Malcolm,

Existential threats, such as climate change, can require actions that are not in the short or medium term interests of the current economy. Did we hesitate to take action in WWII because it might damage the economy (let alone threaten a few miners or forest cutters' jobs or shave some % off economic growth)? Of course not - because the lives of our families were at stake! The threat is just as real now - only insidious since we will not die tomorrow but our children will in a few decades from starvation.

You - and even your "opposites" in the Labor party will not have addressed sustainability issues and the threat of climate change until you stop economic and population growth. Of course, you will never do that because it brings the whole circus tent crashing down. (In the meantime, until the inevitable crash, you will make fatuous arguments about "decoupling" growth from environmental impacts as you lead us over the cliff.)

Shortages, such as of oil and water, and pollution, e.g. CO2, are all at the core, the product of population growth. All efforts to ameliorate climate change are for nothing if the population growth question is not addressed. Indeed, you, Costello, and the rest of ignorant politicians and economists are leading us in the opposite direction - over the cliff.

Thank you, michael_in_adelaide, for returning us to some reality after the absurd, boring, arrogant propaganda of the (Turn)bull to which you respond.

I notice too that Mrs Turnbull is on the editorial board of OP. Any conflict of interest anywhere here?

Oh, so why are are solar experts having to go overseas to get support ? Why aren't we leading the world in well-funded solar, wind and geothermal technology? Why does M. Turnbull try to pretend that there is such a thing as "clean coal" - what a joke ! Why does he preside happily over the destruction of rivers and aquifers by the big coal companies ? Why ?? Because the Federal government, like the government of NSW, is a creature of the big mining companies. Turnbull even refuses to see a NSW delegation who want to tell him about the imminent destruction of fourteen more rivers in NSW by mining operations. He simply does not want to know about it. He talks the talk but can't walk the walk, and this is becoming more obvious the more he blusters on.

I have always suspected that many people on the "right" of the culture wars divide would have preferred to be stand up comics--except they somehow ended up as politicians. Or perhaps as their followers/apologists that infest the "right" ring media---print,radio, TV and the blogosphere.
That turpentine chap who writes "essays" for this forum is a classic example.

Yes Michael, I couldn't agree more. With neither the Coalition or Labor doing anything about population growth or making a real and determined effort against Global warming or our reliance on rapidly depleting oil supplies (something which Labor has been strangely silent about), maybe it would be best if the two parties and their 'look-alike' politics joined together to form the "Lemming Party" and whilst I realise the story of Lemmings jumping off a cliff every 7 years is a furphy, surely it's not too much to ask that the "Lemming Party" takes a leaf out of Walt Disney's story book?
Strange how our plutocratic Coalition Government has suddenly jumped into the Global warming debate. Pity it hasn't thrown up some workable ideas instead of creating an opening for the PM's very good friend Ron Walker and the whole nuclear option which we WILL have should the Coalition be returned to power. I heard John Howard on a television interview one night saying that electric cars would not become part of the solution to lowering CO2 levels because "they would create too much unemployment!" When asked for finance to fund the development of new solar cell technology, he shunned it, but Brittan quickly enough snapped it up.
Labor is little different. I read where Morris Immea made the grand statement...."No use saving the World if we ruin the economy doing it!" What an idiot! I wrote a letter of protest to the fat slug's department, but received no reply to this date of writing.
We need a party in power who will address the coming crisis with a little more dedication than the present two party system presents.

And what a joke nuclear power is! Here is a report from a group in Oxford saying that there is only sufficient high grade uranium ore left in the world to power nuclear reactors AT CURRENT USE RATES UNTIL 2034!:

http://tinyurl.com/2v2prr

So with the world "rushing" to increase nuclear power, when they build their reactors there will be nothing to run them on.

The only "comfort" in all of this is that, if my children are to starve, then they will do it alongside Turnbull's and Howard's starving grandchildren. The wealthy won't be able to buy their way out of this one. We all breath the same air, we all need the rain, and we all go down together.

Dear Mr Turnbull,

Your headline made me laugh out loud.

