I don't disagree with the thrust of the argument until we get to here:

"People, by the droves, are cottoning on that they can live far happier, more convivial and healthier lives, living comfortably with a much leaner footprint".

My perception is that people want the government to 'do something' but few individuals want to sacrifice their lifestyle. Many will apparently happlily pay, in these wealthy times, a few bucks more for 'green electricity' to the extent that such exists other than when the sun shines or the winds blows but who is about to give up their computer, air conditioner or washing machine to reduce their energy foot print. Yes, we all 'should' try to do 'someting' but in the mean time lets take the next 50 years offered to restructure where necessary for the influence of climate change. The internet has only been around, en-mass, for about a dozen years and we seemed to have had no trouble accepting it's influence.

Spot on, Chris Harris. It’s great to see the historical perspective coming in to this discussion. – yes, how the tobacco industry ruthlessly conned the world. The asbestos industry did likewise.
Also great to take the perspective of the present day communications technology. Bush/Howard and their backers will not be able quite as easily to con the world on climate change.
Or will they? I’m just a bit worried that our absolute genius of rat-cunning, John Howard, might be able to get away with conning and bribing Australia into the whole gamut of the nuclear industry.
For George Bush to solve the US Yucca nuclear waste problem, for Howard and John White of Australian Nuclear Fuel Leasing to bribe us all to take international wastes, - in this noble cause, Howard is sure to do all sorts of pretty green things – even sign Kyoto. Christina Macpherson www.antinuclearaustralia.com

Chris Harries has made a few claims that are really not substantiated. Sure, the media have swallowed the line portraid by Stern amd by Al Gore, but there are many scientists who have significant doubts about the doom and gloom being pedelled by people such as Chris. Of course if you followed the advice of the greens we would be living in poverty in caves.

The only thing that I have heard that is sensible, in my view, has been the contribution of Rupert Murdoch who has virtually said that we don't really know whether recent warming has been caused by human activity, but nevertheless it would be sensible to improve technology to reduce CO2 emissions. I think we can all live with that and work toward it.

Peter JH

You responded to "People, by the droves, are cottoning on that they can live far happier, more convivial and healthier lives, living comfortably with a much leaner footprint". with your perception "that people want the government to 'do something' but few individuals want to sacrifice their lifestyle.

I agree with your perception, all those Harvey Norman customers and frequent flyer point collectors will take a long time to turn. If they think of these matters at all (of which I doubt) I imagine them to feel they are giving up so much for so little gain - unaware of the calamaties that can befall humanity over the longer term if there is no change.

However I am not sure that those that Chris Harries wrote of are the same people you observe. I agree with him that there are many leaders who are transitioning to new habits. While their number is too few right now to make a material difference to the climate, their experimentation, learning and solutions provide example from which followers too can learn and build their own confidence.

On another matter, I would add to Harries' assessment of "unbridled consumption can no longer go along merrily as it has been in the past." It is also inevitable that we cannot sustain inexorable population growth, regardless of living standards. Eventually their will be stabilisation and reduction to ecologically sustainable human population levels. It is my belief that, regardless of climate change, the energy decline at the other side of peak-oil/gas will bring that about - albeit with great discomfort.

Greenlight

What next?

The Carbon tax!

But will that change the ethics of a Corporate Polluter to update its technologies and infrastructure?

Or just will the Carbon tax be another tax the consumers will be offloaded with, in light of their massive profits?

Competition is required with more research and trials into natural energies, to turn up the pace, on those who continue to ignore the warning signals.

Australia has an abundance of solar energy.

Perhaps all executives should spend a week in one of the countries effected by global warming where the seas are reclaiming land.

If John Howard wants to pursue technological fixes to climate change, then we should be encouraging him. There's certainly a place for new pollution-reducing technology, and if carbon geosequestration can work, then great! But as the article points out, this is a long range solution (speculative technology, not yet proved), and we need action now.

And if we're talking about tech solutions, how about funding increased research into energy sources that wouldn't need geosequestration - like more efficient solar power?

