There's no need for Geoff Carmody to be apologetic about possibly misinterpreting Bjorn Lomborg's repeated claims that more investment in R&D into green energy is the sure answer to climate change. I am a former senior manager of scientific and technological R&D and I have long been publically critical of Lomborg's unreasonably optimistic position. Carmody is absolutely right. Research is inherently uncertain. When its aim is to develop a new source of energy that has lower emissions and is cheaper than anything to date then one would have to say that the level of uncertainty is huge; 'chasing rainbows' would be a fair description. Of course, there still ought to be an appropriate level of research investment into improved energy technologies. But to base a global energy policy on the certainty of its success would be foolish in the extreme.

Wow, I'm actually agreeing with Tombee. Forecasting in this area is inherently impossible, however it would seem unlikely that we would presented with a low or no emissions technology that is chepaer than fossil fuel plants.

At the moment, with nuclear on the nose and gas reserve figure going through the roof everywhere, a switch to gas is the first, best step.

But while on the subject of assuming technological change, I have been told that Garnaut's 2008 report made a assumption about changes in technology in emissions, as a way to get the sums to add up to doing something about greenhouse gases. Does anyone have any more information on this?

Perhaps the test should not be "cheaper than current fossil fuel technologies" but cheaper than fossil fuels releasing no (or low) emissions. In other words cheaper than coal or gas with CCS.

Research by myself and colleagues (http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=11356) plus analysis by the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering (ATSE) (http://www.atse.org.au/resource-centre/func-startdown/345/) suggest that such a technology exists already will little need for more R&D. Just more careful risk mitigation.

Even though it may be "on the nose" as Mark says, the wise countries like China and India are still building new generation nuclear plants to replace their fossil fuels.

Mark that smell you are experiencing is fear not scientifically based real risk analysis. But I agree that the dust will need to settle before the fear subsides.

Martin N - oh sure, the fear has nothing to do with the actual risks involved, but I have been amazed at the amount of fear there is.. I have been astonished at the reactions of some of my colleagues, over an event in another hemisphere. One wonders what they would do if ther was a nuclear emergency somewhere near Australia.. I seriously doubt that nuclear energy will be politically (note, politically) possible in Aus, in the foreseeable future.

Printed out your links and will look at them.

As there is no scientific evidence that anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions have caused measurable global warming, R&D into lower-emissions technology should not be accompanied by penalising low-cost efficient coal-fired electricity generation. If the R&D eventually leads to cost-competitive renewable energy, then such energy should be judged and adopted on its merits.

Ross Garnaut may come up with good economic policy when he has the work of capable economists to follow. However, it appears that he has not found any such economists dealing with imaginary global warming

“It suggests there are no (or low) emissions energy technologies ‘out there’, just waiting to be discovered, that are even cheaper than current fossil fuel technologies. Are there?”

There is at least one. Reduce electricity usage, in the home and in industry.