Did anyone see the Doha debate on BBC World last night ?
Kevin Rudd was on it with the ambassador for China plus three NGOs representatives.
The subject was world resources depletion.
They discussed food a lot and rare earths but oil got no more than a
mention in a list of other things early on.
After that it was never mentioned.

Seems rather odd considering that the OECDs IEA World Outlook 2010 has
said that crude oil peaked in 2006.
It is no wonder that conspiracy theories get traction.

Kevin Rudd waffled a bit but otherwise showed up well.
He ran his global warming hobby horse a bit but studiously avoided oil.

SM
My first post clearly outlines concerns with the ALP's decision to revisit the nuclear option. Read carefully...A..L..P...

No, I don't claim to be impartial about nuclear power as an alternative. I think nairbe is right in suggesting part of the solution has to be reducing energy consumption as well as using what we can of renewables in the long term. No solution will be perfect but for many people nuclear waste is a legitimate and genuine concern.

It is foolish to pretend that nuclear waste is a non-issue in this debate. It is too important just to be used as a political football and I oppose it no matter which party proposes nuclear as a solution.

nairbe says,

<< we are not prepared to make any sacrifices to our over indulgent consumer based selfish and destructive lifestyles.>>

<< We will grow our population because we need the growth to drive an economy based in selfish indulgence. >>

<< to approach the issue by first considering ways to seriously reduce our energy consumption.>>

<< This will require us to make some sacrifices but is not impossible. Population control would be a good start.>>

<< and making real environmental consideration when approving development rather than profit first.>>

For many it seems that on the one hand it is critical to leave a clean green planet as legacy to our grandchildren. Whilst on the other hand we and our grandchildren will have to endure a crippled economy, limited consumer choices, profitless businesses, shrinking energy production and population control, leaving a future generation restricted to the very bottom levels of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.

Before wishing a pox on your ideology, your grandchildren will have every right to ask,

Is that really the best you could come up with, sacrifices?

For all those who suffer the terror of Nuclear Power Generation, I guess you would all reject a free holiday in France?

Pelican,

For many people climate change is a serious concern.

Instead of simply talking about "risks" and "concerns" perhaps you could try and quantify the "risks" or storing waste, or the risks of a nuclear accident in a modern reactor.

When you do so you will find the risks much lower than those of the present energy industry of coal, gas and even wind.

The real problem that no party is addressing is the impact of population growth on energy demands. There are risk factors associated with most forms of energy and you are right that one has to weigh up those risks - for many nuclear is a bridge too far.

Coal burning is only a problem because our populations have grown (local and export demand) and until there is greater security in the developing world ie. access to education and stable employment, unchecked population growth will affect everyone.

The effect of a nuclear accident and potential for 'dirty' bombs would be catastrophic compared to the effects of even coal based power. The same ingenuity that MIGHT reduce the nuclear waste problem might also increase the effectiveness of renewable energy.

Making fun of people's 'concerns' about nuclear, just because they don't marry with yours is not the way good debates should be structured and is typical of inter-party dialogue. We should at least aim to be better than that for which we are mightily fed up.

Pelican,

Again, what would happen in a modern plant if there was an accident? Certainly not anything like Chernobyl. The containment vessel would prevent this. (Which the 1950s designed Chernobyl lacked)

Probably no where near as serious as the recent NZ coal mine disaster.

No one talks of the Bhopal gas disaster that killed nearly 5 times as many people as Chernobyl and whose legacy lingers on for far longer. Or the thousands that die each year in coal mining.

The annual road toll in Aus is half the total Chernobyl disaster.

One can make a far cheaper and more effective dirty bomb with Anthrax than with spent fuel rods, and how would anyone get hold of them from Australian plants?

There might be risks with nuclear, but the alternatives are far worse.