Maybe the government should be running public campaigns to encourage people to reduce their impact on the environment. It's worked for water usage in various parts of the country - why not expand it a bit to take in greenhouse gas emissions? As Peter JH and Greenlight have pointed out, people don't seem to be in a real hurry to change their lifestyles, so a bit of leadership from the top in this regard couldn't hurt.

I suppose that Noah must have felt a bit frustrated when he was building the ark and no one would listen to his predictions.
Maybe his feeling of frustration left him when he floated safely away and left all the others behind to drown.
This time around there may be no survivors.

If humans do not take urgent action on global warming then what are the possible consequences?
Will the climate change so that the planet will no longer support human life?

We elect our political leaders because they promise to keep us safe, and to leave us free to gorge on consumer goods and indulge in an unsustainable lifestyle.
Will we have the courage to change our leaderand lifestyle and survive, or will we continue down the path of no return?

How will governments keep us safe from a global culture of corporate greed?

Green elitism on show again ? Who will lead us to the promised green land ? Let's have an evironmental Year Zero ?

I think it would be a hard sell politically to get people to accept a reduction in material lifestyle in exchange for more "happiness". And it would be easy to paint protagonists of such a world view as environmental Pol Pots.

It is more likely that the pollies who sell techno solutions will win the day, even if what they are selling is snake oil to some degree.I think techno solutions are possible given enough resourcing. Maybe the $400 billion that has been spent sending Iraq back to the Stone Age would have been better invested in alternative energy research ?

In addition to better technology we could try some proper pricing on things. I think this is one area where some market solutions may actually have an impact. For example, when the price of petrol was $1.50 per litre there was clear evidence that people began to change their behaviours, evidenced by a decrease in big car sales.

A combined market and technology approach is likely to be better received by the public than an offer of mung bean stew around a dung fire.

I would suggest that whatever the government eventually puts to the environment it focus on the research and development of such products. Strategically increasing funding to universities and supporting Research and Development in business that focus on environmentally and economically beneficial products will provides a positive reward for companies and create another profitable export for our country.

I have wondered why there has not been an 'alternative fuel race' like the cold war 'space race'. Fierce competitions between countries for an alternative to fossil fuels would prove a boon for the global economy. Those successful countries would have developed a product of extraordinary value and their speedy application of such a technology would sever their dependence fossil fuels.



Garbie

I am waiting for the first Treasurer either Labor or Liberal to mention the phrase "sustainable economy" instead of "growth economy" as if it is a finate feature. Thanks to funding cuts to the States the Federal government has $10billion in surplus, wouldn't it be reassuring for our governors to build a hydro-electric power station on the Burdekin Falls Dam, and a wind power generator atop the Great Diving Range every 2-3 Kilometers to ease the burden from coal fired power stations, that though would be innovative, and as we know they operate not on innovation, but rather "conservatism" what a shame for Australia, what a shame for the planet, and our grandchildren.

Howard won't be here to watch the world slowly deteriorate if something is not done now, however our grandchildren will suffer, is that the legacy we want to leave, I for one do not.

The British Government has recently released results of intensive study, compliled by Britan's Chief Scientist and A former World Bank Chief Economist declaring that if government's do not move NOW it will be too late. The environment is too precious to continue to destroy for profit, as the greenies say, Only when the last river has been poisoned, Only after the last fish has been caught, Only then will you findmoney cannot be eaten.

I'm a tad skeptical about the Stern report. See http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/12/12i.pdf
or perhaps http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605

The first report, done by climate change "experts," was commissioned by the Blair Government before the Stern report. Blair didn't like the lack of votes or taxpayers money in the experts report and so commissioned Stern, an economist not a scientist, to do another more favorable study, however I fully agree with Chris Harries with regards to the rest of his article. Thanks to rapid population growth which in turn makes obscene amounts of money for big business and Howard/Bush/Blair type Governments, we continue to merrily sing and dance our way down the road to Armageddon. What to do about it is the big issue. With Western society addicted to fast credit and an unimagineable amount of toys to spend it on, it will be very difficult to change the mindset in a hurry. I spoke to my youngest son about such issues. The response was pure hostility from an otherwise level headed 27 year old. People his age and younger won't give up their lifestyles for a better World environment and in the end, plain old human greed will make sure we reach the end of Armageddon Road. I personally try to do my bit for sustainability, but with the attitude of much of the population today, all I can hope for is that I'm dead of old age before oil, climate change, over-population or whatever becomes a major issue. Unfortunately, I believe a massive calamity is waiting just around the corner.

