I think in hindsight cap-and-trade will look like the best approach all along. The problem is that governments can't say no to all the shysters who want special treatment or who claim bogus credits. A slow steady squeeze of CO2 cuts of 2-3% a year should be manageable, at least in the early years. The problem with combining carbon caps, renewable energy quotas and technical standards (eg vehicle mileage)is that they will conflict. For example switching from coal fired to gas fired electrical generation will lower CO2 but won't help the renewable target.

However I think what may save us is clear signs of depletion of the major fossil fuels coal, oil and gas. Crude oil is thought to be declining about 5% a year at present. That will slow transport and agriculture which will slow metals, construction and coal fired electricity. Relative to income fossil fuel prices should increase even without carbon pricing. The resulting economic slowdown could be a blessing in disguise although there will be many losers. We should have started the decarbonising effort a decade earlier.

Roger Pielke clearly expresses a concern that I have been trying to make for years- wishing will not make it so. While politics and finance may seem infinitely malleable these days, physics and chemistry remain immutable: carbon energy use will not be reduced unless we use less carbon energy- and that requires us to produce and use carbon-less energy sources. The scale and scope of this is even greater than Pielke states.

My greatest concern is the delusion that so-called "carbon-free" energy sources such as solar, wind and nuclear are actually carbon-free. Given that more than 90% of the world's present energy supplies are carbon-based, then any new product or service- such as solar, wind and nuclear generators- will entail the use of carbon based energy in their design, construction, maintenance and decommissioning. Even if these new supplies have a positive EROI (energy return on investment), which is arguable for all of them at present, rapid implementation may well exacerbate the atmospheric carbon load. It is rather like scrapping an investment before it is fully amortised- ie worked out its useful life.

Rapid adoption of carbon-free power to meet the "magical thinking" targets would mean scrapping coal-fired power stations before their scheduled retirement date, thereby reducing the benefit of the carbon already invested in their construction, while at the same time increasing carbon use in producing the new power sources.

All of this would be simple energy accountancy- if we had a good handle on net energy analysis- which we don't- see my article forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8077 for details.

While I think that the 2020 goals are unrealistic, it's my (semi-educated) guess that the 2050 targets can be reached with sensible and concerted effort. The response of experts to Pielke's comments would help.

Well thought out, researched and expressed Roger. It's so obvious, if we really are worried about global warming due to CO2, we should do the best we can, in the most cost-effective manner, to improve energy-use efficiency, and take economically feasible steps to decarbonise energy production (which also includes improving its efficiency, such as via Combined Cycle power stations). The added long-term benefit of this path is that we will slowly but affordability extract ourselves from fossil fuel dependency, which, after all, will "run out" (at any economic level of availability) one day.

If we ran professional sport in the same way as we are handling carbon reductions, it would be a disaster and a joke, with sponsors deserting it in droves. Imagine - Coaches would sit around in lots of international meetings, deciding what records would be broken, by how much, and when, and then go off and tell their athletes what they have to achieve. With that, they would consider their job pretty much done.

Instead, of course, there is an enormous sports science and nutrition field, with millions of dollars in research thrown at it. Following from the findings of the scientists and nutritionists, athletes put all this into practice, spending pretty much all of their time in training and preparation, and on the “day”, give it their very best. That’s how to achieve things, and it keeps ones supporters (constituents?) on-side in the long run. I wish we had you for Minister instead of Penny Wong. Better still, Kevin Rudd should give up on his poorly hidden UN leadership ambitions and promote you for the job.

One thing though - all this still leaves farmers with ruminants (cattle, sheep) out though - kangaroos are too hard to herd and control, perhaps we should farm and eat horses (note kangaroos and horses are not ruminants so don't emit the massive amounts of methane like cattle, sheep, goats, deer and camels) I know one thing, I'm not going vegetarian!

Thanks again for yet another piece of divide and delay propaganda from a mouth for deniers.

Now could Roger and Daddy Pielke Snr please advise where I can buy a water pistol to put out the firestorm?

Of course Australia has its own 'magical solutions' in the 20% RET scheme and even the 15% emission reduction target by 2020. I would wager that neither will be achieved.

Whether it is better to aim high and miss than to aim low and achieve is an open question.

Good article, confirms what some of us think of the present political handling of the "crisis" if you want to call it that. "Magic" seems to be in line with the way a lot of people see energy solutions. (wind, tide, hot rocks)

It's clearly not the kind of "propaganda" some people prefer though. Some like it hot and with a bias towards "end of the world" scenarios, not this rational rubbish! (/sarc of course).

We'll all adapt, we have to since there appears to be no way anything meaningful will actually be done, despite the hand wringing and shrill cries. (we'll damage the economy though the way we're going, unfortunately just to learn a hard lesson)