Yes, exactly and we need a future that can be faced with fresh optimism and one built on achievable reality, rather than pie in the sky stuff that includes taking up permanent residence in dream castles in the clouds.

First cab off the rank must be real tax reform and massive simplification; and the removal of those officials that just talk about it as a means to avoid doing something real?

To be replaced by those with vision, and willing to embrace real reform.

Next task is the rollout of a carbon free or carbon neutral economy.

And given the new or emerging technology choices, for less than our coal fired system now imposes; and done in the public interest as publicly owned and operated projects!

To be followed by the rollout of rapid rail and an accompanying nuclear powered national fleet, Mostly as fast ferries linking our railroads to their Asian counterparts and our new best friends?

Affordable on the back of real tax reform and massive simplification

If only to make sure our exportable manufacture, is not carrying the unearned expectations of price gouging foreigners; and therefore reach their intended markets as still price competitive products.

Which can include finished steel and aluminum products, with the lowest possible carbon footprint!

Thanks to carbon free and less expensive power and direct reduction furnaces.

We could take up broad scale algae farming as the best possible means of saving the Murray/Darling and all who depend on her/prosper as never before!?

And in so doing create an endlessly sustainable,highly profitable, endlessly sustainable, future fuel industry!

Given we get that done, build the most prosperous nation we can imagine?

Get busy creating an inland shipping canal that in turn opens up our vast inland for sustainable development and prosperity for all who reside there now?

On the back of truly affordable desalinated water!?
Rhrosty.

Eckersley has form with research patterned like this – ask a vague and loaded question in an opinion survey: “will our way of life will end within the next 100 years?”, disregard other survey evidence that gets different results; and use the survey to supposedly legitimise policies that may be completely unrelated to what the survey respondents actually thought.

If a quarter of us REALLY thought that humanity will be wiped out in the next 100 years, don’t you think there would be more people making a fuss about it?

Rhian: Do you think that those folk shown into showers in Auschwitz thought they were in any danger of dying anytime soon?

Or that a frog being slow brought to the boil in a pot of warm and comfortable water, is living in fear of dying!

Even so,what do you find as fault with just doing what we can to improve our economic performance and prospects, because that's the smart thing for smart folks to do!

I mean in every disadvantage/disaster, lies the seeds of success, but only if you're looking!?

I wait with baited breath for your response to President Obama's reaction to his guided tour of Alaska, which is reacting to man made climate change faster than just about anywhere else; or will you run true to form for the average denialist, and just refuse to look, let alone accept the assembled evidence?
Rhrosty.

Hi Rhosty

Some of the Jews gassed at Auschwitz knew all too well what was coming. Read the accounts of “selections” in the camp. They knew what they were being selected for. The new arrivals might have been deceived, but the old hands were not.

Which, of course, is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. We are not riding a train to Auschwitz.

You ask “what do you find as fault with just doing what we can to improve our economic performance and prospects, because that's the smart thing for smart folks to do” I find no fault at all. I think improving our economic performance and prospects is a splendid idea, and am all for it. Richard Eckersley is not, however. He wants to slow or stop economic growth to allay our supposed fears of extinction and environmental catastrophe.

I am not a “denialist”. I support action to address climate change. I just don’t think we should ground the case for action in vaguely worded opinion polls. Nor do I accept that the only, or best, way to address climate change is to destroy the economy.

What a pile of fluff.

How to say nothing in a lot of words, but apply for another grant/job at the same time.

One can predict the weather tomorrow, but not next year. In 1900 no one had any idea what 1950 would look like let alone 2015.

The moment I hear claiming to plan for the far future my extremist alarm goes off. Fanciful predictions of what is going to happen 100 years from now are certain to be wrong. Changing the world today for the goals or threats a century from now is the realm of fanatics.