An obvious response to those countries who think the Western lifestyle is too profligate is to ask them why they have so many people. If China and India each had fewer than say 50m people (as opposed to a combined 2,600m population) there wouldn't be a problem.

The coal question is a vexing one. According to several authors (e.g. Patzek, Rutledge, Heisenberg) coal is about to get expensive. On top of that the more immediate shortage of liquid fuels may slow demand for coal as factories and steelworks ease up. However there are still trillions of tonnes of coal less cheap to mine that could alter the climate. That's why I think we're not only obliged to carbon tax ourselves but also make it harder for China and India to get all our coal and LNG. Even the USA is getting into the coal export game now China is struggling to dig enough of its own coal. I think carbon tax is the right thing to do even if it appears to make little difference short term.

Far too sensible, Peter: prepare to be vilified by the fanatical devotees of the AGW death cult.

Several years ago now I put forward five propositions that had to be proved correct to make AGW amelioration economically viable. Here they are again:

1. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing.
2. This increase will cause radical changes in the climate.
3. These changes will be, on balance, destructive rather than beneficial.
4. These changes can be feasibly stopped or reduced by human activity.
5. The cost of stopping or reducing these changes is less than the cost of allowing them to occur and adapting to them.

What's the score on these so far? 1 is probably true, 2 is doubtful, 3 is anybody's guess, 4 is highly unlikely, and 5 is almost certainly a complete porky.

And remember, all five have to be proven true to make it worth doing anything at all.

I agree with much of what the author says, though it can also be seen as rationalisation for business as usual. I agree completely that Cate and co should look to "cut" their consumption to equitable levels, (rather than buying off-sets--which amounts to exporting the damage--or giving their prodigious consumption a green makeover), before preaching to the rest of us. Indeed altruistic vegans and Greenies like Peter Singer and Bob Brown, and even Peter McLoy, are little different in that their "lifestyle" choices are pure privilege and not available to the vast majority anywhere on the planet.
James Lovelock, author of the Gaia principle, certainly sees it as a pointless exercise trying to slow the momentum or undo a process that's probably already well-nigh unstoppable: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRQ-NqaYFzs
But my position is that I don't want the world as it is saved, preserved via hyper-optimistic green-technologies-entrepreneurialism--great, new markets! I don't believe it's possible anyway, but more importantly it's unconscionable. Why would we want to save it as it is? Like saving an infestation of carp.
On the other hand I'm not ready to cave in to the "inevitable" either--an excuse to do bugger all. Life's always been precarious and that's not going to change.
The only sane thing to do, for future generations and in all conscience, is to radically alter the dynamics of the growth paradigm: get rid of privilege and cut consumption. Dismantle Western consumerism and embark internationally on a program of controlled attrition until sustainable populations and living standards are reached and can be husbanded. By all means continue exporting coal, but not to maintain hyper consumption or to make profit, but to maintain the international process of attrition.
Failing that (because it's not going to happen!) I suggest the development and release of a nano virus that arbitrarily (in terms of class) and painlessly eliminates five in six of all the humans on the planet--an artificial plague.

Thank goodness for your article Peter- FINALLY someone who has separated sensible power generation from Carbon tax ploys and the nonsense rationale behind it;

The two best ways for Australia to reduce its greenhouse gas emmisions is to.....

1. Stop all immigration. And that includes "refugees." Every new "Australian" wants to drive a car, and have a house run by electricity. Our capitol cities are now building desalination plants to cope with increases in water use caused by our eer expanding population. . We can never even begin to manage our greenhouse gas emmisions while we continue to import 200,000 new energy consumers every year.

2. Build nuclear power generation plants. But the same idiots who want to increase immigration and who refuse to accept nuclear power are the very same ones who go into paryoxisms of self righteous apoplexy over global warming.

The Gillard "carbon tax" is insanity. it is indicative of a mindset which just loves finding new ways to spend public money while agonising over how it find some way to squeeze the good old Aussie taxpayer even more.

The "carbon tax" means that the government gets a lucrative new tax. The carbon industries then simply pass on the costs of the new tax to their already overtaxed consumers. Julia Gillard can then use part of the windfall carbon tax money to "subsidise" low wage Labor voters, while the rest of the dough can be squandered on any other idiotic program which only a Labor government could think up.

The problem is the whole campaign that we see being waged by either side is irrelevant.
Coal production world wide will peak in around 15 to 20 years time.
The US is already having to mine lower quality coal. The cost to
extract the high quality coal has priced it out of range.
The IPCC has still not (as far as I can tell) rerun its computer
models using the Uppsala Uni figures for fossil fuel availability.

Our whole society will soon have its political and economic arrangement
turned on its head. Growth is slowing already and it is easy to see it
happening. US oil use has fallen, the number of cars in the world has
decreased for the first time ever.
Most governments are having problems with sluggish growth.
GDP in many countries is not high enough to enable repayment of debt.
Hence the financial problems in Europe.
Just in case you think we are absolved from this problem;
The Australian Government is auctioning bonds at the rate of
$2 to $2.5 billion a week. This is off budget borrowing.
And that is just to pay the bills.

Production of oil plus all liquids is just keeping our world head
above water.
There is almost no slack in the system and China & India are
still increasing their demand by about 10% every year.

You can see what will happen to China's economy when they cannot
import an increasing amount of oil. It will suddenly stop growing.
They already have major shortages of coal and oil. Electricity is
being rationed and diesel is in short supply.

So in the longer term all the above is not being taken into account
by the powers that be, here and abroad, on their campaign regarding
CO2.
So Peter McCloy is well justified in his attitude to the whole green
campaign. It is totally out of touch with what will happen.