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