If climate patterns are uncertain so are the social costs, hence it may be better to err on the side of caution in case they turn out to be catastrophic. If we underreact now it may be a harsh legacy on future generations. After all it is humans of the past hundred years who burned most of the fossil carbon built up over half a billion years. Some are saying that all fossil fuels (in order oil, gas and coal) will be in severe practical shortage within twenty years. That might limit warming but can low carbon technology or willing cutbacks possibly make up the energy gap? Moreover there is barely enough water to go around on an affordable basis. Therefore I think we should try hard to create a smooth transition to a likely difficult future. If we did fluke some technical breakthroughs we haven't lost much; if it turns out badly then we may have something to fall back on.

Postscript to those who say Sydney's cool summer disproves GW; try averaging temps with Adelaide.

Another thing the environment alarmists need to think about, as they toss and analyse their monkey bones and chicken gizzards, is the result of their hugely expensive must-have emission cuts to the consumers.

Can they judge the effects on society of these costs? Will they be prepared for the turmoil, anarchy and violence resulting from lack of reasonably priced services and food? What if the expensive restrictions make no difference to climate change?

There is so much missing from this article "Future Carbon" that it is quite seriously misleading. I am amazed, given the author's CV and qualifications. Where is there any reference to the observed sharp increase in carbon PPM in the atmosphere and observed increases in average world temperatures and temperature trends across major populated and foodgrowing regions?This is not risk forecasting: it is recording of measured scientific data. Yes, it does not prove a correlation - but it is pretty strong inductive evidence of one.

Secondly, there is no mention of the inevitability of exhaustion of non-renewable energy sources - carbon-content fossil fuels. There is no such thing as 'future carbon'. Any transfomation of CO2 gas to recapture burnable carbon will involves a net energy cost - by the iron laws of thermodynamics.

So what if gas-fuelled electricity generation is more "efficient" at present price relativities than wind-power generation. What good will that do us, when gas prices escalate as gas becomes more scarce and costly to access?

The embedded assumption in this essay is that there is no such thing as energy resource scarcity or exhaustion - that technology, human ingenuity, will always find ways to use oil or gas or coal or biofuels more efficiently. But that is irrelevant now. We know that all those resources are subject to predictable exhaustion within a few human generations - even biofuels, in terms of water and soil fertility exhaustion.

What good is increased electronics efficiency if the market simply takes the benefit in the form of larger and larger televisions and home entertainment centres, resulting in continued increases in usage of fossil-fuel based electricity? We are cooking the planet while we pat ourselves on the back for for our increased technical efficiencies. The answer is we need both - greater efficiency in energy production and application, and greater economy in energy consumption. It is the second part that is harder to pull off.

We need to use price signals to move economies to reliance on renewable energy sourcing. That is Garnaut's task.

I hope Garnaut reads this.

Garnaut hasn't even factored in existing innovations let alone new ones. The increase in the price of oil and coal has already induced a response by the Chinese government. There are 86 new nuclear power plants set down for the 2011-2015 five year plan alone (one every 3 weeks). There are none set down, yet, for the 2016-2020 plan because these new, mass produced plants only take three years to build from scratch.

Garnaut has excluded all of this from his interim report (giving us weasel words instead) because his preposterous call for 90% reductions could only be rationalised on the basis of his silly assertion that things were a lot worse than they seemed.

In fact, the IPCC's moronic A1F1 scarenario, that Garnaut has relied upon, has been blown clean out of the water already, without a single new innovation. The faster than projected growth in China merely brings forward the point in time when developed status is reached and emissions growth plateaus. For Garnaut to fail to grasp this simple economic fundamental is inexcusable, but par for a labor party hack.

Instead, the A1F1 projection zooms off into an imaginary stratosphere with not even a 1% annual emission dividend while Garnaut's professional credibility takes a dive of commensurate proportions.

Any search on the peer reviewed literature will quickly show two things: one the IPCC report is perhaps the most optimistiuc view of the impact of climate change. Two there is consensus about the reality of man made global warming - the debate centres around on which models are the most adequate representation of the future. The prudent policy course is to assume the worst. The other reality is that what Australia does is largely irrelevant. But we will experience the effects nonetheless so again it is prudent to reduce our ecological footprint and aim to be self sufficient.

What is going on here? All planning entails a balance of risks.

What we do know, from our own observations and from a virtual consensus amongst the scientific community, is that the status quo (doing nothing) is a dire risk, the toll on humanity ranges from the current ones (serious droughts, spread of diseases and freak storms) to outright calamity for the whole human race.

