Rob, in response to your points;

1 & 2. It would be nice if Australia could take a leading role in renewable energy development and various other sustainability-related industries. But that is not the most important thing. Of course we should be joining the momentum that is happening in other parts of the world, but again that is not the highest priority. What matters is what we can do to direct our own society and country into sustainability mode. We don’t have to take a leading role or a holier than thou approach. Anyway, if we set a good example, we effectively will be taking a leading role.

3. If we’ve got the manpower to undertake Rudd’s 4.7 billion dollar infrastructure plan, then we’ve got the manpower to undertake any sustainability pursuits that could be implemented if a good portion of that money, and labour, was redirected towards it.

4. We do have the political capabilities of organising coordination with other countries.

5. We’re not independent of other countries and neither should we be. We should be working with them. So yes we are dependent on others to some extent. But that’s fine.

6. We don’t have to go first with technological advances. There are plenty of good initiatives being taken up around the world that we should be getting into.

7. If our research gets bought out by bigger players, that’s not so bad. That doesn’t mean it is lost to us.

The problem with the notion of the time not being right until the ideas become workable in a socially and economically acceptable manner is that we desperately need these sorts of changes now. There is a great deal of resistance to change from the entrenched big business lobby and from governments and populations. So if the new agenda doesn’t get solidly pushed, it is not likely to happen until way later than it should have, meaning that the hardship for us all will be that much greater.

Ludwig,

What you've said is completely reasonable to me. When I said things should be workable, I really meant they should be done in a way where the people doing the implementing were not unduly stressed or wrenched in the process.

Your comment, "There is a great deal of resistance to change from the entrenched big business lobby and from governments and populations." is what worries me a bit. If the Government says to those in its control to go in Direction A without being aligned with big business, and big business consequently decides to go in Direction B, the implementers in the middle tend to get painfully wrenched and the whole thing can be a big failure.

I suppose I'm saying that taking the right amount of time means that all the elements necessary to make the idea work get aligned so that many hands are doing the work in a concordant manner rather than just throwing a few human sacrifices to the wolves. Taking time is also useful and necessary because it allows the political processes behind the scenes to work to smooth the way for the implementers.

Ludwig's opening post links to the ABC 7:30 Report story 'Renewable energy sector struggling'. I must confess I did not immediately read it. I should have. I re-copy it here: http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2008/s2440907.htm

It is not hard to see why Ludwig was so depressed by its content. The introductory remarks by Kerry O'Brien include this statement:

"Here in Australia, there's still no sign of the 20 per cent renewable energy target promised by Labor during last year's election campaign. The delay has frozen billions of investment dollars in Australia's wind and solar industries. The next casualty could well be the country's largest wind turbine factory, which is threatening to cut 200 jobs."

That claim did not sit right with me. I was sure Labor had already legislated for a 20% mandatory renewable energy target, having recently read a departmental paper dealing with NRETs. I found the link to the relevant Department of Energy, Utilities and Sustainability (DEUS) document here, in this post,: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2103#49034 . ( A word of caution: many of my posts in this thread could be described as a work of 'faction', a work in which the reader must separate fact from fiction for themselves. All external links, however, to the best of my knowledge, are factual.)

Of course, as anyone who reads the linked OLO post and its successor will realise, I have conflated existing NSW 20% NRET legislation with promised, but not yet delivered, extension of 10% Federal MRET legislation to the 20% level. I did not conflate with respect to the 20% mandatory target being a Labor policy: it's already legislated in NSW, and acknowledged by Federal Labor, in a situation where all participatory governments in the national electricity market are Labor.

Between the 2007 Federal elections and the ABC story, the NSW Iemma ministry imploded and the erstwhile intended sell-out of publicly owned power distribution, in the face of 80% public disapproval, seemingly stalled.

Is something being hidden?

Well, Ludwig, that was quick, wasn't it!

I heard it announced on the news this morning that today, yes TODAY, the Federal government intends to formalise its position with respect to the 20/20 renewable energy targets. Now I'm cautious as to exactly whether this means a 20% mandatory renewable energy target, but I have a feeling that between the ABC 7:30 Report program and this thread of yours the Feds may have been prodded into action.

Contrast the apparent burning of the midnight oil needed to produce this announcement with the statement in the program 'Renewable energy sector struggling' attributed to Kerry Brewster: "Environment Minister Peter Garrett says the 20 per cent renewable energy target promised by Labor during the election campaign won't be a reality until at least halfway through next year." It seems, on the surface, as if Environment Minister Garrett has either been being kept in the dark, or has been speaking with forked tongue, with respect to this statement of his in that same program: "... There's a clearly laid out timetable, which we will stick to."

Its either that, or the 20% MRET timetable has been suddenly moved up. I wonder what, specifically, has (seemingly) moved them into action? Maybe some of the responses to Federal Small Business Minister Craig Emerson on the OLO article 'Ideas the engine of new growth', especially perhaps this one: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8284#129755

Or are all five eastern States governments and the Federal government, seeing themselves caught mid-stream facilitating the energy asset-stripping of the Australian polity by means of a device involving evasion of the provisions of the Constitution, now frantically rushing to be appearing to do the 'right thing', renewables wise, having hung an Australian company out to dry while they were trying to cover their Constitution-evading tracks around the national electricity market?

Here's Andrew Robb's argument in The Australian for carefully implementing industrial change:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24799125-5013479,00.html

Forrest, this is good news. Well, at least it is something….which is probably better than nothing! http://www.climateark.org/shared/reader/welcome.aspx?linkid=113221

I should be very positive about it…but when it is viewed in conjunction with the manic continuous expansion ethic and the miserable 5% cut in greenhouse gas emissions, you‘ve got to wonder. I do get the feeling, as I often express on OLO, that doing little bits about environmental/sustainability issues like this amounts to solidly supporting the status quo and just giving it a thin green veneer.

Anyway, good on the 7.30 Report and OLO and ol’ Ludnuts as well (pats self on back...and tries very hard to convince self that his efforts do actually sometimes count for something)… and all those who contributed to this thread! ( :> )