Thank you Fiona. Yes, a complete overhaul of economics is required.

Its no good bemoaning the loss of jobs in the coal industry when climate chaos causes far more economic and social distress.

The task for economists is to delineate hidden costs of all forms of energy production. All forms. That means coal, oil, gas, solar, nuclear, hydro-electric, wind, geothermal and (above all) energy saving technologies. There is no free lunch.

At present wind and solar appear to be cost prohibitive, not because they are more expensive to produce, but because the hidden costs borne by taxpayers for traditional energy forms are not calculated and put into the cost equation. They (coal and oil) are therefore being heavily subsidised.

If all costs are taken into account, the cheapest energy resource right now is smart efficiency technology that can reduce our energy demand for very low capital cost and very rapid financial returns.

Wind and solar hot water would be runners up, owing to their relatively low social and environmental impacts. Geothermal would be in there near the top too.

Nuclear costs are much harder to calculate because the combined risks (waste disposal, nuclear proliferation and reactor safety) are not totally predictable. The scene would change overnight as a result of one devastating reactor accident, for instance. But, on balance of risk, nuclear risks are presently being seen to be less harmful than those posed by carbon emissions. (A consensus on that question is a long way off).

A carbon tax protocal partly redresses this cost imbalance, but carbon taxation is just one economic tool. Every energy form has its impacts, and all of those impacts should be costed and fed into energy prices and choices. Only then will we have a system based on rational economics.

So refreshing to read an entirely sensible analysis of the situation. No talk of "eco-fascists" or of climate change "hysteria", just a cool and well-informed look at the future. Listening to the BBC in the wee small hours I heard someone claiming that by setting up hundreds of thousands of mirrors in a desert area he could provide solar power for the whole of Europe. Please someone tell me this wasn't a dream. I imagine the out-of-work coal miners could be re-employed cleaning the mirrors with Windex and wettexes. Seriously.

At least we know that the Author has a serious vested interest in the topic. That might explain why it reads like advertising copy.

But the the bit about looking at both sides of the balance sheet was the absolute doozy. It is a pity that Stern didn't bother to devote equal thought and analytical weight to both the costs and benefits of climate change. But then, no-one else in the climate mafia has bothered with such basics as recording debits and credits either.

Our own Australian Greenhouse Office has elaborate but hardly accurate calculations of how much CO2 will be released from clearing and forestry but neglect to point out that some of the tree stumps that are deemed to have emitted carbon when the tree is cut, will still be there in the paddock in 80 years time, with much of their carbon intact.

They and the rest of the industry can then run their modells to work how much extra suns heat will be absorbed by this invisible gas that occupies between a quarter and half a cubic centimetre in each square metre of air. Yet no-one appears to have bothered to calculate how much less solar energy is absorbed by the same change from forest to pasture.

They measure the global warming effect from the conversion of forest to pasture but don't bother to measure the global cooling effect through increased albedo of the same forest conversion.

If the Chief Financial Officer of a listed company pulled that sort of stunt in their financial statements he would get a long stretch at her majesties pleasure.

A level-headed summary of the issue.

Solar power Kang is unlikely to meet the needs of industry any time soon. The idea with the most traction seems to be that a range of sources are needed - including coal & oil - at least for immediate future.

The only thing we know for sure is that industry will not willingly change anything until incentives are introduced, which is where government and PPP's come in.

As a committed 'greenie' even I agree that "we cannot afford to be squeamish about nuclear energy and we cannot continue the naive cry that renewables cost too much". (I'm sure there will be a post on this topic soon enough).

I don't think Incentives and PPP's would work at all.

The solution to having Industry fund cleaner solutions may be to slug a tax on dividends payed to shareholders on un-clean industries.

That would shake up a few boardrooms.

Fiona, and most of the commentators think that we "cannot afford to be squeamish" about nuclear power. On the contrary, we cannot afford not to be "squeamish" about the nuclear industry.
Over recent years, in Australia, there have been episodes of extraordinary hype. Australia, en masse has succumbed to self-censorship on many issues. But in no area is this more apparent than in the discussion of nuclear power.
It is unaffordable, financially, environmentally, and socially. Socially, because it inevitably means such a level of security that our civil liberties must be further eroded.
We have now reached the point where the Howard government, supported by the ALP, is to launch an expensive educational hype to schoolkids, on the virtues of the nuclear industry.
This hypocrisy is compounded by the fact that Australia will probably never get nuclear power plants. The nuclear industry can make so much more money out of just LEASING our uranium, while Australia becomes the only country in the world to invite the sending of international wastes to it. Christina Macpherson www.antinuclearaustralia.com