Living through the COVID-19 pandemic and opportunities for a new and better future

Living through the COVID-19 pandemic 

The worldwide COVID-19 pandemic has caused major disruption for life as we know it.  In no particular order:

Economies have slowed drastically due to restrictions on many businesses operating.

Many people have lost their jobs and are now unemployed.  Unemployment is reaching levels not seen since the 1930 depression.

Many shops cannot pay rents as they have no income while they are shut down.

Many housing tenants cannot pay rent as they have no income.

Governments have provided stimulatory spending including providing wage replacements to those who have been stood down by companies due to lack of work.  Some groups of people are not getting payments, including international students and casual workers who have been employed with a company for less than a year.

Social distancing to reduce the spread of infection has halted many social conventions including hugs, kisses and handshakes.

Social distancing has also been introduced in supermarkets and retail shops that remain open.

Panic buying has seen supplies of toilet paper and many food supplies depleted.

Many school and all university students are being schooled from home via the Internet.

People are walking and cycling in local parks either alone, with another person or with a family group from the same household.

People are heeding government advice to stay at home and avoid unnecessary travel.  The roads are very quiet.

Police are fining some people who break social distancing and other regulations imposed under a state of emergency.

Many people are working from home via the Internet.

The arts and music industries have ground to a halt with all public performances and exhibitions closed.

Sports are stopped and many sporting clubs and organisations are suffering cash flow problems. Some say they won't survive.

The stock market has suffered major losses with share prices falling [link]

Countries have closed their borders to most travel.

People on cruise ships have become marooned when no country will allow them to berth due to concerns about infection risk.

Air pollution has dropped along with automobile and industry emissions.

Families are spending time together with parents and children all at home during lockdowns.

People are cooking more - meals, bread, pastries, cakes etc.

Hand washing has become routine, along with disinfectant hand cleaner in some shops.

A National Cabinet has been formed to expedite decision making and align federal and state policies and actions for the COVID-19 pandemic.

Union leaders are talking to federal government ministers to develop appropriate support measures for companies and employees.

Companies with large debts and/or "just in time" manufacturing/retail models have been hit hard by the lockdowns imposed by governments.  Many, such as Virgin Australia, are in big trouble.  Some will fail.

Opportunities for a new and better future

Individuals, societies and governments can change how things are done when they want or need to.

We can pay a universal basic income to people who are unemployed.

Governments can build infrastructure that generates employment and benefits people including:

• High quality bike paths, free from traffic
• High speed rail links between cities
• More public transport to give people the option for convenient and sustainable travel

Provide a universal public health system that delivers health services for all citizens and provides economies of scale.

Provide more government funding for research and development into various sectors including:

• Public health and disease prevention
• Renewable energy and energy storage solutions
• Rebuilding centralised electricity grids to support micro-grids, distributed storage and distribution of renewable energy

Impose a travel tax on all car and truck travel.

• Car users and trucks don't directly pay for roads so many people feel they are free to use.  However, increased road usage creates more demands for roads, creating a vicious cycle.

Support work from home as an ongoing arrangement

• Less travel would free up a lot of time for many people
• People could work from home, possibly on a roster system, for 1 to 5 days per week

Price air travel appropriately.

• Excessive air travel is a luxury the planet cannot afford.  It should be priced to cover greenhouse gas emissions, leading to reductions in non-essential trips.
• Local holidays are a more sustainable option

Protect forests and plant trees

• Forest provide natural resources and are "services" such as producing water and drawing down CO2.  They also provide habitat for animals and plants and support biodiversity
• Cease logging of native forests  
• Plant trees on degraded farm land and public land to generate employment and increase the world's forest cover.

Transition to renewable energy

• Develop are roadmap to transition to 100% renewable energy by 2030 and transition off fossil fuels including oil, gas and coal.
• Generate employment in manufacturing and services for renewable energy

Make all elected MPs part of government

• Reform politics and government so that all elected MPs have a role to play
• Ditch political parties and "the opposition"

Feel free to add any suggestions in the comments.

Open letter to Josh Frydenberg - SAVE ARENA stop the $1 billion cut

TO: Josh Frydenberg
Minister for Environment and Energy,

I’m writing to you today with a very important message about ARENA, the Australian Renewable Energy Agency. That's the Agency you want to cut $1 billion in funding from.

ARENA is a critical force in driving renewable energy research and development in Australia. It has funded projects that developed the most efficient solar PV [1] and solar thermal technology in the world [2].

