 Political
Corrections
with Margo Kingston
Nuclear power back in the debating ring
Should Australia go nuclear? The question has been bubbling along under the
radar for a while now, what with greenhouse and all, but now Rupert Murdoch's
Australian newspaper has decided it is to be brought onto the mainstream political
stage.
Bob Carr, king of the falling-apart state, said yes quickly. Too quickly? Need
a quick fix yet again, Bob? Sensible way to go in the circumstances, Bob?
One interesting irony is that some of the big nuclear pushers are also climate
change skeptics - or say they are. Huh? There's big money and big power behind
this push, and if citizens aren't careful they'll get nuclear in Oz without a
solid merits debate and the chance to have a good think about whether that's the
right choice.
Still, there's a merits debate to be had alright, no doubt about it.
The ALP's Lindsay Tanner delivered a speech to Parliament on the issue last
week trying to get some decent grounds rules for the debate to follow. He's a
passionate member of the "No" school of thought, but he can't say any
more on the topic because late last week he got back onto the front bench, as
finance spokesman, and he doesn't want to speak outside his portfolio area.
His speech sets out who needs to prove the case and what they need to prove.
Tanner advises us all not to let proponents of Australia going nuclear railroad
the debate by forcing the no advocates to defend their position. The yes case
must prove going nuclear is right for Australians and their children and grandchildren.
It's called "the precautionary principle".
Bottom line - there needs to be a respected public inquiry on the merits to
give Australians a chance to get the facts and the costings, learn about the pros
and cons and consider the other alternatives. No back-door decision then taxpayer
funded spin to sell it on this one, John. This matter is far too important for
that. For example, Lindsay pointed out that there is some tension, to say the
least, between Australia going nuclear and maintaining its brown coal exports.
Think about it.
"The crucial point is that the onus is on those who are advocating change
to demonstrate why that change should occur. As a member of the Labor Party I
know only too well that that onus rests on all of us who advocate change. Advocates
of nuclear power have an onus to demonstrate a genuinely commercial market for
energy without the huge subsidies that have characterised nuclear power in other
markets particularly in Europe and with genuinely accounted for external costs,
such as the additional cost required to protect installations from terrorist threats,
the cost of waste disposal, decommissioning and other issues, properly factored
into the equation. In other words, the proponents of nuclear power have an onus
to demonstrate how Australia would benefit economically as a result of a move
to nuclear power, taking into account the primary rationale which is currently
advanced, which is of course to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.
"They also have to explain how they would deal with issues such as the
location of nuclear power installations in Australia and how waste disposal would
be dealt with."
Tanner also has a swipe at Bob Carr:
"Unfortunately, we do not always get consistency in these debates. New
South Wales Premier Bob Carr has recently called for a rethink about nuclear power.
But on June 7 he said that he refused to have any nuclear waste dump established
in New South Wales. This to me is an amazingly contradictory and confused position.
If nuclear waste is so bad that we cannot even contemplate having it stored in
a state, how can we advocate introducing the process that creates it?
"Clearly, this is a perfect illustration of one of the key issues with
nuclear power: in order to advocate it you have got to include all of the aspects
of the issue within your proposition. You cannot pretend that issues like nuclear
waste are going to be somebody else's problem.
"... I would be interested to see what their view is on the issue of nuclear
proliferation and whether or not Iran should be enabled to develop civilian nuclear
capability, which of course many feel is linked to a desire to develop nuclear
weapons."
To end, Tanner raises the crucial question, one in which all Australians need
to be involved. Do we want to keep our current lifestyle at all costs? Would we
be prepared to make some trade-offs to avoid having to go nuclear?
Tanner:
"The fallacy that always permeates these debates is the failure of those
involved in them to deal with the consumption question. For years Australians
have debated issues like new power stations and alternative energy sources - be
it wind or nuclear power - but have often overlooked the fundamental question
of how we reduce our consumption of energy and how we make our existing consumption
more efficient by using new technology."
And he even makes a practical suggestion:
"This one (is) designed to eliminate or reduce the need for new power
stations through using smart metering based on digital metering technology and
modern telecommunications technology, enabling consumers to manage their own use
and to choose when they use particular appliances and ensuring that they can manage
the costs of their own electricity consumption.
"... Bayard is proposing something that I describe as a reverse user-pays
model where customers will voluntarily agree not to use certain appliances like
air conditioners at particular times of the day or on specified days and, as a
result, they will get a standard rate reduction in their electricity rate. The
same principle applies to congestion charging on roads..."
Smart man, Lindsay Tanner. A future Labor leader, perhaps.
|