Like your colleague Mr Hockey, you've been sent forth to proselytize a policy lemon foisted on you by a dud PM. Not surprisingly, there have been cave-ins as the Coalition approaches an election they will certainly lose. But the polls say "it's time". The problem that you have is that the climate change issue overshadows the issue of economic management a thousandfold in the minds of many members of the public (including this swinging voter). If we don't protect the environment we won't have an economy at all.

Start thinking about your life in Opposition ... makes you shudder doesn't it? Frankly, I'm quite looking forward to the mass bloodletting that will occur on your side of politics. Just imagine Abbott, Downer, Nelson, Cosetello and yourself going at it hammer and tongs!

Perhaps our PM hasn't been properly informed about the problems of supply in relation to high grade uranium ore. An excellent and informative article on CO2 emissions and diminishing high grade ore can be found at

http://www.energyscience.org.au/FS02%20CO2%20Emissions.pdf

This is a three page (PDF & available in HTML) article from an Australian source and appears to be without bias.

Interesting to note only a nuclear reactor using high grade uranium emits no CO2 whilst in operation, but high grade ore will last just a few decades at present use levels. With an increase in reactors, it will last just two decades. Not long enough to stave off the end of cheap oil and reduce green house gasses to an acceptable level.
This information is something all Australians should read before the next election.

Good article, well written, factual and non-emotive. Sadly it is difficult to have a sensible argument with some of the environmental zealots who you see online here.

Practical, measured and safe improvements to energy generation can make a significant improvement to Australia's contribution to greenhouse gas emissions but arbitrarily setting targets, signing protocols and making other meaningless gestures will not. I'm certain that I'll be decried as some sort of Liberal apparatchik for supporting you but there are Australians in the community that think the Government is doing a good job on tackling climate change.

Personally, I am a greenhouse-sceptic and I think it is nothing short of vanity or arragance to think that humankind can, though its actions, cause climate change. However, I don't think there is anything to be gained by pumping millions of tonnes of gasses into the atmosphere. We should take practical measures to stop this and nuclear energy is one alternative that should be considered until solar, wind or some not yet invented technology matures to the point where it can provide base-load electricity to the grid.

Shadyoasis noticed that Mrs Turnbull is on the editorial board of OLO and asks is there any conflict of interest in having Mr Turnbull's article recycled from The Age ?

Good question, since it appeared in The Age right together with and alongside one written by Peter Garrett the ALP Environment Shadow Minister. I can only imagine the OLO editor couldn't get Mr Garrett's approval to publish.

I'm sure that OLO takes a balanced approach to publishing pieces from politicians in an election year.

Over-population is the elephant in the room that no politician wants acknowledge. The pity of it is that no-one is taking advantage of tha natural population decline that is occurring in most western countries and developing a viable model for a no-growth economy. Even if we halved per-capita carbon emissions today, in 50 years world population is predicted to double. On a more positive note, Reg Morrison's book Plague Species (New Holland 2003) suggests that human population is following a boom-and-bust bell curve typical of all plague species which will top out around 2030 and over the next 100 years return to 1900 levels.

I would like to see the carbon cost included in most things - like the dirt-cheap tinned fruit from South Africa and Greece which is transported here in ships spewing out greenhouse gases eqivalent to 300,000 cars a day. We desperately need to reward low carbon options. Instead, Howard and Co are planning to hand out licences to pollute to our biggest carbon emitters - even though they have been advised to auction them off.

The Liberals couldn't spell "environment" or "global warming" 12 months ago, and they still don't know what the terms mean or how to counteract them. I wonder if the Liberals are interested in plannning and building an Australia in which our grandchildren live a comfortable existence with fresh water, affordable nutritious food, jobs that nurture self esteem, affordable decent housing .

I used to think Malcolm Turnbull had a few brains but it seems the price the Liberal Party demands on joining is a dumbing down to the lowest common denominator, namely one John Winston Howard.
One day Malcolm will look back on this period with shame and if he doesn't look back he will certainly be reminded of it when he puts his hand up to be Prime Minister.
One thing is certain though, he will take no notice of anything that is posted here.

