Carryfast:
Yeah right.The full house of global warmist stupidity and lies right here.
Let’s burn live trees instead of dead ones thereby taking out the planet’s ability to turn CO2 into Oxygen and massively increase electricity demand based on the lie that water vapour isn’t a greenhouse gas and cooling towers don’t emit massive amounts of water vapour. 
I’m still unsure whether you actually believe the drivel you post or if it’s simple trolling to elicit a reaction so you can post even more of it, but for the time being at least I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and attempt to answer some of the questions you have posed and refute your arguments.
First off, it’s maybe worth pointing out that trees don’t Simply “convert carbon dioxide into oxygen” - what they do is take carbon dioxide, water and sunlight to produce glucose and oxygen. The carbon doesn’t magically disappear, but is retained to (among other things) produce the structure of the plant. When the tree sheds its leaves or eventually dies, that carbon is returned to the environment, mostly in the form of CO2 (i.e carbon dioxide) excreted by the organisms that carry out the decomposition process or feed on the leaves etc. In other words, the carbon is in effect stored up for the lifetime of the tree until such time as it eventually rots (or is burnt), then it pops out again.
A variation on this scenario is the production of coal etc. In this situation, the carbon is not returned to the environment but is instead “locked up” underground in the form of “fossil fuels”. This process takes a very long time - hundreds of millions of years, but the resulting coal, oil etc is a very good energy source (which is why we burn it).
It’s also worth noting that carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere stays there for a very long time indeed - typically hundreds, or even thousands of years. One of the reasons for this is that the only ways to get rid of it (however temporarily) are through the trees, plants etc and by dissolving it in the oceans. Problem being that the oceans are right at the bottom of the various layers of the atmosphere and the trees only extend a little but further up. The vast majority of the atmosphere (especially the bits where that pesky CO2 is doing its greenhouse gas stuff) is totally devoid of oceans and trees. In contrast, water vapour generally condenses out as rain/snow within a few days. As a result, most of the CO2 that has been artificially released into the environment since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution is still there, doing its greenhouse gas thing.
The above answers your question about burning “dead trees” (i.e. coal) versus burning live ones. The first option releases huge quantities of hitherto “dormant” carbon (in the form of carbon dioxide) into the environment, while the latter recycles carbon that was already in the environment anyway. The carbon in that coal was stored away hundreds of millions of years ago, over a period of many tens of millions of years. By burning it we are releasing it into the atmosphere, where it stays for a very, very long time.
Now to water vapour. Yes, it’s a “greenhouse gas” in that it affects global temperature and climate in a significant way. However, unlike pretty well any other “greenhouse gas” it doesn’t persist in the atmosphere - any water vapour released into the air today will have condensed out in the form of precipitation within a week or two. But here’s the killer fact - water evaporates into the atmosphere from the oceans at a rate of roughly a billion tons every minute. Significantly that’s also the rate at which it condenses back into rainfall, thus maintaining equilibrium. The amount of water vapour released by the cooling towers of 60-odd thousand power stations is completely and utterly irrelevant by comparison (especially as that tiny amount also condenses out again within a few days).
As for your questions about Wee Jimmie Krankie’s and Australia’s economic policies - no idea. Have you asked them?
