You don't need to be a scientist to come to the conclusion that sooner, rather than later, the World is going to run out of non-renewable sources of energy and unless we have some way of limiting world population, we will also run very short of food.

David

I rather liked the dot points, although some would make life harder, most would be a welcome relief - such as making the polluters pay. However the premise on which they were proposed was incorrect - they would not be needed to save the planet, which will continue on its merry way once we have finished messing with it, but may be necessary to save humans from a pretty rough time, or at least prolong our tenure here.

What climate-change skeptics seem to overlook is that, regardless of climate change, our children and grandchildren face a world where fossil fuel shortages mean that crops will be in demand for both food and fuel - already showing as rising prices - and we are in the position now to try and manage this situation so that theirs lives will not be too dire. We may carry on quite comfortably in the developed world for a generation or two, but unless we address the issue of population things will get rapidly worse. Even if we halve our consumption across the globe, our numbers are expected to double in 50 years.

Twenty-one countries in the European Union are already in natural population decline - this could be a cause for celebration and re-evaluation, but politicians are in lock-step with global corporations, and see the reduction in consumers as something to be avoided at all costs. I don't know the Rudd Govt view on population, but Howard/Costello's baby bonus and mantra of one-for-mum-one-for-dad-and-one-to-hammer-the-nail-in-the-coffin-of-the-human-race is well known.

Kellie, the selfish fail to accept the facts, that the climate change agent is the sun, not us mere mortals. The greens and their cohorts may make good political fodder for use in gaining the numbers, but these additional costs bind and blind the community to the real needs for example: housing, family health, bread and butter "on the table"... Not make believe, end of the world, plaything environmental issues or some political science excursion at these families expense. I don't think this will sink in as the politics is now firmly out of touch with reality and the family unit. Superficially the family will agree to this political science spin but beware, you will have to live with the results as you will not be able to blame someone else for these unnecessary costs the community can't really afford...

governments are in thrall to money. politicians are motivated to get elected, and stay elected. and the result is what we see.

if you don't like the result, you have to change the system. it's not hard to do, but it is hard to break habits of submission to the power holders you have grown up with.

here in oz, the lack of experience with democracy that is the heritage of the british class system means that even someone like the author of this article cannot make the step from seeing the problem, to seeing the answer. the average oz sheep can't even see the problem.

change won't come until ozzians are hungry and frightened, change then will be not to democracy, but to fascism. this story doesn't have a happy ending, sorry possums. but it's yer own damned fault.

What are the costs of a lower carbon society?
I think that society's mechanisms of population reduction have been revealed to us already?
I remember Japan being quoted many years ago as a "population out of control" and perhaps it was, but is no more, Australia's "populate or perish" too has been discounted.
My observation, not proven, is that as society advances security in life and wellbeing, populations fall. No longer is there need in a modern society for children's numbers to be counted as being a sort of superannuation for the old.
Advancement of the idea that a healthy community is one where wealth is shared, that communities devoid of greed are more successful at sustainability.
We have admirable organisations that herald societies leaders in excellence, we read of the wonderful discoveries/innovations made. So long as we admire and not let starve such people they are satisfied in the approbation and thanks society proffers them.
Wit and skills are rarely inheritable, only property and money is, why is that so.
If inheritance is the reason for accumulation, the answer is to regulate it, won't be popular though, and in democracy its likely outcome could be war, unless universally accepted.
I believe taxing pollution would be a great start, I don't mean trading it either, just tax it into extinction.
We have the time available to softly change our values, lets take it and brave wealth's dissension.
New industries and national wealth can be created, another "industrial revolution" to undo the the pollution of the last. There are opportunities to replace fears, we need promote them not cry about our past mistakes, they're done and gone, we need move on.
Infrastructure need be a priority, downgrading the motor car as a status symbol another. With television and computers we need no longer be the mobile society of the past. The tourist industry I can hear dissenting from here, on the flood plains of the Murray.
fluff4

Distinguished scientists always question each other; its what science is all about. The fact that 400 distinguished scientists may have questioned anthropogenic global warming does not mean that they are right. The fact that Exxon has spent 16 million dollars buying opposition to the idea of global warming means that vested interests are buying "science", just like the the tobacco companies did. There are enough valid scientific measurements and models around, since Aarhenius' extremely disinterested and accurate first prediction made in 1895, that anthropogenic CO2 can indeed cause massive and rapid climate change when feedback systems come into play, as they doing right now in the Arctic tundra and the polar regions.

We indeed live in harmony with nature and nature is about to start harmonising us rather brutally because we are the most stupid species ever to populate this good earth.