JIC you have not heard.
It is from Federal Canberra - let us know what you think poll...
With an October 16th deadline ...
www.aph.gov.au/petition_sign?id=EN1041
The numbers are indicative of a minority - a small minority..
(310740 and counting)
Apathy -- well - it is not a run-away success.. Tick Tick Tick...
Cheers
AP 
Select to expand quoteAquaPlow said..
Apathy -- well - it is not a run-away success.. Tick Tick Tick...
Well, it does hold the record for the most number of signatures of any e-petition (three times the next highest) so there is that.
Select to expand quoteTonyAbbott said..
The opposing petition has over 20 million signatures
Dosnt make it right 
Select to expand quotebjw said..
Apathy is signing a petition then driving a big fossel fuels car.
Yes the car we drive broadcasts our environmental sensitivities to all who see us drive by.
www.abc.net.au/news/2019-10-11/australians-car-not-actually-using-less-fuel-research-shows/11594666
Diesels are more efficient of course but we negate any advantages by "needing" vehicles 40% heavier.
Fleet average is worse that the infamous Yank Tanks.
Petition Reason
The overwhelming majority of climate scientists around the world have concluded that the climate is changing at unprecedented rates due to anthropogenic causes. The result of these changes will be catastrophic for future generations, and so we must act now to minimise both human and environmental destruction.
Completely inaccurate statement. You will get very low percentage of scientists/experts that agree with that statement. Pretty much par for the course for the alarmists though.
Select to expand quoteIan K said..
Fleet average is worse that the infamous Yank Tanks.
Spend some time in traffic in the USA, and you quickly become aware just how many of them drive compact cars.
Select to expand quoteParadox said..
Petition Reason
The overwhelming majority of climate scientists around the world have concluded that the climate is changing at unprecedented rates due to anthropogenic causes. The result of these changes will be catastrophic for future generations, and so we must act now to minimise both human and environmental destruction.
Completely inaccurate statement. You will get very low percentage of scientists/experts that agree with that statement. Pretty much par for the course for the alarmists though.
Nah, how?
Select to expand quotelog man said..
Nah, how?
Nah, how - what? how is the statement wrong?
"The overwhelming majority of climate scientists around the world have concluded that the climate is changing at unprecedented rates due to anthropogenic causes. The result of these changes will be catastrophic for future generations"
This statement is incorrect. Plain wrong and highly misleading by taking a small truth and turning it into a statement that says something else.
There is more to it than just apathy.
It takes a lot to defy common sense on a global scale, all to benefit one industry. But for decades, fossil fuel interests have done just that, running a sophisticated and sprawling network of well-funded think tanks and front groups with one goal: Stop any real climate action, no matter the cost to billions.
www.climaterealityproject.org/blog/climate-denial-machine-how-fossil-fuel-industry-blocks-climate-action
www.fool.com/investing/2018/06/04/big-oil-is-investing-billions-in-renewable-energy.aspx
They might even save you .Until then put a trailer on your pushbike and ride to the beach.
Select to expand quotehilly said..
There is more to it than just apathy.
It takes a lot to defy common sense on a global scale, all to benefit one industry. But for decades, fossil fuel interests have done just that, running a sophisticated and sprawling network of well-funded think tanks and front groups with one goal: Stop any real climate action, no matter the cost to billions.
www.climaterealityproject.org/blog/climate-denial-machine-how-fossil-fuel-industry-blocks-climate-action
Wouldn't listen to much from a far left activist group either.
Select to expand quoteParadox said..log man said..
Nah, how?
Nah, how - what? how is the statement wrong?
"The overwhelming majority of climate scientists around the world have concluded that the climate is changing at unprecedented rates due to anthropogenic causes. The result of these changes will be catastrophic for future generations"
This statement is incorrect. Plain wrong and highly misleading by taking a small truth and turning it into a statement that says something else.
Could you explain how. I've read it through a couple of times thinking, maybe I've missed some little nuance or something, but I'm thinking of the IPCC reports and that seems to be they're take on it.
