To sum up

The thing that is disappointing about these articles is that power only makes up 55% of Australia's greenhouse gas. The proper accounting of livestock production which takes into account the transport and storage costs that are also involved, which results in a staggering 159.03 Mt CO2-e, (1990's and 2004 figures) which accounts for 31% of all of Australia's emissions, and is more than road transport. Now here is the good bit; with no livestock in Australia, we would reduce CO2-e by 31% (ie: a lot). Furthermore, this could be done by consumers in Australia spending less instead of more. All other strategies are about increasing the cost of items to include their CO2-e cost, but it is so hard to reduce consumption of electricity, fuel etc without significant capital cost. Vegetarian diets are cheaper than meat diets already, and with CO2-e costs included the cost difference will be even greater. So, not all greenhouse reduction strategies are about costing consumers more. Vegetarian diet will cost less.

Also:
Someone stated that the average household uses 40kWH/day. I don't know about the 40kWH/day, as I have gone back over my power bills, and I only use 6.8 kWH/day on my last bill. The previous one was 8.1kWH/day, but we bought a new fridge that has turned out to be much more energy efficient, and the proof is in the bill. Yay! The power companies are very helpful in providing this information. Then again, I have a solar hot water system, which helps a lot. A 1kW system would generate about 4.5kWH/day, so it would be about 1/2 of what I need. Batteries are not needed, as the idea is to reduce my power consumption, and put back into the grid during the day. Conventional power stations will still be needed at night, but when I buy my power back it night, it will be 1/2 the price that I was paid for it during the day.