My underlying point in all my posts on this subject comes down to this really:
Question 1.
Is the problem real or not? Not the warming as such, but the consequences thereof.
Question 2.
Is it necessary to make a significant reduction in emissions compared to business as usual (that is, growth in emissions) within the next 30 years?
Question 3.
Is the scale of the necessary reduction such that emissions would, in 30 years time, need to be reduced below present levels? (As opposed to simply slowing the rate of growth).
Answer.
If the answer to the above 3 questions is all "yes" then from a practical perspective there's really only one course of action available. And that is to (1) shift away from the direct use of fossil fuels wherever possible and (2) no new fossil fuel power stations of any type to be built.
Point 1 implies a large increase in total electricity consumption. It would vary by region but I'm talking 100% increase or something like that not 5 or 10%. And that's in addition to any increase that would normally have occurred.
Point 2 requires a massive building program for non-fossil power generation that needs to start today. It must thus be based on technolgies that are available, proven and viable today. That limits it to nuclear baseload with a wind and hydro system providing the rest at the national level (the Qld, NSW, ACT, Vic, Tas, SA interconnected system).
This means building nuclear power stations in Australia. It means building a lot more wind farms, many near the coast and on hill tops. And it means building more hydro-electric dams, though not to the point of damming every last creek and flooding
genuine wilderness areas.
If we had 20 or 30 years before ending emissions growth then there's all sorts of things we could do without needing nuclear or wind power.
But if it's urgent then nuclear, hydro and wind it is. Sometime in the future, we can swap nuclear with geothermal and wind with solar thermal for new plant construction. So 50 years time, and it will take that long before we're completely finished with fossil fuel power generation, we'd have a mix of geothermal and nuclear baseload plus a wind, solar and hydro system taking care of the rest. Nuclear and wind would be declining, geothermal and solar taking their place.
Technically it's very doable if properly planned and the economics would likely be tolerable if the rest of the world is likewise acting to reduce emissions.
But sadly, I will guarantee you that mainstream environmentalists will fight every last piece of such a plan. They'll fight wind farms anywhere they can be seen - which is just about everywhere they can be built. They'll fight dams even if the area being flooded is of no real value to anyone. And they'll fight the transmission lines needed to connect it all up no matter where they're put. And no need to mention that they won't support nuclear.
Hence we're stuck with ongoing emissions growth and, at best, a few % of total energy from renewables. That outcome works only if we've got 50 or so years before any real action is needed - many disagree with that but hardly anyone supports the measures needed to do something about it. Hence I don't believe any mainstream politician or environmentalists is in any way serious about this being an urgent problem.
And so that's my point. Either we need to take drastic action or we don't. And if we need to take drastic action then we're stuck with nuclear reactors, flooded valleys and not being able to get around without seeing wind turbines as the consequence. If we had 30 years to start then we can likely avoid doing those things, but we've got no choice if it's urgent.
No easy options unfortunately - that's the inherent problem of energy. Personally, I'm hoping we can wait then go geothermal / solar thermal / hydro with a bit of wind. But that view assumes the problem isn't urgent - many are starting to argue otherwise.