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.