It's true that there are more politicians that start being concerned of environmental issues, or at least the pretend it to be, but I'm afraid that it's more a strategy to keep the population contented. I hope I'm wrong and in the end we are going to do something to save the planet before it's too late. http://saveourbushland.blogspot.com/

“Dealing with global warming is the biggest challenge faced by civilisation since –."
Maybe not. Homo sapiens brought on its greatest challenge after 1945, when it reduced death rates from disease and starvation while not, in parallel, investing in minimization of fertility rates.
Microbiology at that time provided such gifts as Penicillin, DDT, and elimination of the scourge of Smallpox. Yet the earthly self-proclaimed custodians of Gods’ words seized mendacious opportunity: “more for my tribe – go forth and multiply”.
“God helps those who help themselves”; but opportunistic humanity, with papal and fundamentalist economists’ blessings, did indeed help themselves - to an opportunity for a lemming-like orgy of increase in numbers. From a population of about 2.4 billion in 1945, rodent-like, humans increased to a 2007 total of 6.6 billion. Since I was a teenager.
Global warming is but a symptom of the fundamental problem of incessant growth. It is simply the rubbish we have thrown out coming back to haunt us: carbon which nature has banked, underground. Millions of years worth of it. Its heat extracted, and waste thrown up the chimney into the atmosphere. Do those who have no worry about such quantities and rapidity believe in the tooth fairy?
“There will still be some fighting over the tiller, and just which direction to head in, but we are finally under way.” Those who are doing such fighting – the ones able to get their fingers onto the tiller – all want to continue a lemming-like course: growth forever. Gathering around those leaders, pleading and praying for them to alter the deck chairs here or there rather than to change their ultimate course, we sail towards a fierce and desiccated sunset.
The real estate industry, the property council – how wonderful those increased house values. Retail industry – spend, or we'll be ruined. Media – advertising to persuade higher consumption must prevail or we will be bankrupt. Fundamentalist economists – growth is the backbone upon which civilization is structured - resources are but an appendage. All reap (profits) but till without fertility; nor tiller a proper course.

"Dealing with global warming is the biggest challenge faced by civilisation since at least the long war from 1914o 1945, or perhaps the Black Death that wiped out as much as a third of Europe’s population in late medieval times, or maybe ever."
The death toll of WWI is estimated between 15M and 66M and WWII, 60M to 77M.
The total deaths due to Bubonic Plague between 1300 and 1700 was 300M.
I cannot recall reading of one human death directly attributed to AGW.

Also (a quibble perhaps) but Peter forgot to include the Leader of the Opposition, Kevin Rudd, as one of his AGW slowpokes. It was only recently that Kevin traded in his gas guzzling 4WD for a purer than pure Prius (only after he was outed) and has yet to install solar hot water at home.

An article right on the dot, Peter. Of course, the problems about all going green, is that we have businesses as well as people doing so good now through China's hunger for our quarry stocks, as well as our satisfaction through stupendous cheap Chinese wares in our stores. Thus Big Biz, whom most people rely on, will not get off the glory train, nor think any other way while making a tidy profit.

We have smart-arse members even of our own group still calling greenies left-wing loonies, when actually these greenies are typical of an Avant Guarde through history, who unfortunately like Socrates and even the younger Jesus mixed with the so-called wrong crowd, and letting themselves even personally be looked after by the few whom were adorers, and the few at the time who could see the true light.

What is going to happen, and typical of history as some of us have already mentioned. The smart ones, whom Adam Smith termed the necessary greedy capitalistic competitive ones, will come in and steal the agenda, what fairer-going Aussies call jumping in on the grouter.

Looking back through history, that's usually the way of progress, and unfortunately most religions have yet been unable to change it.

The real challenge of the next few decades is not global warming, it is the increase in world population. This increase will not take place in the first world, where populations have largely stabilised, but in the third world, where the population is expected to double over the next 30 years. Global warming is only one of the consequences of population increase. When third world governments realise that without minimising this there is no prospect of improvement in the living standards in their countries, the problem may be addressed, but there is no sign of this now. The only possible example of how a country can pull itself out of poverty is China, which is now reaping the benefit of its one child policy.

Unfortunately the only issue that unites both the Vatican and the muslim world is that nothing must be done to stop the increase in population.

A principal fallacy about global warming forecasts is that they assume that the rate of emissions will be maintained, when the fact is that we are running out of oil. Surely the biggest public policy problem that we will face is that there will have to be a substantial fall in the standard of living in the west, particularly among lower income workers (because they use so much oil). Achieving this and remaining in office will be a major challenge for governments. As for the third world, their problems will be addressed by the four horsemen of the apocalypse.

Wishful thinking, Mr McMahon. Relatively green, probably. Superficially green, sure, already are. Really green, in the sense of no longer dangerously altering the biosphere, consuming renewable resources (fish, timber) at nonrenewable rates, nor burning thru our endowment of nonrenewable natural resources (fossil fuels, mineral concentrations) at all-ours rates, i don't see it. Its conceivable in our lifetimes, but only just, and our prospects grow daily worse (business as usual). We are maybe halfway thru trying everything else before we are forced to what will actually work: cultural change, reskilling and retooling, monetary and taxation reform, humility and generousity. Neither major party has yet half the required cojones or smarts to lead that change. Maybe they'll whip into shape, maybe less moribund parties will take their place (as used to happen in Australian politics).