Clearly there will not be a "one size fits all" solution.
The clownfish team: (nothing to worry about, lets get richer) will resent and fight any attempts from the green-team to change, sorry "impose" any sensible evidence based action.
Alas, climate change is going to happen and the dangerous thresholds are going to be crossed. Too many tipping points have been crossed already and the momentum of society is unstoppable. (Fly over Asia some time and check out the sheer scale of human impacts!)
This is OK really; We would have got a Dino-killer impact or big volcano sooner or later anyway. Now, as ever, the mission is to save and support as much of nature as we can and survive the inevitable. The only difference CO2 induced CC has made is we now have a self-imposed time-line, which is probably necessary to get some serious action.
Those who believe in a rational, science based society need to remove themselves somehow from the rest and do it their way.
New technology has made the self sufficient community a reality, and the internet has made knowledge global. Without the profit drag of corporations, the wealth drag of the big hereditary families, the historical political and religious drag... new communities can now operate and thrive.
The tricky bit is start-up wealth and to avoid spoilers (Big Oil still pays imposters to mis-represent the green movement) and to survive the barbarians (Hi Clownfish!) when the proverbial does hit the fan. Communities also have to be ruthless with dreamers and ideologues and ensure they are are actually viable.
Tricky stuff, but historically it is as good a time as ever.

Squeers

In acknowledgement to King Hazza:

Sweden is, unequivocally, a democracy:


http://www.sweden.se/eng/Home/Work-live/Government-politics/Facts/The-Swedish-System-of-Government/
"Swedish System of Government
Sweden is a parliamentary democracy. The Constitution declares that all public power in Sweden proceeds from the people and that the Riksdag – the Swedish Parliament – is the foremost representative of the people. The country is ruled by the Government, which is accountable to the Riksdag.
Foundations of Swedish democracy

In Sweden, democracy and parliamentarism emerged during the earliest decades of the 20th century. Often 1917 is regarded as the year when parliamentarism was definitely introduced. Since then, the king has not exercised any personal power in connection with changes of Government. Formally, however, parliamentarism was not established until the new Instrument of Government in 1974."

Australia could do better than aping the American version of democracy and follow the Swedish example instead.

On sustainable clean technology:

http://www.sweden.se/eng/Home/Work-live/Sustainability/22952/Energy-brGenerating-power-for-a-sustainable-future/

"The International Energy Agency (IEA) ranks Sweden highly on most counts in its report from 2008: low carbon dioxide emissions, a high proportion of renewable fuels and an efficient electrical power market (“Sweden is one of the true pioneers in liberalized electricity sectors”). Ever since the oil crisis in the early 1970s, Sweden has invested heavily in the search for alternative energy sources. Its phase out of oil has proceeded smoothly. In 1970, oil accounted for over 75 percent of Swedish energy supply; by 2006, the figure was just 32 percent, chiefly due to the declining use of residential heating oil.

In Sweden, 43 percent of the energy supply comes from renewable energy."

Thanks Fractelle.
I'm more than happy to demure when I get things wrong, but in this instance it is King Pizza and the other clowns who seem incapable of comprehending plain english. First of all, as I've repeatedly made clear, I didn't suggest overturning democracy. I tried to identify a weakness in the democratic system when confronted by an emergency. Like the Titanic heading for the iceberg, democracy cannot steer worth a damn; it is held on course partly by momentum and partly by its utter lack of agility. Most of our western democracies have exactly that problem; look at all the fuss over a feeble 5% in Australia!
Sweden and the Scandenavion countries are indeed responding to the emergency with far greater alacrity than us, the US and co. Pizzaman was making the point that Western democracies "were" addressing the problem (what a joke), headed by Sweden and Switzerland, and that the rest of the world was not---he obviously thinks this is unfair, notwithstanding that we created the problem and continue to make the major contribution to it!
But to cut to the chase.

