Energy policy: can we have a Carbon-Cutting Reliable Affordable Programme (C-CRAP)?

But we can't have all three to the degree politicians are promising punters.

In short, three into two won't go.

I learned that in primary school.

Being honest with punters: why won't politicians tell us the costs and benefits of trade-offs?

The challenge for governments (Commonwealth, State and Territory) – and even more so Labor and the 'Greens' – is to explain to the punters who are paying for their mistakes why this opinion piece is wrong. And they need to do so with hard, verifiable numerical evidence, not generalised, number-free, assertion-heavy, waffle as hitherto.

Lots of 'green' readers will complain about going back on RET targets, and argue we should do more. I have my own views about the best way, if we must, to deliver emissions reductions, anyway. (See my papers entitled Effective climate change policy: the seven Cs. Paper #1: Some design principles for evaluating greenhouse gas abatement policies. Paper #2: Implementing design principles for effective climate change policy. Paper #3: ETS or carbon tax?.)

But in a democracy surely the trade-offs and cost implications of different policy options should be made clear up-front to the punters who will pay for them. Not so in Australia at present. Unless this information is provided, the 'Tower of Babel' nature of our energy policy debate (sic) will continue. The religious nature of the 'substance' will encourage the ranting on all sides to continue (wonder what Galileo would think?).

And, maybe this summer, while politicians of all stripes are still blaming each other rather than doing their jobs, we can continue this fruitless debate – by candle-light.