THE Eddington report contains the right approach to reducing greenhouse emissions from transport, but the assumptions it makes deserve to be challenged. They are, in some cases, far too timid, in other cases over-optimistic and, in general, heavily biased towards business as usual. Eddington's approach, which is correct, is to propose a bundle of changes that could lead to a reduction in emissions from transport. These changes are: reducing travel demand, boosting public transport share, improving vehicle technologies, and increasing vehicle occupancy. The first problem with the Eddington treatment is that there are no targets. There is no answer to the reasonable question: how much could the transport sector reasonably be expected to contribute to reducing greenhouse gases? Of course, the answer depends on government policies, including the imposition of a cap on emissions under Ross Garnaut's emissions trading scheme, and State Government policies on infrastructure development. We know that under the Garnaut regime the price of fuel is set to escalate, on top of any rise resulting from peak oil. But much also depends on the State Government's infrastructure priorities: cycling and walking, public transport, or more roads to ease congestion. The Eddington report quotes Britain's Stern report on the economics of climate change as saying: "Transport is one of the more expensive sectors to cut emissions from because the low carbon technologies tend to be expensive and the welfare costs of reducing demand for travel are high." However, a recent report by McKinsey and Company disagrees, showing that several transport changes are cost negative