If the major source of funds for reducing emissions is going to be carbon credits or their equivalent then somehow the system has to accommodate ways to provide funds for research which may or may not reduce emissions.

A simple way to fund research is to fund it from a carbon tax.

Australia has an abysmal record on R&D when compapred to our OECD buddies - evenwhn there were significant tax breaks our captains of industry were quite happy for the other guy to do all the thinkin'. Lets face it they still are - our richest operators are slum lords gouging money out of small business people, miners gouging money out of the earth, media monkkey gouging the intellect out of the nation - or casino operators - our national imagination died around the time we invented the stump jump plow

Not much has changed - and woe betide the ALP if they suggest they will pony up some cash for R&D - as good an idea as it might be they will called all manner of economic wreckers and wastrels.

Even while we are awash with cash from the resources boom all Costello cantalk about is tax breaks - what a putz!

The astute observations on technology are undermined by rose tinted interpretations of climate events. We didn't have to drink our own pee before and modern cities weren't decimated by hurricanes.

I think another question to ask is what if the techno-fixes are unachievable? Boffins have now worked on nuclear fusion for half a century without convincing progress. Numerous clean coal experiments are failing to come up with something that could work anywhere with modest financial incentives. Geothermal and solar thermal may or may not be able to provide baseload power one day but we need to replace coal a.s.a.p.

Therefore apart from R&D help I think the government's main task is to oversee a system of penalties on emissions. The winning technologies should reveal themselves in time or perhaps we might find we can make do with less energy. If there is no technical solution we're screwed anyway.

Many points there. Firstly, there is no need for any significant further research before starting to change our CO2 emissions. The key solutions are already working in different parts of the world. These are concentrating solar thermal power for electricity (google the words "concentrating solar power now" and download the pdf files to be brought up to date) and ethanol (of the Brazillian cane model not the US corn model) for motive power along with a progressive move to more electrically powered vehicles over the next 15 years. These 2 technologies will bring Australia well within Stern's targets. Coupled with consecutive implementation of geothermal and expanded wind power and Australia can become 80% green within 30 years whilst expanding its GDP inj the process. Energy farming will be the largest growth industry in the future. R&D is tremendously important in the continued improvement of all technologies, but we do not have to study more before we begin. The solutions are available now for immediate implementation. Facts- it takes 1.2 units of fossil fuel to make 1 unit of petrol ie 1 litre of petrol is really 2.2 litres making engines only 16% efficient. Compare this to electricity efficiency of 30% delivered (coal origin) makes home charged electric vehicles more attractive if solar generated.

Ah, an economist, so no evidence is required for factoid assertions on climate science (its a rank thing). The glint of possible government subsidy is drawing many eager eyes, watch as the economic rationalists and allied cults blow another 20 years on business as usual dressed up with tech-hype and consultants reports.

There is another, highly attractive option I believe: war. Historically, it's proven both effective and popular.

Just stir up trouble between two major developing nations so they bomb each other back to the stone age. Case solved.

For example, I believe China has some land that it took from India in a minor war a few decades ago. If the West were to urge India to take its land back, evict Chinese settlers, and move a whole lot of Indians in, this might work very nicely, especially since it would probably drag a whole lot of other developing nations into the conflict.

The West used to be really good at this kind of thing, and then moving in and cleaning up afterwards. It's disappointing to see that we've dropped the ball on this issue.