To no surprise to me, Peter Garrett is promoting pretty much every form of renewable energy that is even remotely feasible; wind, solar, geothermal, waves and tidal. Interestingly he does not mention hydro. I have no problems with these forms of energy generation - they do indeed have their place.
Most interesting is what Mr. Garrett says about nuclear:
Mr Garrett told the Our Planet - Leaving a Legacy sustainability forum on Friday that Labor was opposed to nuclear power as a source of energy but was enthusiastic about the prospects for a range of renewable sources.
"In particular, we're not saying we should pick winners.
He said Labor did not support nuclear energy because it was expensive and there was a significant time lag between building and generating the energy.
Nuclear must be [and, truth be told already is] competitive with other no/low emissions energy sources.
Just more pre-election political spin.
If you take what he is saying literally [and note that Peter Garrett holds degrees in Arts and Law]; what it translates to in hard, technical terms is large subsidies and steadily increasing fossil fueled plant deployment - with the associated emissions increases, because even the maximum feasible deployment of renewables will not enable Australia to achieve the 60% or more reductions Labor is currently dangling in front of voters AND satisfy Australia's increasing demand for energy.
Believe me... don't believe me... it's up to you. Many people will simply see what they want to see. But you can't politic, cheat, swindle or cajole the laws of physics.