The Forum > Article Comments > Nuclear power can save billions > Comments
Nuclear power can save billions : Comments
By Martin Nicholson, published 15/12/2011Do we really want to spend $700 billion on foreign carbon permits? According to Treasury, this is the likeliest way for Australia to meet its emissions reduction target by 2050.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- Page 3
-
- All
As things stand at the moment, I understand that with our forests and agriculture Aus is virtually carbon dioxide Neutral! And greenhouse Neutral. So, what's our problem?
How many other countries have a smaller carbon footprint? Africa, South America and maybe a few parts of Asia? So, which countries will have greatest need to buy carbon permits? USA, China, India, Europe, Japan? Will there be enough credits available to go round? And, at what price, and with how much verification? And, are the big polluters going to participate fully in the first place?
The major polluters will have no option but to either go (increasingly) nuclear or invest enormously in renewables. (Or, to purchase increasingly scarce offset permits, or just opt out.) We, on the other hand, have an opportunity to invest modestly in renewables, matching increases in our further industialisation, and still remain virtually carbon neutral. No need for Aus to go nuclear at all, as long as we don't try to get too big - and population management will be key, as well as avoidance of increasing industrialisation too rapidly or extensively.
I think we have been sold a pig in a poke, making ourselves big guys in the international climate arena, and setting unnecessary carbon reduction targets for ourselves while the big polluters laugh behind our backs.
We need greater honesty and transparency in the whole climate and carbon debate, and I hold our current government at fault in selling us down the river on an absolute fiction.