Select to expand quoteFoghorn said..hilly said..
There is more to it than just apathy.
It takes a lot to defy common sense on a global scale, all to benefit one industry. But for decades, fossil fuel interests have done just that, running a sophisticated and sprawling network of well-funded think tanks and front groups with one goal: Stop any real climate action, no matter the cost to billions.
www.climaterealityproject.org/blog/climate-denial-machine-how-fossil-fuel-industry-blocks-climate-action
Wouldn't listen to much from a far left activist group either.
But that's your problem though. You can't separate the politics from the science. Sure sometimes they overlap but even Margaret Thatcher saw the writing on the wall
Select to expand quoteFoghorn said..
Are you donating to them ?
ha ha you guys are so paranoid.
Just posted that to illustrate there are 2 sides to all arguments. Especially when money is involved.
The truth is somewhere in between.
But it would be nice to leave the planet in good shape for my kids and their kids. Have a great night 
Select to expand quotelog man said..Paradox said..
Nah, how - what? how is the statement wrong?
"The overwhelming majority of climate scientists around the world have concluded that the climate is changing at unprecedented rates due to anthropogenic causes. The result of these changes will be catastrophic for future generations"
This statement is incorrect. Plain wrong and highly misleading by taking a small truth and turning it into a statement that says something else.
Could you explain how. I've read it through a couple of times thinking, maybe I've missed some little nuance or something, but I'm thinking of the IPCC reports and that seems to be they're take on it.
OK, first sentence is wrong because even the studies that claim high percentages of "scientist agreement" focused on global warming, not climate change. Global warming is generally agreed as happening by the scientific community, even anthropological contribution is generally agreed. Where is starts to fall away very quickly is the level of anthropological contribution. It is a big leap from agreement on global warming to agreement on resultant climate change or even that the climate is unduly changing as a result of human induced temperature rise. It's untrue that scientists agree on that, they do not, not by a long way.
That first sentence takes the truth that scientists agree that we have experienced global temperature rise in the last 100 years and that humans have contributed in some manner to it, and turned it into scientists agree that humans have caused "unprecedented climate change".
Two very different messages to a layperson.
Second sentence, there is no widely accepted view by any scientific community that there is any form of catastrophe looming for the global population. Even the extreme and one sided view taken by the IPCC can only get as far as saying that "vulnerable populations" will be at risk. That is very different to suggesting that future generations are facing a catastrophe and the world as we know it is in big trouble.
These sorts of misrepresentations are why there are so many people who are opposing the "climate change" message. It's not that they don't think it's an important issue and needs to be addressed, its that people don't like being lied to or misled.
Select to expand quoteParadox said..log man said..Paradox said..
Nah, how - what? how is the statement wrong?
"The overwhelming majority of climate scientists around the world have concluded that the climate is changing at unprecedented rates due to anthropogenic causes. The result of these changes will be catastrophic for future generations"
This statement is incorrect. Plain wrong and highly misleading by taking a small truth and turning it into a statement that says something else.
Could you explain how. I've read it through a couple of times thinking, maybe I've missed some little nuance or something, but I'm thinking of the IPCC reports and that seems to be they're take on it.
OK, first sentence is wrong because even the studies that claim high percentages of "scientist agreement" focused on global warming, not climate change. Global warming is generally agreed as happening by the scientific community, even anthropological contribution is generally agreed. Where is starts to fall away very quickly is the level of anthropological contribution. It is a big leap from agreement on global warming to agreement on resultant climate change or even that the climate is unduly changing as a result of human induced temperature rise. It's untrue that scientists agree on that, they do not, not by a long way.
That first sentence takes the truth that scientists agree that we have experienced global temperature rise in the last 100 years and that humans have contributed in some manner to it, and turned it into scientists agree that humans have caused "unprecedented climate change".
Two very different messages to a layperson.
