Given the description of Australian Politics in the British Journal is it time we woke up?
Not one side but both seem lost , who would have thought plain packaging of tobacco products would not get support from all sides.
Carbon pricing, while a body the conservatives refused is it on meet we see leaders say it is proved by the science but not combine to get a good result for every one.
To what extent is the 24/7 Medea wish for an instant headline controlling our politics.
Why do we want to increase tax and LPG, stop Solar power support, not the money making aspects , that needs attention.
But why not remove all tax on Solar home schemes and do what ever it takes to use more.
How many of us,honestly, are not concerned with leadership in both camps.

I agree Belly. It seems that the Opposition are disagreeing with the Government even if the issue is a no-brainer, like plain packaging for tobacco products.
Maybe the Liberal Party are the recipients of more than their fair share of Tobacco company financial support?

I watched Tony Abbott being interviewed by Lisa Wilkinson on the Today Show the other day, and he was absolutely about to blow a gasket about the plain packaging issue. She kept asking him about how he stood on the issue, but he kept repeating that he hadn't seen the Bill yet.
He was getting more and more flustered and inarticulate as the interview went on.

I would be so embarrassed if we had him out there representing Australia as a PM (shudder!).
Bring back Malcolm Turnbull I say!

As for carbon pricing, I hate to say that I am with the Liberals on that one.
I realise we have a problem with the changing weather patterns and rising sea levels in our world, but I am a skeptic about whether us mere humans are involved in causing it all.

Dear Suze,

Human activities - the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation are triggering changes we are witnessing in the global climate. Taking action on climate change is the right thing to do. We need to start taking action now to promote new sources of renewable and cleaner energy otherwise we will pay a much higher cost in the future. Decisions we make now will determine the severity of climate change our children and grandchildren experience.

As someone wrote on another link (sorry, I've lost the site) but as it made sense to me I'll quote it:

"Australia's only hope of forestalling seriously damaging climate change is a strong international agreement to curb emissions. That's mostly out of our hands; but we increase the chances of such an agreement if we ourselves demonstrate a willingness to take hard decisions about reducing emissions. This is where "Direct Action," fails most demonstrably - since it is clear such a policy will not reduce emissions but continue their present practices."

There's no incentive for polluters to stop polluting. They will be paid by taxpayers to continue polluting - and there's no incentive for them to try alternative measures to curb their pollution. Various alternatives have been offered - and accepted internationally by most progressive nations. "Direct Action," will just confirm our international reputation for dragging the chain on climate change.

And in such a context, our current 5% target is inadequate - seriously inadequate for convincing other nations that we're serious about reducing emissions. It needs to be increased substantially - to an internationally acceptable levels and we need a serious emissions abatement policy to demonstrate good faith to the concerned nations.

We have much to talk about, and both sides of politics can be targeted, hopefully will be.
We just do not have first grade politicians running either party.
Abbott should with out delay stop excepting tobacco funding 95% of British tobacco donations to politics is in two checks,nationals and liberals.
This may account for Minchin saying no evidence exists that tobacco smoke kills.
Suzi humans do impact on climate.
The evidence is firm, our industrialization has driven it.
The fact we need to talk about it is proving my point, we need to wake up.
I think Gillards personal approval is going to make this impossible to get past the house.
So recommend we return to the ETS as planned under Rudd even if it delays the start.
Today a film star has worked in a TV add she and those paying for it, are being blackened.
IS that an attack on free speech? does it say any thing we want to say should be monitored by who? conservatives?
Who monitors Abbott's confrontational no matter what actions.
We Australians are poorly served by our Medea, newspapers worst, but all Medea and politicians on both sides.
Cracks are opening, just maybe my feeling both sides will not go to an election with current leaders is about to be confirmed.
We will be better for it, by the way,lets see some new threads contributors.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cqCvcX7buo&feature=relmfu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SdDiHbG1tY&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fx3-u_sBWMQ&feature=related


THE world’s coral reefs could disappear within a few decades along with hundreds of species of plankton and shellfish, according to new studies into man’s impact on the oceans.

Researchers have found that carbon dioxide, the gas already blamed for causing global warming, is also raising the acid levels in the sea. The shells of coral and other marine life dissolve in acid. The process is happening so fast that many such species, including coral, crabs, oysters and mussels, may become unable to build and repair their shells and will die out, say the researchers.

“Increased carbon dioxide emissions are making the world’s oceans more acidic and could cause a mass extinction of marine life similar to the one that occurred on land when the dinosaurs disappeared,” said Professor Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution’s global ecology department.

When CO2 produced by burning fossil fuels dissolves in the ocean, it forms carbonic acid. A little of this can benefit marine life by providing carbonate ions — a vital constituent in the biochemical process by which sea creatures such as corals and molluscs build their shells.

Caldeira found, however, that the huge volumes of carbon dioxide being released by humans are dissolving into the oceans so fast that sea creatures can no longer absorb it. Consequently, the levels of carbonic acid are rising and the oceans are “turning sour”.

Speaking at the American Geophysical Union’s ocean sciences conference in Hawaii last week, Caldeira said: “The current rate of carbon dioxide input is nearly 50 times higher than normal. In less than 100 years, the pH of the oceans could drop by as much as half a unit from its natural 8.2 to about 7.7.”

This would mark a huge change in ocean chemistry. The shells of marine creatures are made of calcium carbonate, the same substance as chalk, which is vulnerable to acidity. Even a slight increase in acidity would mean many creatures would dissolve. Others might be able to rebuild their shells but would be unable to reproduce.

Gees, Iam glad there's No evidence:)

Leap

Gettig rid of our coal fired power stations will have an impact on global polution of Zilch.
Stopping our coal exports would have a massive impact.
But then we wouldn't get the money that coal brings in.

So we shall have to help the major polluters to continue to polute.