IF ONLY Thomas Edison could hear some of the climate change furphies that have been doing the rounds this week, he would be rolling in his grave.

Edison's invention, the incandescent light bulb, is about to be switched off permanently soon, thanks to federal government policy to phase out his highly inefficient and carbon promoting invention.

But that probably would not bother one of history's greatest inventors.

Edison, would, however, be wondering how the debate on revolutionising energy production and consumption could have become so derailed.

In 1931 he wrote: "We should be using Nature's inexhaustible sources of energy -- the sun, wind and tide. I'd put my money on the sun and solar energy. What a source of power! I hope we don't have to wait until oil and coal run out before we tackle that."

Decades after his death, we hear the Australian Industry Group saying that government policies to encourage the development of alternative, zero emission energy sources, such as solar power, should be abandoned.

In a submission this week, AiG calls a National Renewable Energy Target Scheme (RET) "ill-advised" and recommends existing renewable energy initiatives be wound back.

It's rationale is that an RET would "likely significantly increase the cost of greenhouse abatement." No kidding!

Using the Federal Government's own emissions projections, Australia will only be able to comply with its Kyoto Protocol carbon reduction targets if it has a renewable energy scheme.

But back to the AiG's "least cost abatement" platform. Nicholas Stern's report spawned dozens of economic studies that illustrate that the least harm to bottom lines will occur if meaningful action on climate change is taken sooner (encouraging renewable energy and a decent carbon price), rather than waiting for the arrival of the global warming catastrophes described by the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change).

McLennan Magasanik Associates has modelled the economic impacts of climate change for a number of clients and repeatedly concludes that emissions trading coupled with a RET would deliver deeper carbon cuts at lower cost than a trading scheme in isolation, contrary to the AiG's view.

It seems, though, that the nation's most high profile promoter of nuclear energy cannot locate the studies that would add weight to his argument.

Ziggy Switkowski claimed this week that if it was allowed to develop, nuclear energy would be the lowest cost, cleanest and safest source of available energy in Australia by 2020.

By 2020, renewable energy technology would have advanced to the point where it is reliable for peak needs, can store excess power and does not upset the electricity grid. All these aspects are being researched today and if stronger incentives are in place, their development would be fast tracked by eager investors.

All new energy technologies will need this welfare, including clean coal and nuclear. Dr Switkowski told BNW yesterday he could not quote from a study that compared nuclear energy to other types of power in terms of cost and safety because none had been done.

He bemoaned the fact that at the moment we have a whole range of studies reflecting the narrow vested interests of those commissioning them, but no overall modelling of all the options in one paper.

"I wish someone would do a study like that," he said.

Hundreds of people couldn't agree with him more. It would mean his claims wouldn't have to be taken at face value anymore.