Ken Fabos,

If the export of coal is the prosecutions exhibit A.
Why is it that of the worlds biggest EXPORTERS in 2007 :
--Australia
--Indonesia
--South Africa
---Columbia
--USA
-- China
http://www.coalportal.com/production_trade_data.cfm?data_type=Export
Only two had been , targeted & bound, by the Kyoto protocol.

Now, lets look at CONSUMPTION ( mindful as I am, that it's consumption that is regular used to indict the West for crimes against humanity)
--China
--USA
---India
--Russia
--Germany
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb1115.html
Again –THE SAME ENIGMA– some of the biggest ‘polluters‘ were not even called in for questioning by the (Kyoto)prosecution.

Now, why do you suppose that is so?

Horus, I see nothing particularly strange that, at the first attempt to face this issue the world's technological leaders should be asked to provide a lead for others to follow. Kyoto was back when acceptance of climate change was predominately confined to scientists and Greens and mainstream politics was doing it's best to convince everyone it was therefore a conspiracy of scientists and greens.
I note that Australia's response to the greatest challenge of our times was and still is unequivocal support for 'clean coal' technology which is code for full support for the ongoing mining, export and use of coal, since 'clean coal' can't ever be a cost effective, low emissions alternative to dirty coal. I also note that Australia and the USA have appeared to keen to do less than the least that their trading partners are willing or able to do than face this challenge head on. The idea that the world's technological leaders might lead the way does look a bit naïve but not as naïve as thinking that closing our eyes, blocking our ears and pretending the problem will go away by itself is the way to ensure the good life we enjoy will be sustainable into the future.

Ken,
It has the smell of politicking for short term advantage.

From the “FIRST”, it should have been presented as a world responsibility.

Too much of Green & allied campaigning was about co-opting Aust & the USA into signing Kyoto .And, to that end, much went into selling the idea that it -all- about the developed world.

Which is probably why, in the SECOND phase, it is proving hard to sell the story that there are other responsible countries– everyone has a part to play.

Incidentally, re clean coal technology , there is interesting argument being run by some in the AGW movement ( post Kyoto, and post those villains Bush & Howard, who had similar aspirations--but were widely ridiculed for it!) –that we cannot expect the developing to stop using coal –rather, we should develop clean coal technology, to pass on to them!

Horus, 'clean coal' requires 3 times as much CO2 to be dealt with than coal burned to make it. Gigatons. It can't be just shovelled into trucks and dumped into a hole in the ground,covered and forgotten. It can't be low cost and will quickly use up the easy to get to geological formations that suit long term sequestration. In the meantime the wishful thinking that it can be a solution feeds the expansion of the use of coal, increases global emissions and diverts resources needed to develop genuine alternatives. The deep drilling technology it would need could, for example, be used to develop hot rock geothermal - perhaps the cleanest alternative of all.
Much as people like to lay blame for the inadequacies of national and international efforts like Kyoto to environmentalists, the reality is the failures are entirely failures of mainstream politics to take climate change seriously.

Hi Horus,

Even if all the technologists, engineers and geologists can make it commercial – I’m sure our coal customers will not be interested in buying “clean-coal" technology (Carbon Capture and Storage - CCS). It’s not just like getting “fries with your burger”, but involves big, big money to build and run. In fact, CCS will increase power generating costs from about $35c per MWh to around $100 per MWh (from the UMPNER report – see page 19, http://www.engineersaustralia.org.au/shadomx/apps/fms/fmsdownload.cfm?file_uuid=43265FF4-B73A-A288-28B0-2940937BFC8E&siteName=ieaust. – this graph’s top end price and beyond is now appearing to be the best estimate of CCS costs). A similar but slightly higher price ($135/MWh) is obtained if you use the recently published carbon price required to make CCS competitive, ie $100/tonne (Science Journal).

A tripling or possibly quadrupling of power generation costs? I don't think so, nuclear and wind power are cheaper than that - so why would any country like Japan, Korea, Taiwan, India and China (our main coal customers) invest in Carbon Capture and Storage? “Clean coal” is a politician’s pipe-dream where they are investing billions of our heard earned money in R&D, pilot- and demonstration-plants so they can fool us into thinking they are "doing something". More Scare, Fear, Spin, Tax and Spend, top-down driven symbolism, without any real consequences, except that we will all be a lot poorer.