ARENA is crucial if Australia is to continue to lead in renewable energy research and innovation. If protected, projects funded by ARENA grants will create thousands of jobs [3], and help Australia transition to a renewable future.

Your government talks up innovation, but slashing ARENA's grants funding will cut the legs out from underneath a key industry that would otherwise be set to boom.

As your constituent, I am asking you to lead on innovation and make the right decision for Australia's energy future. Don't send Australia back to the Dark Ages. Don't cut ARENA.

Also, gas is just another fossil fuel and must not be used as a "transition to renewable energy".  The transition should be directly to renewable energy.

The same applies to coal seam gas - there should be a permanent ban on exploration and production of CSG in Victoria.

Regarding your previous comments on nuclear energy, could you please confirm that this dangerous and expensive energy source will  not be used in Australia?

[1] Milestone in solar cell efficiency by UNSW engineers, UNSW Newsroom, 17 May 2016, http://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/science-tech/milestone-solar-cell-efficiency-unsw-engineers

[2] ANU team cracks solar thermal efficiency of 97% -- a world record, Renew Economy, 22 August 2016, http://reneweconomy.com.au/2016/anu-team-cracks-solar-thermal-efficiency-of-97-a-world-record-34199

[3] Queensland solar projects that could create 2,600 jobs at risk in federal cuts, The Guardian, 24 August 2016, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/aug/25/queensland-solar-projects-that-could-create-2600-jobs-at-risk-in-federal-cuts

Yours sincerely,
Peter Campbell
Surrey Hills, Victoria, 3127, Australia

External links

• SAVE ARENA: Tell the government to stop the $1 billion cut, email campaign 
• Malcolm Turnbull Just Made ‘Mr Coal’ His Environment Minister - New Matilda  

Open letter to Josh Frydenberg: Please retain or increase the RET

Josh,

You recently voted against Australia's carbon tax.

Please do not compromise Australia's Renewable Energy Target.

The RET is a very important and effective mechanism for transitioning Australia towards zero emissions clean energy.

The RET has only contributed 8% to electricity price increases from 2007/08 to the present.

The Carbon Tax only contributed 16%.

Over this same period distributor costs and charges have contributed 70% to electricity price increases

Investment in renewable energy has risen $5 billion per year.
Renewable energy capacity has almost doubled from 2001 to 2012.
86% of Australians think that Australia needs more renewable energy.
71% of Australians support the RET
90% of Australians want more electricity from solar
80% of Australians want more electricity from wind.

Overall the RET comprises only 3% of the total price of electricity bills.

Please support meaningful action on climate change and transitioning Australia to a new economy with clean energy and associated local industries and jobs.

For example, there are very significant opportunities for local manufacturing and services industry jobs around the Geelong region if more wind farms are built.

Regards, Peter Campbell
[address supplied]

=====================
Response from Josh Frydenburg 27/8/14

Dear Mr Campbell

Thank you for writing to me concerning the review into the Renewable Energy Target (RET).  I have noted your views. For your information the review has been established to allow the general public to make submissions to the Government.

As you are aware, the Government has released the Terms of Reference for a review into the RET, upholding a clear commitment to ensure the RET is working efficiently and effectively and to meet a legislative requirement for a review to be conducted in 2014.

An independent expert panel which brings together extensive policy, business and energy sector expertise will lead the review. The chair of the review, Mr Dick Warburton, has had an extensive career in business and industry, including time as a board member of the Reserve Bank of Australia.  Mr Warburton was appointed by the former Climate Change Minister in the Labor Government, Senator Wong, to head its Emissions Intensive Trade Exposed review under the CPRS process.

The Terms of Reference include examining the economic, environmental and social impacts of the RET, in particular the impacts on electricity prices, energy markets, the renewable energy sector, the manufacturing sector and Australian households. The review will be mindful of sovereign risk issues in any proposals it may present to the Government. Unlike the pattern from the previous Government, the review will be open and transparent and engage in consultation with a broad range of stakeholders, seeking submissions from the public and industry.  The review will be supported by a Secretariat based in the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet involving specialists from the Departments of Environment, Industry, Treasury and the Clean Energy Regulator.

The Government will receive the report by the middle of the year and it will provide important input into the Government’s Energy White Paper.

Thank you once again for writing to me about this matter.

