I cannot understand how in a country that last financial year had a combined federal and state revenue of about $450bn p.a, an electorate that consistantly shows a majority or overwhelming majority of support for stronger action on climate change that is being taken now and the looming domestic and global catastrophic crisis if stronger action is not taken that the government is failing to implement a so called "energy revolution". 

Everyone always supports action on climate change when asked in a poll - its a popular thing to do. If people discover that action on climate change means a smaller pay packet, less plasma TVs on the wall, and less kilometres in their big old Holden commodore (ie it actually begins to affect their lives) then support begins to drop dramtically. That is why no party can back it - battling climate change costs money, and people don't like paying money for something they don't see the benifits from. Until climate change begins to effect people lives in measurable ways, no one will want to spend the money to pay for it.

My thoughts? This is a disgrace, big business and mining have managed to water down this climate change plan, Rudd is now turning to the climate change skeptics in the Liberal Party for support in passing it through both houses, adding further pressure on watering down this even more.

Gee I hate the term skeptic. It ssumes (as George Bush is want to say) that "You are either with us or against us, but there is no middle ground". FO, big business and the mining sector allow you to use your stereos, tv's and lighten your house at night for very little financial outlay. Coal/gas derived electricity in Oz is some of the cheapest anywhere in the Western world. I read a paper that said Qld had electricity prices of 10% what folks pay in California.

 

Once the average Aussie realises how much more they will pay for utilities and the like, there will be squealing at every corner just like there is for fuel prices and mortgage rate hikes.

I cannot understand how in a country that last financial year had a combined federal and state revenue of about $450bn p.a, an electorate that consistantly shows a majority or overwhelming majority of support for stronger action on climate change that is being taken now and the looming domestic and global catastrophic crisis if stronger action is not taken that the government is failing to implement a so called "energy revolution". $450bn a year COAG has access to; if 0.01% of this is spent directly on investing in wind, solar, tidal, hydro and geothermal power generators then over the next 12 years till 2020 Australia could pump $45bn into the renewable energy sector, creating not only jobs and reducing our reliance on finite hydrocarbon resources but also speed up the transition for the renewable sector into one of economy of scale, giving lower costs, improved effeciency.

Got proof of that? Surely you don't believe in polls do you? Wasn't aware it was a question on the last census.

 

Also, where do you think alot of this revenue comes from..............yep, you guessed it sportsfans...mining royalties.

 

Your thoughts and opinions gentlemen?

All pollies know in the end that winning elections is important and that telling a couple of hundred thousand Oz citizens in the mining sector that you could be out of a job is unpallatable. He did what any leader from any party would do.

 

My thoughts? Well, as a professional environmental scientist I think he has tried to find a balance between economy and environment. Two key aspects of the principle of ESD. I wait to see if the "social" aspect follows through when I get my supposed subsidies for the price hikes to my electricity bill when it arrives under this bold new world (err, scheme).

 

 

Well written response DB. As much as it pains me to defend the ALP I too agree that Rudd has done what he can with the
carbon polltion reduction scheme (CPRS - get the terminology right if you are going to debate this Fallout. Lets face it anyway, our response alone will make the sum total of zilch difference in terms of global emissions reduction. The only reason why we are doing this is to try and exercise some leadership on the issue globally and the reality is that a lot of people are pulling themselves if they think that we will really have much swing on that matter. Rudd's approach is a sensible way to nail our colours to the GHG reduction mast whilst not raping the economy at a critical time, especially given that the global financial crisis will mean that the rest of the world won't be able to afford the sort of tough post-Kyoto cuts that have been envisaged.

 

FO, I would make a couple of points to you specifically.

 

1. You can take some cold comfort in the fact that while global reduction targets are probably going to be a lot less than expected due to the GFC, the slowdown in economic growth will also surely result in a natural reduction in emissions anyway. Notice how much the price of gas has dropped lately? That is because of a drop in the global demand for petroleum and you can count on the same thing happening in other energy markets such as electricity and gas. That means less emissions while the coming global recession runs its course.

 

2. I was previously worried that the Greens might get the balance of power next election, but now I am less so. Th