In response to michael_in_adelaide, Friday, 8 June 2007 11:19:38 AM
where we are directed to the Secure energy: options for a safer world
ENERGY SECURITY AND URANIUM RESERVES by Jan Willem and Storm van Leeuwen http://tinyurl.com/2v2prr as a definitive document.

For those really interetsed in the broader debate suggest you read at least one formal rebuttal from University of Melbourne at http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/TheScienceOfNuclearPower

"It is worth noting that the widely quoted paper by Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen and Philip Smith (SLS), which gives a rather pessimistic assessment of the Energy Lifecycle of Nuclear Power, assumes a far larger energy cost to construct and decommission a Nuclear Power plant (240 Peta-Joules versus 8 Peta-Joules(PJ)). "

There follows at the end quite an informatve debate with rebuttal and counter rebuttal .....assuimg the group is interested in such a thing!!

Just tell us Liam,how Australia can change the world by stopping the burning of all our fossil fuels,while the likes of China and India just accelerate their their pollution at a hundred times our present rate.You and the Greens just have a problem with logic,who live in an ideological world divorced from the constraints of reality.

I don't agree with this so called globalised community that gives power to big Govt and big business,however Labor offers us nothing different and don't confront the realities of cheap third world products that destroy our domestic industries.

Why do we bother having ANZAC Day and paying homage to those who fought for our freedoms when our Govts of both Liberal and Labor persuasions just ignore the inequities of a fictictious level playing field that will continue to give power to big business?

At least Malcolm Turnbull is not a hypocryt,Therese Rein used the Coalition's IR reform to become very rich,while her husband Kevin Rudd,seeks power denegrating the very system that has made the Rudd family very rich.

The Howard family are paupers in comparision to the Rudd family,yet Howard and Turnbull are the men to be hated because it does not sit well with left leaning philosophy.

Hate is based on ignorance and fear and the left leaning in our society are too often consumed with this poison rather than engaging in rational debate.

Thats a Straw Man from Arjay (http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Straw%20man), i never said we should stop burning all fossil fuels, neither I think does the Green Party (but not being a member i'm not sure about that).

In the same sentance he claims, "China and India just accelerate their their pollution at a hundred times our present rate", which is of course nonsense: Australians are responsible for over 26Tons of CO2 equivalent GHGas emissions per capita, both China and India are well under 10T.CO2eqGHG/capita. Why are RightThinkers so very bad at fact checking?
Arjay goes on to try playing on envy of Theresa Rein & Rudds wealth, meanwhile moaning about lack of rationality, hypocrisy rampant!

The "But look at China/INdia!" excuse on high rotation in Australian media (as obedient journalists parrot Howard & Turnbull) overlooks the well known fact that we are the biggest coal exporters in the world: 250 million tons a year, nearly double #2 (Indonesia) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal#Major_coal_exporters.

If it will be so easy and okey-dokey to control use of our uranium (as the pronuclear fans claim), how come nobody is even whispering the possibility of doing same for coal, one of the biggest single sources of greenhouse gas emissions? I'd ask one of the fossil fools in our COALition government, but then they don't do questions do they (as Turnbull is demonstrating here).

Will Mr Turnbull and Arjay be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century?

Only yesterday, the Australian reported the results of a poll conducted by "Pollinate" of 1,034 respondents.

Only 19% preferred the Federal government's focus on nuclear and clean coal.

74% favoured a greenhouse strategy based mainly on energy efficiency and renewable energy.

Among coalition voters, 60% supported renewable energy and and 35% nuclear or clean coal.

77% preferred to get their electricity from a renewable source, while only 8% favoured nuclear power and 1% favoured coal.

Solar energy was the preferred choice for 50% of all respondents.

Only last week, I received a volume from the Dept. of the Prime Minister and Cabinet titled "Uranium Mining, Processing and Nuclear Energy" - all 288 pages!

One wonders what that volume cost the Australian taxpayers who are being force-fed the coalition's maniacal plan to escalate radiation levels on this planet, which have already caused millions of casualites!

Liam,forget the per capita analogy.If China or India fail to curtain their populations ,that is their problem,not ours.We have negative population growth yet cower into submission when the likes of the United Nations scream racist?

It is about time that third world countries were told to activily control their population growth,since their growth is adding far more to greenhouse gases than perceived Western decadence.

Arjay, on a number of issues the Coalition Government has had to make policy on the run to adapt to what the Labor Party has been making policy on. Broad Band and Climate Change are two such issues.
My last post read "Garbage, Mr. Turnbull"; it is not about how wealthy he might be, but about how not very long ago Mr. Howard was expressing comments suggestive of him being a skeptic. Mr.Turnbull claims that Australia is in the vanguard of Nations who are creating positive change in relation to Climate Change/Greenhouse Effect. That is garbage, nothing but spin.
It's a pity the Greens have not been taken notice of, they have been voicing concern about the Green House/Climate Change issue for a couple of decades.

I'm not a paid up member of the Labor Party, or any other Party for that matter.