Second sentence, there is no widely accepted view by any scientific community that there is any form of catastrophe looming for the global population. Even the extreme and one sided view taken by the IPCC can only get as far as saying that "vulnerable populations" will be at risk. That is very different to suggesting that future generations are facing a catastrophe and the world as we know it is in big trouble.
These sorts of misrepresentations are why there are so many people who are opposing the "climate change" message. It's not that they don't think it's an important issue and needs to be addressed, its that people don't like being lied to or misled.
What. That's it??!!!
That sounds like the most desperate excuse by a climate denialist ever..........or should I say anthropogenic climatalogical reoganisational event.
After all we've got to be be so accurate in our definitions....Sheesh!
And really!!! you accuse the climate change people of "lying and misleading" the population.......you don't think it could be your lot, who've told them nothing's been happening and it's all a plot by Communists. Holy ****!!!
Select to expand quoteParadox said..
It is a big leap from agreement on global warming to agreement on resultant climate change or even that the climate is unduly changing as a result of human induced temperature rise. It's untrue that scientists agree on that, they do not, not by a long way.
I disagree.Select to expand quoteScience 3 December 2004:
Vol. 306. no. 5702, p. 1686
DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618
BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER:
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities . are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents . that absorb or scatter radiant energy. . [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].
...snip...
The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).
The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.Select to expand quoteConsensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming
John Cook1,2,3,16, Naomi Oreskes4, Peter T Doran5, William R L Anderegg6,7, Bart Verheggen8, Ed W Maibach9, J Stuart Carlton10
, Stephan Lewandowsky11,2, Andrew G Skuce12,3, Sarah A Green13
Published 13 April 2016 ? ? 2016 IOP Publishing Ltd
Environmental Research Letters, Volume 11, Number 4
iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
Abstract
The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%-100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming. A survey of authors of those papers (N = 2412 papers) also supported a 97% consensus. Tol (2016 Environ. Res. Lett. 11 048001) comes to a different conclusion using results from surveys of non-experts such as economic geologists and a self-selected group of those who reject the consensus. We demonstrate that this outcome is not unexpected because the level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science. At one point, Tol also reduces the apparent consensus by assuming that abstracts that do not explicitly state the cause of global warming ('no position') represent non-endorsement, an approach that if applied elsewhere would reject consensus on well-established theories such as plate tectonics. We examine the available studies and conclude that the finding of 97% consensus in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies.
It seems to me that there's a pretty clear consensus by the vast majority of climate scientists that humans are the cause.
Select to expand quoteGreenPat said..Paradox said..
It is a big leap from agreement on global warming to agreement on resultant climate change or even that the climate is unduly changing as a result of human induced temperature rise. It's untrue that scientists agree on that, they do not, not by a long way.
I disagree.Science 3 December 2004:
Vol. 306. no. 5702, p. 1686
DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618
BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER:
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities . are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents . that absorb or scatter radiant energy. . [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].
...snip...
The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).
The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming
John Cook1,2,3,16, Naomi Oreskes4, Peter T Doran5, William R L Anderegg6,7, Bart Verheggen8, Ed W Maibach9, J Stuart Carlton10
, Stephan Lewandowsky11,2, Andrew G Skuce12,3, Sarah A Green13
Published 13 April 2016 ? ? 2016 IOP Publishing Ltd
Environmental Research Letters, Volume 11, Number 4
iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
Abstract
The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%-100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming. A survey of authors of those papers (N = 2412 papers) also supported a 97% consensus. Tol (2016 Environ. Res. Lett. 11 048001) comes to a different conclusion using results from surveys of non-experts such as economic geologists and a self-selected group of those who reject the consensus. We demonstrate that this outcome is not unexpected because the level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science. At one point, Tol also reduces the apparent consensus by assuming that abstracts that do not explicitly state the cause of global warming ('no position') represent non-endorsement, an approach that if applied elsewhere would reject consensus on well-established theories such as plate tectonics. We examine the available studies and conclude that the finding of 97% consensus in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies.
It seems to me that there's a pretty clear consensus by the vast majority of climate scientists that humans are the cause.
