Occasionally I visit Sydney and stay with a friend in Ultimo. It's a pleasant walk to the Chinese Gardens which I generally visit or the local restaurants and bookstores. A short bus or train ride will take me to the State Library or the theatre. I can walk to the one of the ferry stations which take me to all the great harbour locations. I can walk along North Head, South Head or on the other great trails accessible by ferry.

I have also seen the dreary regiments of tract houses in the western suburbs. I imagine it is too much of a trek for them to see most of the places I mentioned above. If they work in the city during the day they probably don't feel up to making the journey again during the evening or weekends. They may just want to revive themselves so they can battle another week.

Planning for human needs would consider the lives of people in the western suburbs. Since I am not one of them I can't be sure what they need or want. They will probably not have much if any input in any planning. I think it possible that they might like best to get out of there altogether - where jobs are not far away, where parks, streams and forests are accessible, where there is a local store one can walk to, where there is a sense of community (they may already have a sense of community. I don't know.) The area looks to me like a horrible place to live, and I doubt that the residents are satisfied with it.

In "Cities in planning spotlight" (2/11/2009) Mr. Rudd argues a larger role for central government in city planning. The government has already played a useful role is in transport planning, but needs to incorporate the Internet in planning. The NBN can be used to improve city transport and help combat climate change.

The federal government funding Melbourne rail improvements and rejecting the Sydney Metro, has sent a clear signal that transport needs to be planned. The NSW government has since made some progress with a study of light rail: http://www.tomw.net.au/blog/2009/10/proposed-sydney-cbd-metro-system.html

Recent research predicts a larger rise in sea level than previously thought. None of the proposals currently being prepared for the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen (CoP15) will be sufficient: http://www.tomw.net.au/blog/2009/10/climate-change-and-sea-level_30.html

The Internet is available and rapidly expanding, so it can be deployed to combat climate change faster than other technologies, such as Metros or solar power. Friday's "Govhack" shows how government and community can work innovatively online: http://govhack.org/

Data from the $100M Smart Grid Project could be made available for energy saving projects: http://www.tomw.net.au/blog/2009/10/australian-government-100m-smart-grid.html

Web carshare projects could be funded: http://www.tomw.net.au/blog/2009/11/car-share-example-of-green-technology.html

Free WiFi for public passengers and a national smart ticket could be introduced.

Other proposals I put to the APEC Climate Change Symposium in Canberra last week: http://www.tomw.net.au/technology/it/apec_climate_change/

1. GREEN COURSE: Broaden the content and add multimedia, mobile phone and village classroom options to the ANU/ACS Green Technologies course to make it available in APEC countries at the local level: http://www.tomw.net.au/green/

2. INNOVATION COMPETITION: Expand the InnovationACT project to the APEC region. In a one year trial Australian and Korea will have teams of students working online on climate change innovations. Prizes will be awarded for the best project: http://iact.anu.edu.au/

3. GREEN CERTIFICATION: Expand the COA Green ICT certification scheme to APEC, providing web tools to ICT green certify organisations: http://computersoff.org/news_display.asp?newsid=17

4. PROTECT CULTURAL RECORDS: Many cultural institutions are located near the sea and will be at threat from inundation due to climate change. Training and resources for government and non-government cultural institutions to catalogue and digitally preserve their materials can be provided. Background: http://www.tomw.net.au/2005/emuseums/report.shtml

What Kevin avoids mentioning is that infrastructure does not create resources, it only distributes them. We are entering a resource-limited age but you will not find mention of "energy" or "oil" in Kevin's text. The fact that water availability is finite is also not mentioned. All resources issues are exacerbated by population growth but population growth is not inevitable - it is driven by government policy. The stresses of growing population and finite/dwindling resources are diametrically opposed - and when the system breaks down it will break big-time.

The other thing Kevin doesn't mention is that the current infrastructure problems, like the public transport issues in Sydney, would not be near so severe is the population had not grown by record amounts over the past decade.

And then there his great plan for halving carbon emissions in the next 40 years - while at the same time championing a doubling in population. Do you really expect to be able to pull that off? And then there is the record amounts we have had to spend on water infrastructure for our cities, now the drought made it obvious we have out-grown our existing water supplies. $9 billion in SE Queensland, $5 billion for Melbourne, god knows how much in Adelaide and Perth. Look at those numbers - they represent a substantial fraction of the supposedly huge CFC stimulus.

And then there is our ever rising house prices - which unlike other places in the world is driven by a genuine housing shortage, which is driven by - guess what? Frankly Kevin it looks to me on the population issue you just haven't connected the dots.

What I'd like to see from you is not more articles on how you are going to spend your way out of fixing these problems - it is an article explaining how an increased population benefits those of us already living here - in the long term. That is something I would really like to understand because from where I sit, the path you are proposing we going down looks like pure insanity.

Perhaps then we need to be paid $150,000 compensation for living in rural areas so we can relocate to the city.

Apparent that Government is working for business efficiency rather than human development. Pigeon holes for wage slaves in the city are expensive so please send money. We are sinking from neglect and lack of business investment in area..though we do have water at least..so send us packing as rural refugees. We are being discriminated against for where we live.

Otherwise our fight for separation that rises sporadically for 150 years will be renewed. This time we will win and plenty of migrants from other tropical areas will be glad to call this paradise home.

Excellent posts everyone.

Especially the questioning of population growth. If we are to be sustainable, we must ensure that our population is kept at replacement levels only. Unless climate change miraculously produces rain in Australia's centre, we will remain, for the most part, living on the coastal fringes.

If you would like to ensure that Kevin Rudd gets your message please consider sending him the following letter:

http://www.dirtykev.org/letter/index.php