mP:
But the fact you have to goto Europe and cant find anything proves that the Australian government is doing absolutely nothing significant.
That's because we have people like Tony Abbott and Alan Jones (and mP) claiming there's no need. Once Australia got away from Howard, Rudd ratified the Kyoto protocol and at least took some environmentally favourable steps - which Abbot tried to block.
All the big polutting things continue just like before.
Largely because too many American corporations (the biggest polluters) are greedy bastards. And in Australia we have naive conservatives who voted for Tony Abbott, whose view is that, "The argument [about climate change] is absolute crap. However, the politics of this are tough for us. Eighty per cent of people believe climate change is a real and present danger."
Firstly you failed to mention that Ger after the nuclear accidents has been looking for new energy forms. It also had problems with gas supplies from Russia and so on. In the end solar or wind etc may very well be the best way to source much of their energy rather than having dependencies on others that may be perceived as unreliable and so on.
That's a stupid response. Your statement about Germany contradicts your own view, because Germany opted for clean energy forms when it went looking for alternatives to clean (when properly functioning) but risky nuclear power, rather than just burning as much coal as they can find. (Though Germany had previously relied a lot on coal, its three remaining coal mines will be shut down by 2018.) And you conveniently ignored what I said about Sweden. And besty has provided a long list of countries doing quite a lot about alternative energy sources that do not contribute to manmade climate change.