Yours sincerely

Josh Frydenberg
Federal Member for Kooyong | Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister
Parliament House Office | a: R1:44 Parliament House, Canberra ACT 2600 | p: 02 6277 4606 | f: 02 6277 8546
Electorate Office | a: 695 Burke Road, Camberwell VIC 3124 | p: 03 9882 3677  |  f: 03 9882 3773
Email: josh.frydenberg.mp@aph.gov.au  |  Website: www.joshfrydenberg.com.au

Submission to RET Review - retain RET and don't burn native forests for fuel

13 May 2014

Via https://retreview.dpmc.gov.au/online-submissions

This is my brief submission to the Renewable Energy Target review that you are conducting.
The whole purpose of the Renewable Energy Target (RET) is to address climate change and reduce carbon pollution by bringing more renewable energy into our electricity supply in a gradual and predictable fashion that encourages investment.

The Coalition has promised at the two most recent Australian elections to retain the target. I expect the Government to honour all its climate promises.

I would like the target of 41,000 gigawatt hours of renewable energy by 2020 retained, or preferably be increased to 60,000 gigawatt hours, so that we can move faster to address climate change.
I understand that the present target is costing the average household about an extra dollar a week for electricity.  I am more than happy to pay this small charge to clean up our power generation and reduce carbon pollution.

Native forest wood products must not be classified as an eligible renewable energy source as there are significant net total carbon emissions resulting from logging native forests.  Forest destroyed by logging is not “waste”.  The natural value of forests, their biodiversity, the water they produce and the carbon they store is far more valuable than woodchips and the small proportion of sawn timber produced by logging them.

Burning logging residues resulting from logging native forests will increase carbon emissions and further encourage ongoing logging, destruction and degradation of Australia’s native forests, some of which have been found to be the most carbon-dense in the world.

Peter Campbell
Surrey Hills, Victoria

Premier Baillieu please protect our environment rather than trashing it

Open letter to Premier Ted Baillieu.

Dear Premier Baillieu,

Like most Victorians, I’m proud of our environment. I’m proud of our clean air and water, our beautiful National Parks, and the ecosystems and amazing destinations that set our state apart.

Yet since coming into power your government has taken a wrecking ball to our environment, taking our environment and our state backwards by decades. I’m appalled by this behaviour from my government, and I’m calling on you to do better.

Instead of expanding brown coal mining and slashing support for clean energy, you should be investing in clean renewable energy like wind and solar.

Instead of cutting forest protections and trampling the Murray River you should be protecting our special places and returning water to our rivers.

Instead of looking out for your big business mates, you should be supporting households and small businesses to be more energy and water efficient to reduce costs and the impact on our environment.

Please stand up for our environment and for all Victorians.  After all, that’s the job of the Premier of Victoria.

Specifically - please stop logging in Victoria's native forests, including our water catchments.

Please scrap VicForests -the Victorian government should exit the native forest logging business that runs at a serious loss and destroys our native forests, including habitat of endangered species such as Leadbeaters Possum and the Long Footed Potoroo.

Please reverse your regressive legislation that is blocking wind farm development and favouring further investment in polluting fossil fuel power.

Please re-instate a feed in tariff that recognises the true value of solar power and renewable energy.

Please allocated $50m for cycling infrastructure across Victoria, and develop a plan and program to implement it.

Sincerely,

Peter Campbell


External links

• Help stop the relentless and systematic destruction of our environment, Email campaign, Environment Victoria
• Emperor's new policy, The Age, 19 Dec 2012 

LETTER: Please maintain New York state ban on fracking and criminalize the practice

Dear Governor Cuomo,

I am writing to demand that you permanently maintain New York State’s fracking ban. Fracking is a completely unacceptable practice that destroys water, land, air and people. It should be criminal.

It is very wrong to blow up Earth, destroying scarce water, for limited fossil fuel energy with no climate benefits as claimed. New York State must not allow ecosystems to be destroyed. The best path is to transition from unsustainable energy use to 100% renewable energy, along with dramatic energy efficiency and energy conservation improvements.

The DEC public comment process has been a deeply flawed sham – asking for public opinion while the decision has already been made to start fracking. The revised draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (rdSGEIS) is little more than greenwash, as it would allow fracking in 85% of New York's Marcellus Shale, injecting hundreds of billions of gallons of toxic fluid that will never be recovered, and will find their way into New York state's water.

Most importantly, it fails to provide long-term protection of drinking water sources. It does not analyze fracking’s health impacts, doesn’t ban the use of known carcinogens, provides no specific plans for disposal of hazardous fracking wastes and may impede local governments from banning this deadly practice.

