I agree that Rudd looks weak and dishonest over the ETS. It was a core election promise then he lost his nerve at the first hurdle. However I wouldn't jump on the biosequestration and electric car bandwagon just yet. Both may disappoint when put to the test. Turnbull should drop the N-word to test the waters and I think he may find that public opinion supports nuclear power more than he realises. This week's shenanigans over load shedding may be a taste of worse to come if summers get hotter. Note even business supports a form of electricity rationing, the reserve buyback, so again the politicians aren't keeping up. A comprehensive climate policy should try and link all of the connections - coal dependence, coal exports, oil imports, desalination, hotter summers, transport electrification, carbon sinks proved and unproved.

At this point it looks like Obama will give genuine leadership on energy and climate policy whereas Rudd is just one of the pack. Turnbull has a great chance to step in if his ideas make sense.

Well said Taswegian, Hope we don't have to rely on Obama or the Kyoto II for that matter. Just heard from a friend in the UK, their taget emissions have just been cut from 20% to 10% by 2020 because they can't meet target. Also any carbon costs will now be zero euro's untill 2025! After 12 years of opposing nuclear energy the Brown Government has just announced the "new nuclear build" programme, 8 reactors before 2020 and 3 must be on-line by 2015 or they are out of electricity. Rudd and Turnbull need to get something less populist on the table before we hit the wall. Also told that the UK windfarms have been declared "eywateringly costly and inefficient". Surely we can look around the world to see what is working and what is not before we leap after the European Lemmings?

Leader of the Opposition is the best job in Australia; it still pays pretty well (not that Turnbull needs the money) and you can say and promise whatever you like without actually having to produce the goods.

The only reason Rudd is still ‘preferred Prime Minister’ is Malcolm Turnbull: no competition for Rudd, bad and all as he is, from Turnbull; nobody likes Turnbull. Turnbull will have to go if the Coalition is to achieve Government again in the near future.

Unlike the leader of the opposition, Rudd doesn’t have the luxury of saying whatever he likes, because he (Rudd) actually has to do something whereas Turnbull does not.

As for whether or not the Government’s scheme is too “weak”, Rudd is not silly enough to do more than he knows he will be able to get away with. He probably also knows that, however much he tries to lower emissions, no difference in the climate situation will be seen; he is merely catering to the hysteria churned up by the media and climate warriors while still looking to the economic realities of emission schemes that have no value at all.

The piddling emissions created in Australia are nothing in the global scheme of things. The biggest challenge for Australia is to cut the population. What we really need in a Prime Minister is someone with the guts to formulate a population policy which will see a cessation of immigration and a gradual reduction in permanent population to sustainable levels.

No such person exists among the current dills in Government or in Oppostion.

‘Turnbull turns up clean, green’

Phuwheeer chhoowa khoower khoower khoower… phwaaaw (cough, splutter, choke)

Yeeeer roight!

Ok, so he’s espousing better stuff than Rudd. Well Jeez, that’s not hard to do! Rudd has stuffed up so badly that he has left Turnbull enormous room to move and to offer something seemingly considerably better…..without it actually being considerably better!

The biggest factor of all in reducing Australia’s emissions is population growth. If it was to be quickly brought down to the lowest possible growth rate, it would make a huge difference by 2020.

In fact, the difference is so big that Rudd says that he has effectively committed us to a 25% per-capita reduction in order to achieve a national 5% reduction by 2020!

Is Turnbull addressing this issue? Nope

Is Turnbull all for rapid endless growth? Yepindeedie

Is Turnbull in the slightest bit interested in achieving a sustainable society in Australia? Nooooo

“Maybe, just maybe, the Coalition will be a serious player in the climate change debate: although they've certainly got a long way to go.”

They sure do!

I suggest that if you can actually go to a function or read the speeches by Turnbull, Hunt or dare I say it Heffernan and you will see the depth and hard work that is going into policy development.
Don't rely on third party interpretation with its attendant spin.
Bagging out politicians is an easy way of getting your jollies.
Join the debate by getting involved with your party of choice.

"Unlike the leader of the opposition, Rudd doesn’t have the luxury of saying whatever he likes, because he (Rudd) actually has to do something"

He does. The question is why hasn't he.

Kevin 747 is long on rhetoric and short on action. It would appear that his grandiose promises whilst in opposition are slightly harder to implement than he thought, so he has quietly ditched nearly every pre election promise he made.

The reason Turnbull can throw stones at Rudd's emission scheme is because it is so shoddy. This is also true for fuel watch, grocery watch, and even better, the net filter.

It is easy to be in opposition when the gov is incompetent.

Kevin Rudd is just a populist, he just say what he thinks we want to hear, he really does nothing apart from flying around the world

He just do all the popular things and hope that he is reelected in the next election, as shown by grocerywatch and fuelwatch, 2 raging success, he is long on rhetorics and short on action. When you have a person who acts purely on popular subjects, hard decisions are not made and Australian suffers

Kevin07 = recession08 = depression09

Malcolm Turnbull LOOKS Clean and Green, more like.
I notice that someone has referenced Bill Heffernan as well as Malcolm Turnbull and Greg Hunt wrt this 'new' emissions policy. Well, I guess that figures as once you scratch the surface the policy is merely a sop to the farming fraternity in order to give them a Green tinge.
I present as evidence for my assertion this article on BioChar, or biosequestration, from the eminent publication 'Science':
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080501180247.htm