Technically incompetant, as of now it probably is, but isn't it the idea of finding the ways of making the technicality possable. It is a little early to debunk anything. A start has been made. Oil and coal has seen their day, and we must diversify. I don't see why alt; energy wont take the place of coal fired power. It is the will to make it work. Houses and small business can mostly be eliminated from grid power now. It will cost money to save money, never been any different. Some people go on as if Australia is alone in the world of alt energy, when we are miles behind. USA is the world leader in alt energy at the moment. Political atmosphere is what will drive or dampen investment, I say people will er on the side of caution, and think of the future, rather than penny pinch for today.

579, all the political will in the world won't overcome the problems in alt. power, unless we go nuclear.

Nuclear is the best form of power if you want to truly reduce CO2, if THAT is the goal, and having a big new tax to reduce Carbon .. it appears that way.

James, studying climate science is a shrewd choice young man. I could not imagine a scientific field more likely to attract funding dollars.

I am not a scientist but I do attempt to read what I can about global warming, climate change, or whatever the term dejour is.

I've got to say I am pretty sceptical about the drive for a greener future as explained by Bob Brown and his acolytes. Anthropogenic CO2's causal link with "catastrophic" global warming is yet to be proven, as are the dire consequence of CO2 in the atmosphere in any case.

Putting Australian industry in an anti-competitive straight jacket seems pretty dumb to me.

Selling coal to China, India etc at the same time in order to guard us from the global dip in growth just seems extremely cynical when the same people facilitating that trade are telling us all how we need to be CO2 angels.

I am also quite concerned to hear that someone like Tony Windsor feels a study of CSG is sufficient to allay the real concerns of anyone who tries to eke out a living on farming land currently being "explored" for CSG opportunities - and there's a lot of land affected.

If he had any go in him he'd say, stop CSG til we can figure out if its extraction is going to poison key agricultural land and subterranean acquifers.

Lots of good advice from others above for you to ponder, I hope it helps you figure out your thoughts so you can post some sort of qualifying statement in due course.

One would hope that the author undertakes rigorous analysis of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis as part of his Science course , and simply does not accept the propaganda that is disseminated by the IPCC and its hangers-on. Rather than engage in fashionable political correctness, if he were serious about scientific method, he would find that there is no compelling scientific evidence that proves the AGW hypothesis. One hopes that he has the diligence to recognise scientific evidence when he sees it.

In any case, his faith in renewables is misplaced. Despite extensive overseas research in the fields of wind and solar power , they are still about three times and ten times respectively more costly than coal-fired power when the necessary back-up power supply facilities are considered; and their substantial cost disadvantages appear unlikely to reduce significantly in the longterm. If only he were to apply some elementary economics, he should conclude that it is nonsensical to pursue either form of renewable energy

That senario is normal. Until alt energy is widespread it will cost more. No different to the latest model Tv. Cost is not everything; If no one ever started alt energy, it would be even worse now. Neuclear is one form of alt energy, if you can find a place to put it. Germany thinks they can go away from nuclear energy, in favor of other forms of alt power production. What ever the outcome, we cannot rely on the supply of oil and coal. You may find yourself walking to work.

Young people who have been literally brainwashed into the new Environmentalism.

There is no such thing as 'clean' or 'dirty' energy based on CO2 emissions. These are nonsensical brainwashing words making use of the natural human fear of 'dirty' things. CO2 is not a pollutant, nor is it 'Dirty'. Its a life giving colourless and odourless gas which some people believe contributes to increased global temperatures (the evidence is scant mind, you.)

Spain has almost gone bankrupt after changing to 'clean' energy because it has cost huge amounts of money and thousands of jobs.

Once upon a time, to get a Science degree, one had to examine the evidence for things and obtain correct answers, not simply repeat an ideological mantra.