The practice of fracking will never be environmentally acceptable, much less sustainable, and the temporary ban must become permanent. Failure on your part to do so will make you personally responsible for vast water contamination that will poison the New York citizens you have sworn to serve. It would also certainly have major repercussions for your re-election prospects.

The world is watching – do what is right for the people, water, sustainable livelihoods, and ecology – not the energy oligarchy.

With grave concern,

Peter Campbell


NOTE: You can send your own email on this important issue here: Don’t Frack with Our Water: Support New York State Residents in Maintaining the Ban

We need to transition from coal to 100% renewable energy

An open letter to Michael O'Brien MP, Minister for Energy and Resources, Victorian Government

Michael,

I was very surprised to hear you on 774 radio on Monday 11/7 advocating the continued burning of Victoria's brown coal as the energy source for our future.  We need to transition form coal to renewable energy over the next two decades to reduce our very high carbon emissions associated with stationary energy.

A transition to gas is not desirable either - as it is just another fossil fuel.

Spending public money on CCS is not justified either - the technology is unproven and will be very expensive.

We need to invest in 100% renewable energy technologies that are available now - such as concentrated solar energy with molten salt storage, and wind power.

Regards,

Peter Campbell

Labor's feed-in tariff can still be fixed

Below is the third letter I have sent to Peter Batchelor; so far he has not bothered to answer my first two. I don't think he will bother to answer this one either. So much for accountable government "for the people".

I have also sent copies to all members of John Brumby's Cabinet, as they participated in the decision to implement a Clayton's feed-in tariff in Victoria.


Dear Minister Batchelor,

I am disappointed to have still received no response from your office to my suggestions and questions regarding the government's proposed feed-in tariff legislation (included below).

It should now be apparent to you and the rest of Cabinet that your proposed legislation has had a very detrimental effect on the uptake of solar panels and therefore comprised Victoria's opportunity to become a leader in the installation and even manufacturing of solar panels. This in turn compromises Victoria's ability to meet both State VRET and Federal MRET requirements.

The 100K household income means test on the solar rebate introduced by Peter Garrett has further exacerbated this situation, to the point where solar installations have plummeted when the very opposite should be occurring.

Your stated concerns about impacts on low income households can be addressed by providing them with an appropriate concession.

Also please note that net metering in fact favours high income households where nobody is home consuming power during the day (when a net output can be generated) and actually discriminates against working families where a parent is at home with children using appliances such as washing machines, lighting and cooking - which prevents them generating net output.

In the interests of transparent and accountable government, could you please answer the following questions?

1. When will your feed-in tariff legislation be introduced?

2. When can a copy of it be sent to me?

3. What is the purpose of the 2kw array size cap?

4. Why are you not able to model the tariff for gross metering similar to successful tariffs in place in Germany and elsewhere?

5. Why you have chosen to keep the economic modelling that you say your decisions were based on secret?

6. When can I meet with you to discuss these concerns?

Feed in Tariff - Victorian government reasons don't hold up

I rang Peter Batchelor's office to discuss details and reasons for the structure of the Feed in Tariff being introduced in Victoria. I spoke at length to one his ministerial advisors. The concerns raised by the advisor and my reponse to them are listed below.

=================

Thanks for taking the time to speak with me last Friday about the feed in tariff legislation.

In answer to the following concerns you raised regarding gross metering, and your reasons for justifying the 2kW limit:

1. The government doesn't want to pay people for the energy they use

The government should pay a premium for every watt of renewable energy, both when used domestically and when exported to the grid. This is because the energy is zero emissions and directly replaces energy from coal-fired power stations. The energy is also very valuable as it is generated at peak times on hot days when the grid is nearing capacity to supply.


2. A gross metered feed in tariff without the 2kW cap will drive up electricity bills for low income households

Premier Brumby claimed on Stateline (Friday May 9, 2008) that the FIT "would have imposed a significant burden on low income households, with some estimates that this would add up to 10% to the cost of power bills". I understand from you that the economic model used to support this claim is now a Cabinet in Confidence document that cannot be released to the public.

Given that other economic analysis has estimated no more that 1% increase in power bills, I question the veracity of the report (or model) that the government claims has informed their decisions on structuring the FIT.

I also think is is quite inappropriate for such an important and non-sensitive piece of economic information to be subject to Cabinet secrecy. This is not transparent or accountable process or decision making.

In addition, specific measures, such as Government funded installation of a solar system, could be provided for low income households if they are genuinely disadvantaged by the feed in tariff. Other subsidies or grants to them are also possible.