Meanwhile all Mr Turnbull's detractors keep flying in aeroplanes, live it up in hotels, flush their toilets use their laptops to post to OLO. What a bunch of hyprocites we are.

runner you may fly, watch a plasma TV screen and live in a mcmansion but speak for yourself sunshine

Mr Turnbull you say "To mitigate the impact of this climate change the world needs to massively reduce those emissions in the course of this century."

Wrong. The world needs to massively reduce those emissions now. Please cease procrastinating in your zeal for profits for yourself and your mates in the big end of town.

I see your grand plan to mitigate CO2 includes "deforestation", no mention of renewables and no mention of regulating the big polluters, the mining industry, which is totally out of control.

Currently, at least one town is forcibly having to relocate because of hazardous chemicals emitted by the big miners. Others are having to endure the dumping of tonnes of mercury over their communities. Another is suffering from lead contamination.

Dangerous hydrocarbon and other hazardous stack and open cut emissions are being inflicted on communities without mitigation or any pollution prevention control. Uranium workers have been contaminated from being supplied radioactive drinking and bathing water.

In addition, your government's "recycling" programme to encourage unregulated industries to incinerate waste oil as a fuel, with untested and unknown substances, permeating peoples homes and surrounds and contaminating the environment, reveals a totally irresponsible government.

One big mining operator in Australia is raping and pillaging the lands of 7 other nations, exploiting their resources and destroying their ecologies. Is this what you describe as "economic progress."

Mr Turnbull, it is well known, you and your government are not au fait on environmental or public health matters.

You don't really think the people of this nation would trust you to safely regulate and monitor a nuclear reactor, do you?

Good luck on your return to the corporate world, Sir. Close the door on the way out, please.

Incandescent light bulbs indeed!

Mr Turnbull,

It is so disappointing to me to see intelligent people forced to spout such a feeble party line. Maybe it sounds strong when you are preaching to the choir, but - - - I don't believe you have your ear to the ground.

I suggest you learn a bit (or a lot, or have one of your policy wonks learn) about HT Odum and the concept of energy and materials flow and embodied energy. These ideas are the real-world substrate on which economic explanations and mechanisms operate. To ignore them is easier than ignoring the law of gravity, in the short term, but the chooks are coming home, inexorably, to roost.

Two interesting applications of Odum's work are to be found at:
http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/inside/products/pub/iwrreports/96r04.pdf
and
http://www.epa.gov/nheerl/publications/files/wvevaluationposted.pdf

A more general article about embodied energy and HT Odum's method of energy flow analysis can be found at:

http://www.energybulletin.net/6224.html
from whence this quote, from author and energy policy enthusiast Sholto Maud:

" ... it seems that those without emergy [embodied energy] literacy will not only find it hard to participate in the sustainability discourse, but will also be unable to evaluate suggestions and alternatives that address the sustainability of environmental management techniques, energy technologies, and policies in response to Energy Peak challenges."

Alright Malcolm, so Australia is doing some good things on the climate change front. Thank goodness for that. Let’s hope we ARE on target to meet our “Kyoto target of 108 per cent of 1990 level emissions by 2008-12”. By crikey we’d want to be. If we can’t make these very easy improvements to our absolutely profligate production of CO2, then we are just deadbeat dead losses.

The real test will be the next phase; beyond 2008, when large further reductions will be demanded, but the easy reductions will be behind us.

Believability that the Howard government can and will do this is just not there in the populace. In other words, you’ve got no credibility Malcolm.

That’s one thing, but there is a much bigger problem; The Howard government’s lack of address to overall sustainability. You as environment minister should be pushing for a holistic sustainability change as solidly as anyone can.

Again, in the absence of this, you’ve got no credibility.

Of course a fundamental part of this is an end to population growth.

