On "the source of the electrons"; you were saying that it's important for us to not burn coal to generate those electrons because somehow it's a moral issue.
The source of electrons is irrelevant.This is the complete opposite of what you were saying earlier up the page.
I want cheap electricity but I'm not allowed to have it. China and India are allowed to have it but not me. It's a moral issue. Why?
Australia is smart enough to get into renewables, and when they work effectively, the wholesale price crashes, since a lot of it automatically forces its way onto the grid. We often don't need much coal. In the interim, let's allow India to burn it to lift regions of their population out of poverty. But, let's not BOTH burn it, because there's simply no need. You stated that we are only responsible for 1.5% of global emissions, and you bang on about carbon fairies, so what would be the line in the sand for you? 3%? 15%? 30%? What???
If you think that an Indian slum dweller will be advantaged more than you if he is finally going to be provided with electricity that just happens to be produced from Australian coal, then by all means, off you go. In the meantime, you need to accept the fact that since 2017 India has invested more in renewables than coal.
In a twisted sort of way I'm actually FOR the Adani Carmichael mine. Notwithstanding that my biggest concern is for the potential further environmental damage to the Great Barrier Reef (it's probably stuffed anyway due to the lack of care to date), the reason I'm not against it is that the mine will be large enough to actually affect the price of coal on a global scale, rendering multiple pits particularly in the Hunter unprofitable. This will force far more people out of a job compared to those created, and act as a wake up call.