COP 17 is now at mid-life, with only a minor sense that there should be anything other than "business as usual". Australia and Canada are threatening to pull out of the Kyoto accord at the end of the first commitment period, favouring "targets and pledges" instead.

Meanwhile, several countries are forging ahead with plans to build coal-fired power stations. By this, we don't mean "clean coal" - just the normal dirty, environmentally disastrous power stations that we have been used to for decades. These power stations emit far more radiation ,cause far more direct deaths, and are responsible for far more indirect deaths from cancer and emphysema than atomic power plants, as well as damaging the environment with carbon and other emissions.

The utilities have a problem. Renewable energy in general does not provide a constant source or "base supply" in the same way that burning fuel or splitting atomic nuclei do. This means that there has to be some means of storing energy when there is plenty, and releasing it when there is excess demand. At present, pumped storage schemes are at the forefront. In a pumped storage scheme, water is pumped up to a high level and stored in a dam until needed. When electricity demand peaks, the water is released through turbine generators as in any other hydroelectric scheme. There are other schemes, such as compressed-air storage and battery banks, but only a few facilities using these have been produced.

The message seems clear. COP 17 is attended by politicians. Whilst they may have genuine concerns over climate issues, they have even more genuine concerns over their re-election. Maybe there are parallels here with the Euro-crisis - where, belatedly, technical leaders have replaced politicians in Italy and Greece.

Still, research into new forms of energy generation continues. I have to be optimistic that there will be a technical solution forthcoming.