So we’re going to get Bomber II? Just like Bomber I, he’s undoubtedly an affable guy, but he’s unelectable. I thought Bomber I proved beyond all doubt that Australia does not want a windbag for a PM. Sorry, Joe.

I am not suggesting Australian should build dozens of reactors but at least we should get a foot in the door and not ignore an obvious source of energy.

Of course nuclear power has drawbacks, but so does coal. Arguably coal is a much worse polluter than and certainly is much worse in terms of CO2 emissions.

I think there have been a lot of scare mongering going on from a certain Academy Award winning former vice President. If you believe the rhetoric we will all die of carbon dioxide poisoning unless we put a price on emissions by the end of the year…? I think we are more at risk from carbon dioxide poisoning if there is a massive volcano eruption then from industry.

Everybody would like to pollute less so that we have a cleaner environment and fresh air but coming up with a rash solution by the end of the year is not going to be beneficial for the environment or anybody else for that matter. I am all for coming up with alternative; sustainable energy sources and in-fact think that it is very important for Australia to be a leading player in this. I think developing new energy technologies would be good for Australia to export to the world.

Maybe there needs to be more focus on tidal/wave power generation since we are surrounded by ocean?

I agree with you Greg in that there should be positive incentives for industry to be “green” instead of just whacking them for producing all of the nation’s electricity. All these industries are doing is what they were designed to do. I think it is a little unfair to penalise them for that. Even more unfair is if their international competitors don’t have such a disadvantage.

I think just taking a step back and having a breather and looking at the entire picture and evaluating the entire situation is the only way to go. The Rudd Government has already clocked up $300bn worth of debt. Do we really want to add increased cost of living and unnecessary job losses into the mix at this very point in time?

On climate change I am a bit of a sceptic but I still think we should use less oil, coal etc. and try to pollute the planet a lot less. But the answer is not by taxing companies more but rather by using technology to reduce emissions and use energy more efficiently.

Instead of an ETS why not just give companies a tax break if they meet certain “green” criteria? This means companies that do nothing will end up paying more taxes than those who do and market forces will eventually pressure most companies to toe the line so to speak. No messy ETS, less impact on consumers and emissions would be reduced.

There are a lot of questions still up in the air about levels of carbon dioxide and its relationship with global temperatures rising (or lack of over recent years).

Let’s say the Australian Government does implement its Emissions Trading Scheme… Then what? Cost of living goes up for Australians yet no change to the environment. What would the point of that be?

Here is an interesting article worth considering:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,25656849-17803,00.html

Also, what are the Governments motivations for introducing the ETS? Is it just more grand standing so that Rudd can jet around and say “look at us we have an ETS”? Are its motivations genuine? If so, how do you definitively and unconditionally rule out an alternative energy sources such as nuclear? The Earth has been around for about 4.5 billion years – in which it has experienced more rapid and extreme temperature raising and cooling then at present – is another few years to get the science right really that catastrophic?

When I used to be a fly on the wall in political board room meetings, it was all laid bare – they had to work out a way of selling a policy that sounded like something coming from grass roots, but which really was written for the real financial benefactors (big business and big media) and word it so that the opposition couldn’t decipher the trick in the bill before it was passed (or at least if they did, they would keep mum because it would show them up also). Call me a cynic, but it’s only because I saw and heard it happen. The biggest saves Australia has had over the past few decades have come from independent senators who benefit from being blunt.

Just for the record.. “duhh.. Rudd I do Wong?”

If Rudd and Wong really thought the planet was in trouble then they would commit to the phasing out of coal power stations in Australia and send us down the wind/solar/nuclear/geothermal path.

The better option (as I have ranted on about a few times) would be nuclear power. Not only is clean a source of energy but it would create a whole new industry with hi-techs jobs and flow on benefits in areas such as healthcare.

I wonder if the Opposition supports the nuclear power option these days?