AS GOVERNMENTS here, and around the globe, "dicker" in their responses to the challenge of climate change, the challenge mounts.

The urgency of the "science" is not being adequately reflected in the urgency of the response.

When I first took an interest in this challenge, back in the late '80s and early '90s, the prediction of the climate science was that, as the planet warmed, there was a mounting risk of more extreme weather events, that would occur with greater frequency and intensity.

Clearly, this has, and is, happening.

The concern then was the prospect of 2 degree warming in the course of this century.

I took a proposal to the '93 election to cut emissions by 20 per cent by 2000, off a 1990 base.

The risk now is a 4-6 degree warming, yet the aim of both sides of politics in this country is a reduction of a mere five per cent by 2020, off a 2000 base.

The problem is that any response must be front-end loaded.

You can't hope to (say) cut emissions by 90-100 per cent by 2050, to avoid the prospective warming, by waiting to go all out in 2049.

It takes time to change behaviour, to restructure domestic and industrial practices, energy production and distribution, construction, and so on.

Time is against us. We are getting very close to a "tipping point" whereby the momentum of the mounting challenge is outstripping our capacity to respond, in time.

However, I am hopeful that in the course of the next 12-18 months we will see more substantive global leadership on this challenge, probably led by the US (where Obama has promised to make it a hallmark of his declining Presidency) and China, with the support of Europe.

Given that our negative and counterproductive domestic political process over the last several years has probably resulted in us not having an overall, national policy response, especially if the Government's Direct Action Plan fails to gain Senate support, perhaps we should put all the debate about carbon pricing etc aside, for now, or until there is a more unified global response, and seek an alternative strategy, that could easily rebuild the essential community support and response.

There are two key possibilities, a National Energy Efficiency Strategy, and a campaign to get our big investors, principally the superannuation funds, to address the risk they are running, with our superannuation monies, by investing so heavily in carbon exposed industries, and so little in low carbon intensive industries, such as renewables, alternative technologies, and energy efficiency.

The government could embrace and lead both, setting the policy framework, and challenging/encouraging/incentivising all relevant stakeholders to do their part.

On energy efficiency, there are a host of simple, commonsense steps, that could be encouraged, from improved efficiencies of appliances, cars, etc., through light bulbs, the design and construction of houses, commercial buildings and factories, green data centres, power plants, renewables, and so on.

The national objective could be something like a doubling of energy efficiency by (say) 2025/30.

By the way, this could also be a significant global response, which is absolutely fundamental (as evidenced in recent World Bank research) to achieving the desired acceleration in economic growth that our government is seeking to drive the G20 to adopt later this year.

As to our super funds, they need to be jolted into acknowledging the risks they are running with our money - globally about a 55 to two punt against extreme weather events/government policies/technology working to "strand" the value of the assets, companies and infrastructure into which they have invested.

The directors/trustees of these funds have a clear fiduciary responsibility to manage these monies to maximise the super benefits of their members.

They are mostly not.

The challenge is urgent.