kit.edu/visit/pi_2012_8761.php

http://english.pravda.ru/science/tech/26-03-2012/120888-hybrid_superconducting-0/

The latter article proposes that such a cable can be combined with the actual transport of liquid hydrogen from deserts to cities. Although, liquifying hydrogen costs a lot of energy, I wonder if it's worth it to transport it like this.

Right now energy plants are located everywhere near big cities, to reduce the transport cost of electricity. Solar panels are placed in cities because it's close to the consumer.

Similarly, a solar/wind based energy grid like the current one (with homes with solar panels) would require to build H2 and CH4 manufacturing plants near every city to catch excess energy without too much loss... I wonder if that will be cost effective.

On a side-note, when I was looking for information about the sulfur emission by anoxic oceans I found this article on acid rain and its effects on plants.

http://www.intelligentdesigntheory.info/acid_rain_effects_what_causes.htm

You gotta love the internet

When I'm thinking about acid rain, I usually think about the moonscape images from Sudbury and that's how I imagine how a future acid world would look like. But a lot has changed there...

http://350orbust.com/2010/09/13/my-green-sudbury-from-environmental-embarrassment-to-environmental-leader/

Well this is rude. Everyone has the freedom to believe in something. Just because you think state influence in economy is bad, it does not mean those who think the opposit are all stupid, and their country's education system is a shame because of it. Think of Keynes and his friends, they weren't stupid and shame of the world, right? And they said states should control their economy.

Noone knows what's true in this field, we have seen both state-influenced capitalism and free capitalism fail at solving the occurring problems in the past.. Chosing one side is really just personal preference, like what ideology or party you believe in.

Nothing rude about it.  Same is true of education in the US.

Believe you said in another comment that you are 22, Geo.  There will be a time when 'not young' will mean something else entirely to you.

Please correct me if I got the age wrong.

"Thinking outside of the box"

The box = standard, routine, dogmatic, predictable ways and means of approaching a problem.

So it refers to having new insights, being creative, going beyond, lateral thinking, etc.

Then I revoke my previous comment about being rude.

I thought today state-free economy is the mainstream way of thinking in the developed world. It seems I was wrong.

When the federal Department of Education has its own SWAT team armed to the hilt with automatic weapons and full riot gear, you do not live in a 'state-free society'.  Speaking of the US, of course.

Now back to global warming/cooling/change/whatever.

Yeah, even allowing for the vagaries of translation, that boggles.  They should be the last people you trust.