First up — the news is good. Apart from a couple of jaded fatalists and the compulsory skeptic in our guestbook, the outlook is positive. And while we don’t collectively reach consensus, there’s enough agreement on enough issues to signal the kinds of things that should help us achieve the cuts science says we need.

Not surprisingly, our audience tended to focus on the types of actions that can be taken at individual or community levels, while our experts and leaders were more concerned with the national and policy pictures.

What our audience really cares about:

Increase public transport

Transport was by far the biggest issue for our audience, with a resounding yes to more and cheaper public transport, and a cry for less and more heavily taxed private transport use. Many a slanderous word was typed against urban 4WDs.

Improve energy efficiency

While efficiency measures often miss out when we’re talking about climate change strategies, they are a key issue for all groups we’ve approached.

Our audience in particular was keen for national legislation on energy efficient building standards, with the NSW BASIX system receiving a few mentions. Improving energy efficiency in processes and appliances in general is also a major concern.

Solar panels on every home

Our guestbook shows an overwhelming call for distributed power in the form of solar panels on houses and commercial buildings. The need for financial aid to help cover costs (eg. interest free loans) also rated highly.

Solar hot water systems are seen as important, but the real focus is a shift to collecting power on site and selling it back to the grid via solar panels.

Increase use of renewable energy

And fund more research into them while we’re at it, you said.

Carbon Tax

While our experts and industry leaders called for an emissions trading scheme, our audience favoured a direct carbon tax – where goods with high emissions in their production or use attract a higher tax.

This preference might reflect a liking for the basic carrot/stick approach that’s been operating in some northern European countries for over a decade (Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, The Netherlands and Switzerland introduced carbon taxes in the early 1990s). Or it could just be that emissions trading is trickier to get your head around and has had bad press in its infancy.

Education Education Education

While our guestbook respondents come across as particularly well-informed, they were concerned with getting Australians to make the link between greenhouse emissions and regular purchases/practices.

While most people get the connection between cars or power stations and CO2, our audience felt that the “stuff = energy = CO2” relationship needs to be hammered home.

Clean coal & nuclear…

…barely rated a mention. There were mixed but small responses to both.

What our experts and leaders want to see:

While many of our audience’s ideas were mirrored by the other groups, the main strategies proposed by our leaders and experts focused on national policy and regulation issues.

Establish an Emissions Trading Scheme

The one point our experts and industry leaders agreed on is the need for an emissions trading scheme. While details on the specifics varied, there were calls for:

• a scheme that doesn’t disadvantage early adopters (organisations that have already acted to reduce emissions), and
• an appropriate carbon price to be set.

What that price is, what level of flexibility will be built into the scheme’s targets and what, if any, security is offered to the fossil fuel industry are key issues for discussion.

Set national energy standards for new buildings and new vehicles

In agreement with the audience response, Peter Newman specified at least 6 star green commercial buildings, and the NSW BASIX system to reduce housing emissions by 40%.

Ian Lowe and the green business sector also called for minimum efficiency standards for all major appliances and commercial equipment. The transport sector is currently looking at reducing vehicle emissions.

Set clear emission reduction targets

The need to set clear emissions targets to achieve – in the shorter and longer terms — was understandably important for both business and our experts. Without clear and appropriate targets we don’t have anything to measure our success by, or clear incentives for the market to grow.

Figures when mentioned clustered around a 20-30% reduction by 2020, with a 60% cut by 2050.

Set higher renewable energy targets

The current Mandatory Renewable Energy Target (MRET) requires that electricity providers source an extra 9,500 GWhr of electricity from renewable sources each year by 2010. This translates to around a 2% increase in renewables in our electricity mix.

Our climate experts called for an increase in this figure to around 20% by 2025, and 40% or more, by 2050. The green business sector backed this call, but were alone in doing so among the industry respondents.

Increased use of renewable energy (primarily solar and wind) and increased funding into renewable research ranked fourth in our audience concerns.

What our political leaders have on offer

How do our political parties stack up when it comes to delivering the changes our audience, experts and industry leaders are calling for?

It’s not very meaningful to compare the policies of non-governing parties with the actions of the government, but we can compare policy apples of the Democrats, Labor and the Greens.

In terms of how the major non-governing parties’ policies address our audience’s concerns, on a simple comparison the Democrats are by far the best match — it’s like they’re reading your minds people.

Labor and the Greens meet your need for a carbon tax and an increase in the use of renewables, but they really come up with the policy goods in addressing our experts’ and industry leaders’ strategies. Their focus on setting clear targets for reducing emissions, increasing renewables and establishing emissions trading schemes ticks the majority of our experts’ boxes.

Policy is one thing, but action in government is another. So how does the federal government’s performance rate on the types of strategies our audience and experts have highlighted?

While much has been made of its refusal to sign the Kyoto Protocol, and until recently its greenhouse scepticism, the coalition has performed well in some of the key areas raised by our audience – education and the drive for solar panels on every house.

Homeowners installing new photovoltaic systems are eligible for up to $4,000 in a federal rebate under the national Photovoltaic Rebate Program (PVRP).

And in terms of educational value, the oft-cited $2 billion federal funding for the Australian Greenhouse Office really has been money well spent. The website alone is a terrific resource for lay people and experts on what we can do and where the policy is at with regard to climate change. (Come to think of it, the ABC has a rather nifty greenhouse site as well).

But in terms of the bigger policy and regulation issues regarding emissions and efficiency, the federal government hasn’t provided the targets and regulatory processes called for by our climate and industry experts.

Instead of increasing the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target from its initial 2%, the MRET review in 2004 recommended retaining this target until 2010. Australia's 2% renewables target is one of the lowest in the world — less than those of India, Greece and the US, and far short of Germany's target of 12% by 2010 and the UK's 20% by 2020.

And rather than legislate for best practice national energy standards for new buildings, the Australian government introduced minimum energy requirements into the Building Code of Australia in 2003, and supports voluntary best practice in the industry. In contrast, The NSW government opted for mandatory greenhouse reduction in housing with their BASIX system requiring new homes to be 40% less greenhouse gas consuming.

An emissions trading scheme or carbon tax is called for across the board by our industry and climate experts, but neither is on the immediate horizon for the coalition. The federal government has signalled it won’t impose a carbon tax, and the issues paper from its joint government-business Task Group on Emissions Trading released by Mr Howard in February 2007 recommended an international emissions trading scheme with no target for reducing greenhouse pollution. The issues paper was labelled as disappointing by sustainability experts and opposition MPs for the absence of strong, binding targets or a price on carbon.

Finally, public transport — the key concern for our audience — is the responsibility of state and territory governments.

A 60% cut by 2050: Will we make it?

It depends. Will these strategies work? Will we have the political, social and personal will to make them work? It’s up to us to learn about the issues, work out where we stand, and vote with our wallets and our ballot papers.