Prime Minister John Howard looks dead set on a nuclear future for Australia - apparently "after the release of a report which found that 25 nuclear reactors could significantly cut greenhouse gases". The reports we have at hand indicate that the statement "significantly cut greenhouse gases" is perhaps overstating the case a little. It's interesting to note that John Howard has always been very reluctant to concur with mainstream scientist's views of human-induced global warming... even up until very recent times.

Howard, a close ally of US President George Bush, has refused to ratify the Kyoto protocol on climate change, which aims at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Australia's only nuclear facility has caused controversy even as far away as France

Australia is one of the world's biggest exporters of coal, used widely in power generation, and Howard has strongly supported coal companies despite calls for more renewable energy.

Howard only recently conceded that global warming was a reality and his critics say he is now pushing nuclear energy in a bid to bolster his environmental credentials ahead of a national election due by the end of 2007.

"The government is now scrambling to create a perception that it is doing something, knowing full well that nuclear power is too slow, too expensive and too dangerous to provide any answer to global warming," Greens Senator Christine Milne said in a statement.

Environmental group Greenpeace said Howard's nuclear push was "charging down an expensive, irresponsible pathway"....

Howard has consistently ruled out a carbon tax or carbon emissions trading, saying it would adversely affect the coal industry, which is a major employer. - IOL

It would appear a lot has gone on in Mr. Howard's mind over the last month, as his time-frame on this issue has evolved rather rapidly since this November report:

The Prime Minister, John Howard, suggested yesterday no decision on nuclear power would be made before next year's federal election. "We're talking about a debate that is going to go on for some time. We can't expect instant policy gratification," he said.

Mr Howard would not say whether he was in favour of as many as 25 nuclear power stations or whether he would introduce a carbon tax. He has previously said another taskforce would examine carbon prices. - Sydney Morning Herald

This will become a clear cut election issue:

The Opposition Leader, Kim Beazley, promised no nuclear power stations would be built under a Labor government.

"If John Howard is re-elected, we will go down an inexorable course for 25 nuclear reactors … and tens of thousands of tonnes of nuclear waste. If the Labor Party is elected we will go down the path of clean coal and renewables." - Sydney Morning Herald

If this is legitimately intended to slow greenhouse gas emissions, someone might want to tell Mr. Howard that a little more urgency is needed:

No plants are likely to be in operation before 2020 because of a lack of skilled workers, the need to create a regulatory framework and winning public support, the taskforce warned....

The report suggested that if the 25 stations were built, Australia's greenhouse gas emissions would be between 8 and 18 per cent lower by 2050 than if it continued to rely heavily on coal. But emissions would still rise significantly. Scientists have warned emissions need to be reduced by 60 per cent by 2050 if the dangerous effects of climate change are to be avoided. - Sydney Morning Herald

I don't think many will be able to take Mr. Howard's enthusiasm for nuclear to truly be aimed at greenhouse gas emission reductions. But, since he's only just conceded that global warming is a credible issue I guess he does have a bit of catching up to do...

 

Likely locations of new nuclear facilities

 

 

Want to comment? Visit the Celsias Lounge and find or start a topic!