3. The FIT doesn't encourage energy efficiency.

The feed in tariff is not a policy instrument for directly encouraging energy efficiency, and should not be regarded or measured as such. However, households with solar panels generally become more aware of their electricity consumption and production and are therefore more likely to investigate and adopt measures to improve the efficiency of their electricity usage.

A more appropriate way of encouraging energy efficiency - which is complementary to a gross-metered non-capped FIT is to mandate that homes produce an amount (say 15% or 20%) of the energy they consume. This would drive efficiency measures so that the energy production percentage can be achieved (e.g. by solar panels) with the minimum and most cost effective energy generating system.

The Government should also mandate energy efficiency labelling for all appliances immediately.

4. The VRET is a more important factor in encouraging renewable energy

While the Victorian Renewable Energy Target is good to have, I would argue that it should be higher (e.g. 20%). Also, it yields little benefit to household producers with solar panels, it mainly benefits energy companies and large scale producers. I addition, a FIT complements and supports the VRET. Treating them as alternatives is a false dichotomy - we can have both.

5. The 30 minute timeboxing for net metering reduces the impact of the 2kW cap

While this may result in some additional payments to producers I think this will be insignificant compared to what gross metering would yield. This is very complicated too - the vast majority of people simply don't understand this measure.

A 2kW system will supply about 60% of an average household's elecricity consumption, so there will be very little net exports to the grid from such systems. I can see no good reasons for the 2kW cap.

In summary

It seems to me that the Victorian government has lost sight of the overall goal of reducing carbon emissions. Many more solar panels on Victorian and Australian roofs would directly reducing carbon emissions, and successful Feed in Tariff models in other countries have proven that this works. In Germany, this has resulted in power now produced from solar panels that is equivalent to two coal fired power stations - Germany now has 4,000 times more energy output from solar panels than Australia.

The Victorian Government's claim on the proposed Feed in Tariff will pay off solar panel systems in 10 years is inaccurate. More accurate financial modelling indicates that it will have negligible effect on reducing the payback period for panels.

Increased clean energy production for solar panels, along with investment in other forms of renewable energy such as wind power and large scale solar, will reduce and hopefully eliminate the need to build any more coal fired power stations which the entire community would have to pay for - and which would also impose significant financial burden on low income households.

I strongly urge the government to modify the tariff to a proven effective and equitable model , which is:

• 60 cents per kWh
• paid for at least 15 years
  
• paid on the entire output of a system via gross production metering
• no caps on array size and/or outputs.

This tariff would encourage many more people to install panels, dramatically increase output of clean zero emissions energy, and contribute to a thriving and growing local solar installation industry in Victoria.

It would benefit all Victorians, and be a key local measure in tacking climate change.

Regards,

Peter Campbell


Links

• Premier Brumby declares Victoria a national leader on alternative energy, Stateline Victoria

Councillor Fraser Brindley launches Greenlivingpedia in Melbourne

Melbourne City Councillor Fraser Brindley and Peter Campbell launched Greenlivingpedia, a free resource for sharing information about green living and building at Melbourne’s innovative CH2 building on Monday 15 October 2007.

"Today I am launching Greenlivingpedia, an important resource that enables everyone to create and share information about green living and green building, such as the CH2 building," Cr Brindley said.

"Melbourne City Council’s innovative CH2 building provides an excellent example of how we can design and build for a sustainable future," Cr Brindley said.

"Greenlivingpedia is a wiki website similar to Wikipedia that anyone can use to create and edit articles about their own sustainable living project or area of interest,” said Peter Campbell, the founder and creator of Greenlivingpedia.

"I created Greenlivingpedia to complement and link to Wikipedia and other information sources on the Internet so that people can view and create examples of green living and green building solutions," said Mr Campbell.

"Issues like climate change and reducing our energy footprint are now major concerns in the community with the focus now shifting towards what we can do to address them. Greenlivingpedia can play an important role in empowering our community to take local action on climate change and sustainable living," said Cr Brindley.

"Greenlivingpedia provides a mechanism for people to collaborate and share information about a range of topics including sustainable house and building projects, energy saving tips, green computing, solar power, community action, water conservation and recycling" said Mr Campbell.

"Many people ask for more information about our sustainable house renovation in Surrey Hills so I have written an article on Greenlivingpedia with details of what we have done and how much energy we have been able to save," said Mr Campbell.

