Saltpetre
If global warming is occurring, it is basically impossible to prove or disprove that it is because of CO2, (as there are too many variables), but it is quite straightforward to prove that energy efficiency is occurring, and there are many ways to improve energy efficiency.

If R&D is only directed towards creating more energy, and money is not also spent on energy efficiency, then the R&D is not particularly useful.

Unfortunately or fortunately, many forms of energy efficiency will require changes to our current lifestyle, but one does have to wonder at times if our current lifestyle is worth maintaining anyway.

"Climatologist James Hansen who has been making mostly correct predictions for decades..."

This must be some OTHER climatologist called James Hansen, surely: you can't be thinking of this one:

http://tinyurl.com/64tgf6w

or this one:

http://tinyurl.com/3tb5zlr

Australia's proposed carbon tax won't make any difference to our climate. It is therefore pointless and an outrageous deception. More so because it is probable that there will never be effective global action to cut emissions. Until there is a cost effective alternative energy source readily available, we're just going to keep on burning coal and gas till either they run out or the human population is decimated. Taxing carbon only makes it more attractive to burn illegally, and less attractive to develop more efficient and competitive zero GHG emission power sources.

Alice, welcome to OLO.

In distilling down your article it’s clear you wish to promote a clearer renewables policy as means of “selling” the public on a carbon dioxide tax. The problem you have, as do so most renewable advocates, is that after many years of actual experience worldwide, it is clear that renewables have failed us on a number of fronts. Market/technological readiness, commercial viability, cost, efficiency, carbon dioxide mitigation, financial risk and the unresolved issue of mandatory matching base load generation.

Most recently, the UK based John Muir Trust Produced (Analysis of UK Wind Power Generation, November 2008 to December 2010). This was based on actual input to the grid and tracked by the generators themselves at 5 min. intervals.

The following is a brief extract:
“During the study period, wind generation from the UK wind turbine fleet (with an average capacity over the period of the survey in excess of 1600 MW) was:
Below 20% of capacity more than half the time
Below 10% of capacity over one third of the time
Below 2.5% capacity for the equivalent of one day in twelve
Below 1.25% capacity for the equivalent of just under one day a month
The discovery that for one third of the time wind output was less than 10% of capacity, and often significantly less than 10%, was an unexpected result of the analysis.

We are also fully aware that the Danish produce 13% of their electricity from wind. Over four fifths of this is exported to adjacent countries, sometimes at zero income because it is produced when not needed. The most recent estimate of costs to the Danish public is above DKK 1.5Bn. (approx. A$220m). (Ref. “The Wind Farm Scam” by Dr. John Etherington).

In Dec. 2010, Transfield CEO announced the suspension of two wind farms in Australia due to lack of investment funds.
This not a good basis for justifying a CO2 tax so it has very little going for it. Reality and history have overtaken you, sorry.

Amicus, colinsett, just picked up on your R&D debate.

For what it’s worth the UK, regardless of its large fleet of wind turbines, does not do R&D, it does not manufacture them, it does not install them, it does not maintain them and even operation is done by radio telemetry from guess where? Yes, Denmark.

The only UK related Green Jobs we can identify are one “grounds man”, not even sure what he does?

As far as R&D for solar or wind power is concerned, Spain, Germany and Denmark had that all wrapped up 10 years ago, with EU “free money” of course. Their only threat today comes from China who will do the lot cheaper and faster. Laughably, they will do it by burning our coal.

Isn’t it time we stopped this ideological stupidity?

spindoc,

Aren't you missing the point a bit? If there had been no space race would computing and IT have reached their current point? If someone had not invented the wheel would we now have fancy cars?

We know that there are some efficient sustainable alternatives now, though mostly not all that cost competitive - as yet. Are you so defeatist that you think that it's end-game, no chance of further advancement? Oil will one day not too far hence become so expensive not even you may be able to drive an internal-combustion-engine driven automobile - unless we have, say, biofuel? But then, there all going to be electric, are they? Don't think my dozer's going to go all that well on electons, but I could be wrong.

If there wasn't international and local (Oz) concern about CO2 emissions and greenhouse, and the future for Icelandic glaciers, polar bears, phyto- and zooplankton, or the future of mankind - well, we wouldn't be having this debate.

So many nay-sayers crying "show me the proof", demanding an empirical, ultra-scientific irrefutable proof! Please, get the head out of the sand.

Science will advance, new technologies will emerge, more efficient machines will be developed, more alternatives will be invented. Nothing surer. But, it won't happen if it's not needed, if it's not promoted and funded, if the public and the politicians don't listen to and heed learned advice.

The world is not about to stand still, and the mining boom is not going to last forever. If Oz doesn't develop new industries and new jobs we will become the new Third World. So, let's move on and get on the latest productivity boom - which is the development of alternative energy technologies. If we don't actually need it, so what? At least we'll still have a robust economy.