I mean, how absurd is it is facilitate an ever-increasing number of fossil fuel consumers and greenhouse gas producers in this country while at the same time trying to rapidly decrease these things?? If there was a very tangible and significant gain for our quality of life in doing this, then there might be some merit in it. But there isn’t. Far from it.

When you start espousing population stabilisation and genuine sustainability, then the first little bit of credibility might start to adorn you.

Howard government. Green. Oxymoron.

Is this the laxative we had to have?

The Prime Minister's climate-change report is soft on resolve, and this rubba-dubb-dubb piece by Turnbull is just more saccharine nonsense.
He speaks only for the invested interests.

A nuclear-fission future denotes an acceptance of "Failure" as an outcome. His prescriptions do not speak to me.

As regards doing something about climate change, reckon the Howard government leads the world in stealing the agenda, or in Aussie vernacular coming in on the grouter.

Certainly Dubya Bush is about as bad. Yet it is an old historical tale that the true Avante-guarde hardly ever gets credit because they too often annoy a dumb public with non-companionable appearance and tales of truth or change which seem all poppy-cock.

Further, as regards a dumb public, they also become prey to the lies and spin, or the wink of a US Bush-style eye, similar to the smooth con-man dialectic of our own Environmental Minister.

Let's get real and see things as they really are.

Get onto Costello about selling precious government stock to build up his massive Future Fund which really in all truth still has not caught up with his nearly 600 billion overseas trading debt.

Australia leading the world in green initiatives? Even a spin doctor as talented as Malcom Turnbull should have a hard time selling this one.

Hasn't Europe already had an emmission trading system for years? Carbon taxes in England, wind power in Denmark, solar power stations in Spain anyone?

The only initiative that might get us over the mark for Kyoto is the reduction in land clearing in the 90's. I hope Turnbull's not trying to take credit for this, given the Liberal Party's record on forestry.

The goverment did replace my light bulbs with incandescent ones, but wait...that was the State Government. And don't try to tell me that demanding a new international arrangement on climate change from behind the legs of the US counts as a green credential - it doesn't.

With coal sequestration decades away, I fail to see anything meaningful or bold coming out of the Howard Government in relation to climate change. The truth is Australia is lagging well behind the nations that are leading on climate change reform. What's worse is we have a government that is lagging behind its own electorate on the issue.

I'm glad the Coalition didn't sign Kyoto since many member nations have failed to reach their quotas anyway.To weaken our economies out of fear will not enable us to find energy alternatives anyway.During the time of the Dinosaurs the planet was 10 deg C hotter and life thrived with co2 levels 13 times that of the present.We are not going to reach anywhere near these levels in the next 50yrs,so why do we panic so?Scientists are talking about a couple of degrees.The polar caps will only partially melt since much of these areas are minus 60 deg C.

There will be both positives and negatives of global warming and we will have to adapt.Plant life will flouish and so we can give it a helping hand.The most important consideration is that of over population which is happening in developing nations,who are allowed to pollute at will.No one is going to stop China or India burning fossil fuels so a self flagellating Aust that punishes itself for no effect,will mean absolutely nothing.

Much more effort has to go into solar energy since the Sun is our largest nuclear reactor.Someone needs to develop a standard roof panel that is also a solar panel so every house can reduce it's use of fossil fuels.It can be done however our oil companies have far too much power and influence over our Govts.If solar became popular and effective ,that would mean the oil companies/Govts would lose their monopoly on energy since no one has yet to sell or tax sunlight.Could it be the return of daylight robbery when we were taxed on the numbers of windows in our houses?

So take a deep breath,the world will not end in the next 50 or 100yrs since it has experienced far hotter extremes in the past and life thrived.

Arjay

I am not convinced of your claim where you state that Earth flourished during the dinosaur era.

Scientist Dewy McLean has hypothesised that those warmer periods, where abrupt increases of greenhouse gases and CO2 occurred, resulted in the past extinctions of many species including the dinosaur. There has been much conjecture from other scientists whose own theories on species extinctions are now in question.

McLean refers to huge volcanic eruptions and subsequent plumes, where the emissions caused increases in CO2 which had a devastating effect on life forms.

