It is true that some of the views presented in the federal government's draft energy white paper would be of concern to industry, but as a whole, this vision of Australia's energy future is pretty realistic.

From touching on the opportunities presented by growing energy demand in the Asian region to acknowledging that market-based approaches are critical to future success, the paper stands firmly on the ground, especially considering some of the comments that have emerged from the Green side of the political equation.

But I was especially drawn to the understanding that a mature and informed ongoing public dialogue was essential to Australia's energy future.

Here again, reality makes its presence felt with the paper noting that "much of Australia's energy infrastructure is locked in and will only be transformed over time".

While renewables are expected to play a role in the coming energy future, gas along with carbon capture and storage are also expected to be major players in the transition to a cleaner future.

Especially cheering was the paper's noting that all credible analysis - something sorely lacking from the Greens - supported the need for a portfolio approach drawing on the most effective options across the economy to meet Australia's energy needs.

It added that suggestions that Australia move to one or two renewable technologies was neither feasible nor realistic.

"It is a fact that the more we limit our options, the higher will be the cost and the risks of meeting our clean energy and emissions reduction goals."

The Greens' response to the white paper was predictable, claiming that problems could not be solved with the same sort of thinking and that federal Resources and Energy Minister Martin Ferguson planned to keep Australia on its "business as usual" path of coal, gas and uranium.

It also claimed that Australians would be angry that no new standards or demonstrating carbon capture and storage readiness would be imposed on coal-fired power plants.

This fails to acknowledge that the Australian Treasury has forecast some $45-65 billion will be spent to 2050 on coal - primarily on carbon capture and storage - as a result of the introduction of the carbon tax, leading the paper to note that this was the reason behind the government's decision not to impose an emissions standard or a CCS standard.

The comments on uranium are also misleading, suggesting that the white paper is advocating that Australia adopt nuclear power when in reality, all it suggests is that in the event that "new low-emissions baseload power or energy storage solutions" cannot be commercialised in the next 15 years, then a long-term switch to nuclear be considered.

Of course, the less said about the Greens' views on gas, which has never being consistent to begin with, the better.

After all, Greens leader Bob Brown had at one point conceded that gas was less polluting than coal before turning around and setting the party line that the "jury was out" on whether gas would actually reduce emissions.

This is in stark contrast to the white paper, which continues the Resources and Energy Department's and Ferguson's long-standing view that gas will play a critical role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and could by 2050, account for 44% of Australia's electricity supply.

The Greens also failed to mention that the white paper called for the commercialisation of clean energy technologies to be accelerated.

This, the paper said, was critical if the market is to be provided with options that could reduce the longer-term cost of meeting national greenhouse gas abatement goals.

It is not perfect, it is not earth-shattering, but it has a comforting, almost earthy feel to it.