Well he's right...people are not going to "stop driving their cars, flying overseas or heating and cooling their houses". People in developed countries have become quite used to all of these comforts and benefits. Despite all the lip service with regard to global warming they will not give these up.

So we come back to the cold hard truth, as we have in many other articles, that the solution lies in developing technologies which are seen to be more acceptable than fossil fuels. These technologies would have come along eventually anyway due to the decline in fossil fuel production. One positive of the global warming hysteria is the huge upswing in R&D funds for developing alternative energy technologies.

I remember reading once that President Carter put into place a system of R&D laws which provided all kinds of incentives for companies large and small to invest in alternative energy research. An example of forward thinking--visionary leadership even.
One of the first things that President Reagan did was to abolish the system(s) put in place by Carter.

The "free" market rules OK! Welcome to the bottom line.

While it is perfectly correct to say that there are no easy solutions, the article makes a very poor case against the nuclear option.

If you accept that $35 per megawatt hour is a bad bargain because it is based upon coal, why would $52 for nuclear be a problem? We have, after all, seen far more draconian increases at the petrol pump over the past few years, and absorbed them with little discernible discomfort.

Even if it is an interim measure to reduce coal consumption - say, for thirty to fifty years - it would allow time for the R&D investment to bear some fruit more palatable than those noisy, unsightly, inefficient wind farms that seem to be fashionable at the moment.

I think the likelihood is that we will burn coal furiously, even use it to make petrol substitutes as oil depletes, until it too runs out much earlier than people expect. Some are predicting that coal production will peak within decades, not centuries as previously thought. By then the world climate will be dangerously unstable though we will have many new nuclear plants in operation. The nukes will help make alternative liquid fuels, electrify transport and desalinate seawater to grow food. If there is no subsequent way of extending uranium reserves (such as breeder reactors)and population increases then I think it will be a Mad Max rerun. All the time I expect renewable energy to stay on the sidelines. That's the path we're on presently. We've already shrugged off early warning signs in the form of expensive water and fuel.

So we are finally going to talk about adaptation and mitigation - rather than debate the science or whether or not GW is truly happening - about time, I was wondering whether OZ was missing the boat, yet again.

We have to adapt to changing climate and changing conditions - let's talk about how.

We also have to reduce our GHG emissions in a growing world economy - let's also talk about how.

The answers to these two critical questions should be driving the discussion.

We clearly need political leaders with a vision, still up for debate and not off topic methinks.

Business leaders are there and no doubt new opportunities will arrive for others.

The scientists and engineers will keep making improvements to our capacity to understand and innovate, the economists and bean-counters will muddy the waters, not necessarily a bad thing.

Unfortunately, some with vested interests in "business as usual" think they will have too much to lose. So be it, they will end up losing. The smart ones are taking up the challenge, the wary ones are hedging their bets and the dumbnuts are living in the dark ages.

What do people think about geothermal power (the so called hot-rocks technology) as a provider of base load energy supply? It's there in plenty if we want it and if utilised, does not pollute or emit GHG.

Perhaps the solutions might come more easily if you looked for them? No mention of solar thermal power, which could compete with coal on a cost basis within a few years? No mention of renewable fuels? Fast pyrolysis anyone?

The real tragedy is wasting half a billion on clean coal when other solutions are potentially much cheaper and much closer to realisation.