It's an interesting theory, espoused long before most of us started debating on global warming.

Calling up "McLean 1994 extinctions" should give you plenty interesting reading.

The increase in human population is of great concern regarding the destruction of this planet by the ever widening human footprint.

Of course our leaders tell us population increases for Australia are essential, which is another pathetic excuse for increasing hazardous industrial and domestic pollution, all in the name of "prosperity" for this arid nation!

Am I the only one who despairs at the lack of DISINTERESTED comment and analysis on this subject?
So many claims and counter-claims for new and existing technologies alike; made by all sides, cut with ideological and political humbug- that a boy just doesn't know what to believe anymore.
Can anyone point to a disinterested, rational evaluation of energy options as things stand today?

Yep

We already have, Palimpsest! Some of us find reiteration tedious. Read some of the earlier posts, or other reams of literature on solar and wind-farming and how industry could reduce their emissions whilst still remaining profitable.

There is a myriad of scientific literature on the devastating human and eco impacts from the burning of fossil fuels and its legacies are well documented.

There is also much documented evidence revealing how Australian regulators are turning a blind eye to the increase in industrial carbon based and non-carbon, hazardous emissions from the burning of fossil fuels in this country.

Additionally, the federal government is masking this increase by banging on about their (non-existent) lead in "green initiatives."

Is this the best Turnbull can do? Selling neoLiberals as green was always going to be tough, but this makes me wonder if bulls**t is the sole credential of merchant bankers.

Australia's +8% Kyoto deal was always the loot from a diplomatic smash and grab, when previous Howard flunkys tried desperately to sabotage the Kyoto Protocal negotiations by demanding more concessions than even the US (also busy trying to scupper the treaty, but ala Howard-Turnbull relationship the US got Australia to do the dirtiest work). We MIGHT come close to meeting +8%; the Climate Institute says not http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21629269-2,00.html, Turnbull of course leaves that possibility out of the sales pitch. Pity the farmers who actually wore the cost of GHG emission cuts by cutting landclearing.

MT trumpets a report on carbon trading, the ninth by his government in ten years. Might even see some carbon trading in five years, boy i'll bet Goldman Sachs (his old employer) is salivating over that prospect, because of course its the traders and polluters who will make money out of carbon credits, just as in EU. What do yuo expect from a banker/salesman, he's very keen on trading water too (and bugger the few remaining family farms). Shame the lack of emissions cap or any clue of safe emissions level (maybe 0.5Tco2e/person >> natural sinks. compare to 26Tco2e/aussie), but then hes just a lawyer, just like all the other bloody lawyers who think the sun shines in their undies.

$20 says Turnbull goes back to professional embezzlement (merchant banking) after Howard loses. At least his ignorance will do less damage there.

I will take you on Liam,but don't believe that merchant bankers can't do harm,look at Laurie Connell.
The good thing is that we have had the opportunity to see him for what he is.

Fair enough Bruce, twenty on Turnbull dumping the good folk of Wentworth within six months of Howard losing election/being put to sword by Libs/bolts before election. The six months gives time for him to run for post-Howard leadership, lose, and be unable to cope with lack of attention.

We have to be careful that this new religion called"Climate Change"does no get too carried away with it's own importance,just like all our other religions.

We have to consider all the possibilities and not let our ideologies,pet theories and predjudices rule our thinking.

Stopping the burning of all fossil fuels in too short an time span could be more catastrophic than increasing average temp buy a few degrees.

Would Sheik Hilali or George Pell let the facts get in the way of the power of their Churches?The Greens and Peter Garrett can be equally as illogical.

Arjay,

If the world's average temperature rises by "a few degrees" you (or your children if you have any) will not have any food to eat. Is that serious enough for you?

People are beginning to realise that climate change is a serious issue which, without a ‘magic technological bullet’, can only be solved by political actions.

However the issue is of such magnitude that I think it is beyond the capabilities of our current political parties.

