Hardline greens do get up my nostrils, too. I agree with Dr Hansen and Dr Ziggy Switkowski, nuclear power must be included in the mix - together with solar thermal, tidal, wind, geothermal, etc - we must wean ourselves off fossil fuels, sooner rather than later.

Coal will be around for a while yet so it would be incumbent that a price be set for carbon, otherwise why bother with the alternatives. As to "clean coal", that is a wishful misnomer forged by the powerful coal industry and their lobbyists. Unfortunately, governments and oppositions (of all persuasion) are pandering to these 'fossils' by giving huge subsidies and discounts, at the expense of viable alternatives.

I doubt Scott Ludlum has read Dr Hansen's "Storms of My Grandchildren" - if he had then even a basic understanding of chapter 9 would seriously challenge his own "green" belief.

No matter what side of the "climate change fence" you inhabit, there is nothing wrong in living in a more environmentally sustainable way, including utilising our energy sources and supply in a more efficient and effective way.

As to costs of adapting and mitigating, there is numerous literature - and reports have been presented. Nevertheless, stakeholders (and OLOers) seem to get bogged down in the details like a quilter's discussion group around the kitchen table while the bushfire rages outside (no offense to quilters).

Renewables are simply not delivering. Germany has thrown a bucket
of money at them but is still building new coal fired powerstations.
IFRs may also fail, but it's worth spending the money to
find out because their potential to power the world, all
the world, not just rich sunny countries with plenty
of space, is far higher than any other technology.
It will cost far less to run an IFR build than Nintendo
turn over on toys in a year.

Amicus says

"The next generation want to be live in a modern world,
not go back to the stoneage -
try taking a cell phone of Facebook off
the "generation of over entitlement", see how you go.

Tell them your plan is
to cut back not increase supply of energy,
go on .. tell them."

Amicus, with all due respect, you are confusing energy and electricity. Electricity is only one kind of energy we depend on.

Direct solar heat, wind from solar heating of the atmosphere, hydroelectric power from solar forcing of the global water cycle, ocean wave and ocean thermal energy conversion, fuel cells, etc etc, can provide us with energy options that do not place us (or others) under suspicion of developing nuclear weapons. As for chemical fuels, well, we in “Developed” Australia, with our Prius automobiles and electric trains and trams, might entertain the idea of nuclear electricity, but I expect there are far more convivial energy solutions to meet our transport needs.

I cannot speak for the Greens or Senator Ludlum, but if I could, I would argue that I want to increase energy availability, by making it easier and more economical to appropriately harvest solar and geothermal energy.

Amicus, with all due respect, you are fighting a battle that was largely won in the late 1970's, after the first energy crisis, sparked off when OPEC members got stroppy with Big Oil.

Efficiency and appropriate energy were found to work best, and the implementation of appropriate strategies has saved a vast amount of demand for electricity, worldwide, through ordinary free-market mechanisms, as opposed to government subsidies, secrecy and duck-shoving on behalf of powerful corporations and their lobbyists.

See

http://www.rmi.org/rmi/ for work by Amory Lovins, the person who I would say has done as much as anyone possibly could to address the problem of appropriate energy supply

and for the dismal truths behind all nuclear electricity, see
Obama's Atomic Blunder | The Seminal 16 Feb 2010
http//seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/30159 as well as the comment on Feb 16th by tassiedevil

Now, the Greens.
Surely they ought to be called the Blacks?
Like any political party that is not in Government they can make the most flambouyant assertions and promises. Due to the preference voting system they can also ensure that the Government acts according to their flawed policies.
I instance the flawed forest management policies that have ensured that summer bushfires have been far to big for humans to manage. The result of their lock it up and leave it policy is the landscape wide elimination of flora and fauna.
Lets not try to gild the lily. Greens policy is the leading cause of concern in global warming.

My only experience of a nuclear existence is France, where they seem pretty comfortable with the contribution it is making to their economy and their environment.

"Mostly due to nuclear energy, total pollution from the country’s energy system dropped by more than 80% during the 1980 to 1990 period where France tripled its nuclear energy capacity. Over the same period of time, French overall CO2 emissions (energy, transportation…) were cut off [sic] by 25%."

http://www.ambafrance-us.org/climate/frances-nuclear-power-experience/

I rather liked a quote from that Melbourne meeting, by the way.

"Dr Hansen pointed out that more people had been killed by ice flying off wind turbine blades than from nuclear accidents"

It often puzzles me that there are people who get their jollies from telling everyone who will listen that we're doomed, and the only thing we can do about it is to live in a yurt and eat lentils.

That may very well be our ultimate fate. But in the meantime, there is plenty of middle ground to work with. Incomplete solutions that mitigate the problem are quite attractive, when compared to the draconian measures often proposed by the doomsayers.

All open cut mining emits significant amounts of soil carbon to the atmosphere which contributes to Australia’s shoddy performance in mitigating CO2 and ISL uranium mining technology releases heavy metals and radiation, significantly contaminating groundwater.

I'm unaware of any requirement for a uranium miner to clean up the underground radioactive plumes that can be expected to slowly drift around in the water table.

By December 2005 the total quantity of uranium tailings was about 128 million tonnes with about 175 million tonnes of combined low-grade ore and waste rock. In comparison to the volumes of radioactive waste in the nuclear fuel chain, the largest quantity is easily produced in the mining and milling of uranium.

In 2004, the Commonwealth-appointed scientist urged in his annual report for the Federal Government to legislate to ensure that Energy Resources Australia fixes the problems at the Ranger uranium mine because the managers had become "complacent" about radiation dangers and had not provided enough protection for workers.

He criticised ERA for playing down radiation exposure before properly assessing leaks at the mine. ERA were fined $250,000 in 2007 for supplying drinking and bathing water to workers where radiation levels were 400 times in excess of the guidelines and many workers became ill. The insidious health impacts may not emerge for decades.

However, the Ranger mine continues leaking 100,000 litres of contaminated water into the Kakadu surrounds every day and it appears with impunity when one considers that Joe Citizen is put off the road if he burns around with a leaky exhaust pipe.

Last weekend saw a three day anti-uranium event in the Goldfields of WA with public gatherings in the town square. Goldfields people have every right to be alert and alarmed when just one mine cannot be managed competently to protect the people of Australia (and beyond).

The emergence of some 180 Uranium tenements (granted and pending) to be mined, will contaminate the Goldfields' regions of WA in perpetuity and we, the citizens of Australia, will get what we deserve in our complacency:

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&t=h&oe=UTF8&msa=0&msid=101724410662104548145.0004757aca0e25c4e05e5