Nicholas writes:

WHAT'S THE ANSWER? WELL WE CAN WAIT FOR TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCE TO COME UP WITH "THE GOLDEN BULLET" - THE HYDROGEN CAR, NUCLEAR POWER STATIONS OR CLEAN COAL. OR WE CAN GET ON WITH THE JOB OF REDUCING CARBON EMISSIONS RIGHT NOW WITH WHAT WORKS.

I read this and think great some practical measures to start cutting emissions...and then he comes out with a "golden bullet"

STEP 5: OBTAIN 20 PER CENT OF ENERGY FOR TRAVEL IN INDIVIDUAL MOTOR VEHICLES FROM ZERO-CARBON SOURCES. SOLAR ELECTRIC ENERGY IS COMING. ELECTRIC VEHICLE REFUELLING COULD BE LINKED TO HOUSING EQUIPPED WITH HIGH-EFFICIENCY SOLAR ARRAYS TO RECHARGE BATTERIES, AS ALREADY INSTALLED IN ONE SUBURBAN HOUSE IN OXFORD, UK. NEW GENERATION PHOTOVOLTAIC "SLIVER" CELLS COULD BE USED.

Ok steps 1-4 seem logical:

Step 1 (Telecommuting) long overdue. Employers seems to resist this with all their might.
Step 2 seems like a good idea but he doesn't say how he is going make intrinsically lazy people walk or ride to work (in the rain?)
Step 3 bordering on another "golden bullet" ie. its almost here
Step 4 all for this...ban the 6 & 8 cylinder cars being sold now! Who needs them.

So looks like we could definitely do steps 1 and 4 right now without upsetting too many people. This still falls well short of the magical 60% reductions.

Ahhh well back to the
WELL WE CAN WAIT FOR TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCE TO COME UP WITH "THE GOLDEN BULLET".....

If we don't start reducing our greenhouses gases to slow down the effects of global warming, our great grandchildren will be hungry and hot. May be Malcolm Turnbull and John Howard's grandchildren will be OK but are you as wealthy as them? Why has Bob Carr retired to south island of New Zealand?

Why don't we exploit wind power, tidal power and geothermal heat where its available?
Why do we tie ourselves to energy sources controlled by multinationals?

Anybody who takes the trouble to surf the internet can find much difference of opinion on the subject of Greenhouse and Global Warming (GW). There are the GW sceptics, who clearly must be seen to have a have legitimate point of view.

I realise that there is a strong publication bias in the general media which favours the concept that GW is a consequence of human activity. But even in the general media there are a few journalists that are independent enough to question the hypothesis of doom and gloom from the accumulation of greenhouses gases.

I am not aware of any studies that demonstrate a reduction in CO2 levels actually ameliorates GW.

It is my view that GW and atmospheric CO2 is less a threat to human welfare, then the wild and hysterical responses to the imagined worse case scenarios of GW, by those who should be more critical and questioning in their thinking.

The recommendations make reasonable goals for transport, but i suspect the transition itself will be uneven in surprising ways. For Rec's #3&4 on vehicle efficiency and emissions, do you see the 20 changeover happening by regulatory fiat or market choice swayed by carbon tax? Cos i can't see majority of people choosing smaller cars otherwise. Does GAMUT have any position of the likelihood of peak in extraction of global liquid fuels? (sweet light crude of course peaked in 04; see www.energybulletin.net/primer or www.theoildrum.com if i seem to be speaking greek).

"Cutting greenhouse emissions can start in simple ways". could be, Nicholas Low, could be - simple that is.
To me, all of those flagged cuts do seem simple. Worth while each of them, but oh so simple - because it is inferred that they alone will be enough.
If we are really fair dinkum, we will stand back and take a good look at the overall context.
"A 70 per cent reduction from transport - over, say, 20 years, the goal looks more possible."
Hold it, step back a bit and cogitate:
First:
If that reduction of seventy per cent is achieved from present useage then it will not be 70 per cent for each person in 20 years time. It will be a reduction of 91 per cent. That is because the Australian population is growing steadily at 1.32 per cent. It will be 30 per cent greater than now (natural births plus immigration) - and our political masters dictate to us that this increase will continue in perpetuity (both parties. No actually declared population policy by either).
Second:
Having, perhaps, achieved such miraculous reduction in 20 years time - then we will be required to search for the next round of reductions to accommodate the continuing 1.32 per cent population growth.
Never fear. "We will overcome", having the will to do so. Could be a spartan life-style, though.

Nicholas, your steps seems eminently sensible. But you have left out one vitally important one; the imperative to direct ourselves towards a stable population.

It doesn’t make a lot of sense to espouse all of these sorts of reductions while just sitting back and allowing the overall scale of our operations to continue increasing rapidly.

“The point is that together they will multiply to a nearly 70% reduction in emissions from transport over 20 or 30 years”.

No they won’t if we continue with anything like our current population growth rate! These reductions in emissions are basically average per-capita reductions, not total reductions!

“However, to achieve these steps, regime change will be necessary…”

Yes indeed. And the most vital part of this regime change is to get the buzeejus off of the continuous growth paradigm and onto a stable level of activity on this continent, and indeed on this planet.

Climate change is of huge concern. But there is a much bigger imperative: SUSTAINABILITY. This is where we need to be directing our energies, with great gusto.

While all moves forward on the climate change issue can sit within this sustainability momentum, we can’t allow them to be addressed in isolation from the bigger picture. Climate change is actually a distraction from this much more important goal.

Quite frankly, we are going have to live with climate change. It is too big to deal with. We should instead be thinking of all the potential reductions that you mention here as solid steps towards sustainability. The need to live within our means and to be prepared for peak oil is far more important than anthropogenic changes in the weather, even with the worst projections.

We CAN address sustainability in Australia. But no matter how good we might be at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, we are not going to be able to have a significant effect on climate change.

So for goodness sake let’s refocus here, start thinking holistically and embrace the challenge of achieving genuine sustainability.