Optimistic? Yes. Realistic? Certainly not. The article endeavours to inspire hope where really none exists. That has been made blindingly obvious as the years speed by and still nothing changes except the talk.

There is not enough political will nor enough intestinal fortitude on the part of voters throughout the so called democratic world, including even Europe, to ditch these useless governments that at the very best can only talk the right talk and tinker around the edges of the environmental problems civilization is experiencing.

Well-healed vested interests alas have enough resources to "convince" elected governments not to act on environmental matters that threaten their bottom lines. Besides governments have been conditioned for years to believe that the free market, privatisations and the markets are the answer to everything. No evidence is called for. To change their belief systems on the basis of evidence they don't want know about is just too much for them.

In any case the population time bomb both within Australia and globally has to be addressed one way or the other if we are even to think about a sustainable planet.

Paul Gilding's statement "Even if we go with a low global reduction target of just 60 per cent by 2050, that means a per capita reduction of closer to 95 per cent in Australia, given population growth and our high starting point." implies that population growth is a non-negotiable given in Australia. If so his optimism is doubly unfounded.

Kulu
Has it ever occurred to you that people might not like freezing and starving in the dark? The reason the 'vested interests' are vested interests is because they are supplying goods and services that hundreds of millions of people are buying from them because it makes their life better.

Jardine -

How many people would freeze and starve in the dark if Australia had net zero immigration? What would the death toll be from a $25/tonne carbon tax that coincided with a 1% drop in the marginal income tax rate? How many casualties would result from urban councils using 10% hybrid or electric cars and making 5% of their purchases from recycled products?

I'm with kulu, we aren't even trying to be sustainable. We use more stuff every year and destroy more ecosystems every year.

Why should our goal be to cram as many people onto the earth as possible and then use up all the earth's resources as fast as possible?

Thanks ericc. You said it all for me.

Atman said, "No more preaching thanks. Somebody just DO something."

Please check out http://www.beyondzeroemissions.org/zerocarbonplan.

Some extracts:

Zero Carbon Australia 2020 (ZCA) is an exciting initiative of Beyond Zero Emissions and the Climate Emergency Network with the generous support of Climate Positive.

It is a project to develop a blueprint for the transition to a decarbonised Australian economy by 2020.

The Project draws on the enormous wealth of knowledge, experience and expertise in the community to develop a blueprint for transitioning Australia to a zero carbon future. Individuals with expertise, knowledge and experience in relevant areas can work within a structured process to contribute to the transition plan.

ZCA 2020 consists of separate working groups examining different sectors of the Australian economy including:

- stationary energy,
- transport,
- land use,
- buildings,
- industrial processes,
- replacing coal export revenue.

When and where do the working groups meet?

Each ZCA 2020 Project Team working group will have two meetings per month on a weeknight evening from 6.30 to 8.00 pm. The meetings will be held in Melbourne, (more details to follow).

Working group contributors will work independently between meetings or in collaboration with other working group members.

Work is already under way on the project; however we hope to expand the base of contributors to produce a very rigorous and comprehensive document.

Would you like to contribute?

Please contact:

mark@beyondzeroemissions.org