''This whole process of policymaking … has been one of the worst examples of policymaking we've seen on major issues in Australia,'' he said. Despite the poll findings showing more support for nuclear power, the Rudd Government yesterday restated its total opposition to it as an option to help Australia meet its future carbon reduction targets. During the 2007 election campaign, after prime minister John Howard put nuclear power on the agenda, then opposition leader Kevin Rudd said: ''If you elect a Labor government, there will be no nuclear reactors in Australia, full stop.'' Supporters of nuclear power say it is the only practical low-emissions alternative to coal for generating baseload electricity - the minimum required by industry and residential users. Arguments against focus on safety - the risk of accidents and the fact that radioactive waste must be stored securely for thousands of years. Opponents also say it would take too long develop a nuclear power industry.

Ziggy Switkowski, who chairs the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, said: ''[We must] provide for the next generation of baseload electricity generation with clean energy. The only way to do that is with nuclear power.'' Support for considering nuclear was strongest among Coalition supporters (58 per cent), and opposition was strongest among Greens voters (62 per cent). ALP voters were evenly divided, with 46 per cent in favour and 46 per cent opposed. Survey respondents were told: ''The introduction of nuclear power has been suggested as one means to address climate change'', and then asked: ''Do you support or oppose the Federal Government considering the introduction of nuclear power in Australia?'' Federal Energy Minister Martin Ferguson restated the Government's opposition to nuclear power. He also cast doubt on the viability of photovoltaic solar power as a future energy resource. He said the renewable sector kept falsely insisting it could be an alternative to coal as baseload power. But he believed solar thermal technology, which uses the sun's heat to boil liquids to power turbines, was a more likely answer.

Victorian Energy Minister Peter Batchelor dismissed nuclear power as an option for the state. He said increased reliance on lower-emitting gas, clean coal and renewable energy sources were the way ahead. However, hopes for a cleaner future for Victoria's power industry received a setback last month with the abandonment of a ''carbon capture'' project at a proposed power station near Morwell, which instead is to become a gas-fired station. In another setback for the renewables sector, Solar Systems, which was to have developed a 154-megawatt solar photovoltaic power station near Mildura, was put into administration. Meanwhile, the annual Lowy Institute poll has found that climate change is dropping as a priority for Australians. The poll, released today, found Australians have gone from ranking climate change in 2007 as the equal most important foreign policy goal to putting it seventh out of 10 possible goals. The issue fell 10 points since last year and 19 points from 2007. But Lowy executive director Michael Wesley said 76 per cent rated climate change a problem and those who felt this way viewed getting a solution as increasingly urgent.

As the Opposition prepared to put a package of amendments on emissions trading to Parliament next week, political sparring continued over the costs of curbing emissions. Frontier Economics and independent senator Nick Xenophon hit back at Treasury's claim that Frontier's blueprint, commissioned by the Opposition (and Senator Xenophon), had a $3.2 billion hole. They accused Treasury of misunderstanding the ''credit and baseline'' approach to emissions trading and getting its sums wrong. Senator Xenophon said Treasury was acting politically. He said he could not support the Government's scheme unless it included changes to the way the electricity sector was treated. There was a risk the Government's model would cause energy security problems, including blackouts. The Seven Network reported an analysis commissioned by the NSW Government from Frontier last year on the Rudd Government scheme said that in the long term it could lead to real wages 8 per cent below the level they would otherwise reach, if long-run unemployment was to be avoided.

With MICHELLE GRATTAN