****, Dad's home from work. We better not argue anymore or he'll kick our arses.
It's investors refusing to acknowledge the environmental cost of their investments and more importantly, refusing to allow the community to recognise the environmental cost of their investments. The harsh reality is that; when the actual costs are recognised; the value of many current investments will be impaired massively.
It's not apathy at all, it's many hundreds of thousands of people frantically trying to protect the value of their investments.
Select to expand quoteGreenPat said..Paradox said..
It is a big leap from agreement on global warming to agreement on resultant climate change or even that the climate is unduly changing as a result of human induced temperature rise. It's untrue that scientists agree on that, they do not, not by a long way.
I disagree.Science 3 December 2004:
Vol. 306. no. 5702, p. 1686
DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618
BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER:
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities . are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents . that absorb or scatter radiant energy. . [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].
...snip...
The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).
The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming
John Cook1,2,3,16, Naomi Oreskes4, Peter T Doran5, William R L Anderegg6,7, Bart Verheggen8, Ed W Maibach9, J Stuart Carlton10
, Stephan Lewandowsky11,2, Andrew G Skuce12,3, Sarah A Green13
Published 13 April 2016 ? ? 2016 IOP Publishing Ltd
Environmental Research Letters, Volume 11, Number 4
iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
Abstract
The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%-100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming. A survey of authors of those papers (N = 2412 papers) also supported a 97% consensus. Tol (2016 Environ. Res. Lett. 11 048001) comes to a different conclusion using results from surveys of non-experts such as economic geologists and a self-selected group of those who reject the consensus. We demonstrate that this outcome is not unexpected because the level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science. At one point, Tol also reduces the apparent consensus by assuming that abstracts that do not explicitly state the cause of global warming ('no position') represent non-endorsement, an approach that if applied elsewhere would reject consensus on well-established theories such as plate tectonics. We examine the available studies and conclude that the finding of 97% consensus in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies.
It seems to me that there's a pretty clear consensus by the vast majority of climate scientists that humans are the cause.
Come on GreePat, you can do better than copying and pasting google searches. Try looking into it more. All you have done is proved my point, which just for easy reference was:
"It is a big leap from agreement on global warming to agreement on resultant climate change or even that the climate is unduly changing as a result of human induced temperature rise. It's untrue that scientists agree on that, they do not, not by a long way."
Cooks own Abstract you just posted refers to Global Warming, as that what his papers get consensus on. Not the larger issue of climate change.
"The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%-100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper"
Sounds compelling right? but did you also pick out that the above statement can mean that humans are causing 1% or more of recent global warming. Again, that's what his original paper focused on and what he got consensus on. ie there is global warming and humans have contributed to it, not by how much or that it has resulted in associated climate change, he counted views that consider 1% to 100% human contribution to global warming as "consensus".
If you want an analysis of his original paper on this someone else analysed his methods and came up with try these:
wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/20/the-97-consensus-myth-busted-by-a-real-survey/
www.econlib.org/archives/2014/03/16_not_97_agree.html
Cook has built a career and fame on there being a climate emergency. He teaches a course on how to shoot down skeptics ffs. He is about as impartial as anything produced by the Oil and Gas industry and should be treated as such.
I don't really think it's a case of "Apathy Ruling The Climate Debate" in Australia, what I think it is nonchalance dismissal of the 'latest' mob who are screaming a little bit louder than those who preceded them.
Every man, his dog and his auntie Gladys, some Swedish kid, mouthy groups of howling environmentalists, politicians and/or wannabe politicians, scientists, schoolkids, cabbies, barbers, sporting heroes, internet experts and now the "knitting Nannas" have hit the headlines in Tasmania, all saying the exact same thing.
Doom and gloom for the planet, blaming everyone except themselves and predicting the downfall of the human race as we know it, whilst driving cars, sipping water out of plastic bottles, collecting free money from the government (in some cases) they detest and availing themselves of all the modern cons that come from the advanced industrial and technological industries that they blame for the situation as it stands.
