omygodnoitsitsitsyou, you may be right, but seriously what is the point of a government if it's the people that must jump up and down and bend over backwards to get something like this sorted out?
i mean the governement has access to all sorts of surveys statistics, advisors, think-tanks and they have close ties with the business world and THEY are the ones who can legislate change. they are employed by us to look ahead and make good policy suggestions for the future.
..if they're really desperate for ideas, they should use Google or something..

To The Alchemist: It’s time we both took a punt on where we should be in say 25 years time. Then we both have to decide if it’s wise to comment publicly on a likely choice.

Some of my current thinking involves finding a collection of local industries in some upland area with forests. It means pulling up some assets now hey. Others will be too busy shoring up after we have moved on to notice the fall in values on the margins.

The question now is do we keep on buying cars and building roads or head for a place where everything must be on hand sooner than later.

Remaining the ACT becomes less of an option every week. Although this place always was handicapped with NIMBY’s it’s probably gotten worse with recent urban growth, more educated types who see the world through a computer. We can’t have a wind farm because of local objections, restore Pierces Creek after a spat between governments or rebuild CSIRO with Howard’s government favouring more coal research. The ACT has no fossil fuels to play with nor wood to t convert after the fires

There is plenty of work in construction now but it’s all focused on increasing real estate values and revenues. Almost everything we buy in shops is imported, often from regions far away.

I really can’t see how bio fuels made from what ever can help us shift the balance in demand for goods our way.

Perhaps we can have the Opera House rebuilt up here to add to the culture meantime. Ever wondered how long they have got to make up their minds?

Taz, I think I understand what you are saying, the ACT has its problems just like most cities. In 25 years, I have no idea, hopefully still alive.

I make these suggestions purely because they appear to be the best band aide short term approach to the inevitable outcome. Personally I don't see our current system's surviving 10 years, let alone 25. As has happened in the past, societies have collapsed under the weight of their non-sustainability, history is just repeating itself.

The most likely scenario will see cities throughout the world collapse as energy and fuel infrastructures fall apart and disappear, as is happening now. You also show by what you post that cities are unsustainable as their supplies come from outside their borders, so their own outcome is negative.

As in the past I am sure that humans will survive, but on a much smaller basis, again a historical fact. The difference is that we have a better understanding of all things and those that remain will be able to use things like biofuels to rebuild a better life, thats compatible environmentally.

This may sound ridiculous, but I think the time for making up their minds, was back in the 1970's. Our society is like something that has fallen of a cliff, we can see the bottom, can't do anything about it and aren't ready for the sudden crunching stop at the bottom.

If Australia keeps on growing its population, it won't matter two hoots whether we have more efficient transport. Any increases in efficiency will be neutralised by more people driving more cars in more crowded cities and catching more planes and eating more food (read fossil fuels) and consuming more goods etc. etc.

Of course more efficient cars - and people not wanting to gross out on bigger and bigger machines - would be good but we really need to think more broadly (I was nearly going to use that hateful term outside the square) and realise that the time has come for the human race to stop bloody growing. Nothing, absolutely nothing, we do will make the blindest bit of difference until we confront this particular truth, in national and global terms.

Oh and by the way good on you David Lamb for raising this important topic. Good luck to our granchildren, they'll need every bit of luck they can get.

I completely agree with Lamb's sentiments. (He's very big on the rhetorical question, isn't he...)
If more of the tax component of our petrol was used "for the cost of repairing the causes of climate change" I'd be quite happy to pay $1.35 - $1.50 per litre. Its not though... (sigh, frown)

Anyway, heres how on my student budget I try to make a small positive contribution. 1. I don't ever want to buy a new car, because of the HUGE amount of energy consumed to build the damn thing - much more than it will consume in its life of operation in fact! Reusing my current car seems better (it really is a nice old Kingswood with a fairly small engine, driven economically) 2. I want to run in on E10 fuel. Problem is it seems even the 10% ethanol component of my fuel choice will degrade the rubber and other fibres in fuel hoses and carburettor gaskets. It will apparently also cause rust in the metal fuel lines and degrade the metal of some other seals and the carburettor itself.
Damn it!
What do I do?

Fuel economy is not about hybrids or hydrogen it is about vehicle mass. For a car to accelerate to an acceptable speed It's inertia must be overcome. For it so stop, for people to get out safely, the energy used to build up this speed must be dumped as low grade heat and sometimes noise.

The elephant is peple weighing 100 kilos needing 2000 kilos of cheap materials and crude processing tecniques to move from point to point. No body wraps themselves in their heviest clothing to walk to the shops because of the effort it requires.

Use Legislation to weight cap cars. Bring the weight cap down incrementaly and benefit from less road wear, less damage in accidents and lower fuel costs.

Who is brave enough to propose and pass THE simple solution?