Doing something about it means doing something serious enough to limit that risk. No point pussyfooting around, or we may as well do nothing and watch it all happen.

It’s good that there are a few people out there warning against over-reacting (even if they are simply in denial of the problem) because we do have to be careful to tread wisely.
But doing nothing is, by far, the biggest risk of all.

If you are heading for a cliff top at high speed it could be argued not to swerve too much because you may roll the car. True, but do you then just go over the cliff while being cautious about the best way to avert disaster?

The proverbial split second we have to respond to climate change is at this point in history, folks. It requires courage and wisdom, not faltering resolve.

Ah yes, the Institute of Public Affairs.
Sorry, this group justifies any argument based on dodgy biased analysis.
I believe some other IPA "analysis" found Nuclear to be more viable than wind, even though we are yet to see a single nuclear installation with it's costs fully quantified. Sure, wind is not perfect but at least it isn't supported by an accounting whitewash!
They must have "how to write biassed articles that *appear* balanced" classes at the IPA!

“There are 86 new nuclear power plants set down for the 2011-2015 five year plan alone (one every 3 weeks).” (Perseus)

Let’s put Perseus’ "scarenario" distortions on China's “86 new nuclear power plants” in plain English.

China 2008:

* PLANNED Nuclear Reactors: 30 (First reactor expected to be put into commercial use at the end of 2012)

* PROPOSED Nuclear Reactors: 86

Currently China’s nuclear energy is 2% of total output

Intentions are to boost nuclear energy to 4% by 2020

Four percent eh? Is this one of the new innovations you refer to, Perseus?

Definitions (as advised by UIC):

* PLANNED = Approvals, funding or major commitment in place, mostly expected in operation within 8 years, or construction well advanced but suspended indefinitely.

* PROPOSED = clear intention or proposal but still without firm commitment.

I’ll put my money on Garnaut’s interim assessments and certainly not on the verbal pestilence exhorted by the IPA and Lavoisier stooges who remain intent on holding the renewable industry back at all costs.

This is a direct result of the lunar right’s dirt "ignorance" on environmental toxicology. - an "innovative" approach which guarantees the smooth running of the gravy train, fiercely driven by the fossil fuel and automobile industrial barons.

Where did you get your data, Dickie? I got mine from the world nuclear association who seem to know a bit about their topic. see http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf63.html

Note, "In May 2007 the National Development and Reform Commission announced that its target for nuclear generation capacity in 2030 was 160 GWe". That is out of an expected total of 1330GWe or 12%, not 4% as you claim.

Also note, "At the end of 2007 there was reported to be 145 GWe of hydro capacity, 554 GWe fossil fuel, 9 GWe nuclear and 4 GWe wind, total 713 GWe." Add to this, "Two large hydro projects are under construction: Three Gorges of 18.2 GWe and Yellow River of 15.8 GWe." and it becomes clear that CO2 emitting generation will not grow as fast as total generating capacity.

So of the total increase in generating capacity of 617GWe from 713GWe today to 1330GWe in 2030, some 34GWe will be from hydro and another 151GWe will be nuclear and only 432GWe will be from coal and that total generating capcity will level off by 2030 because they will be at fully developed status. Garnaut's stupid A1F1 scenario assumes their emissions will keep rising for the entire century.

Note also from the China Daily that the two coal fired plants being commissioned each week are simply replacing 10 old smaller ones that are closed down each week. http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/bizchina/2008-01/30/content_6430665.htm

Nuclear? To go Nuclear is to be hostage to the past. One of the major weaknesses of industrialization has been to develop an economy that depends on finite resources for its future prosperity. The economic arguments against nuclear remain compelling. Known exploitable reserves are sufficient for about 40 years - much less if the take up rate of nuclear power is increased. As with any other resource once one goes beyond the peak the extraction costs tend to outweigh any benefits - in the case of nuclear this means that the window where nuclear is a green alternative is relatively small. What the nuclear lobby also consistently overlooks is the growth of negative watts - ie increased efficiencies that will reduce demand; these are already evident. The other assumption that is made that it will be necssary to have centralised electricity grids - ignoring that for domestic power the potential exists to get the bulk of power needs from solar and wind with a possible diesel back up. For a country like Australia we also have the possibility of wave power (using the technology currently being pioneered off the coast of Portugal) and hot rocks. Nuclear will rely on government subsidies to be remotely economically viable - I would rather see my tax dollars go on r& d on renewables. If there is any doubt about the availability of money for projects such as these you only have to read Stiglitz's The Trillion Dollar War - if we are prepared to divert a fraction of funds away from the military to play their games we may just have the resources to fast track the r& d to an economy based on renewable energy.