People with concerns for environment/climate change range over the whole political spectrum. i.e.’ you don’t have to be left to be green’

Because political parties have environment/climate change as just one policy in their raft of policies, a voter must accept unacceptable policies along with a chosen climate change policy, something they are loath to do. As an example, the Greens may have a climate change policy acceptable to the mainstream voter but their other policies appear to far left progressive for about 90% of the electorate. Militant unionism in Labor, big business in Liberal is further example of this political reality.


This means that the environmental/climate change vote has been and is fragmented. This lack of a unified vote has meant, over the years, that the environment has suffered through lack of representation

Climate change is much more important than issues of the past and cannot be left to the politicians to sort out, to trade with their own interest groups, to use as their ‘loss-leader’at election time …. playing politics as normal.


We must have a unified vote to force the issue.

What the environment and climate change needs is a political party dedicated to it alone, attracting support across the whole political spectrum.

Such a party would need to have the critical mass to force the climate change issue beholden only to the environment.

Without such parties we will waste precious years, courtesy of the current parties, with point scoring, flawed emission trading schemes or low and ineffective carbon taxes and lack of funding for the very sector that will solve the problem of climate change, the sciences.

With the embedded, combative political system we have in Australia this party is probably just a pipe dream.

However the alternatives are not attractive, runaway greenhouse warming or a world dictator imposing the solution.

near universal contempt for malcolm and his mates, how charming! now if i could just get you guys to despise the other mob as well, and as much- why, there might be hope.

unfortunately, this cargo cult nation thinks salvation must come from the sky, where the 'real' people live. sorry, no philosopher-kings, and no fairy godmothers. those 'real' people are rejects from the motor traders association- failed the entrance test due to ignorance and poor character.

they won't save you. they can't. if you think your 'democratic duty' is done with a begging letter to a pollie, the generation after next will spit on your grave, if they can spare the spit, if they dare step out of the airlock.

Ah yes, back to the "everything in the garden would have been and will be rosy under Labor". Let's stop the nonsense. The ALP would have done even less than the present government. It will do less than the present government. The unions cannot have it both ways. We have already lost too many jobs overseas because of union demands. The jobs have gone to countries which are major polluters (China and Indonesia being the prime examples.) There will just be more of the same under the ALP - after all the unionists will have all the top jobs.
If we really care about the environment then the last thing we will do or need to do is vote in the ALP

R-i-g-h-t, Communicat, everything would have been worse under Labor, would we have lost at cricket and had an earthquake too? We lost jobs overseas cos Hawke+Keating+Howard stripped tariff protections (US & EU not so stupid) and we wont work for 50c a day, shirkers all, bring back flogging today (join the Young Liberals).

ALP will at least boost MRET instead of killing it off, introduce cosmetic carbon trading and probably be a little less spineless with agribusiness & water over-allocations. Who knows, they might even have the guts for meaningful carbon pricing, but never full cost accounting, demand management or serious regulatory reform. Or gating the coal industry. Or charging BHP for the 35 million of litres water a day it sucks from the Great Artesian Basin for Olympic Dam mine.

I don't think even the Greens would try that much, not in a first term government anyway (2010?); Australians would swallow another Whitlamesque coup all to easily.

on the point of labor driving business overseas, commcat: while watching "saved by the sun" last night, i was reminded that the howard/lib government was offered a chance to establish a solar cell business here in oz, by a chinese 'skilled' immigrant. he was knocked back, i presume because the coal industry owns howard's soul. so this guy went back to china, is now worth more than a billion dollars, and his company competes with the new industries in germany featured by "saved by the sun".

i don't blame howard, any politician is susceptible to control by special interest groups. but any voter who imagines a political party has the nation's interest first is the real fool.

Someone mentioned earlier that there was a direct connection between OLO and Mr. Turnbull.

Graham, if this is the case can you please make sure Mr. Turnbull reads these comments. He seems to be so far out of touch with reality. I guess reality for him is the "economy" and "growth" and he can not see where this line of expansionist philosophy is taking his children. Maybe someone in his family has a brain that is not so polluted with the system that has brought western civilization to this point. There is no argument, we humans have done well, but our planet can no longer withstand what we are doing.

