Scrap this green energy target. Remove these blights It's a hell of an expensive way to wreck our views. So why hasn't the Abbott Government already scrapped the scheme that foists these follies on us?: AUSTRALIA'S mining giants are demanding the Coalition abandon the renewable energy target, warning the scheme is slugging electricity consumers $1.6 billion a year. In a rare united submission obtained by The Australian, groups including the Minerals Council of Australia and Australian Uranium Association have said that repealing the carbon tax is just the first step in reforming climate change policies and that the repeal does not address "other overlapping areas where policy is out of sync with broader economic imperatives, such as the expensive subsidies for certain technologies under the renewable energy target." Under the RET, 20 per cent of electricity will be sourced from renewable energy by 2020. "The RET is a costly and inefficient infant industry scheme which should be repealed," the submission to the Environment Department says. And the difference the renewable energy target - with all its wind farms and solar power - will make to our climate? Zero. How is that greens, usually the first to protest when development spoils the scenery, cheer the wanton vandalising of our coastline by wind farm developers? How is it that most greens, the first to demand a stop to global warming, fight the one technology most likely to slash our emissions? True, there are some exceptions: Four of the best-known scientists espousing the belief that humanity's carbon emissions are an immediate and deadly threat have issued a statement begging their fellow greens to support nuclear power. Doctors James Hansen, Ken Caldeira, Kerry Emanuel and Tom Wigley co-signed an open letter over the weekend in which they address "those influencing environmental policy, but opposed to nuclear power." The four scientists write that "continued opposition to nuclear power threatens humanity's ability to avoid dangerous climate change ... there is no credible path to climate stabilization that does not include a substantial role for nuclear power." Thanks to readers Diogenes and Peter of Bellevue Hill.