"Currently China’s nuclear energy is 2% of total output. Intentions are to boost nuclear energy to 4% by 2020" Dickie

"Where did you get your data, Dickie? I got mine from the world nuclear association who seem to know a bit about their topic. see http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf63.html" Perseus

Perseus,

FYI

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2008-02/19/content_6465565.htm

So Dickie, your reference is an anecdotal newspaper snap shot of two sites from a journalist while mine is from the industry association showing specific detail on the full range of projects in train up to the end of the 2011-2015 five year plan. Not hard to see which is most credible, is it?

"So Dickie, your reference is an anecdotal newspaper snap shot of two sites from a journalist while mine is from the industry association showing specific detail on the full range of projects in train up to the end of the 2011-2015 five year plan. Not hard to see which is most credible, is it?"

Eh....Perseus your link is inaccessible.

And no it's not hard at all to see which link is the more credible if you are taking your advice from the World Nuclear Association, the desperados who keep flogging a dead horse. These are the soldiers of spin who spruik for nukes. A chain command seeking profits, power and influence.

Here's a couple more links - same advice as I offered previously but you just don't get it Perseus. That's a result of typing with one hand. Told ya so!

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-11/03/content_7005864.htm

http://www.energy.gov/news/4536.htm

Not one word from anyone about the overriding need to control the third world population explosion.

We are obviously all urinating into the breeze.

A word about population: zero.
However, the real problem is not in the third world - all that population explosion should be of concern the third world still consumes resources at a rate of less than 2.2 hectares per person. (2.2 hectares is generally regarded as about the earth's carrying capacity.) The real problem again lies with the developed world . (see Lincoln, Stephen F Challenged Earth, An Overview of Humanity’s Stewardship of Earth Imperial College Press London 2006 p8) Australia for example needs 9 hectares to meet our lifestyle needs, the USA 10.3 hectares and the rest of the developed world all have lifestyles that require in excess of 5 hectares per person. It follows therefore that we have committed to a lifestyle that requires us to use more than our fair share of the earth's resources. Therefore to blame the third world's population explosion on the ecological crisis we are facing seems to be a device to divert attention away from the real problem: our unchecked consumption of the earth's resources

Baygon,

It is good to see at last that this thread is starting to discuss the population problem. The reason I consider the third world population the more important issue is that the population of the first world, to a reasonable simplification, has stabilised, whereas that of the third world is set to double over the next 25 years. I agree with you that the first world population is consuming more that it should, but at least it is stable. Trying to contain the consumption of countries with rapidly increasing population is futile. This is why it is so important for Australia to restrict its immigration program. Moving someone from the third world to the first will result in a considerable increase of consumption and environmental pollution. All this, of course, is very disturbing to those who harbour the dream that the whole world will be lifted to a standard of living on a par with the US and Australia.

I do believe that peak oil will serve to limit the consumption of the West, albeit with much suffering and social dislocation.

Batten down the hatches! It's going to be an interesting century!

Third world population not a problem? no worry about it or its rate of increase because it's per-capita consumption is lower than the developed world?

Translated, that equates to an appeal for the continuance of apartheid: those buggars must never be allowed to step up to the comfortable lifestyles of the west!

Keep population increasing, no matter where it is, and we will all be carbon-crisped, because keeping the lid on a boiling world kettle seething with divisive affluent/deprived social division is no more than a lousy short-term dream.

Read my comments more carefully. I started with the proposition that we need zero population growth. But I also took pains to argue that it is not just population that is the problem. Lifestyle choices are likewise an important factor. For example the entire world's population could be comfortably accommodated on Tasmania if we were prepared to accept a population density the same as that for Hong Kong. The only problem with that scenario is that even if we were to do that it would not solve the problem for the Hong Kong lifestyle is dependent on a consumption pattern well above what the earth can support.
So the reason for looking at patterns of consumption is to argue against the view that China and India or the Third World are the problem - we in the West are the problem - if we can limit our lifestyle to sustainable levels and promote zero carbon strategies then there is some hope for the future for we will then be in a position to work with the third world to ensure that it does not follow our irresponsible path.