I'm sorry to say that I couldn't find what this essay was about, other than a lament for what is. You see encouraging signs, but lament the existence of silos and the failures of our politicians. Perhaps you want things to happen faster than they are happening. Most critics of anything are like that. But at the end it simply wasn't clear to me what you want, what it would be like then, and how we would get there.

Well, one way to become smarter would be to check the facts on 'climate change': if you do you will discover, for instance, that a) disastrous events are reducing in frequency rather than increasing:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/18/summary-of-the-april-14-16-us-tornado-outbreak/

and b) that they have nothing to do with 'climate change' anyway:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/13/final-words-on-the-russian-heat-wave-from-agu-weather-predictable/

If we can just get everybody up to that level -- beginning with our politicians -- it will be a great start.

Second rule of debate (which comes after be excellent to one another) is:

Check your Source when making claims.

http://tinyurl.com/kn4nno

The world is finite.

Transitioning to clean renewable energy is just common sense.

Change is often scary.

Most certainly we need to restructure our "civilisation" because we have a severe parasite problem.
Transparency would be a start. So long as things like the Iraq war can be pulled off so dishonestly and our economy run by shady crims...well, any progress will be stillborn.
Personally I think a bunch of SciFi geeks funded by Branson ("VirginState" anyone?) will set up a moon colony just before the next dinosaur killer smacks down. If the geeks don't escape with some *real* conservation efforts then the parasites will pull them down with them. Nature has given us a limited time in the cradle. Best we use it well.
...Hey it's more likely than politicians, priests, lawyers or bankers getting us out of this mess!

Paul Budde delivers a call to arms but does not say in which direction we are supposed to March. In fact, he doesn't really say anything, apart from declaring that things need to change.

This is not very smart.

Sure the recent bushfires in Victoria killed about 80 people but, refresh my memory, how many died in the 1939 fires in Victoria? How many died in the Grote Mandrenke (the great drowning of men) that hit England and the Low countries in the 14th century - just one of many storms of the Little Ice Age that caused enormous loss of life?

In fact, almost any period in human history has its fair share disasters. So rather than worry about potentially marginal changes in risk due to climate change (if there is any problem at all), we should spend time on proper risk management such as warning systems for bush fires and, perhaps, improving building codes in Queensland so that house roofs do not get blown away by cyclones.

Now that would be smart.

Curmugeon, you are spot on.
I was recently talking to a guy working in the Pacific on Climate Change Adaptation policy. He was frustrated that Climate Science wasn't producing specific forecasts that he could make policy against.
I explained that Global Warming won't change the necessary policy. You still have to plan for extremes, you have to plan for unpredictables, you have to invest in risk management...You can effectively ignore Global Warming until you have over-utilised your natural resources, thus curtailing all adaptation options. Any population silly enough to utilise all it's resources is *itself* the problem.
We have plenty of resources, we just need to use them correctly. Global Warming may well be the slow burning fuse that saves us from blindly breeding ourselves into a nasty corner whilst being "led" by selfish children.

The top four polluting nation states in the world add to over 50% of the total words contribution. If something is going to be done, it must happen there. Australia contributes less than 1.5 of the total world population.It may be said that this is high per capita but my response is that like all developed economies, Australia must produce a certain level of emissions to remain a competitive economic power; especially with a lot of Australian industry being based on the production of resources meaning further loss of jobs as an inevitable consequence of the new carbon tax introduced through deception.
Nation states must reduce their emissions, yes. However, if Australia was to cut its emissions by 10% it would only decrease by 0.13%. China however would decrease by 2.23%. This reduction alone is almost twice the original emissions by Australia. Let others lead the way, otherwise Australia is going to go so far ahead, it will end up behind!

The solution to the world's problems is ...(drum roll) ... Broadband!

If only we could get some.

I'm not so sure Paul that I'd place too much hope in Governments fixing things up. For all I know, they might be a part of the problem.

"Second rule of debate (which comes after be excellent to one another) is:

Check your Source when making claims.

http://tinyurl.com/kn4nno"

OK, let's check. WattsUpWithThat - voted Best Science Blog of 2011, just recorded 75 million hits. Winner of the 2008 Weblog award and the 5th-ranked science blog on Wikio.

RealClimate...? 17th science blogs (and going down), and hasn't got an award since 2005.

Who's winning, I wonder?

