Andrew,a good article and I agree with your 3 point recommendations to ameliorate the affects of global warming. We need to do all this and more.

One very important part of the "more" for Australia is a rapid build of advanced nuclear power stations,especially generation 4 reactors to get coal out of the picture as quickly as possible.We must have clean,non-polluting base load electricity if we are to have any hope of a relatively orderly power down to a sustainable economic and social system.

I find it disturbing that intelligent and knowledgeable people in positions of influence such as yourself refuse to consider nuclear power as a very important part of our response to our self inflicted problems.In many cases this is an ideological blind spot possibly coupled with the well know human herd instinct.

Surely we have enough problems with the political and business oligarchy in Australia who are so wilfully blind to the dangers of our situation? We need people like you to provide leadership and that does not mean ignoring solutions.

Well said Andrew.

Manorina, according to you, any "intelligent and knowledgable" person who doesn't agree with your enthusiasm for nuclear power is "refusing" to consider it, is "ideological", has a "blind spot", is following a "herd instinct", and is "ingoring solutions". Quite a list in such a short post.

You also repeat the simplistic line that nuclear is required for "base load". The reliability of wind plus solar plus others is known, reasonable and can be rationally accounted for. See Mark Diesendorf's book Greenhouse Solutions with Sustainable Energy. (And it would be helpful if nuclear enthusiasts actually engaged with Mark's rational arguments, instead of just abusing him as often seems to happen.)

On the other hand, there are rational reasons to question nuclear power: it is unnecessary, dirty, dangerous, expensive, late and insufficient - see my post at
http://betternature.wordpress.com/2009/03/03/nuclear-power-uddeli-unjustified/
Your fourth generation, which does not yet exist, can't address all of these concerns.

The "unnecessary" part of the objection is because with dramatic improvements in energy efficiency, which are quick and not expensive, we won't need nuclear. See my posts
http://betternature.wordpress.com/2009/11/02/cut-emissions-and-boost-economy/
and
http://betternature.wordpress.com/2009/03/11/energy-efficiency/

Furthermore, if we learn energy efficiency we can also learn resource efficiency more generally, thus addressing multiple other crises generated by our assaults on planet Earth - degradation and loss of soils, forests, biodiversity, shortage of fresh water, over fishing, pollution from pole to pole, including hormone mimics that affect our children, and so on. If our civilisation is to survive we must address these crises too, which are really part of one big crisis. Nuclear does nothing to adress the larger crisis, and only aggravates it.

I get it - you're desperate to keep the status quo, or some semblance of climate nirvana, well, for you maybe.

Me, I'm happy to let the climate change, and deal with the effects by adapting, as Animalia has always done.

Your constant denial of natural processes and demands that mankind somehow control the climate is astounding and possibly the most arrogant and pompous attitude ever uttered against the natural environment.

In 100 years I'm certain your hysteria will be used as psychological examples of primitive panic and doom cults.

The governments of the world will do nothing, as ever. All that tax money, do you really think they will share it around to better the planet, of course not. What sort of utopia do you think we live in where people are so generous.

Nice sentiment, but that's all it is.

'good planets are hard to come by' I suppose if you believe the one in trillions chance of this planet being here by chance you might have a point. When you use pseudo science to reach conclusions you will always get it wrong and keep changing your answers just like the alarmist have done in the last couple of months. This planet will be destroyed by fire and then we will know what gw is and it has nothing to do with climate change. It has everything to do with man's arrogance and depravity. The Creator of this planet who has aligned everything just perfectly is and will always be in control. Fear God instead of the silly little religion made up by God deniers and then you will be totally secure.

That balance isn't so delicate, our climate has enjoyed a roller coaster ride and life has thrived through the course of it. Today you will find life in Antartica and life in the Sahara, life kilometres below the ocean in the deepest trenches. Everything else in the middle is so dominated by life that you can't see the natural earth it sits atop of. Changing conditions result in new equalibriums, not cessation of life. Nature docos often contradict themselves by telling us how fragile life is but then also pointing out the utter robustness of life, anything to inspire a 'wow' from the viewer. The climatic swings we've being see of late need to be considered in the perspective of the longer term climate, in which they really aren't that significant.

While the aims are laudable I don't believe the suggested means will achieve the desired outcome. I'll categorise those means as carbon sinks, efficiency and 'non-polluting' energy. With carbon sinks such as biochar and forest conservation it is tempting to overstate both their permanence and their net benefit. I suggest as a rule they should be done for other reasons with any net carbon retirement as a bonus. I doubt whether there are energy savings of more than a few percent via efficiency gains. After centuries the human race has found that it likes driving cars, eating steak and turning on air conditioners. They don't have painless alternatives. Take them away by draconian means and there will be considerable resentment.

As for 'non-polluting' energy sources I think the evidence is clear by now that they can make little dent on fossil fuel burning. A mix of PV, CSP, geothermal, wind, wave power and so on has been given a red hot go in places like Spain and Germany. The result is very high energy prices yet still being unable to mothball coal, gas or nuclear plants. I believe the answer is more nuclear, Gen III+ for now and Gen IV when it is ready. The longer we persevere with the squeaky clean energy fantasy the more CO2 we emit.