This election like previous ones is going to be fought and won on fear campaigns about an “invasion “ of boat people.
It shows that the IQ of the electorate is so low that they cannot see the really important issues and are swayed by the side with the best bribe on offer.
I really despair that any progress towards the solving of global warming, peak oil and of course the main problem World overpopulation have any chance of resolution while we continue to allow our “Democracy” to be wasted.
When, not if, the problems get so bad that we have to take notice and do something about it, it will too late.
Ban the boat people, bring footy to Tasmania, Give us new cars, lets get to the important things in life

More political rhetoric? Or a Prime Minister with the courage to tackle climate change and global warming?

Der…lemme think…..

Ooow thats a hard wun.

Oower… er…. ouwwww…. my bwane herts twying to werk it out! ( :~{

Del, you put too much faith in "education campaigns". A lot of people simply don't trust the information they get in such campaigns. The case for action on climate change has been weakened by the "activists" who have overstated the science. The case for real action is strong, but the argument has been hijacked by people with other agendas or with pure ego. That's why the issue has fallen down the "to do" list.

The key problem is this. Many of those who want action on climate change also want to avoid paying for that. Hence all the crazy schemes like the ETS and others that simply create the illusion that the cost will be paid by the big guys and "ordinary folk" will somehow get it all for no extra cost. If we have a carbon tax, everyone will pay and that should be the point. We all have to wean ourselves away from fossil fuels. Our willingness to pay the extra for cleaner energy is what determines our commitment, not just how loudly we badger politicians to "do something about it".

What annoys me about this article is that it insists that we have to sacrifice lifestyle for being environmentally friendly- if one would simply use their power more responsibly, install solar panels, and use devices that consume less electricity- earth saved, problem solved.

No back-to-the-noble-savage decision required.
The best part is, it doesn't even require an ETS- or even a politician at all.
Having said that, my vote for the Greens is well outside the ETS and refugees- both notions I strongly disagree with.
Sarnian why have you not mentioned political powers, corporate regulation and privatization?
Also, strict refugee policies would actually do well to contain overpopulation to only a few areas- the reverse would probably allow it to go higher.

'The science is telling us that global warming is for real. It is telling us we have a very short time frame in which to act to avoid irreversible global warming. '

The same science was taught to me in the 1970's. The only difference is that if we did not act we would have an ice age. The warnings were just as serious.

Already people are going without heating because electricity prices have risen sharply. Hopefully not to many old people will have to die from cold before we wake up to the Green madness. Progress has improved life expectancy and given a better quality of life.

Even if we accepted part of the hopelessly flawed science that is espoused we know Australia can have little impact on the rest of the world. The 'true believers' should row their boats to China and India and start lobbying their Governments. If they are not prepared to do that they should support a local nuke industry.

Runner,

Actually, China's environmental policy is more progressive than ours. They accept global warming, just like most of the world outside the US and Australia.

The problem in China is corporate corruption undermining official government policy.