Wow. If ever there was a time to sell BPL outright this is it. The public needs to get out of the business of trying to figure out how to do power generation in the best way possible, plenty of other things for it to concentrate on. Rates can be regulated by a rate commission, this is not throwing the people to the will of the bankers, oversight can be achieved and gouging prevented, not as if public ownership was keeping rates low to begin with tho!

Glad to know the world had enough of a carbon budget left to allow for the construction of new fossil fuel plants with decades long lifespans. I guess all those reports about how we must be off of fossil fuels by 2030 or so from the UN were all just fake news and/or climate change is all just made up. All those reports about melting ice caps must be false too.

You wonder how articles like this get penned without the words climate change in them....

When are we going to get our spending into line and cut government civil service expenses to bring us into line with the new realities?

When are we going to sell off BPL to stop the massive losses and further government back stopping all its continued debts?

I mean we can do the above on our own, or on orders from the IMF and accept whatever else they tell us we have to do? Are people really willing to chance all of what they might have to accept? Greece should a warning this will not be a cake walk, and really the steps above I mention are kinda preferable if you ask me....

(a) Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change;

You can not keep the world to under 1.5C of warming if you build new fossil fuel plants. You pretty much have to do green energy only to hit this target. Thus if we aren't going to have any chance of reaching that goal and locking in an outcome where we can not meet the goal of Paris we should withdraw from Paris as Trump has done, and have the honesty to say we will not stop climate change and thus we are no longer subscribing to anything in the Paris agreement.

Those figures are for natural gas as if it were locally available, not produced thru fracking, liquified and then regasified as LNG would do. Most independent sources say LNG if the the source is fracked gas is in fact worse than coal even, so in fact we'd be worse than just burning diesel or bunker C as we do now as far as emissions goes (once you count everything from fracking production to liquification to regasfification).

Ever wonder why the LNG industry never talks about how they compare to coal on a life cycle basis if the source of the natural gas is fracking? This is why.

Since building a new LNG plant would lock us into 30+ years of emissions from fossil fuels where is the withdrawl notice we need to issue for our exit from the Paris Agreement on climate emissions tho?

He is right. But it really needs to be done in tandem with bondholders taking a hair cut on their bonds, and a permanent disaster relief fund set up and funded on an ongoing basis so we can handle future disasters. #1 on any list must be that BEC is sold off.

To think we can keep all civil service jobs going even when tourism is cut to near zero is kinda delusional.

Are people ready for what the IMF would require if we don't handle this on our own? Forced opening of the economy to foreign businesses, sales of public assets, cuts to pensions, the list goes on.... Better to handle the problem on our own.

In the long run its either the cruise lines runs our tourism economy or the people of the Bahamas run it thru hotels where they can exercise real political control/regulation and true partnership with the hotels like with Atlantis. It goes one way or the other, allow the cruise industry to expand and it squeezes out the hotels as their cost base is so much lower.

Ban the cruise ships. Hotel investment and higher tourism revenues will follow when the cruise option no longer exists for short trips. Why is this so hard to implement? It costs nothing actually, just a decleration the Bahamas is closed to cruise ships.

How would you "force" people to disembark when ithe ships stops in Nassau?

So now what pennies we get from cruise ships we could just lose if they go to their own islands and/or cruise visitors just get off there?

Does no one see how impossible it is to "regulate" or "control" an industry whos existence is in fundamental opposition to what should be the goal of the Bahamas? Their goal is maximum profit with minimum regulation outside the bounds of any state to speak of. This is wholly different from the nature of Baha Mar or Atlantis who are fully under Bahamian regulation and where each visitor spends a lot of money in the Bahamas itself. You can only ban cruise ships and work with other states to get rid of the whole industry. The longer the industry goes on the more powerful it gets and the weaker your position as a tourism nation becomes relative to theirs! Just think how easy it would have been to have stopped this industry had it not been allowed to grow so much already.

No tax increases at all until such time as public sector unions agree to cuts, and bondholders agree to haircuts. Fixing this nations problems can not all be done thru taxation. This was the mistake in the way VAT1 and VAT2 were done, no matter what the VAT it just goes higher and higher and solves nothing till ALL parties are at the table and an overall solution is found.

And as for all these financial sector demands, what is the point in a year they will just be back with more and they too would have to met for a "clean bill of health", and say you do, the same thing comes again in 2022. Its why this can only be done thru the UN, so it applies to all nations and fairly. Why is that so hard for anyone to communicate? Its two letters! U.N.