The claim that Australia needs to export coal to help people in developing countries is grubby and self serving. It only perpetuates the problem. If some countries can go straight to mobile phones before land lines then they can go straight to clean energy. Coal apologists keep trying on the carbon capture and storage line. As demonstrated by dozens of pilot plants it will clearly never be economic therefore must be seen as a stalling tactic. Other cleaner coal burning methods such as gasification and supercritical willl never achieve the 80% CO2 cuts we need.

It seems odd to admit that most man made CO2 comes from burning coal then in the next breath claim that eliminating coal will barely affect CO2. It's like an alcoholic saying that giving up grog won't help. I have a strong suspicion it might.

The decent thing for the coal industry would be to admit it should bow out. Ask for carbon tax revenues to help pay for clean energy and efficiency measures. The same power lines can be used to carry low carbon energy. The coal industry should redirect its efforts to becoming part of the solution not to perpetuate the problem.

The IEA was set up by the OECD and has shown itself to be a puppet of the USA by suppressing, until recently, concerns about peak oil. Their mantra will never significantly deviate from the self-interest of the OECD governments - hence the support for coal.

Greenpeace gets $250 million income a year, the sources of which they do not disclose even in their Annual Report. This is depsite the fact they claim to be transparent and get nothing from 'Companies'. Yet we now know that Ted Turner and the Rockerfeller foundation donate millions.

Scrutinise the motives of Coal companies, for sure, but don't forget to have a close look at the other side before you naively fall for the 'rich coal companies v the defenders of the planet' scenario.

Taswegian please inform us what "clean" energy you are talking about.

Unless it's nuclear, most places on earth, those without the typography to allow hydro, all other green/clean energy is a pipe dream.

Greenpeace is just as much against hydro as coal, they don't want people to have electricity, so perhaps you could enlighten us on what energy you are suggesting.

Michael, come off the grass mate, peak oil is a dead concept.

Hasbeen that's a fair point that some low carbon sources cannot realistically provide large scale reliable power. That's why Bangladesh for example has decided to neither import nice clean Australian coal nor try for renewables. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-15552687
As for Peak Oil remind yourself it's not true when you soon pay $2 a litre for petrol.

Oil price has increased because the demand from China and India, not because of Peak Oil (whatever that actually means).