The way I see it we either help ourselves and the poorer nations to the existing sustainable technology or we all perish together I choose life.

Well, there is one big problem - there is no example yet of an entire national electricity grid being run off even close to 50% renewable energy (hydro aside). No doubt it's possible, but until it's proven, developing countries aren't going to be too keen on it. Hence if anything it's up to developed countries to prove that the technology can work, before we can start talking about "transfer" (which will happen naturally anyway, providing the new technology is obviously an improvement).

In the mean time, the technology that is pretty much proven is efficiency - we know how to make appliances and buildings that use far less energy than many that are manufactured today. So if something can be done to encourage developing countries like Indonesia or elsewhere to upgrade their standard of living with the technologies and buildings that use the least possible energy, then we can probably put off the need for substantially higher levels of burning fossil fuels for a good decade. In developed countries, especially those with stable populations, it should be quite possible to gradual reduce total energy usage, and hence fossil fuel usage. Unfortunately that creates a conflict - there's no money to be made building new renewable energy infrastructure if fossil fuels are already supplying enough, and the usage trend is down. Which presumably means that for carbon trading to be truly effective, it will have to make burning coal uneconomic, at least until CCS is commercially viable. Little wonder that the fossil fuel industry has been fighting tooth and nail against attempts to control emissions.

This is an encouraging article, Ben Pearson.
In spite of most governments being to a greater or lesser degree beholden to the fossil fuel industries, the sheer intelligence and practicality of planning for energy efficiency and renewable energy is being widely acknowledged now.

It has indeed been shown that public opinion and practice CAN change rapidly - and response to climate change is "on a roll" from people worldwide. Politicians will have to follow the public, and new businesses, even though the fossil fuel industries are pouring money into political campaigns.

The frantic lobbying of the ailing nuclear industry will not disguise the ultimate futility of its supposed "renaissance". Apart from the obvious problems of astronomic cost, weapons proliferation, and unsolvable wastes, - the nuclear industry needs only one "event" to become clearly and permanently closed down.
Christina Macpherson www.antinuclear.net

All very well, but what about setting an example first?

Why is Australia talking about an oxymoron like "clean coal technologies" when carbon is carbon is carbon?

When Australia is promoting so-called bio-fuel projects that use food products including imported palm oil promoting deforestation. When "bio" hides the fact that they are not net energy production activities but disguised assistance to the rural sector.

We should start pointing to ourselves lest we are called hypocrites of the first order.

OK I get it already, I'll wear a blindfold and stick my fingers in my ears, believing steadfastly the lie that coal (VHS) and nuclear (Beta) are evil. I'll ignore the possibility that clean coal actually means what it says, carbon is carbon, well that is what the next generation of clean coal technology is addressing. Is it easy - NO - but coal is still the most abundant and reliable fuel we have to provide the power that makes all this wireless technology you crave work. It is worth the effort.

If Indonesia was running on renewables, your wireless technology would likely be as reliable as the old Telkomsel.

Reducing energy consumption by improving efficiency as stated by “wizofaus” should absolutely be high priority, as it reduces requirements on fossil fuel but doesn't sacrifice reliability. No one is willing to sacrifice reliability, and everyone should embrace efficiency and reducing dependence. This too is NOT EASY. Do you know how much more power you are using with all your gadgets, your iPods, mobile phones, laptops, computers, flat screens, routers and wireless modems? Do you know how much more energy that large screen LCD TV uses than your old CRT TV, and plasma is even worse? Surely you wouldn’t have them on standby along with a cable TV box for 15-20 hours a day.

But ignoring all that, here is the rub. What is the “DVD”? You want to walk away from coal and nuclear – fine – show me the “DVD” – I mean not mentioning a specific renewable was just an oversight right? I’m sorry – it is just not there – YET – at least not for the capacity and reliability we demand. Absolutely we need to keep developing renewable technologies and their contribution will grow, but until the silver bullet, tangible “DVD” renewable(s) become reality we will continue to rely on coal and in some parts of the world, nuclear. Any reason not to ensure that these are as clean and safe as possible in the developing world as they are in 1st world nations?

To carry on with the analogy ie VHS vs Betamax, we now have two DVD standards, the latest one being Blueray.
Which one is better, who knows but people will choose one or the other but not both.
The point being that technology will present more than one path to the desired goal.
China is spending a lot of money on their gen 4 and 5 nuclear power plants with the pebble bed reactors about to go from a trial technology to fully functioning power generation.
The Chinese are happy to take power from what ever source to satisfy the energy demands of its people.
Already there are more 3 Gorges type hydro schemes being built not just for power but to divert water to the parched north of China.

But a final comment about the VHS vs Betamax.
Betamax was developed by Sony and was by far the better system for recording video/sound and was used by the profesionals until digital took over.
VHS (Phillips)was the system that the general public was prepared to pay for even though the record and playback quality was not as good.
Better marketing also played a role in Betamax not taking off with the general public.
Just because one system dosn't get up dosn't mean that it is not the better system!