"Transitioning to clean renewable energy is just common sense. "

Transitioning to wind power which is at least three times as expensive as, and to solar power which is at least ten times as expensive as, coal-fired power generation, does not qualify as common sense, given that there is no scientific evidence that anthropogenic CO2 emissions cause dangerous global warming.

Yet the Government, the Coalition and the Greens agree to this ridiculous policy, implementation of which will force retrograde structural change -- scary indeed.

But the "reality" is that coal is still a non-renewable resource.

Whether or not AGW is real or not is irrelevant - we are still, at some stage in the future, going to need to adapt...

Why not do it now and suffer some short term economic pain, on the assumption that perhaps, just maybe, there is something to this whole AGW business, or even if there's not, just on the basis that we are doing a good thing for future generations...

"Why not do it now and suffer some short term economic pain, on the assumption that perhaps, just maybe, there is something to this whole AGW business, or even if there's not, just on the basis that we are doing a good thing for future generations..."

Because it will cost vast sums of money which could be better spent on things which are actually needed: malaria control and nutritional supplements for people in developing nations, for instance.

Imagine someone 150 years ago saying: "We'd better start breeding stronger horses NOW, because they will be vital in the industrial age to come!" That's the level of naivety shown by the so-called Precautionary Principle -- 'Do ANYTHING, whether it is useful or not!' -- or as I prefer to think of it:

"When in danger, or in doubt,
Run in circles, scream and shout."

Jon, I assume that it suited your fear mongering to ignore my point about non-renewable energy?

To throw a spanner into the works... I point to the data collected by NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Sciences. The data provided gives average global temperatures (for what is in front of me) for the past 10 years (Start 2001- End 2010). This data indicates a decline in average global surface temperature! Global warming... I think not. This data is not the only scientific evidence that heeds off the theory of global warming.
Thermal testes have occurred around the equator (where temperature increase would first occur). It is evident from IPCC models that no such 'hot spot' has resulted from alleged increasing greenhouse gasses.

This is some information that I have found very interesting in the current society that can be heavily influenced by everything and anything that the media says.

It is no doubt that the greenhouse effect is real... But how drastically has the enhanced greenhouse effect increased the rate of warming? After much research, I can conclude that everything is not what it seems.

Yes new technology needs to be implemented for sustainable development, but at what cost? Surely not at the cost of our future and jobs!

J W

Suggest you actually check what NASA has to say about global climate before making claims:

"Each year, scientists at NASA'S Goddard Institute for Space Studies analyze global temperature data. The past year, 2009, tied as the second warmest year since global instrumental temperature records began 130 years ago. Worldwide, the mean temperature was 0.57°C (1.03°F) warmer than the 1951-1980 base period. And January 2000 to December 2009 came out as the warmest decade on record.

Take a look below at NASA's collection of videos, articles and imagery designed to help tell the story of our warming world."

To be found here along with further research from NASA:

http://climate.nasa.gov/warmingworld/

Even if you reject NASA, all the world's climatologists and the majority of related scientists, there still remains no argument in favour of continuing to pollute and use up all remaining fossil fuels.

First I shall talk about the so called 'hot spot'. This area is located around the Equator and would be the very first area to be affected (temperature wise atmospherically) if global warming were to accelerate at the suggested 'apocalyptic' rate that is spoke of daily. Data released by the IPCC (on thermal satelite imaging) shows no hot spot exists.

Secondly, climate change is real, YES... But not the global warming everyone suggests. Once I used to believe the mainstream ideals too, but have now realised that there is more to this than meets the eye!
Just the other day my friends told me that global warming is imminent and asked if I had seen the film 'Am Inconvenient Truth'. This film is very one sided and only brings to light the evidence it wants... Just the same as all those out there convinced that the world is about to spontaneously combust.

The sea salt content is the real reason that the world is going to experience climate change... But not for the warmer.

Renewable energy, once again, I will say is a necessary step. BUT NOT AT THE EXPENSE OF AUSTRALIAN JOBS AND ECONOMY.

I WILL BET THAT MOST PEOPLE IN THIS FORUM SUPPORT THE CARBON TAX... WELL, I AM GOING TO CONTINUE FIGHTING FOR A PROSPEROUS AUSTRALIA EVEN IF YOU WON'T.

The Data previously brought to light in my post was as part of a climate change briefing to the federal opposition government in 2010. This is reliable information that does not just support the media and other sources fixed on selling the end of the world!

