oh dear Tim, a cut and paste post form some right wing think tanks really?

Sorry Tim your approach is completely wrong. There's huge economic upsides to opting for change and the right choices. None of which can include coal. Albeit we will still need some for some industrial applications. People focus on enrgy far too much as a premier investment vehicle, when what we need to refocus on is the products of energy and how cheaply we can supply it. We have large scale solar thermal, which given the application of the most recent technology competes favorably with coal in both rollout costs or peak power, minus the billion dollar fuel bill.

Then there is cheaper than coal thorium and the half price energy that would completely turn around some of our fortunes, but particularly in metals smelting!

The only thing that prevents us converting our domestic power to localized biogas production and individual fuel cells; is government intransigence and current vested interest?

The by products of this power source would underpin a truly massive algae production paradigm. Algae absorb 2.5 times their bodyweight in Co2, with some types being up to 60% recoverable oil, which is child's play to extract.

Moreover under optimised conditions, algae will double their bodyweight, adsorption capacity and recoverable oil content every 24 hours.

Some types naturally produce ready to use as is biodiesel or jet fuel. The by product or ex crush waste from this industry, eminently suitable for a food and arable land free ethanol industry.

The only ecocide in play is in our complete reliance on coal and indeed, when the other nations stop buying it from us!

WE can't afford to change!?

We could if we weren't shelling out some 26 billions plus per for fully imported oil! And that my friends is how you do ecocide!
Rhrosty.

"There are so many environmental impacts that are unrelated to CO2. "

Indeed there are, and yet I have yet to see any of the people railing against the 'demonisation of CO2' actually argue positively for an environmental cause that has any sort of large-scale or global relevance.

In fact, they almost all argue against nearly every environmental cause that the 'those bloody greenies' talk about.

Just to name a few I have seen being argued against by 'skeptics', that they think is no problem:
-Impacts on the Great Barrier Reef
-Agrichemical runoff
-The impacts of DDT
-The ozone layer

Many climate change 'skeptics' think that none of these things are actually important and that the greenies are beating them up as well.

If you are serious about concern for environmental impacts that you believe is being ignored in favour of 'climate change', then clean up your act and actually argue for positive support for action on at least one. Or even name one that you think should take precedence. Otherwise you are just a pretender.

Thank god there are an increasing number of scientists prepared to come out of the closet, & tell the truth about the CO2 scam.

Cobber is obviously a gravy train rider, with nothing useful to say, or he would have said it.

Bugsy, come on mate. The Great Barrier Reef is in better shape now, than it was in the 70s & 80s when I was out on it almost daily with tourists, [compared to a month or so a year from those AIMS people], & getting better. It will always be almost dead according to researchers wanting grants.

Agricultural chemicals are not much of a problem today. Yes they were when the stuff was very cheap. I was a rabid complainer in the 60, when it was a major problem, but today farmers have to limit their usage on cost grounds if nothing else.

Bringing up the tired old DDT scare, discredited 30 years ago, & the Ozone layer, totally disproved 10 years ago is really clutching at straws.

OK then Hasbeen,

Name YOUR top 5 environmental concerns that should have more money thrown at them.

Meanwhile this reference describes the situation that we are in, and what, if anything we can collectively do about it.

http://www.a-institute.org