Fine we'll burn coal, oil, and gas instead.

The fact of the matter is we need guaranteed energy sources in order to keep our economies going. It's all well and good championing wind or solar energy, but that's no good when there's no wind blowing/too much wind blowing or when it's night time. And we all know bio-fuels are a con, along with hydrogen which requires vast amounts of energy put in in order to achieve very little hydrogen out. Even Honda admit that their hydrogen prototypes aren't commercially viable because obtaining enough hydrogen relies upon electrolysis powered by fossil fuel or nuclear sources.

Those who say we need to reduce our lifestyles and all live on beans and greenery are living in an imaginary dream world. Do you honestly think the populace/governments of China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam and India are going to sacrifice economic growth and development? Do you think people in Europe and the USA are going to give up their cars and meat? Of course they aren't. People are inherently selfish, something all of the do-good to nature philosophies ignore. People aren't going to convert en mass to vegan diets, hemp clothing and sustainable lifestyles devoid of mod cons and electronics. That's a simple fact everyone likes to casually ignore.

Even the majority of 'green' anti nuclear/fossil fuel protesters these days appear to be made up of confused middle class student activists. Who seem to be happy enough to attend the odd protest but when push comes to shove are they going to give up their Costa Coffee's, iPhones, Peugeot 106's, and laptops? Are they shit.

Farmers oppose nuclear dump

 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/09/437313.html

wind power in UK has massive potential on the west coast despite the nuclear lobby & nimbies. Geothermal in flooded mines, geothermal power stations in granite or near more hot rock regions like Southamptons geothermal power station.
Hydro electric in the UK enough said, with hydro powering most of scotland + used to pump out the sea & clear land in the east.
Third world countries in a way have a new fresh start to use these technologies & follow successful methods of using methane from human,animal & vegetable waste that millions of chinese use to power their homes & cook with. If we do this more industrially methane could power 1/3 of our cars from anearobic waste digesters.
Nuclear fusion, the "safer" nuclear option, isnt needed, though if you can get that working it may help until we get the safer sustainables in place

Cynic: "Those who say we need to reduce our lifestyles and all live on beans and greenery are living in an imaginary dream world. Do you honestly think the populace/governments of China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam and India are going to sacrifice economic growth and development? Do you think people in Europe and the USA are going to give up their cars and meat? Of course they aren't. People are inherently selfish, something all of the do-good to nature philosophies ignore. People aren't going to convert en mass to vegan diets, hemp clothing and sustainable lifestyles devoid of mod cons and electronics. That's a simple fact everyone likes to casually ignore."

It's not a case of choosing whether we reduce our numbers and impact on the planet, but whether we do it voluntarily or not.

We can do it ourselves in a manner that will be relatively painless, or if not Nature will do the same thing for us a bit later which will involve large scale suffering and deaths.

Nuclear power is a Big Government techno-solution, and those have a habit of not working very well in the long term...

I wish there was an easy answer but I'm afraid it's going to involve hard work from all of us.

It's quite simple really: divert wasteful expenditure on the military and its energy wars, nuclear bombs, bailing out bankers, coal and nuclear power, airport expansion, etc, to:

Reducing energy demand:

- Energy efficiency and conservation, reduced consumption across the board; includes free wall and loft insulation for all. Massive energy savings possible. This is the quickest, easiest and cheapest step.

- Reduced meat and dairy consumption, local sourcing of food and goods.

- Decent and affordable public transport infrastructure to reduce need for cars and internal flights; car-sharing lanes and more bicycle lanes


Sustainable energy supply:

- Massive programme of onshore and offshore wind development
- Development of energy storage technologies to overcome any intermittency issues
- Hydrogen cell technology and electrically-powered vehicles to replace oil
- Combined heat and power (co-generation)
- Concentrating solar power in the Sahara with d.c. transmission
- Microrenewables with feed-in tariffs
- Small scale hydro
- Environmentally-sensitive tidal
- Wave
- Geothermal
- Waste biomass, biogas

All of this is achievable and affordable. No more straw man arguments about nuclear vs coal please.

Thank you Monty for bringing us down to earth with a bit of common sense mate.

"It's not a case of choosing whether we reduce our numbers and impact on the planet, but whether we do it voluntarily or not. "

That statement from the depopulator above is a threat against human lives.

There is no 'overpopulation' simply a vile disparity in ownership and control of resources.

And suprise suprise, climate change is being caused by the self-serving 'shop til you drop' profit margin policies of the same major corporations, BP, Shell, Cargill and the usual suspects.

