"But nuclear power produces more CO2

into the environment too!" I was told yesterday.

Really? I thought that, once built, a nuclear power plant would produce no discernible levels of CO2 at all. I could be wrong I suppose but then a lot of scientists must be wrong too - and they know much more about this than I do.

What the comment told me though was that there is a lot of false information swirling around about things like nuclear power, CO2 emissions and environmental issues in general. If anyone in the older age group doubts this look back twenty or so years. There you can see we are supposed to be in a period of prolonged drought. At the same time the sea levels are also supposed to have risen to a point where the coastline of Downunder has been eroded to a point where the map has changed. 

Mmm...false information. 

False information really swirls around in major tornado like amounts around any election time. Some of it doesn't matter too much perhaps because voters don't really believe the promises being made or that all the promises made at the previous election would actually happen. 

But there is a difference between false information - such as the idea that nuclear power produces "more CO2" - and information put out there which is deliberately intended to mislead. There has been plenty of that in the letterbox in recent days - and there will be more.

I know someone who has been directly involved with the idea of Federal Independent Commission Against Corruption - or ICAC.  What he had to tell me about the government's apparent failure to take action on this issue has left me with the feeling, "I should have expected that." 

Put simply the government did attempt to take action on the issue. They did invite comments from many people, people not just on "their side" of politics. There was work on legislation. It would have passed the House of Representatives on numbers. It would not have passed the Senate. It would not have passed the Senate even if amendments were made that the Opposition said it wanted. It would not have passed because the Opposition did not want it to pass. They simply did not want the government of the day to be the government which brought it in. Although claiming otherwise they wanted amendments which would have protected their own from any investigations. Had the government of the day agreed to the amendments any ICAC would have been unworkable - and again up for criticism for other reasons.  Now the likely incoming government can get their own legislation through - and it will be something of far less value. Both sides know all this.

It is all part of the very complicated process of passing controversial legislation. It is the same sort of thing which prevents nuclear power being taken as a serious issue and which prevents serious action being taken on climate issues. Being in power is more important than actually doing something about serious issues. If we did take serious action on these things then the government of the day would be quickly removed. People would not want to live with the consequences.

Am I just being too cynical?