Seems to me it is almost impossible for any government and color to bring in change.
If we read this thread I have questions.
I want and believe in Nuclear power, if some way Gillard funded it surely it would be called a big new tax?
Ludwig ,a man who wants the best for our future truly is blind to the fact industry and both party's want a big Australia.
It mate is not right but within 3 years we will have more imported labour than ever before and a still growing population, no matter who rules us.
I want more plantation forests , to cut down and use ,we need the wood, but what has it got to do with nuclear power.
We must every day,focus on new ways to keep our planet healthy this, nuclear power would not only cut our emissions but contribute to a cut in world levels, however Gillard and Abbott only by working together can change this.
Abbott refuses to enter the tent spoiling is his tactics not compromise.

<< Ludwig …. truly is blind to the fact industry and both party's want a big Australia. >>

Belly, there can’t be anything more obvious in the universe than the fact that both big parties want continuous high population growth. Even the Greens aren’t too concerned about it… and it should of course be one of their most fundamental concerns.

But surely there is hope. Gillard has poo-pooed Rudd’s big Australia. Bligh has expressed a lot of concern about population in southeast Qld, and before her Bob Carr did the same regarding Sydney when he was Premier of NSW. We’ve had Tim Flannery and others talking about this for years and most recently, Dick Smith.

Surely it is just a matter of time before an opposition party, at either federal or state level can see that the way for them to win power is to take a platform of population stabilisation and sustainability to an election. The time is right for this paradigm shift to get huge support from the general community.

As for nuclear power, I don’t like it. One of the main reasons is that if the current mindset remains in place, it would just facilitate continuous growth.

But if we were to change our mindset and have a stable population – genuine sustainability paradigm guaranteed, then I might just be able to support a nuclear future in this country.

You can buy the solar panel chips off the internet and assemble them yourself.Apparently you can make a solar panel for about $200.Solar technology is in it's infancy.The technology has to get better.

<<<But surely there is hope. Gillard has poo-pooed Rudd’s big Australia>>>

I suspect that Gillard’s stance on “Rudds big Australia” ,as with her stance on the ETS/carbon tax , as with her stance on off shore processing, were all designed to dampen down potentially damaging issues, more than any real commitment to principle or desire to follow through.

And it worked –it worked real well.

Now she’s safely ensconced in the lodge she and her party can revert form (or lack of form).

Horus as you know it was part of the deal with independents and the greens to put ETS or what ever eventuates on the table.
During those negotiations Mr Tony Abbott said his side was talking to all about, what to do with our emissions.
At best the inference Gillard was not forced to review her stance is uninformed.
The very election result, near defeat, came because of a both gutless and unwise back down by Rudd/Gillard.
I truly, as I have said, do not trust Gillard she may have been the reason we lost direction on ETS and the DD, but using her mind change this way only convinces the anti climate change or welded on anti Labor mob.
Fact is it seems given polls say over 60% of voters want it more votes could be won by entering the discussions than trying to convince us changed out comes after the hung Parliament equal a back down.

Power generators are not the problem, as it is the 'power users' that are the problem. Us!

Now placing a tax on carbon will most certainly result in us, the consumer of power paying a higher price, which by the way may well result in less power being consumed as we will have no more money to spend, therefore, we will either use less, or go without something else to pay for our increased power bills.

We have vast areas of 'unpopulated land' to which we could establish nuclear plants that should be of little worry to anyone.

I have also heard of magnets generating power, however, my thoughts are to introduce nuclear and let future generations develop new forms of 'unknown' power in future years to come.

After all, if we cut back on power generation, we also run the risk of limiting progress, which may result in future generations having no chance to develop future power sources.

Cutting back is not the right option, especially if we wish to offer future generations the same opportunities we enjoyed throughout our life times.

I say nuclear power is a given.