The corporation in its present form must go to see any real shift of power and resources back into our own hands. Otherwise it's all just corporate PR theatre.

I agree there is "a vile disparity in ownership and control of resources" but I think there is overpopulation too. And it's growing all the time, and is is logically impossible for that to continue unless we start moving to other planets, which I think will create more problems that it solves, even if it was possible.

What population level do you suggest the world can sustain that gives human and non-human inhabitants a decent quality of life and a nice place to live in? 1 billion? 10 billion? 100 billion? How do you propose to keep it at that number? Just by sticking your fingers in your ears and letting nature take its course by using feedback loops like famine, epidemics, war and similar? Thanks very much, but I think my way is far better than that.

I think it's the pro-breeding lobby that are inhumane and threatening human lives, basically setting us up for massive deaths and suffering in the future. Voluntarily keeping population levels to a reasonable level by not breeding so much is the way to go, and will involve no suffering or loss of lives.

There is an in-built instinct to procreate, but I think we are intelligent enough now to realise our rational mind can override some of our baser urges. Contraception means we can enjoy sex without all the grief of children that can come with it.

You only have to look out of the window to see concrete and agriculture has taken over virtually every square inch of land. That's not the kind of world I want to live in.

All of your are still ignoring the blindingly obvious point, nobody is going to convert en mass to the green movement.

I'll confess I am playing the devils advocate in this debate, however nobody has really come up with a reliable solution for getting everyone on board. When the majority of the public still think climate change and even ozone depletion caused by CFC's (which is proven beyond doubt) are myth concocted by the government to raise taxes and attack the middle classes, how are you to go about convincing them to get on board? I've sat down and discussed peer reviewed papers with people only for them to ramble on about the great government tax conspiracy and plant eating greenies that just want to spoil their fun.

Despite education, debates, peer reviewed science, new technologies (despite being a green advocate I still doubt the efficiency of many technologies), etc. There has been a massive increase during the past two generations in wasteful lifestyles. Just look at the attention something as inane as the iPhone generates, look at the sheer number of units they're able to ship and sell in a matter of weeks. People thirst for the latest technologies regardless of their impact upon the planet or the people that make them, just look at the massive expansion of Primark and Topshop (you can even protest outside them and still thousands go in and make purchases). You tell people to change their diet both for the climate, health, and animal suffering issues... still people don't give a shit. People are inherently selfish and no matter what you throw at them they're just not going to play ball.

I've had debates with young people on this too, supposedly the generation that is going to make a difference. Whilst you might get one or two that care, the vast majority are either totally apathetic and do not care/see no reason to act, whilst the rest think you're off your rocker and making things up.

One girl even retorted that her aspiration in life is to work in London and own a Land Rover. Says it all really. Even in India we've seen this attitude beginning to spring up, why should we change if the people of the West are not? Interestingly India and China have two of the biggest expanding personal car markets in the world, if you think what we generate from our cars in Europe is bad revisit this post 10 years from now. The governments of developing nations like China and India are not going to curtail economic growth and industrial expansion no matter what people in the West say. Hate to be a realist but it's just not going to happen.

So before you even go onto the costs of renewables you can see you have a mountain of a problem to climb before you even get down to any action. Secondly electricity from renewables costs more to produce even with heavy government subsidies it is still cheaper for mr Joe Average to use E.on, British Gas, or whatever other company than it is to use a totally green supplier. Why should the average member of the public spend more for their electricity when they can get it cheaper from a provider that burns fossil fuels? How do you go about convincing everyone that despite the higher costs it will worth it to switch, bearing in mind that the majority of people still think climate change is either a myth or not their responsibility?

How do you go about telling Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia, and Kuwait "sorry chaps but you can't export oil and gas any more". You honestly think they'll be ok with that? You think they'll sacrifice a large proportion of their GDP to prevent climate change? Come off it, even now they're building wasteful golf courses in the desert, sky scrapers at sea, and de-salination plants to support said expansions.

Lets face the honest truth, people aren't going to switch en mass to the green movement no matter what we tell them. They'll continue to purchase their iPhones, wide screen LCD televisions, and cars regardless. When the natural oil deposits run out, they'll turn to tar sands and coal to oil conversion technologies. Will this be unsustainable and selfish? Yes, but we will they care... they'll be dead before anyone has to face the consequences of the actions.

Cynic - you ask "why bother?"

Maybe it is the sight of 'greens,' 'science,' 'religion' and 'state' coming together in the Big Lie to
push nuclear new build while the so called civilian nuclear industry routinely commits crime on crime against civilians and the next generation of supernasty nuclear weapons are designed in a 'centre of excellence.'