“IPCC summary report
The Summary for Policy Makers from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) notes nuclear power as a currently available commercial climate change mitigation technology, and advanced nuclear power as an option before 2030. Overall, the IPCC reports greater confidence that the effects of global warming are evident and serious, and that action is needed to limit the consequences of future climate change. The component reports were published earlier in 2007.
IPCC 17/11/07.”
I copied this from the UIC site [http://www.uic.com.au/wns1123.htm ].

Clearly, the IPCC is not adverse to nuclear energy and uranium mining. I wonder how this fits in with the pre-election statements of the Australian labour Party?

While I accept that Australia's per capita emissions must decline, I don't believe it necessarily follows that those of say, Bangladesh must increase. These kind of squabbles fly in the face of the urgency of the problem and have lead to some of the notorious abuses of the clean development goal. There are the complications of offshoring of pollution (such as switching manufacturing to China) and whether less developed countries are to some extent to blame for their plight such as overpopulation.

I think a practical approach is to start with a clean slate in which every country must begin to cut emissions. Developed countries may still have a low wage advantage even if they have to burn less coal. As a completely separate exercise wealthier countries should help poorer nations with cleantech or reforestation. This help should not be done in expectation of an inflated deduction against profligate energy use by the wealthy countries.

I suspect there are too many conflicting agendas at Bali to come up with something workable.

If Rudd and his large delegation at Bali think they are going to provide leadership the first thing they need to do is demonstrate that Aus is a leader. This does not mean having a bunch of meetings for the next 5 years but rather by clearly demonstrating the working technology and political leadership required that will meet the reduced emissions targets and shut down all the coal powered energy plants.

If the government started today to put in nuclear generating plants to replace the coal plants we could have enough on line to support the base load requirements within a few years.

When the anti-nucs state that there is too much lead time required they are counting all the delays and court battles that they initiate in the US. If the government is serious the lead time could be cut in half.

At this point I don't think Rudd and co. are serious enough to take the bold leap forward. They would rather plod along with half-way measures like thousands of windmills dotting our shore lines and thousands of hectares of mirrors and photovoltaic cells covering our great red centre.

I apologise for being boring. However I know of no other way except to repeat the fundamental point about climate change that is NEVER mentioned.

The point is that unless the world addresses the need to limit human population, all other efforts will be in vain.

YOU WILL BE URINATING INTO THE BREEZE.

It could be that this tactic is deemed useful in combating the drought, as it will do nothing else.

If the population of the third world (you know, the lot that must be allowed to burn as many forests as they wish), doubles in the next 30 years as current trends indicate, they will have to halve emissions just to maintain the current unsustainable situation.

Why won't people recognise and discuss this? What is this guilt that the left seek to impose on everyone? If you are so concerned to reduce the gap in living standards between the first world and the third, the only way possible is to REDUCE the standards of the first. Would someone please try to explain this position, as I cannot.

Rudds call from Government can only do so much and then.... the rest is up to us as an entire nation.

I congradulate business groups (including farmers) for their courage to help us challenge ourselves to face the future.

I thank all who voted Rudds Government as a means to attack this problem of Global Warming.

I ask that we understand the situation of village peoples in Asia and other countries (as we jointly learn about our own woes) and that we fight the crimes that are blocking the pathway to ground level safety everywhere along-side global futures.

I am proud of Australia and the ways we are expanding our knowledge against all odds, to come to terms with our place in the rest of the world.

We have a role. We need to do by example.

http://www.miacat.com
.

Brendan Nelson is out touch on nuclear reactor power plants and the Kyoto Protocol.
In a speech on those matters on 18 April 2005 he said;
"Australia has rightly refused to sign the Kyoto protocol."
"But in addition to this, is it not time to consider in the longer term the most obvious power source, nuclear power?"
"It is not only in electricity production that nuclear energy offers potential for Australia. It could also be used to fuel water desalination on a large scale."Never ever count your chickens Howard was just one puppet so was Thatcher, Reagan, Nixon, Osama bin Laden, Pinochet, Franco, Hitler there will always be another to take their place those who breed fear, racism. scapegoats will always be a threat while they own the media. We only have to look at why we were defeated in Western Australia.
Brendan Nelson has no strength or belief in his position even on important matters like the reason for troops being in Iraq.
Iraq deployment linked to oil: Nelson (ABC Online 5 July 2007)
ABC Online Thursday 5 July 2007 reported that Brendan Nelson admitted "oil" was a factor for going to war in Iraq.
Reporter: Is the fact that Iraq is a major supplier of oil a factor in why Australia has to stay there?
Nelson: Well, the defence update we're releasing today sets out many priorities for Australia's defence and security, and resource security is one of them, and obviously the Middle East itself, not only Iraq but the entire region, is an important supplier of energy, oil in particular, to the rest of the world, and Australians and all of us need to think well what would happen if there were a premature withdrawal from Iraq.
Iraq never about oil: Nelson (ABC Online 6 July 2007)
Only one day later, on Friday 6 July 2007, ABC Online reported that Brendan Nelson said;
"Iraq has never been about oil"