Fossil fuels must remain buried? Well no! Not all fossil fuels are the same or contribute as much to global warming!
Take fully imported Middle East oil and compare that with traditional Australian sweet light crude.
Fully imported oil has gone through at least two energy consuming carbon causing refinery processes, before it arrives in this or any other country, and also has a considerable carbon footprint added to it when it does!
Whereas, Australian sweet light crude traditionally leaves the ground as a virtually ready to use diesel, needing only a little insitu, chill filtering to make it engine ready.
Meaning, from well head to harvester, Australian sweet light crude, produces only 25% of the carbon created in total, by fully imported foreign oil!
Meaning if we were actually serious about climate change, would would immediately start to explore and exploit the reef, for its possible bonanza of low carbon creating alternatives!
Besides, NG can be consumed in ceramic fuel cells, with the end result, the production of very cheap energy, and pristine water, but little if any carbon!
Which is hardly the case for Canadian tar sands or shale oil!
We need to grow more food, and cannot do that without using more energy and water, not to mention the demands for more soil nutrients. And we simply cannot achieve that by pricing the input products, fuel, water and fertilizer, off the table!
There are answers, that don't have to include fossil fuel, but quite large funding imposts.
They include an inland shipping canal!
Salt water can be used in underground applications to grow a variety of crops! Those very crops and orchards, will help mitigate against both global warming and carbon caused climate change!
The answers include quite massive reliance on non fossilized algae sourced fuels, and the converting of waste to energy, rather than pumping massive amounts of energy into it, to pump it out to sea, where it simply compounds many of the problems, we already confront!
Rhrosty

steven you seem to have some sensible ideas but have fallen into the pit of pseudo science of AGW big-time.

1998 is irrelevant to the issue of the temperature pause. Look at this neat, and scientifically valid analysis by Walter Brozek:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/08/are-climate-models-realistic-now-includes-at-least-february-data/

Walter analyses the official temperature data from all the main sources including the satellites. Brozek uses 2 criteria; the first from NOAA to test for flatness or zero warming; the second from Dr Phil Jones to test for no statistical warming; the 2 criteria overlap with the second allowing for some slight warming and the first for even cooling. The first shows zero temperature for 15 years; the second for up to 23 years. The first is climatically significant by NOAA standards, the second by Dr Santer’s standards. This means the temperature is not being caused by AGW. The only line going up is CO2.

1998 is irrelevant to this analysis which uses official criteria for measuring temperature trends. I really don't see how you can argue against this.

And again another doomsday, alarmist article about AGW with not a fact between its silly ears up and running on OLO.

Rhostry, that I understand certain fossil fuel use in mining and agriculture is unavoidable based on the current level of alternative energy technology. But given Australia is the most urbanized country in the world we are well placed for nuclear (thorium), which is a major and inescapable part of the bullet we must bite. So too is pricing carbon, so both major sides of politics have give up something to get us where we must go.

Curmy, cohenite and stevenlmeyer, given the nature of the article we are discussing, your conversation on the cause of GW is background noise and can be pursued (please? on the other threads already running for this purpose on OLO. This thread is for adults who accept the CO2 and AGW hypotheses are sufficiently supported by the evidence.

I'm off air for a few days and I'll be interested in how this thread progresses by the time I re-enter. Best wishes all.

An inland shipping canal connected to rapid rail would negate the need to dredge new harbors up and down the coral coast.
It would allow oil laden shipping to have a shorter less energy dependent route, that would be subject to fewer tropical storms, although there would still be some still destructive summer storms in some areas!
Current geological barriers, (low hills etc) could be transformed into safe parking areas for storm affected shipping.
Most of the dredging could be conducted or completed almost exclusively by cutter dredges, which would reduce turbidity to an environmentally acceptable level.
A canal would relieve/reroute most of the shipping traffic that currently arrives here via the Great Barrier Reef.
Lock gates and a dual lane system, would allow huge 13-15 metre northern tides, to move shipping in and out, along with endless recharge water!
Simply damming the dams and locking up lower cost, lower carbon creating, essential energy products, is not going to allow us to grow more food!
Nor will closing our minds to cheaper lower carbon creating fuels, simply because of their location!
An already dead reef can hardly be further harmed by a few pressure reliving holes, which if not drilled, will eventually allow even more hydrocarbon products to escape, and eventually exponentially add to greenhouse gas emission, and foul (mystery oil slicks) even even more parts of still living reef!
Due to the ongoing effects of tectonic plate contraction, and consequent geological fracturing across possibly quite massive hydrocarbon reserves!
The totally closed locked and bolted mindet and rigid recalcitrant risible approach of the ideological warrior, is more than almost anything else we confront, part of the reason we can't seem to make any progress, in arriving at viable solutions!
Rhrosty.

I agree that both carbon pricing and Nuclear option (thorium) are both part of the solutions we must have.
However, I don't agree with a market based approach or an ETS, which as shown in Europe?
Is not only ineffective in actually reducing carbon, but is subject to all sorts of rorts and or corruption?
The problem with a market based approach and rising carbon prices, is this product could become the most traded and therefor the most valuable commodity in the world; churn historically huge amounts of money, and employ literal millions for no or little actual effect?
Yes we should have a a progressively lowered cap and then tax only those emissions above that cap!
Broker free Penalty and reward, which could be tax credits for lowering emission products and a tax for exceeding it?
We should also dump the national grid, which has become a very expensive gold plated white elephant and contributes around half the emission of coal fired power, via transmission line losses.
Local power would be a far better option and cheaper than coal thorium lends itself to that, as does helium cooled pebble reactors, which could be trialled on some shipping or submersibles.
We should also explore hydrogen and the water molecule cracking method of making it; utilizing sea water and solar thermal heat.
Once the infrastructure costs are recovered, we could make endlessly sustainable hydrogen using this older solid state method, for just a few cents a cubic metre!
Rhrosty.

Re Rhrosty’s inland shipping canal!

Well one way would be the link below;
http://www.mp3olimp.net/the-goon-show-the-africa-ship-canal/
And as for the “Lock gates and a dual lane system, would allow huge 13-15 metre northern tides, to move shipping in and out, along with endless recharge water!”

Well of course the bloke to bring into this project with his amazing genius would be Colin Barnett . He of course has the answer with his penetrating insight, the canal would run From the North to the South so the water would run downhill from the equator and bring the ships with it.