Mr. Turnbull is a very powerful and persuasive man, surely someone can make him see what is happening. We need people like him to realize where our present economic model is leading us so we can get the wheels turning. We need to stabilize our population then slowly reduce it, reduce energy consumption, build replenishable energy producing infrastructure while we still have the non-renewable energy sources to do it.

We must do this without jeopardizing our quality of life. This will be the sign of a well thought out future.

Garbage, Mr. Turnbull.

So not only do we now have Howard haters,we now have Turnbull haters.Just because Malcolm is rich,it does not not exclude him from entering into logical debate.

I view the present poor state of politics as being largely due to a weak,pathic Labor Party.If they were half an opposition they could have taken the Coaltion to task on numerous past policies,instead they have been consumed with their own power struggles and have not premoted real ability or talent.Paul Keating got something right for once in his rendition on lateline with Tony Jones.Labor are just a pathetic bunch of hypocrytes who are living in the past.If they could find a Tony Blair and a half decent front bench amongst them,I would change my vote.

So the Turnbull haters should look at improving their own party and then they will have a lot less to be angry about.

Guy V, why would Malcolm Turnbull want to read this thread? It's full of people insulting him. The level of invective is repelling of sensible debate. Most participants appear to have made up their minds and are using the forum to vent.

And there is no direct connection between Malcolm Turnbull and OLO. His wife is on our editorial advisory board, which, as the name says, is advisory. It's there for advice, not to run the journal. The only politicians we could be said to have direct relationships with are those who once paid a membership of National Forum, or for whom we have built websites. Malcolm's not on either list.

Graham, Thank you for the clarification.

I also find it galling to read the personal attacks on well meaning contributors. I had hoped this forum would be above that level of commentator and those who disagree with a contributor could make constructive and objective comment. I do understand why a contributor would not wish to read the posts.

However, through all the dross of personal attack there is still a thread of sensible and concerned people with a very good grasp of Australia's present parlous situation regarding our future. I earnestly suggest they keep to the facts which will encourage the personal detractors to lift their game.

Thank you for the forum and keep up the good work.

Its a bit rich calling M.Turnbull a 'well meaning contributor' - he (or more likely one of his taxpayer funded staff) have merely reposted an article published elsewhere - gosh what a contribution.

The article anyway contains zero real information, just a pre-election spin, and we're supposed to to suck it up and smile? Sorry, over a decades worth of smear (green=terrorist) will tend to create a reaction and this is the nearest Australia gets to real democracy, as anyone who's tried to talk to a Liberal Party MP about anything other than money knows.

Incidentally, its not just the majority of dole-bludging-gay-whale-loving-communist-terrorist readers of OLO who think the Liberals stink:
..Cbus chief executive Sandy Grant, who controls almost $12 billion in super funds, said the state of debate on environment issues was "appalling if not farcical".
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21913321-664,00.html
'Criminal negligence' is how i'd put it, but "Howard haters" are a very broad church.

In response to michael_in_adelaide, Friday, 8 June 2007 11:19:38 AM
where we are directed to the Secure energy: options for a safer world
ENERGY SECURITY AND URANIUM RESERVES by Jan Willem and Storm van Leeuwen http://tinyurl.com/2v2prr as a definitive document.

For those really interetsed in the broader debate suggest you read at least one formal rebuttal from University of Melbourne at http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/TheScienceOfNuclearPower

"It is worth noting that the widely quoted paper by Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen and Philip Smith (SLS), which gives a rather pessimistic assessment of the Energy Lifecycle of Nuclear Power, assumes a far larger energy cost to construct and decommission a Nuclear Power plant (240 Peta-Joules versus 8 Peta-Joules(PJ)). "

There follows at the end quite an informatve debate with rebuttal and counter rebuttal .....assuimg the group is interested in such a thing!!

Just tell us Liam,how Australia can change the world by stopping the burning of all our fossil fuels,while the likes of China and India just accelerate their their pollution at a hundred times our present rate.You and the Greens just have a problem with logic,who live in an ideological world divorced from the constraints of reality.

