This article makes some good points then spoils it with climate change denialism. The author should re-read the analysis made by real scientists. I agree that the Federal ALP are not living up to their low carbon promises and they have made the task even harder with their anti-nuclear stance. However I disagree that fuel taxes should be lowered. Perhaps some of the revenue could be used to underwrite the cost of solar. I also fear that the long awaited carbon trading scheme will be weak. If it included liquid fuels it would double penalise coal-to-liquids. CTL may ultimately prove necessary for jet fuel but taking the train would become relatively cheaper. In a nutshell I would say Federal ALP energy policy turns a blind eye to coal while handicapping the plausible alternatives.

“…his (Rudd’s) only plan was to become Prime Minister.”

Of course. Does anyone still believe that politicians are in the game for anybody but themselves?

It’s too late to complain about the Rudd Labor Government after enough misguided Australians decided that they wanted a change of government badly enough to land us with a PM with a mere 10 years experience in politics.

It has always been clear to people who have been around for a while that the Australian Labor Party never has had, and never will have, what it takes to be in government.

The only problem with the Rudd government is that it hasn't differentiated itself clearly enough from its predecessor.

It can't do much on petrol prices. A large reason they're so inflated is down to big end speculation. The stock exchange and the multinational conglomerates that dominate it, between them, have too much power now for any small or medium sized national government to have much influence. The egg is scrambled and I can't see any way out of that predicament, which of course is a direct consequence of the neo-liberal economics entrenched by the author's side of politics.

Regarding the alco-pop tax, it mightn't be the full story but something had to be done. Contrary to the author's assertion, these drinks are different to other forms of alcohol. Their sweetness and their funky marketing introduce an ever-younger cohort to alcohol and many of these are people who might never have taken it up otherwise. These drinks are chemical cocktails, many comprising 50% sugar. Quite apart from the alcohol content, they are an absolute menace from a health and nutrition standpoint. They emerged and flourished under John Howard's watch. Any government with foresight would not have turned a blind eye on this and given industry a blank cheque as it did. That's another egg that's scrambled and the damage done will be hard to counter.

As for the solar rebate, I agree, the Rudd government has blundered here. We do need a cut-off point though. People on incomes of $150 000 plus don't need taxpayers' money, no matter how great the public benefit. In my view, people on high incomes should actually be required to install solar panels.

The nuclear option is not the answer to our energy dilemma. The radioactive waste it produces is an enormous problem for which there is absolutely no solution in sight. I don't think it's ethical to bequeath its lethal long-term effects to future generations.

I wonder how many other climate change sceptics we have in parliament. No wonder we are being governed with such a lack of vision.

The subject discussion is premature. Labor was never going to put anything substantial in the 2008 budget while the Liberals held sway in the Senate. Wait for the next one.

“The media indulge the high priests (of global warming) castigating the many heretics who dare to differ. It is political correctness of the highest and most unconscionable order.”

As Dennis says this has become like a religion to the anticapitalist left wing, I have said before that since the David Hicks issue has been resolved the left wing has latched on to global warming as their new bat to belt the evil capitalists and global companies with. The ironical part is that the rise of China a hitherto poor communist country is having a lot to do with the their so-called causes of global warming

As to the economy and the pain of the rising cost of living. It states in my morning paper today that so far it has cost the Australian taxpayers $20billion to protect the country from Islamic terrorists. Spent on Defense plus the beefed up security at airports etc. “The investment impacts on everyone’s lives, from expanding CCTV camera networks to invasive airline security checks. This is an ongoing cost and that money could have been spent to ease the pain of petrol impacting on groceries and all aspects of living. How much cheaper it would have been to bring immigrants here who didn’t have wildly different customs and religions to the existing population.