"Wikis and blogs are dramatically changing how we can work together to create, access and share information on the Internet. Photos and images, and even video and interactive maps can be easily added to Greenlivingpedia articles, and the articles will appear in search engine results," said Mr Campbell.

More information: Peter Campbell 0409 417 504

www.greenlivingpedia.org

Video of the launch

Australia should embrace the clean energy industry

Here is an excellent letter to the editor of The Age that points out that the Howard Government is guilty of extreme economic negligence by deliberately ignoring the fantastic opportunity for Australia to develop jobs and exports in the clean energy industry.

The European example points out on what Australia is missing out on:

• In 2006 in Europe $38b was invested in the renewable energy industry
• In 2007 it is projected that renewable energy industry investments will increase to $45b
• Nuclear provides about 6% of Europe’s energy and is being phased out
• On current trends renewable energy is predicted to be cost competitive with coal by 2015
• The renewable energy industry employs approximately 500,000 people while the coal industry employs about 30,000
• In 2006 wind energy output exceeded nuclear energy output on one day in Germany
• In 2006 in France, energy production from nuclear was halved due to a shortage of water to cool the power stations.
• Germany has now mandated that new houses must produce 20% of their power needs
• The EU is currently considering increasing their Mandatory Renewable Energy Target (MRET) to 20%

It is interesting that emission trading in Europe has not assisted renewable energy, it has only improved efficiencies of fossil fuel use. So John Howard's future dated "response to climate change" is far to little, far too late.


What a waste
Vivienne Gray, Williamstown
Published in The Age on Saturday 10 June 2007. (Source)

Why does our Prime Minister always stress the economic costs of adjustments needed to address global warming, and not the economic opportunities?

Andrew Stephens' article (3/6) highlights how Australia has lost out over the past few years. The Federal Government has failed to foster technologies and industries that could have ensured our ongoing prosperity and at the same time helped reduce our greenhouse emissions. As a result, many thousands of "green-collar" jobs have been created offshore.

The last decade gave us a chance to make progressive adjustments to our fossil-fuelled energy industries. But in the face of government inaction, we now have to take more drastic steps and, if Howard is to be believed, we'll need a network of nuclear power plants.

So, we can forget about being the "clever country". The Federal Government's vision will ensure we remain the world's quarry - mining coal (until no one will buy it) and uranium. Our existing power plants will be replaced with equally ugly nuclear power plants.

Oh, and we'll take the world's nuclear waste, too. At least we'll lead in something.

The cost of doing nothing about climate change

Here is an excellent letter just published in the Age by Professor Ian Lowe on April 6, 2007

WE ARE continually being told by the Australian Government that we don't know what it would cost to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Australian Business Roundtable on Climate Change last year published the results of independent economic modelling by Allen Consulting. It found that there is no significant difference in future economic outcomes between a responsible approach, cutting emissions by 60 per cent, and the irresponsible do-nothing approach that would increase emissions by 85 per cent. A 2003 government study found cost-effective efficiency measures would achieve 30 per cent cuts. Just half these measures would create 9000 jobs.

What we don't know, but a local Stern report could determine, is how much unchecked global warming would cost Australia. Some estimates suggest it is already costing us over $1 billion this year in lost agricultural production, increased costs of water supply and the costs of extreme events.

Any serious study will confirm that the costs of taking responsible action are small and the costs of continued inaction very large. So setting serious targets makes economic sense. It is also our moral duty to future generations of Australians.

As for the Government's push for nuclear energy, even the Switkowski report, with its pro-nuclear leanings, showed that nuclear energy is too expensive, too slow and makes too little difference to global warming. It is a distraction from the priorities we should adopt: a clear commitment to improving the efficiency of energy use, a price signal for greenhouse pollution and a mix of renewable technologies.

Professor Ian Lowe, President, Australian Conservation Foundation

Well said Professor Lowe. The Howard Government and the Rudd Labor opposition are committing massive funds towards dirty clean coal and are basically ignoring genuine renewable energy sources such as solar and wind. Howard is stuck in a 19th century industrial economic paradigm, while Rudd in pandering to both the coal mining industry and the coal mining unions such as the CFMEU.

In addition, Howard is banging on the nuclear drum which will just dig more holes, use non-renewable resources and pose an intractatable hazardous waste problem. In addition, it would not actually lead to a significant reduction in carbon emissions and would not be available within 10 years, which is 9 years too late.

So how do we get climate change addressed outside the political arena, where it is clearly being fudged by short sighted politicians who are prepared to gamble with the future of the planet and our children?