Others will no doubt point out the simple errors in science which this paper contains. I will merely point out its major error in logic. If 'global warming' (which you are now supposed to call 'climate disruption' -- didn't you get the memo?) is caused by burning fossil fuels, then when the fuels run out there will be no more global warming. Wanting us to panic about both AGW AND a fossil fuel crisis is wanting to have your cake and eat it too.

Sorry, only one hysterical apocalypse per customer.

The extent to which depletion of all fossil fuels will restrict warming seems to be contentious. Some say it will stop at 2.6C which seems horrific given the problems we've already had with 0.8C. The IPCC should rework their predictions to reflect the certainty there will be much less coal, oil and gas burned after 2050.

It seems paradoxical to impose carbon taxes now when scarcity may increase prices in the future. I'd liken it to compulsory superannuation whereby we forgo some consumption now in order to maintain it later. A huge and timely investment will be required to replace coal, oil and gas with low carbon alternatives. Unfortunately the money seems to be going to things that will never work on the required scale. Ask yourself if wind and solar will power aluminium smelters. Even if we invest massively now can it ever be enough? Not only is global population rising but the existing poor want to improve their conditions. New low carbon energy sources would also have to cope with other major issues like jobs, health demands, arable land, water supply and so on. It's hard to see these problems being solved with less energy.

Jon J,
Unfortunately your * Sorry, only one hysterical apocalypse per customer. * Is not an option?
The reason?
Peak oil (and gas, water, coal, soil, essential minerals) is inextricably entwined with “Climate disruption’.
As these man made consumer disruptions bite harder, the effects of Climate change will be also be affecting us.
The lag time between using fossil fuels and the rise in global temperatures is in the hundreds of years. Even if by some miracle we got our act together and stopped producing Greenhouse gas totaly today, the effects would continue on for a very long time, reinforced by positive feedback.
By the way there are no *simple errors in science* in the article.

If a carbon tax is ‘imperative’, why is the Australian Government intending to go into a secretive huddle and continue to refuse to explain to Australians why huge increases in costs will be necessary? Surely, Australians are mature enough to accept the consequences of imperatives – particularly if politicians stopped keeping the secrets to themselves.

As long as politicians continue their dictatorial attitudes, and refuse to reveal what they know (if they do know anything), they will be in for a tough time from the electorate. The Opposition has vowed to make thinks tough for an unelected and shaky Government, there only because of a couple of flaky, unreliable independents.

This writer is torn between whether or not global warming can be resisted or stopped, and the entirely different subject of an eventual loss of fossil fuels. There are so many different opinions and tales about both, that people are generally losing interest, and there are certainly no signs of viable, base loads of alternative energy anywhere in the near future – certainly not in the time that we are supposed to run out off fossil fuels

Syd/Sarian - look, before you burst into print with this stuff, at least take into account current events. Gas reserves have gone through the roof in recent years. Particularly shale oil fields in Europe and the US. I doubt the new reserves have even been estimated, let alone a time given for its supposed depletion. As for coal running out Bwwwhahahahahah! The reason there is any limit on coal reserves is that no one has bothered looking for more of the stuff. To suggest that there is a foreseeable limit is plainly nonsense.
You have somewhat more evidence for oil depletion but even that vanishes on closer inspection.
Rule of thumb - ther are big oil shale reserves around Gladstone in Queensland. If you ever hear of that stuff being seriously developed (there was a small-scale pilot plant which has been abandonded), then you will know that the easy lift oil has finally been depleted. The peak oil foecasts referred only to easy lift stuff, not to oil in total..
As for Kloppers his speech confirms my opinion - the man is a well-paid nut.

Syd. A simple question. You are clearly convinced that man's emissions of CO2 are causing dangerous global warming. I am very interested to see the proof and evidence for this. So far as I can see, there are only models that are based on wild assumptions about positive feedbacks that are at the least contentious, and likely wrong. The evidence seems to suggest that the feedbacks are actually neutral or negative which, if true, means that we don't have to worry about CO2.

Why don't you devote your considerable energies and passion to addressing the real issues of concern where man is having an impact on local and regional climate - land use, primarily.