Everybody wants to save the world in some way. But more often than not the politics of salvation get in the way of achieving this.
That appears to be the curse that has befallen the Federal Government’s attempt to introduce an emissions trading scheme.
While the Government and Opposition engage in a power play over the details of an ETS and their own face-saving attempts, they have left the electorate fumbling to grasp what it will mean for the average punter.
Despite the political energy that has gone into the debate, the ETS has not been the hottest topic among the chatter on online news forums in the past week or so.
It would seem the complexities of such a scheme and lack of solid details have raised a boredom barrier among many people.
Mr and Ms Public want to know how any carbon reduction scheme will impact on them directly. And this is still not entirely clear.
The lack of coherence on a climate change strategy within the Coalition has not helped the electorate to understand whether this is a policy worth supporting.
Commenting on abc.net.au, reader Renn thought the Coalition were in a no-win situation whether they supported an ETS or not. “They are damned if they do and damned if they don’t. The Coalition mustn’t prostitute their policies. Don’t worry about a double dissolution. The ALP will be seen to be chicken if they call an early election and would only do so while their popularity is high to ensure being returned. But they might be in for a surprise.”
But while the ETS proved to be a dry topic of debate, raising the prospects of nuclear and other alternative sources of energy elicited an immediate uptick in interest.
Resources Minister Martin Ferguson’s statement late last week that solar and wind energy were not viable based on current technology, and that nuclear, gas and coal-fired energy could not be ignored, drew qualified support from many online comments.
Couriermail.com.au reader, Alf of Carindale, called for a trade-off on the ETS. “Seventy per cent of Australia’s carbon emissions are from carbon-fired power generation. If Rudd was serious about reducing CO2, nuclear power is the answer. But then, of course, no ETS tax.”
Among other comments also focusing on the nuclear debate, JS wrote on news.com.au: “Even if there was grid-connected solar power system on every home in Australia, there would still be a significant energy deficit that would have to be made up from other sources. The technology just isn’t available at the moment to create the amount of base load power required from renewable sources. Nuclear power shouldn’t be viewed as the solution though. It should be viewed as a bridge to get us all to the time where adequate renewable energy technology and infrastructure is available.”
RG of Sydney added: “I don’t see why it has to be one or the other. Make as much of solar as possible and supplement with nuclear as needed. Technology needs to look at better electricity storage using hydrogen cells, more efficient solar cells, and ways in which the nuclear waste can best be made safer.”
But Silent Minority of Bull Creek wrote on Perth Now: “If the Government was prepared to throw as much money at renewable energy as they do at the uranium industry, then we absolutely could avoid going down this path of nuclear power.”
Vivienne Ortega of Heidelberg Heights was less than enthusiastic about the legacy of more uranium mining in a comment to abc.net.au: “The environmental impacts of uranium mining will be left to the next generation, and it may be too late then Uranium mining will bring in mega-dollars, and this is the only thing that our leaders understand - short-term gains at the expense of the environment and indigenous land rights.”
Regardless of whether the Government and Opposition can reach a final consensus on the ETS, it seems the broader energy debate is not set to be switched off any time soon.
Facebook Recommendations
Read all about it
Punch live
Up to the minute Twitter chatter
TAbbott to fight PHI rebate cuts on behalf of 2.5 million to pay extra, but won't say what he'd do as PM. http://t.co/lXWpMXXF
Numerous workplace safety rules (no harness, fall arrest etc) broken in this pic of Roosters coach Brian Smith http://t.co/jx4PgtBs
Yo, mummy bloggers! Your expert input is required in this doozy of a child-rearing dilemma http://t.co/0JfOnCq1
Recent posts
The latest and greatest
Friday Dilemma: child cruelty or harmless fun?
Parenting. It’s the new oneupmanship. Ah, how quaint the days now seem when parents could raise…
Hipsters with hip replacements
Someone once told me that when people reach a certain age they begin dressing in the manner they did…
La dole cheque vita is not so sweet on $16 a day
Your task is simple. Here is $115.50. It must last one week. You have no savings, no assets, but thankfully…
Nosebleed Section
choice ringside rantings
From: Punch on: Open thread 09/02/2012
marley says:
I'm one of the older ones, so I've certainly seen a few changes in my time. When I started school I learned to write with a nib pen, dipped in an inkwell (no, I'm not kidding). My mother became a dab hand at getting inkstains out of my clothes. Flicking ink at one another in the classroom was an essential… [read more]From: I’d rather have a piece of toast than listen to crap lyrics
Erick says:
Led Zeppelin are responsible for my all-time favourite mixed metaphor: "There you sit, sit and stare, like a book on a shelf rusting." (Misty Mountain Hop) I laugh every time I hear it. Hmmm, I believe I've decided what to play on the way to work today. [read more]Gentle jabs to the ribs
No wuckin forries. These nuckin futs are tuckin fops
Well, puck me with a fitchfork. The F-word is apparently an acceptable part of Australian speech. That’s… Read more
Most commented