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!

A few points about the VHS vs. Betamax analogy.

From a technical point of view they were about the same. In the early days Betamax had better pictures but VHS had better recording times, consumers preferred longer record time as most couldn't pick the quality difference (they were both terrible by todays standards). At any rate the differences quickly faded, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Videotape_format_war for more details.

Betamax was never used by professionals, that is a myth probably caused by the similar name of the professional Betacam format which is incompatible with the consumer Betamax format.

Regarding, HD-DVD vs. Blue-ray. It is entirely possible that dual-format players will prevail (they exist already). The barrier to cheap dual-format players is the licensing expense not the hardware expense.

What does all this have to do with climate change? Not a lot, that's the point, VHS vs. Betamax is a tempting but ultimately flawed analogy.

Let's extend the analogy, we are in the late 70s and the two working choices, VHS and Betamax, are battling for market share. Joe Bloggs bursts on to the scene and says:

"You guys are wasting your time. DVDs will be much cheaper and better still. Sure they don't work now, but in 20 years both VHS and Beta will be obsolete so don't bother and just hold tight and don't waste your money on either technology."

The results would be predictable. One of the technologies would be adopted to fill the gap until the new technology was proven and available.

The same argument applies between coal and nuclear. The greens are saying that renewable energy is the future and that the technologies are just over the horizon. However, they are not here now and probably won't be for the next decade or two.

The choices we have here and now are (like beta and VHS) between coal and nuclear as the large scale base load supply. People need power today and are not prepared to put their lives on hold for 20 years waiting for the magic bullet that may or may not arrive.

The choice here and now is whether whilst developing renewable technologies we continue to dump millions of tons of CO2 in the atmosphere or build the politically unpalettable nuclear stations.

Will the climate wait for us?

Well I wouldn't have any problem if a private operator with minimal government assistance decided they could economically build and run a nuclear power station in Australia, even in my own suburb. But personally, from what I've read regarding the rate at which renewable technologies are improving, and given the inevitable cost reductions that come from economies of scale, I would be surprised if nuclear could be economically competitive with renewables in Australia in the long run. A nuclear power plant lasts for 60-70 years, and is expected to be profitable for that entire period. So you wouldn't commit to such a project unless you were overwhelming confident that all the current developments in renewable energy (especially solar thermal) aren't going to lead to a situation where you can't sell your electricity because somebody else is doing it more cheaply.

We already have two perfectly good proven "stop-gap" technologies: efficiency, and natural gas. Between the two of them there's no reason we can't bring our CO2 emissions down substantially in the next 15-20 years. And the average household electricity bill will probably even go down, at least as a percentage of disposable income.

Simply put, coal produces about 25 per cent more carbon dioxide per unit of energy produced than petroleum, in turn 50 per cent more than gas (ie. coal produces some 70 per cent more CO2 per unit of energy compared with gas. One can attempt to sequester the CO2 etc, but it is inherent dirty technology as one cant get away from the fact that the carbon hydrogen ratio is the highest of the fossil fuels. It is DIRTY.

Wiz,

Hate to break it to you, but with demand growing for electricity at about 4% p.a. Efficiency and natural gas might slow the growth in the short term until the gas limitations are reached, but are extremely unlikely to reduce emissions. Even throwing in the renewable sources, I wouldn't bank on getting a negative growth for several decades.

The stop gap might well be required for 50-70 years. As I have said in other posts, climate change is going to be a hard enough battle to win without putting aside your most effective and proven weapon. 20 years from now is too late to wake up.

I'm well aware that demand for new electricity is still growing, and faster than the rate of population growth. But there really is no need for it. For a start, most Australian houses could be retro-fitted to require virtually no air-conditioning or electric hot water systems, which would drastically reduce electricity demand. There are also big savings to be made on lighting - not just fitting more efficient bulbs, but not having them on when not needed, and designing/retro-fitting buildings to make better use of natural light.

Goodness me, VHS or Beta posts are really missing the point which is the beginning Earth's deterioration within the next 15 years if its population doesn't come to terms with the greenhouse question. We need to apply existing technology such as wind, solar, hydro and geothermal and encourage all other countries on Earth to do likewise.

My understanding of the VHS / Betamax issue was, despite Betamax being a better system, it fell by the wayside and “VHS” prevailed.

So what does that tell us?

Winning a technology race is not always about the technical excellence when marketing and commercial astuteness is there to play a hand.

However, that has stuff all to do with coal.

Now onto the issue of telecommunication / internet and the like.

Lets consider the development in electronic communication has piggy-backed the silicon chip and micro-processors revolutions.

A long time ago some one asked the question “why has the motor industry not followed the path of micro-processors and electronics?”

The answer from the motor companies was “Well we could make and sell a Rolls Royce for $200, it would do 200,000km to a litre of fuel. . . . .

And you could fit 10 of them in a matchbox”

Not all “solutions” are equally applicable, practical or sensible.

Micro-processor technology was developed in pursuit of a guidance system for cruise missiles and smart bombs.

Maybe what we need is another good old war to “jump start” the research for technologies which will solve the energy and carbon emissions problem.

However, that will not suit all, since the most likely developer is USA.

I can see neither the technical competence or entreprenurial risk attitude in any other nation necessary to deal with the issue.

Col, I agree that, providing the US doesn't self-implode, it still remains the world's powerhouse of technological innovation. However this as much as anything has been due to the extraordinary publicly funded work from institutions such as NASA, various universities (which may be private, but whose research typically relies more on government money than private enterpreneurs) and even the much-aligned DoD (especially http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA). Now accepted, much of that public wealth only exists because of the private enterprises that created it, but they have benefited greatly from government-funded R&D and infrastructure building, and "entreprenurial risk attitude" is certainly not the be all and end all of America's success.