Perhaps in 2 hundreds years we may need to concern ourselves about peak oil/hydrocarbon energy issues.

In the meantime I would assume new technologies will render hydrocarbon energy use as relevant as typewriters in the age of word processors. Who knows, given a further 200 years of research and development even solar and wind generation could be close to viability.

Some people need to 'get up to speed' in relation to the the peak oil issue. Horizontal drilling is the technological game changer as microprocessors were to electric vaccume valves.

Attempting to regulate/legislate for 'sustainability' is as intellectually lazy as regulating for 'happiness'. All in the eye of the beholder.

I would love to bask in the self righteous glow of living 'sustainably' and rootin for the precautionary principle, irrespective of financial consequences.

But I find it difficult to ignore "CO2 can not add more than 0.5 C to the temperature". A variation that I, my grandchildren and all homosapiens can tolerate quite comfortably.

Real world observation and replicatable evidence that it does so might help.

Ludwig, let me repeat my question: in what universe is imposing crippling taxes on productive industries for no demonstrable reason 'erring on the side of caution'?

Do you really not see that there are huge, astronomical costs involved in 'acting as if AGW is real', and those costs will take money away from other important causes which are far easier to justify acting upon?

Why don't we 'act as if epidemic malaria is real' instead? Because it IS, and unlike AGW, we can show it.

Useful informative factual article, that demonstrates, the abject total lack of logical green thinking, who would pack humans like sardines, in ever higher towers/denser housing?
Forgetting, that city dwellers produce 2.5 times the carbon emission, of their country cousins!?
And green favoured alternative options, wind and solar voltaic panels?
The most expensive of all the available alternatives?
Rhrosty's green city, would see every high rise residential tower collect and then digest all its own biological waste, gravity fed into basement located systems.
A number of overseas trials, have all but confirmed, that this Aussie innovation, produces enough storable methane to power the whole building, or village, or cooperating suburb.
Adding in food scraps/wastage, produces a saleable surplus, or recharge power for residents' personal electric transport/vehicles.
Replacing the stationary engines and the alternators they turn, with super silent, 20% more efficient, ceramic fuel cells, would reduce maintainence costs, create even more power, and add in super silence, as a very desirable, inner city feature.
[Both these very local methane powered systems, provide endless free hot water!]
However, the ceramic cell(s) has no moving part(s) to wear out and instead of Co2, produces mostly water vapour, as it converts methane into electrical energy. [85%+ carbon reduction!]
A ceramic cell large enough to provide the power needs for a household/family of 4-6, currently costs around 5,000 AUD.
Widespread uptake and economies of scale, would see that number come way down.
Moreover, a taxpayer supported payment plan could be arranged, by a "LEADING" Govt, that could cost less per month, per household, than current power charges?
The digester's end waste products; include, completely sanitised carbon rich, phosphate and nitrate loaded, soil improving, very low cost fertilizer.
And, reusable water, with enough nutrient load to support nearby very low water using, closed cycle algae farming, which would support a very low cost, endlessly sustainable, considerable bio-diesel production facilities.
As the author effectively argues!
We need to provide alternatives, that even the poorest amongst us, the marginalised 80%; and or, the third world, can actually afford!
Rhrosty.

<< Ludwig, let me repeat my question: in what universe is imposing crippling taxes on productive industries for no demonstrable reason 'erring on the side of caution'? >>

Jon, what makes you think that I’m in favour of the current carbon tax?

As I keep saying, we should be looking at the bigger picture and not just concentrating on AGW.

It is hypocritical in the extreme for our government to implement this tax while continuing to preside over massive expansionism in the overall demand for energy and the consequent ever-increasing production of greenhouse gasses in this country.

They are essentially trying to dupe us into thinking they are doing something environmentally sound and even sustainability-oriented while in effect just continuing with business as usual.

OK, within a meaningful sustainability regime, I would support a carbon tax. And I would even support one under the current regime if I could see other developments heading in the same direction and see it progressively becoming more of an incentive to develop renewable energy sources.

It is supposed to do this, but I’ll believe it when I see it!

Now, the current carbon tax is piffling! A “crippling” tax it certainly ain’t!

There are many variables in the business world that affect profit margins and the survival of companies. The carbon is but one small additional factor.

Like all of these other factors, it has differing effects on different enterprises, but overall it is pretty damn small.

And if you compare the negative effect of the carbon tax on businesses and on peoples’ cost of living to the likely effect of not being as prepared as we could be when rising fuels prices or shortages hit us, we can reasonably assume that the carbon tax will have a very much smaller impact than that.

Ah but the carbon tax is only about climate change isn’t it, not peak oil or changing energy economies. Well, it damn well should be, first and foremost.

Ludwig: So your idea of 'erring on the side of caution' would be even more disruptive and wasteful than the Carbon Tax? Despite the fact that the alleged feedback loop on which the whole AGW movement is predicated has never actually been observed to occur in real life? Despite the obvious lies and exaggerations put forward by Al Gore and James Hansen, and the preparedness of people like Peter Gleick to lie and steal and probably forge 'for the cause'; despite the documented attempts by 'the Team' to get unsympathetic journal editors sacked and to block critical papers; despite the exposure of 'mistake' after 'mistake' after 'mistake', all somehow biased in the direction of global warming, you seriously still believe that these jokers are interested in anything more than how long they can go on feeding themselves and their cronies at the public trough?

Your ship is sinking, Ludwig, and your heroes won't wait around to pull you out of the water after it goes down. Grab a lifeboat before they're all gone.

Jon, you still seem to be completely ignoring the bigger picture; that of sustainability vs continuous-growth-until-we-crash-in-a-heap because the demand for everything becomes overwhelming… or the demand for just one vital resource becomes unsuppliable.

You apparently can only see the cost of the carbon tax or of striving to do something about sustainability and can’t even conceptualise a comparison between this and the cost of doing nothing.

Am I on the right track here?