Most people now believe climate change is a reality, even Little Johnny Howard and Rupert Murdoch. Those who have had a careful look at the history of the earth's climate change are sceptical to say the least of some of the predictions in the Stern Report, and the wilder alarmist views expressed in the media. Do see lord Monckton's second piece in the UK's "Sunday Telegraph" yesterday, included was a link to a .pdf of 77 pages of reader responses to his first piece the previous Sunday "Apocalypse cancelled", I have not read them all, but many concerned scientists appear to agree with his views.

Have a look at today's "Age" Business page 5, where the Victor Smorgon Group has secured the exclusive rights to some NASA technology developed by Green Fuel Technologies Corp link: www.greenfuelonline.com. Basically they have taken the CO2 from power station emissions, and using biomimicry, ie, algae and photosynthesis have converted it into biodiesel, ethanol and stockfeed. All with no power consumption, expensive pumping and pipelines, instead doing something useful and profitable with a waste product. Better than expensive and unproven geosequestration, and it is operational right now, not 10 years away.

Richard 42

Richard 42. Read the site you mentioned and I've got to say I'm certainly amazed. I've heard of such technology, but it really does seem too good to be true. If it's as good as they suggest, why isn't everyone jumping up and down to get the message across to our Government? Maybe there's not enough money in it for those large parasitic businesses such as oil companies. If the Australian Labor Party has heard of Green Fuel technology, then why oh why aren't they using it as a major election platform? If it works as well as the site suggests, what a boon it would be to apply it to our State electrity suppliers! Oh dear. I feel a conspiracy coming on.

Murdoch had the news, its time for his ilk to 'take control of the issue'. Standby for greenhouse to be used to justify more corporate appropriation of the Commons (see carbon offset plantations), more bleeding the state dry (see recent $35mil fed.gov grant to ?toyota to reduce engine emissions) and more 'sustainable growth'(fundamentally moronic phrase).
Emissions trading without caps is just another market toy for the big end of town, expect it to be the first feast of 'climate-responsible capitalism'.

Not to worry, we're nearly out of natural capital and Empires are thirsty beasts. There is hope, but not for those who think consumer capitalism has anything positive to offer the future.

Interesting post and link, Richard 42.

I've been curious to know whether there are any results whatever from geosequestration trials at any scale (but bigger and more practical than, say, burying cases of charged Soda Stream bottles). I ought to Google it myself, but am hoping someone else is more directly propelled than I. Any results out there? I'm thinking Geosequestration is unproven and impractical. Why do we not hear about scientists disputing this strategy? Is it because there are no results worth disputing? My guess is no results at all!

So that geosequestration is, in the present milieu, impractical and untimely; far more so than electricity from wind or tidal flows, or clever applications of efficiency, or use of home and corporate information feedbacks (computerised, wired, wireless)and passive solar applications.

Some related points are to be found in "A Stern review", Forum link: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5091

As for "What next", the balance must be found between innovation, rapid deployment, evaluation and regulation.

J O'M Bockris, in his comprehensive and detailed survey, "Energy Options" (Australian and New Zealand Book Company, 1980), remarked in his critique of US energy policies of the '70's, that:

"The affluent world has to pass through a difficult period of adjustment ... this cannot be done voluntarily, and an organisation ... should be set up as an analogue to the Department of Defense." (p129)

My hope is that we are able to choose our difficulties in as humane a way as possible: not a choice I see being given in other parts of the world.