I said: "Interesting that you cite Sweden, noted for its socialist "policies", as most ready to stand up (my emphasis)." To
which Hazzar Hazzarded the interpretation that I meant Sweden was "NOT a democracy because it's "Socialist".
Of course I don't, and didn't, say it's socialist! I was plainly alluding to Sweden's and Scandevaia's celebrated (in enlightened quarters) socialist culture, indeed its "democratic socialism".
Orwell once said that "democracy" was the hardest word in the english language to define. Raymond Williams said the hardest word was "culture". Both these authors might be a bit hard on the attention spans of my opponents, though, so perhaps they should try Wiki, or this one: http://www.essortment.com/all/governmentswede_rbfh.htm

I accept your apology, Hazza!

Ozandy - Wow buddy welcome to the 1970's. I clearly remember a nutbar American in Aus then who, like you, was going to join up with the elite and watch the rest of us go over the cliff.
What a joke, the silly sod was always spouting that we were all going to die, and soon! Could not keep him off the telly, most decorated Vietnam vet all the usual rubbish. Whatever happened to him?
Mate you are playing with yourself, still no harm in that, keeps you off the streets etc.
Say after me Ozandy "Ooooooooooooooooooooooh help me" lol, keep up the medication too.

Squeers

You are very welcome - I should've made closer perusal of your and K H's posts - it is good to know we are sympatico on sustainable energy.

Australia has tended to ignore any progress made by the Scandinavian countries at its own peril, it is disheartening to think that only a 5% reduction in carbon emission is being proposed. Another issue is that Australia has enormous amounts of brown coal and uranium, which means that the big end of town cannot see further than their already engorged wallets.

When they are not engaged in undermining efforts to create and install clean alternatives such as thermal, wind or solar (Fred Singer or Ian Plimer anyone?), contrarily, they are trying to persuade the consumer coal can be 'clean' (despite sequestration of carbon being even more of a fledgling technology than the afore mentioned) and that nuclear power is safe - ignoring the environmental consequences of mining, shipping and processing the uranium to plants that have yet to be built. Of course they could be using their corporate might to transition to sustainable industries, but apparently that's just too long term for the intrinsic greed of the business-as-usual crowd.

There have even been claims that CO2 is really, really safe - interesting considering in a very dark part of my life I tried to top myself using exhaust fumes from my car. I didn't survive because Co2 is harmless, my neighbour saved me. And now I know why, so I can speak out against those who would kid you that the planet is an infinite cornucopia which can sustain a continually burgeoning population. That the poisoning of our skies, waterways and oceans have no detrimental effect at all.

No Squeers- I never DID say you wanted to overturn democracy- I was just throwing a spanner into your complaints about democracy by pointing out that more democratic countries (more democratic than WE are) tend to be handling the global crisis much better.
More public input = more democratic- that's all there is to it.
Just because a country is called a democracy, doesn't mean public opinion actually gets very far in politics.
And strangely, the few countries where the public actually has an exceptional degree of input are doing the BEST.

Fractelle
Cheers for the details!
And I agree, Australia SHOULD be getting more inspiration from Sweden (as well as Switzerland) for a system of government than from the USA and Westminster system- the results speak for themselves- in both social, economical, governance, integrity and environmental aspects.

Speaking of inspiration from Europe- another MAJOR difference between Europe and Australia is that European populations are dispersed across the countries in small towns, villages and cities, with extremely high-speed country roads linking them all up- which meant negligable traffic jams, cities so small you could WALK to the other side in an hour (hence the abundance of bicycles), and you could cross half of Germany in the same time it would take to get from Hornsby to Camden (ploughing through endless urban roads).

It very much showed me that a tiny village connected to the Autobahn could get you where you wanted to go WAY faster than going between A to B in a massive super-city because of the complete lack of conflicting traffic between the places (and because the cities ended up being so small, physically, you could park OUTSIDE and just walk- meaning traffic jams are non-existent).

Establishing this as a planning mechanism is easy- trying to convert Australia's sprawling cityscape into this model is a different story.