What none of the above have done is to actually lead by example, I don't see them shunning all the 'luxuries' they have become accustomed to, mobile phones, computers and the internet, electricity, the internal combustion engine that powers cars, busses, trains, planes and ships, hot water, gas for cooking and heating, air conditioning, plastic and synthetic fabrics for clothing etc.
All this yelling, screaming and carrying on about how the planet is screwed achieves nothing, everyone has heard it a hundred time before, try yelling, screaming about how we (everyone not just the multi nationals or the end users) can unscrew the damage done and maybe then the 'apathy/nonchalance' can be overcome.
No one has come up with a viable and economically feasible way of reversing the trend, acceptable to all that doesn't entail the surrendering of all the 'luxuries' a modern society demands or feels the entitlement to own, possess and use.
Don't just keep repeating the message - offer up solutions.
Select to expand quoteRupert said..
Don't just keep repeating the message - offer up solutions.
I've said it before and will say it again, if things are really that dire, then nuclear is the clear immediate solution. If there is one thing the science is "in" on it is that. Aggressive uptake of nuclear would significantly cut CO2 release within 20 years.
The fact that a large portion of the vocalists on climate change wont adopt this tell me they are full of **** and have some other agenda.
I accept the climate is changing and i accept we are adding to it. I do not accept some of the extreme views that are being pushed because the models are just too uncertain on the actual outcome and I see too much evidence of manipulation to sell a viewpoint.
If anyone is interested in a good paper on the efficacy of the IPCC approach to modelling:
www.cato.org/publications/commentary/are-climate-models-overpredicting-global-warming
Yep, it's a good rant there Rupert, and you've identified a big problem. It's probably not so much about people "shunning" the luxuries, but more about them having some sort of a plan to at least source the energy required by their luxuries from a sustainable source and this very rarely happens.
Select to expand quoteParadox said..Rupert said..
Don't just keep repeating the message - offer up solutions.
I've said it before and will say it again, if things are really that dire, then nuclear is the clear immediate solution. If there is one thing the science is "in" on it is that. Aggressive uptake of nuclear would significantly cut CO2 release within 20 years.
The fact that a large portion of the vocalists on climate change wont adopt this tell me they are full of **** and have some other agenda.
I accept the climate is changing and i accept we are adding to it. I do not accept some of the extreme views that are being pushed because the models are just too uncertain on the actual outcome and I see too much evidence of manipulation to sell a viewpoint.
If anyone is interested in a good paper on the efficacy of the IPCC approach to modelling:
www.cato.org/publications/commentary/are-climate-models-overpredicting-global-warming
wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09/27/new-ipcc-report-on-ocean-warming-cites-a-flawed-and-retracted-paper/
But they put it out there anyway.
Select to expand quoteParadox said..Rupert said..
Don't just keep repeating the message - offer up solutions.
I've said it before and will say it again, if things are really that dire, then nuclear is the clear immediate solution. If there is one thing the science is "in" on it is that. Aggressive uptake of nuclear would significantly cut CO2 release within 20 years.
The fact that a large portion of the vocalists on climate change wont adopt this tell me they are full of **** and have some other agenda.
I accept the climate is changing and i accept we are adding to it. I do not accept some of the extreme views that are being pushed because the models are just too uncertain on the actual outcome and I see too much evidence of manipulation to sell a viewpoint.
If anyone is interested in a good paper on the efficacy of the IPCC approach to modelling:
www.cato.org/publications/commentary/are-climate-models-overpredicting-global-warming
100% agree, they are full of it, try to engage them in a real and factual debate about nuclear and you get nowhere. That is why many people think, and more and more are begininning to think, this "climate emergency" we are currently experiencing is more about politics than it is about the environment.
@cammd, everything is about politics for a politician. Whilst some people may consider nuclear energy to be a potential solution to climate change; if a political party was to implement a "let's build a nuclear power station" policy next week they would lose the next election.
