Dear Shadow Minister,

Your quote about "reputation," points to the heart
of the problem. I'm glad that you've brought it up.
Making up numbers to scare people - is a well worn
political tactic - certainly from the Liberal Party
we've got the "carbon tax," as a perfect example.

Therefore I am dubious that real action on climate
change will be taken by the Abbott-led Coalition when
Mr Abbott has spent his adult life being sceptical
about it. It's therefore logical not to be
overly optimistic that things will change.

There was a recent article in The Australian where
ACIL Allen Chief Executive Paul Hyslop quoted that
11,000 additional turbines will have to be built
with costs estimated at being $65 billion.

However as the Australian Financial Review pointed out,
Mr Hyslop's estimate referred to capital costs not
consumer costs and his estimate was also based on wind
power alone, when Labor has said its goal would be
achieved through a variety of policy mechanisms.

Solar technology is becoming cheaper by the day and
advances in other technologies will also do the same.

Therefore I am optimistic and prefer to agree with
the Clean Energy Council Chief Executive - Kane Thornton
who said that by 2030 - Australia's energy system
will contain a range of energy technologies including
wind, large-scale solar, wave and bio-energy.

JF Aus, like a number of people on here you have misunderstood what the
discussion is about.
It has nothing to do with global warming.
It is all about how to build a new energy regime.

At present reliance has been placed on solar and wind, but as the
Germans & others are finding it just cannot be managed as hoped.
The backup requirements are not affordable and a better base load
system is required.

That in a nutshell is what the problem is about.
It seems the government is more switched on (pun intended) than any of us realised.
It seems that this why they have switched the money supply from wind
subsidies to research for a better system.
We do not have a lot of time.
I have doubts that we would be able to afford nuclear and anyway the
battles to install it would be monumental.
Geothermal of whatever sort and tidal if we can solve the transmission
problem are good bets. That is where we need to spend money, not
building a bigger grid management problem.

Foxy said, "Labor has said its goal would be achieved through a variety of policy mechanisms". Foxy just why do you think they made such a vague statement, as if it was actually a policy? It is of course because Shorten has no such policy. This statement was to simply mollify their hard left/green wing over the switch to turning back the boats policy.

Of course he & we all know he could never survive in Labor leadership if he did actually stop the boats. Talk about wink wink, nudge nudge, & hope to fool enough to get a few votes.

There is no low CO2 generation technology in existence, or prospect, to achieve this "aspirational" statement, other than nuclear, & we know how likely Labor is to develop nuclear.

Even with nuclear there is no way we could afford or achieve the development so much of new generation capacity within that time scale.

Please get of those propaganda sites you frequent, & do a bit of wider research. You are permitting yourself to be coned, by shutting off from learning the true facts. As a librarian you know you should.

Foxy,

As the 2007 election campaign by Labor and the unions was almost exclusively a scare campaign the left you don't have a leg to stand on.

The EU has started to realise that the high cost of energy is crippling its economy. By comparison the US who was the worst hit by the GFC, but has worked on reducing energy costs to far below that of the EU has nearly twice the growth and half the unemployment. The EU is losing in Competition with the US and China / India is taking its toll.

With the EU being virtually the only only country with a price on carbon, the comparison is clear that without an equal measure of effort from one's competitors, the consequences are severe.

The Kevin '07 election campaign, Shadow? ISTR most of the scaremongering was done by the Liberals, who tried to paint Labor as a bunch of union bosses. But as the Libs had already implemented Workchoices, that didn't seem so bad.

Labor tried to run a scare camoaign in the mid '90s. The public saw through it and John Howard comfortably won the election. I think Labor sensibly avoided the tactic from then on, BICBW as I was out of the country for a few years.

But with a compliant press, Tony Abbott's built his success on scare campaigns, including blatant lies about the effects of the carbon tax.

The governmentment would be better off concentrating on solar power and
supporting new ideas
For affordable solar power for every home in Australia. Those wind turbines
Are a visually environmental eyesore,they
look awful and like some kind of
grotesque joke in large numbers.
They destroy the peace and tranquility and this makes them invironmentally
unfriendly and a blight on the natural beauty of rural landscapes.