It is al very sad really. I know lots of you had great hopes for
Kevin 747 and you must be getting worried.
I am afraid I am too much of a cynic to expect better.

The rescue attempt of the US motor industry will fail I feel sure.
What effect will that have here ?
It is all very well for the government to throw all that money at us
and spend spend, but they have left nothing for these energy
infrastructure needs. I know why this is so they are just too wrapped
up in global warming. Have a read of this from Poland;

http://tinyurl.com/6xplyq

10,000 delegates kicking their heels in the halls while the real
fiddling goes on behind closed doors.

Ludwig,
The problem I see is that if Rudd overtly gives meaningful support to whereby it couldbe a real potential competitor to the coal, uranium, oil, power generation any serious alternative energy sources all hell would break out. There would be both a capital flight and potential international consequences. We aren't big enough to dictate internationally.

Domestically the business lobbies, (the industries) would fear up the “rent a panic brigade” with all sorts of “quasi economic, return of Communism” clap trap and Labor would face a mother of all 'anti' campaigns and the pro business parties (status quo) would obliterate the government. Just watch the right wing of OLO’s responders and their 'obsolete (?) take on capitalism and how this would bring down the country.

Rudd and ministers are faced with either being able to immediately offer better options ( better job code for more $) in those electorates where such a campaign would bite or plan on imminent retirement.

People want change so long as it can’t be SHOWN to disadvantage them.
Examinator’s law of political rate of change “hasten slowly lest vested interests notice”. :-)

PS I’m not saying this is good only that it’s reality (a joint flaw) of Democracy/capitalism. Better know as the sinking ship syndrome…"everyone for themselves!

"RobP, rstuart, OK so there might be problems with renewable energy development in OZ compared to more densely populated places like California. But does that mean that we should be just sitting back and letting others lead the way? Shouldn’t we be finding our niche industries for the development of a society that is not based on oil and that is truly sustainable, while being as independent of other countries as possible?"

It's certainly a noble goal as well as enlightened self-interest to do so. The only rider I'd put on it is do it when the time and opportunity is right for us. I imagine there are people in industry who are trying to do just what you say, but can't succeed because the weight of past human practice is swamping them. It could just be that the rise of Asia as a market power is the circuit breaker that makes the difference in terms of sufficiently breaking up and diversifying existing markets. Basically, any difference is going to made by a totally new player and not more of the same Western thinking. That really is a necessary precondition in any serious paradigm shift.

This is a most challenging thread. Ludwig has certainly highlighted a glaring disparity between claimed concern and lack of action taken by the Rudd government on renewable energy. The following quotes highlight aspects of getting renewable energy up and running in Australia.

Ludwig says: "Shouldn’t we be finding our niche industries for the development of a society that is not based on oil and that is truly sustainable, while being as independent of other countries as possible?"

Q&A says: "Ludwig, I think you know there are very powerful and influential vested interest groups that can hog-tie the aspirations of any well meaning politician whose life is only predicated by the time till the next election."

examinator says: "The problem I see is that if Rudd overtly gives meaningful support to [any serious alternative energy source] whereby it could be a real potential competitor to the coal, uranium, oil, [or] power generation, all hell would break out. There would be both a capital flight and potential international consequences."

rstuart says: "... energy production is a very capital intensive industry. For every $1 paid out in wages, you have to put many dollars in for the stock and machinery. Where [is] that capital going to come from where there isn't any to be had?"

Bazz says: "It is all very well for the government to throw all that money at us and [say] 'spend spend', but they have left nothing for these energy infrastructure needs."

RobP says: ".. we don't have the entrepreneurship/slum divide that the US does. Just the quarry/beach epithet. Not great, but we can comfortably live with it."

michael_in_adelaide, in the comments to the OLO article 'Ideas the engine of new growth' by Craig Emerson, Minister for Small Business in the Rudd Government, says: "Unfortunately this article perpetuates the misconception that ideas alone are enough to grow an economy. Ideas are great but useless unless the energy to implement them exists." See: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8284#129582

The Rudd government: begging for ideas, or selling us out?

RobP; “The only rider I'd put on it is do it when the time and opportunity is right for us.”

So when is the right time? When things are booming there is no incentive to change our ugly ways and when things are crook we just dig our heels in and just reinforce the same old methodology.

I’d say that the time is right right now!

Now when the whole capitalistic system has been brought into question.

Now when climate change is of major concern.

Now when China’s economy is showing strong signs of rapid slow-down.

Now when peak oil looms large.

Now when sustainability could be of major concern throughout the populace if the likes of Rudd would just start expressing that concern.

Now when the government is in nation-building and massive-spending mode, when hundreds of millions of dollars could be redirected away from unnecessary infrastructure and put into sustainability-oriented pursuits.

Now with a new leader, at the start of a new political term.

NOW, the time is absolutely right for the paradigm shift away from endless growth and onto the essential foundation of sustainability.

Ludwig,

If the reasons you give are so overwhelming, I think it's useful to consider why Rudd would choose NOT to take the developmental path you suggest.

Maybe he knows after discussions with Government officials that:

1. Australia does not have the industrial clout to take a leading role.
2. If we take a holier than thou approach with other countries, they'll just turn around and say, "OK, you go do it yourself", making us look ineffectual when we can't. We thus lose any momentum we've built up to take a leading diplomatic role in future.
3. We don't physically have the manpower to put the ideas into practice.
4. We don't have the financial clout to coerce or coordinate the activities of other countries.
5. We are largely dependent on other countries for the technologies that we would need to implement climate change activities.
6. Being a minor player and by going first, we may waste a lot of money we can't afford on trials that subsequently are bettered by research in other countries, thus putting the whole activity at risk.
7. Even if we do do some good research, we'll just be bought out and overtaken by other bigger players overseas.

Anyway, there have been a few Australians that have made a contribution: Andrew Blakers of ANU and his sliver cell technology and the makers of the solar farm technology that was opened by Arnie in California are two that have been in the news. There are probably more beavering away in the background as well. No doubt the progress will continue, gradually attracting more and more effort and research dollars, until it becomes a full-blown industry here and overseas.

So, to you question of when is the right time: I'd say the answer is simply whenever the idea becomes workable, bearing in mind that in any society there are a variety of contributors who all add something in different ways and at different phases of a project's life.