So JW, a briefing given to the opposition in 2010 could not possibly have been biased?

Have you considered whose vested interests continued dissent, debate and fearmongering about these issues serve? To my mind, it's definitely not the Australian public, but rather the people who are making big bucks off the current arrangement.

That said, i'm not particularly sold on the carbon tax. I just dont think that continual denial of the (potential) issue is sound policy either.

I too am concerned about Australian jobs and our economy - but the issue is how far ahead you are looking?

Saoirse

Your question on non-renewables is based on so many fallacies that we grow tired of endlessly exploding them, only to have them pop back up again as if the whole tedious belief system had not been refuted a hundred times before.

Okay, so.
"Whether or not AGW is real or not is irrelevant - we are still, at some stage in the future, going to need to adapt... "

1. Who's "we"?
2. How do you know that people aren't going to die as a result of the measures you are advocating?

There are two main outcomes that will arise from increase in taxes that will be needed if we are to invest in significant forms of renewable energy (like the carbon tax - only proceeds will go to paying debt rather than infrastructure).

First, there will be an increase to family costs of living making it harder for the Australian economy to power ahead. This increase will have to be charged for the power companies to continue supply. They wont change their methods... Just charge more for it.

Second, jobs will go overseas as the companies will not find it profitable to operate on home soil any longer. Companies such as Bluescope Steel are already under enough pressure without such taxes.

Another issue that has failed to be mentioned is the fact of base load of power. The only real form of production to satisfy this base load is coal... And possibly nuclear energy (which Gillard and the Labour Government are for some reason opposed to).

Addressing the accusations of bias; I am an academic individual that is a member of the legal and commerce profession. My main concern is economic prosperity, not the environment that undergoes natural process and will adapt to inevitable change through Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection.

Such investment in renewable energy could lead to our demise. Yes it is a step that needs to be taken... But not in some big panic that will send business broke, and families starving!

This wraps my points up conclusively! I will only respond to further posts if they are of proper argument, and no insults are made!
Thank You

I would not trust briefings given to politicians it all depends on who is given a hearing. J Gillard believes by taxing CO2 emmissions and giving it to poorer people to pay for their electricity and purchase comodities produced by releasing CO2 will eleviate climate change. What Logic is that?

Firstly It shall be noted that political advisers, some of whom I know, are the best in their field! They are knowledgeable and have comprehensive understanding of the topic they are involved in.

Secondly... Julia G. does not want to help families (despite saying she does). She wants to attempt to pull Labour from their huge deficit by taxing families. This is the same concept as Keneally's idea of selling NSW Power. Rather than use a strategic approach, she sells and prices go up making it harder for families.

This is a very opinionated and complex topic... So lets just try making what little sense out of all of this as we can!

Whether an individual has a clear view of what lies ahead, and states what needs to be done, a political system (whatever stage or persuasion it may be) has to act out its conclusions.

Only after a catastrophe such as WWWI or WWW2 that changes in policies can take place. Even then, the changes are deadling with the events leading up to the catastrophe rather than to prevent another. This is natural. It would be ridiculous to claim perfect vision ahead, - especially from a political entity. The case in point is the financial difficulties experienced in some countries. Changes are taking place to prevent another similar financial "meltdown", - not prevent another looming one.

Paul's article is just another business as usual vision.
In an energy depleting world it is a brave assumption that the internet
will still be operational. If we are lucky we might have a basic POTS
telephone service.
I suggest that a reading of the Hirsch Report would be of great help
to all that have an interest in the not too far distant future.
The reports main conclusion is that we need 20 years to make the
transition to a new energy regime.

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCMQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.netl.doe.gov%2Fpublications%2Fothers%2Fpdf%2Foil_peaking_netl.pdf&rct=j&q=The%20Hirsch%20Report&ei=vJe4TZHkBYGSuAOW35iiAw&usg=AFQjCNE3FtTu9VvtUOQaCvSKRG0Tb2Tchw&cad=rja

www.netl.doe.gov/publications/others/pdf/oil_peaking_netl.pdf

The second link might be easier.

As peak crude oil is now history and peak coal is around 2020 to 2025
we should have started the energy transition about 1980.
Most of the visions as seen by Paul are either impossible or to the
people trying to adapt to the changed conditions are of no interest whatsoever.