BENNY....your previous

"IT"...'s got nothing to do with Politics.... left many open questions.

If the 'it' means.....

"The future lies in intelligent, infinite and non damaging energy supply."

Then I take your point. But the issue itself has been very politicizied and I find it difficult to separate the 2. What it does have to 'do' with politics is this.

It will be the politics which determines where grants and funding go.

Pretty s-i-m-p-l-e no ?

Watch your footing on that perch 6foot above contradiction there :)

Grim, you make some interesting points. I said artificial increases in the cost of carbon based power generation. You raise the issue of “justifiable” increases, based upon two premises. The first is based upon the costs of restoration of the environment following extraction. That is a fair point and I doubt anyone would argue against it and that cost should be, if it isn’t already, factored in.

Your second premise was that “carbon” as a pollutant has not been factored in. Correct, it hasn’t. Until and unless there is broad based scientific agreement that carbon is a pollutant or a problem, it should not be factored in. When I say broad based I mean that both sides of the scientific community must give us a verdict and agree on something.

When I said “artificial”, what I meant was the pricing, trading and/or taxing of carbon based energy without confirmation it is a problem, then it is artificial.

The issue of what we do with the carbon revenue is another matter entirely. Should it be used for adaption, mitigation or to fund the development of renewables? I don’t know the answer because nobody has answered the question, is carbon a problem?

One comment I endorse solidly is the nuclear option. It is renewable, clean, efficient and low cost compared with any other renewable. The only reason I believe this is because the French have demonstrated it.

Sadly we are told we can’t have coal, we can’t have nuclear, some don’t want wind farms at any cost, solar is great if we don’t have to send its electricity on wires and the rest just doesn’t work at all. So what is going to power our societies?

spindoc - has someone learnt how to synthesize uranium? I hadn't heard.

<< So what is going to power our societies? >>

Maybe we'll have to learn to use less energy. I don't suppose that alternative has occurred to you?

What an absolutely lovely sentiment CJ Morgan.

We, the current generation, can’t agree on future sources of energy. There are many options however, various sections of our society at some stage object to all of these. As a consequence of our persistent failure to make decisions, you, our future generations are destined to have reduced opportunities and a lesser quality of life because the only option we can come up with is to “use less energy”.

We call this protecting your legacy.

"broad based agreement"?
Considering the agreement between climate scientists is hovering at around 100%, I can't imagine how broad based it needs to be. Sounds like Spindoc's mum saying "You wouldn't believe it, Our little spindoc was in a parade on the weekend, and he was the only one in step!"
But just for argument's sake, let's forget I used the word 'carbon'.
Will you argue that pollution is a good thing?
Using non renewable resources to depletion is a good thing?
Turning forests into deserts is a good thing?
Creating the greatest mass extinction since the age of dinosaurs, a good thing?
Leaving our children immeasurably poorer than we were, a good thing?