Good analogy with WWII since it is that level of commitment that is required to deal with peak oil. However, in a sense it is already too late. The Hirsch report on mitigation of the effects of peak oil states that we need a 20 year WWII-style crash programme of measures to adjust our economy - and with peak oil probably between now and 2010, that means we should have begun 20 years ago:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirsch_report

The other question is about "pulling through this". Pull through to where? If anyone believes that we will be able to maintain a fraction of current lifestyles without the energy to support them then they are gravely mistaken. That is why I doubt politicians will ever seriously confront peak oil. They cannot handle it and offer a wealthier future (or even the status quo) to the voters (without lying through their teeth). Even in wartime people strive to get past the conflict and restore "normality". But the war against Peak Oil can never take us back to where we were before.

>We should make no mistake about this: a Coalition government or economically conservative Labor government will be a disaster for Australia. They would put off responding to the crisis until it is too late, and the price for such inaction will be very high indeed.<
We have six months to get this message through to the politicians, Peter. Somehow I doubt they are listening, seemingly more interested at this stage in finger pointing.
>We need to rebuild our social and physical infrastructure to make us a more flexible and capable country. We need to recover social solidarity to ensure the costs of the crisis and the responses to it are shared fairly. We need to rebuild government as the central process in society, genuinely democratic and led by the best people we have.<
Conundrum: how do we ensure the best people are the ones being nominated? There are a number of indicators to suggest that politics are not attracting the best available, and there are a number of good reasons for this. Any suggestions, Peter?

Two of the most important issues in the World today is that of peak oil and Global warming, yet I hear nothing mentioned by either the Coalition or Labor in relation to peak oil and very little on Global warming in the run-up to the polls.
As far as Global warming goes, Labor has a few points on the board, but well behind the Greens. The Coalition has only just jumped onto the band-wagon and only because it smelled a loss of votes if it did not do so. Once re-elected, any current Coalition policy on Global warming will be quickly shelved whilst they get back to the job of destroying the lives of working people, but hopefully, without a Senate majority.
Presently, we have some who believe peak oil began as far back as 2000 and we have others that put peak oil at around 2050. Most who have studied the problem put it happening at between 2010-2035. 2035 is only 28 years away, but well outside the realms of election periods, which is all our present Government and opposition seem to relate to. The Howard led Government is all about making money. The opposition is little different. Howard knows about the threat of peak oil. There was a recent Senate inquiry into the matter. (See link below)
http://www.aph.gov.au/SEnate/committee/rrat_ctte/oil_supply/submissions/sublist.htm
Peak oil doesn't appear to have shown up on the opposition radar at all which is really scary. Perhaps, since they can see no immediate answer to the ever increasing price of crude oil, they prefer to bury their heads hoping it's all a bad dream, but should Labor squeak in, they're the ones that will have to deal with the problem should it become obvious in the next year or so.
Dr. McMahon is quite right. The next Government will need to implement plans to allow for the slow change-over to a World with ever depleting oil reserves, failing economies and a lifestyle far removed from that which prosperous Nations continue to enjoy today.

In future we can still live a reasonably comfortable life. We need much better and further developed suburban rail systems. For example in Sydney from Martin place under the harbour to Manly, Palm Beach and The Entrance. Our cars need to be downsized for everyone with a shift to hybrid and electric power and maybe we need parking sites in our cities and out train stations which allow electric powered vehicles to be recharged. Like the Canadians and French we need to accept the benefits of the latest designs of atomic power stations, including breeder types which could supply power for millenia, and to obtain as much electric power as we can from the most efficient and consistent renewable resources. Our business and our government horizons must expand from the next quarters results and the next election to planning for energy for the next twenty centuries and beyond.

I agree with you Folye, except the part about "breeder" reactors, but only because I don't know enough about them. ie: Do breeder reactors create un-disposable nuclear waste like conventional reactors? We really don't want to leave our future generations with our mess.
What about a combination of wind, solar, wave (as seen on Catalyst last week) and geo-thermal electricity? Much cheaper and quicker to implement than nuclear surely?
Small electric commuter cars should be considered for short trips and yet our PM openly opposes EV's, siting job losses through lack of required maintenance as his main objection, but he fails to realise that car manufacturing in this country is slowly losing ground to imports. What a boon it would be to see an EV manufacturing plant in a couple of States!
To be honest, I seriously doubt humanity can change in time to meet the demands of "peak oil." Not while big oil companies are reaping huge profits from unfortunate motorists. Collusion between Governments and oil companies the World over, have seen tracks torn up and EV's killed off. That same collusion persists today and will see us all knee deep in sewage before Governments hold out their hands to ordinary people.
It's so sad to think that no political party in this country is strong enough to go against the grain of big money and say enough is enough!

Why do my hackles rise when I see an article that begins "Everyone knows..."

>>Everyone knows that the coming federal election is an unusually important one<<

Unfortunately, the outcome is already known: politicians will be elected.

Until and unless there is radical change to the way in which we choose to govern ourselves, every election will be equally meaningless. In fact, the longer we continue under the present system where we are forced as an electorate to continually reward failure, the more meaningless they will become.

We fail to hold our government responsible for either the promises it makes, or the promises it breaks. Where's the sense in that?

Where is the sense in calling an election "unusually important", when there are absolutely no repercussions against a politician who lies to us?

Outside parliament, their behaviour would be rightly regarded as criminal. Corruption, extortion, fraud, theft... all have been sanctioned by our parliamentary system, while "privilege" attends the parasites at every turn, as the politicians leech upon us for their allowances, perquisites and lifetime of financial security.

When they are done, where do they go? They "consult to industry", encouraging their successors to find new ways to fill their snouts from the public trough.

"Unusually important?" Not a chance. Just the same old, same old round of overheated words and empty promises.

Wake me when it's over.

Or in time for the Revolution, whichever comes first.