The federal budget was released last week, and it has generated varying criticisms and praise within the media. One of the more important issues is the environment, and the Labor governments policies in regard to climate change and renewable energy. 

First of all, the related issue of petrol prices. Nelson's plan to cut the excise is ridiculous. He would save the average driver around only $84 a year, and cost the government a lot in lost revenue. But more importantly this is a weak populist policy that goes against common sense. Nelson is bowing to popular pressure on the price of living and so on, rather than formulating good policy. A cut in the excise would ony reward those who drive inefficient cars, and punish those who do. The fact it would also reward those who have inadequate access to public transport is a different issue altogether. Nelson has demonstrated himself very willing to bend over under pressure. Lets hope that Rudd doesnt follow a similar plan under his proposed tax review.  

Now to energy supplies. Kenneth Davidson had an excellent article in The Age's opinion pages on Thursday which outlined the problems of energy supplies within the context of global warming. It seems both federal and state governments are happy to let fossil fuels keep on burning as long as they keep turning a profit. The idea of geosequestration that Rudd and Brumby are so eager to invest in will not be able to achieve the massive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions that are needed. Realistically, it is more a good excuse to keep burning coal than a real way to solve the climate change crisis. Geosequestration offers our political and business leaders the chance to keep up business as usual. The problem with geosequestration is not only that it will not be sufficient, but also that it keeps taking government money from other more useful areas of research, such as solar power. 

Now we return to the budget, which offers a good example of this neglect to realistic sources of renewable energy. Rudd and Swan have cut in half the $8000 government solar panel subsidy for households that earn over $100,000. Not only is this killing off the fledgling Solar power industry, but again, it is bad policy. There is no argument for cutting off the government subsidy for any level of income, because the beneficiary of solar power is the environment, and therefore everyone, not any particular household. It is completely different to something like the 'baby bonus' which puts money directly into someone's pocket. Whether this is an ideological attack on apparent middle class welfare or just a money saving measure, it goes against this government's claim of being more environmentally progressive than the last. Now Rudd is cutting the environmental assistance that Howard was willing to allow. 

So we have both a government AND opposition made up of idiots, both coming up with bad environmental policy. What hope can we really lay in government to solve this problem?