I've said it before (http://newmatilda.com/2010/12/08/clean-and-green-doesnt-have-be-nuclear), I'll say it again.

Jim Green is essentially saying that nuclear power in Australia will lead to weapons proliferation, that is, nuclear weapons development, presumably by Australia. While that might have been remotely conceivable in 1969, it’s a patently absurd notion in the Australia of 2010.

What Jim Green is saying is actually even more nonsensical than that. He's saying that the development of a civilian nuclear power industry in Australia will result in nuclear weapons development programs in currently non-nuclear third-world countries. Of course, one of the few risks which might lead to the potential for proliferation is the need for nations to develop enrichment facilities to produce nuclear fuel for light water reactors. It would be wise for Australia to develop its own enrichment capacity to provide fuel to others so they don't have to go down that path. I therefore call on Jim Green to embrace the cause of the establishment of an Australian uranium enrichment facility for the purpose of manufacturing low-enriched uranium fuel for developing countries in order to reduce the risk of weapons proliferation through widespread development of their own enrichment capability.

The anti-nuclear point of view has had a dream run in Australia for more than 20 years but the climate change alarmists among the Greens are proving to be nuclear's best hope.

On-Line Opinion plays a valuable role in allowing challenges to be made to mainstream views, such as the anti-nuclear one.

An emerging forum for debate takes place at the Dan O'Connell hotel in Melbourne. It's called The Monthly Argument. Jim Green was part of last month's Argument, taking an anti-nuclear position with Cam Walker, of Friends of the Earth, against Barry Brook, who sees nuclear as the answer to reducing CO2 emissions, and Arthur Dent (formerly known as Albert Langer) who argued that neither nuclear nor renewables are the answer but rather vastly increased funding into research and development to produce new technological solutions.

Anyway, this debate was filmed and is on-line here (you may need to scroll down to find the November debate): http://themonthlyargument.wordpress.com/past-debates