Skip to main content

COMMENT: Australia’s Nuclear Future?

 The recent announcement by the leader of the Federal Liberal National Party for a climate action plan for Australia’s transition to net zero emissions based on seven nuclear plants with a mix of renewables of gas and renewables, has ignited concern and controversy.

This is not surprising given the latest independent polling (18 June 2024) on this issue in Australia by the Essential Report  which indicated that: -

  • “People think the best way to achieve our net zero by 2050 target is by developing renewables rather than developing nuclear (63% to 37%)”.

The poll highlighted the reason why public interest environmental controversies continue to ignite conflict when environment/anti-nuclear positions and development/pro-nuclear positions collide.

The unfortunate outcome for the information conflict situation, in this case, is a red corner ~v~ blue corner scenario!

Instead, the focus should be on managing the information conflict created by divergent opinion over relevant and reliable scientific information.

When the environment is in issue,

conflicts over information, limitations in the available information, and values

will invariably be the primary sources of conflict.

Misinformation can also be a feature in complex environmental problems.

Resolving the scientific information conflict over the future for nuclear that exists today in Australia requires a conflict resolution approach.

In this regard, the Scientific Round-Table, a structured process for evaluating and resolving divergent viewpoints on relevant and reliable science in environmental conflicts, warrants consideration for managing and resolving the existing conflict over nuclear in Australia.

Moving forward, the challenge for political parties then becomes one of deciding on the appropriate National Plan for a power system for Australia to transition to net zero - consistent with binding Paris Agreement obligations for reducing emissions e.g., equity and sustainable development.

 A power system must not only be predictable and dispatchable – but also affordable, reliable, sustainable and secure. The Plan should lead to a commitment that can be implemented and to not become an illusory promise - a promise made which is uncertain, indefinite, vague or impossible to fulfil.

The framework for the National Plan should evaluate a mix of options to find the optimum balance between renewables and other feasible and viable climate action options e.g.,  natural gas, nuclear, hydro, tidal, carbon capture and storage technology, clean energy technology, carbon offsets or credits, carbon sinks - which include forests, grasslands …

The problem for a National Plan today

is that there has yet to be an effective evaluation

for the mix of Net Zero options proposed for Australia,

in terms of complying with  the binding Paris Agreement obligation

to promote sustainable development.

This issue continues to be the elephant in the room. But the accepted methodology for undertaking a systematic and objective evaluation in this regard, exists from the environmental sciences and planning.

  • At the very least, Australians should demand our politicians adhere to the legal concept of “due diligence” and provide the community with a Risk Analysis (Risk Assessment/Risk Management/Communication) of their Plan for Australia’s energy security.
  • The communication of risk to the community is crucial for providing information that leads to an understanding of risk to the Australian public posed by potential climate action options for reducing  emissions.

KEY WORDS: Climate change; net zero; renewables; nuclear; relevant, reliable science; scientific round-table; due diligence; risk analysis; Paris Agreement

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Resolving Cultural Heritage Protection and Development Conflicts on Indigenous Lands

“ P rotecting cultural heritage and development are not mutually exclusive; we can have both, but projects have to be well-designed.” Federal Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek (2024).   The recent decision by the Federal Environment Minister to shut down a tailings dam for a gold mine development, to protect Indigenous cultural heritage, has ignited controversy and conflict.   The controversy is not only over the decision’s impact on the viability of the Regis Resources’ Gold Mine Project at Orange, Central-Western NSW.  It has also highlighted the complexity of the problem when cultural heritage protection (with its focus on Traditional knowledge) and  development (with its focus on Western science) collide over future land use. There is now  community concern that history may repeat in Australia for development projects proposed on Indigenous owned and controlled lands. However, there would be little dispute that the above statement by ...
Post a Comment
Read more

What is the Status of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice Process: The Decision End Point or a Decision-Making Aid? A Conflict Management Perspective

            Divergent public opinion and controversy has arisen in Australia over a referendum the Federal Government intends to hold later this year. Specifically, that an advisory body known as the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice (“ the Voice ”) may make representations to Parliament and the Executive on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. However, the available information to facilitate voting  about the “ the Voice process ”  at the referendum has been an issue.     A conflict management framework  was applied to address this issue. The focus was on the  “interests”  (or  needs and concerns ) about the Voice process that the public have in relation to the referendum question –  rather than the voting   “position”  they may hold . The features of “ the Voice process ” were compared with public participation processes for resolving public int...
Post a Comment
Read more

Environmental Evaluation of Development Proposals. Case Study: The Adani Project ~ A Need for Review?

Some form of objective review of the environmental evaluation and approval processes for the ‘Adani Carmichael Coal Mine and Rail Project’ is warranted to address the reasons the final approval was granted  in June 2019.  In a series of articles that follow, the scientific and public interest concerns that ignited the conflict, litigation and delay will be reviewed in a conflict resolution framework .  Must history repeat? 1.   Acceptance of Scientific Findings: Best Available Science ~v~ Relevant and Reliable Science TAGS:  Adani; coal mine; conflict; best available science; relevant and reliable science;  Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc               The focus of this article is on a source of information conflict that created scientific uncertainty for Adani: Different interpretations of the scientific information base as to what is “the best available science”. READ MORE … The next art...
Post a Comment
Read more