Like the climate the debate is hotting up. For the sake of balance perhaps it's also cooling down. In 2006 Australia's net emissions were 565 megatonnes of CO2 equivalent, after a controversial increased land use deduction. But Australia's annual black coal exports of 250 Mt produce at least 600 Mt of CO2. We are complicit in the sense that a drug pusher is criminally liable under the law. Exported black coal is about four times that used domestically and a comparable amount of brown coal is also consumed in local power and cement making. Coal exporters South Africa, Indonesia and Vietnam are running out so coal importers will be hard pressed to find an alternative to Australia. Sure we'll ruin the balance of trade but we might slow down global cooling or warming or something. If we have so much coal how come the export price went up 70% in 2007? Moreover by reducing exports we will get other countries used to the idea of cutting back sooner than later.

As for nuclear power and nonvolcanic geothermal I could point out one demonstrably works and the other doesn't.

Taswegian,

In your last post you referred to nuclear and geothermal power. Don't you realise that geothermal is also nuclear power? Where do you think the energy comes from? There are very serious issues with geothermal radioactive residue, in the form of radon gas, which comes up with the steam, and is released into the atmosphere. If you don't know about radon pollution ask the good people of Hunters Hill. For heavens sake get away from the idological positions and suggest something practical.

plerdsus
You obviously don't know about geothermal, do your homework.
IMHO, get away from your ideological position.

Dear Bernie,
I tend to rely upon your last paragraph.
It becomes time to come up to speed for us all about 'climate change' and putting the piffle into context with history.

The 'carbon' bubble has already burst even before exploiters of the latest issue of snake oil, those mirroring the past; those attempting gaining a grip on the game of 'carbon manipulation'. (That's "Carbon Manipulation is us" (TM), Prior Copyright, PRSDefence Australia.)

Tulip Bulb futures (a burst bubble), the benefits of investing in and exploiting the Great South Sea Civilisations (another, later, burst bubble), or whatever tissue thin games the crop of "Liars, cheats and thieves" (Joan Baez, forsooth) may ever have offered - have proven to be 'irredeemably' false.

Your humble servant, A NON FARMER, simply tries to draw your collective attention towards truth and chooses at this time to indicate the 'irredeemable'.
Relying upon European history I draw attention to a couple of burst bubbles following a couple of centuries of merchant bankers dabbling with war in old Europe.
Let's not mention the Fuggers.

Their attentions financed constant conflict, empoverished Europe, and led to the age of Exploration.
More to the point - the Age of Exploitation.
Australia is a by-blow of the failed, that burst - 'South Pacific Bubble'.
Any historian worth their salt would know what I mean,
I await their response.
PS - I mention sound historical fact. let's hear a response from an historian.

To reduce emissions we need investment in renewable energy sources. What sort of renewables doesn't matter and we should let the market decide.

To get investment we can charge for emissions and so make fossil energy expensive and make renewables more attractive.

A simpler, less costly, method that will work immediately is to provide finance to renewable energy projects for zero interest.

These plants no matter how much they cost to build will produce energy at a cheaper running cost than fossil fuel plants because there is no cost of fuel.

As we build more renewable energy sources the capital cost will come down and we will soon find the cost of building renewables energy plants is less than the cost of building even gas fired power stations.

What is the cost? The cost is the financial cost of lost interest on not spending on something else. As we spend most of our excess money on consumables including wars I would submit that a bit of lost interest is a small price to pay for stopping climate change.

No need to impose an export tax on coal. It has already been done by state governments which impose a levy varying between 5%-10% on the value of all coal produced, whether for export or domestic use. This has certainly produced cries of outrage from coal mine owners - most recently in Queensland – but it has done nothing to discourage the opening of new coal mines. There is high demand for our coal because it emits such low levels of sulphur products when burned to produce steam for generating electricity.

Of course there are those who believe that CO2 has nothing to do with global warming (do they also believe the earth is flat?) while realists know that it does but contend that the problem is one which we can not do much to change, let alone control. For them we have to learn to live with inevitable climate change. On this latter point, they are quite right.

Yet others believe that we should hasten slowly and act with caution so as not to bring upon ourselves any reduction in living standards, let alone risk damaging the economy. But what if we do too little for too long and thereby create an environment which is so damaging to the economy that our living standards collapse?

Some feel Australian CO2-e emissions are so low that nothing we do will have an effect on the level of global emissions or the climate change which they cause. We should all lie back, enjoy life and let it all happen, rather like the frog in tepid water which is heated to boiling point.

When they sit down and think about it, informed people reject these views. They know that we can reduce CO2 pollution and that we need to do so pdq. Sure we need electricity but there are better and cleaner ways of producing it than burning fossil fuels.

So, dear reader, we know what they are. We should get on with exploring, developing and using them rather than pretending we are a frog passively waiting until the water gets hotter.