I don't agree with this so called globalised community that gives power to big Govt and big business,however Labor offers us nothing different and don't confront the realities of cheap third world products that destroy our domestic industries.

Why do we bother having ANZAC Day and paying homage to those who fought for our freedoms when our Govts of both Liberal and Labor persuasions just ignore the inequities of a fictictious level playing field that will continue to give power to big business?

At least Malcolm Turnbull is not a hypocryt,Therese Rein used the Coalition's IR reform to become very rich,while her husband Kevin Rudd,seeks power denegrating the very system that has made the Rudd family very rich.

The Howard family are paupers in comparision to the Rudd family,yet Howard and Turnbull are the men to be hated because it does not sit well with left leaning philosophy.

Hate is based on ignorance and fear and the left leaning in our society are too often consumed with this poison rather than engaging in rational debate.

Thats a Straw Man from Arjay (http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Straw%20man), i never said we should stop burning all fossil fuels, neither I think does the Green Party (but not being a member i'm not sure about that).

In the same sentance he claims, "China and India just accelerate their their pollution at a hundred times our present rate", which is of course nonsense: Australians are responsible for over 26Tons of CO2 equivalent GHGas emissions per capita, both China and India are well under 10T.CO2eqGHG/capita. Why are RightThinkers so very bad at fact checking?
Arjay goes on to try playing on envy of Theresa Rein & Rudds wealth, meanwhile moaning about lack of rationality, hypocrisy rampant!

The "But look at China/INdia!" excuse on high rotation in Australian media (as obedient journalists parrot Howard & Turnbull) overlooks the well known fact that we are the biggest coal exporters in the world: 250 million tons a year, nearly double #2 (Indonesia) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal#Major_coal_exporters.

If it will be so easy and okey-dokey to control use of our uranium (as the pronuclear fans claim), how come nobody is even whispering the possibility of doing same for coal, one of the biggest single sources of greenhouse gas emissions? I'd ask one of the fossil fools in our COALition government, but then they don't do questions do they (as Turnbull is demonstrating here).

Will Mr Turnbull and Arjay be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century?

Only yesterday, the Australian reported the results of a poll conducted by "Pollinate" of 1,034 respondents.

Only 19% preferred the Federal government's focus on nuclear and clean coal.

74% favoured a greenhouse strategy based mainly on energy efficiency and renewable energy.

Among coalition voters, 60% supported renewable energy and and 35% nuclear or clean coal.

77% preferred to get their electricity from a renewable source, while only 8% favoured nuclear power and 1% favoured coal.

Solar energy was the preferred choice for 50% of all respondents.

Only last week, I received a volume from the Dept. of the Prime Minister and Cabinet titled "Uranium Mining, Processing and Nuclear Energy" - all 288 pages!

One wonders what that volume cost the Australian taxpayers who are being force-fed the coalition's maniacal plan to escalate radiation levels on this planet, which have already caused millions of casualites!

Liam,forget the per capita analogy.If China or India fail to curtain their populations ,that is their problem,not ours.We have negative population growth yet cower into submission when the likes of the United Nations scream racist?

It is about time that third world countries were told to activily control their population growth,since their growth is adding far more to greenhouse gases than perceived Western decadence.

Arjay, on a number of issues the Coalition Government has had to make policy on the run to adapt to what the Labor Party has been making policy on. Broad Band and Climate Change are two such issues.
My last post read "Garbage, Mr. Turnbull"; it is not about how wealthy he might be, but about how not very long ago Mr. Howard was expressing comments suggestive of him being a skeptic. Mr.Turnbull claims that Australia is in the vanguard of Nations who are creating positive change in relation to Climate Change/Greenhouse Effect. That is garbage, nothing but spin.
It's a pity the Greens have not been taken notice of, they have been voicing concern about the Green House/Climate Change issue for a couple of decades.

I'm not a paid up member of the Labor Party, or any other Party for that matter.