Maybe we could start by banning all card-carrying members of "green groups" from flying, including members of the Australia Institute (I bet they do heaps more than me). This could offset the predicted growth in the aviation industry and let sensible people get on with enjoying their lives. This would be a great way to show the Australian public they are putting their money where their mouth is.

The article contains some sensible and practical solutions to the GHG emissions of aviation. However, the suggestion that we need "a Kyoto-style emissions trading scheme" is curious since one of the Kyoto agreement's major failings is that it doesn't have a workable emissions trading scheme. Its other failings, of course, are that most of the world's largest GHG emitters aren't signed up to the agreement which renders it ineffective, while many of the current signatories won't reach their promised GHG reduction targets.
Yes, we need to do something serious about GHG emissions from aviation but another Kyoto-style agreement isn't one of the solutions.

Andrew & Christian;
You are in a panic over a non event.
It is looking more and more likely each month that we are now at Peak Oil.
Aviation will be one of the first industries to start down the giddy slope.
Once the government realises the problem aviation will be one of the
industries with the tightest rationing.

Fuel costs are such large proportion of their costs that as fuel prices rise
the cost of flying will increase quite fast. Much faster than any
carbon trading tax could cause.

I was in favour of selling Qantas to anyone dopey enough to buy it.
We have now had over two years of no increase in world oil production.
There has in fact been a small reduction. The reason you have not
noticed, other than a small rise in price of fuel, is because poorer countries
have reduced their buying. Note the frequent blackouts in some African
countires, they can't afford the fuel for power generation.

BAzz, You have hit the nail on the proverbial head. We are facing the perfect storm of Peak Oil and climate change. The peak oil challenge is enormous and will affect every aspect of our lives. Our cities are completly dependant on cheap and available oil. Industrial activity such as mass tourisim, international trade and at a domestic level commuting from far flung suburbs to work will all become increasingly expensive in a very short time frame. I do not see any ability in our systems to respond in a meaningful way in the time frame necessary to address these enormous challenges. I see the process will have huge domestic consequences as the less wealthy on the fringes of large Australian cities will be hit with huge increases in transport costs and in the middle term fuel rationing. Property not served by rail systems will crash in value. The response to build much expanded rail infrastructure will not be possible even in the medium future.
The future looks bleak.

Pdev, I think we must be living on different planets. In the last 50 years (i.e., excluding world wars and similar), the history of planet Earth is that human beings have shown themselves to be intelligent and resilient enough to respond effectively to various crises. For example, the world coped pretty well with the oil price hikes of the mid-1970s, although there was some short-term economic pain in some countries.
The doom and gloom scenario you suggest is, I respectfully submit, unrealistic and not backed up by historical evidence of similar past catastrophies. As stated in my first post on this topic, a shortage of oil will have one profound effect: the cost of oil will rise. In turn, people will choose or be forced to become more fuel efficient and alternative sources of energy supplies will be found. The adverse impacts of peak oil aren't going to happen in an instant: we'll feel the results of reduced oil availability over a period or years, maybe even decades. This will give us plenty of time to build more fuel efficient cars and provide more public transport, etc.

It might be reasonable if GW was real, and if it was, is it something we need to bother about. It seems that the head of NASA thinks it is beat up and we dont need to do anything.

I mean in my simple terms I would have thought that if the temperature is rising (by whatever means) then wouldnt that mean there will be more water vapour in the atmosphere from evaporation?. If it goes up then surely it must eventually come down, somewhere.

Didnt I learn at High School/University that are not Evaporation and Condensation cooling processes?.

If that is the case then surely, if we have more C02 , more heat, and more water, both in liquid and vapour form, then the bio mass will increase, thereby absorbing carbon. Come to think of it isnt that why the deserts are becoming green again,eg the Negev.

If the outgoing infra red gets the carbon molecules in a lather, such that they get excited and heat each other up, then why is it that the level of outgoing infra red has not dropped, when measured at the top of the atmosphere by the satellites.Funny about that.

If the relationship between C02 and temperature is logarithmic then isnt the problem being grossly overstated anyway.

If the GW theory says that the GW induced temperature rise will show up first in the troposphere, then why doesnt it.

Oh silly me, I forgot. It is all driven by the climate models that conveniently all agree with each other because they all are doing the same thing..wrongly.

Like, in effect, using a linear projection for the increase in Co2 versus temperature, and not being able to represent the behaviour of clouds properly, and not just because they change the albedo factor.

Oh yes thats right, more heat, more evaporation, more clouds with a lighter colour albedo reflecting the sun back, before it got here.

But they can still tell us with absolute confidence that in 100 years time we will all be frying in hell. Sounds like complete bull dust to me.