I would back Victor Smorgon's judgement any day of the week, the group is putting it's hard earned on the line here, and deserves to reap the rewards. Little Johnny Howard is I suspect still very much under the influence of the ex unlamented Chief (part time X Rio)Scientist Dr.Batterham.
It is interesting to note that the Chinese signed an agreement with Greenfuel back in Sept 2005, about the same time as the first commercial customer (a power plant) commenced a year long commercial pilot trial, the results should be due anytime now. Tests have shown 86% reduction in NOx and 40% in CO2 emissions, the Chinese are interested because the air quality in Beijing and Shanghai and elsewhere is really toxic (Olympics..).Also note that hard headed Venture Capital firm Polaris has invested in two rounds of funding totalling $US17.8million, and are represented on the Board of Greenfuels by Dr.Metcalf, the inventor of Ethernet. None of these people are lightweight dreamers. I have a daughter of 33 who is environmentally aware, but also like your son, not prepared to sacrifice lifestyle, perhaps the moderator can put us in touch.

Every Australian can cut their emissions from today with minimal inconvenience. Just stop buying newspapers, especially the AGE, SMH and the Murdoch stable.

Of course, it won't show up in the IPCC accounting system for europe because the emission is deemed to take place when the tree is cut, not when the chip wrapper goes into the landfill. And that means that all europe's paper emissions are recorded in the 3rd world pulp exporting countries.

But here in Australia we export our pulp and then import the newsprint so you can all do your bit to help Rupert clean up his act. And the general public couldn't get any more ignorant, could they?

Richard 42, I'm quite prepared and would find it a pleasure to discuss our children's less than helpful response with their "head in the sand" attitude to issues concerning the environment if you or the moderator can arrange it.

sir vivor, did a quick google, got 12 results, mostly govt spin. I suggest you are right, unproven. Only other source I can think of would be the oil and gas industry who have much experience in injecting various substances to increase production from dying oil wells. The process is energy intensive and expensive, whereas the Greenfuel approach is energy neutral and produces useful products from a waste stream and at the same time takes out some "climate change insurance" in case the CO2 climate change mob are right.

richard42

Richard42
re geosequestration " unproven ... and energy intensive and expensive, whereas the Greenfuel approach is energy neutral"

"Greenfuel" appears carbon neutral, but the energy and other materials inputs are not necessarily neutral. But I'm assuming the balances for greenfuels to be far better than for geosequestration.

And how do the geosequestrators intend to transport their CO2 from generator to sequestration point? More of the energy intensive and expensive bit, I'd guess, with the consumer picking up the expenses as the market will bear; directly through increased energy rates and indirectly through government subsidies and increased taxes.

And if there is no shift toward reduced national energy production and consumption, then, at the very least, there is no demonstration that reductions are possible and liveable. This is a sticking point for me, regarding cleanup technologies.

Cleanup technologies are likely to be seen by many as a means of avoiding the limits to growth, up to the point of catastrophic collapse following the depletion of some key (strategic) resource, or following the kick-in of some unexpected runaway feedback cycle. Cleanups are a stopgap measure at best, and no substitute for scaling down our patterns of excessive global energy consumption.

"And if there is no shift toward reduced national energy production and consumption, then, at the very least, there is no demonstration that reductions are possible and livable. This is a sticking point for me, regarding cleanup technologies.
Cleanup technologies are likely to be seen by many as a means of avoiding the limits to growth, up to the point of catastrophic collapse following the depletion of some key (strategic) resource, or following the kick-in of some unexpected runaway feedback cycle. Cleanups are a stopgap measure at best, and no substitute for scaling down our patterns of excessive global energy consumption."
So says Sir Vivor. And worth reinforcing by repetition.
And what sort of gormless ignoramus would attempt to rebut it?
Yet the world continues with somewhere about 1.3 per cent population increase: roughly 80 million extra consumers each year. Most of these are either in need, or expectation, of increasing their consumption rates to the same as those making contributions to this article. Who is going to throw the first stone against the idea that they have justification for proceeding towards such improvement: Taking those steps which bring them to our living standards of hospital care; education; housing; sharing our lust for ever increasing GDP rather than just an improving Genuine Progress Indicator?
It will be a great day when those gormless world and national leaders are replaced - unfortunately, unlikely! That would be the day when the "scaling down of our patterns of excessive global energy consumption" becomes possible. It will of necessity be accompanied by the cessation of unwanted fertility being foisted upon women, a foisting so cruelly fostered by the Bush administration, the Vatican, and such-like.