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.

Lomborg is a breath of fresh air in the bleak climate change environment. His is a positive viewpoint and is worth a good go.
In the meantime we can assume ever increasing prices for fossil fuel energies which helps with one side of his argument at least.
I believe there are prototype wave energy power plants in operation off Hawawii and Oregon at least which promise competetively priced electricity.
It is not only desirable but vital that the next generation of energy sources be at least as cheap as the current sources. Less efficient energy generation means less productivity means we are less able to develop new technologies.
On a different note, is anybody aware whether any feasability study has been done into increasing the Snowy Mtns Authority hydro output

I don't know much about wave generating gear in Hawaii, but there is a multi billion dollar one dragged ashore, & rusting away in Spain.

Was reported as the world beater in alternate energy, before it failed to work well enough to bother with.

It seems that most economic analysis related to energy forget to consider the laws of thermodynamics. If they did, they would probably conclude that most, if not all of the alternatives will never be able to replace fossil fuels. If this was the starting assumptions about peak oil/climate change mitigation would focus on conservation. Thermodynamics will trump technology every time.

The other concern is energy efficiency. Historically increased efficiency leads to increased consumption (jevons paradox). Maybe on the down slope of peak oil etc this will change, who knows? The other factor is that increased efficiency is subject to diminishing returns.
Taken together this implies that what we need is " systemic conservation" of our energy reserves to avoid being on the verge of crisis indefinitely. Example: growing food locally removes the requirement to transport food nationally or internationally. This would remove the current systemic requirement to expend energy in transporting/storing food.

It seems that most economic analysis relating to energy forgets to consider the laws of thermodynamics. If they did, they would conclude that most, if not all, of the known alternatives will never be able to replace fossil fuels.

The other issue is energy efficiency. Historically increased energy efficiency has only ever led to increased consumption (jevons paradox). Maybe this will be different on the downslope of peak oil (then coal and gas) but I would bet a few dollars that humans will always use every available BTU of energy they can. The other consideration here is that increased energy efficiency is subject to diminishing returns.

Take these factors together and I would suggest that an approach we need to take is "systemic conservation." That is we need to remove the systemic requirement to use energy. For example, if food was produced locally, then the systemic requirement (and its associated energy costs) to transport and store food nationally and internationally would dissappear. In this way we could maybe step back from the verge of a perpetual energy crisis that we now face.

The author and some of the commentators make the point well that research is not only high risk generally but that in this instance there are also good reasons why cheaper options may not be available with less dense renewable energy resources. However the point should always be made that there are huge gains to be made from more efficient vehicles, machines and more modest need for energy through good building and machine design: research should be directed here.

However lets also keep up the debate on the CO2-Temperature relation. It is not a given despite the clamour that it is. In fact, it is only an association over a very limited time period. The association falls away completely over longer periods and there is no proof of causation. Predicting climate change is complex and CO2 is just one small factor. It is rising undoubtedly - that is the one fact on the table - but it would have to be orders of magnitude higher for there to be concern.