To Quote Garnaut:

"The global task of mitigating climate change will be more difficult and expensive if nuclear energy doesn't play a significant role in the energy future."

While advocating large scale use of natural gas in the short term, deeper cuts in emissions in the medium to long term would require zero emission technologies of which nuclear is presently the strongest contender.

It is notable that Wayne Swan has not mentioned this information also contained within the Garnaut report. Methinks it would probably not do much for the Carbon tax debate.

It is junk opinion and public comment such as this that has drive our country politics to its present lows.
Nuclear power, is an answer but not right now.
I support its introduction as soon as possible.
But come, it is the federal governments report, they released it,and surely know its contents.
Labor,wrongly in my view, is not supporting ,yet, Nuclear power.
Japan, the apparent lie its government has told from day one.
Its unwise refusal from day one to take advice it stations are unsafe, building on moving ground ,has left country's removing theirs.
Australians should note, such as this is weakening our country.
Abbott claims to believe in man made climate change, Shadow Minister,in posts this week says he believes in a carbon tax BUT NOT YET.
NOT UNTIL HIS TEAM IS IN POWER?
Be very much aware good government should be the aim not pointless point scoring.
Abbott, a man known to be anti worker visits factory's to tell them he is better than Gillard.
HE is now whipping the left telling them to get out on the streets and protest about? the ALP!
How will this conservative mess help its NT and northern farmers if Abbott takes sides with animal rights for political gain.
Nuclear power is in my country's future, my party has some within it who know that.
While we are waiting why not pass the tax/ETS numbers exist within conservative ranks to by pass lost GREENS it if Abbott's personal interests are not put before country's interests.

The 'nuclear connection'. A good title for a conspiracy movie.

There was an 'if' in that quote SM. Whether or not a Carbon Tax is implemented is a separate debate to nuclear energy.

There is not much point in dealing with the reported moral challenge of our time (climate change) if actions by governments serve only to replace one moral challenge with another.

I thought you would be all for it SM, aren't you an advocate for nuclear engery?

If they started build reactor designs like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toshiba_4S

or this: http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/610

and I'm with them all the way.

Nuclear has a nasty tendency to externalise costs, just like coal does. The main ones are long term storage costs, and the enormous clean up bill if they go wrong. That creates an unfair playing field, as the subsidies to wind and solar are obvious and up-front.

These designs are buried and small, minimising both the capital losses and the cleanup costs if something does go wrong. And because they are buried and small, and their waste is short lived, the answer to the waste disposal problem simply can be switch them off, leave them in the ground and wait 100 years for the radioactivity to reach the same level as the ore the fuel was made from.

The other nice property they have is they are built in a factory and carted to the site. In other words, they are mass produced. The first few will cost a small fortune, but the cost of mass produced items has a habit of dropping quickly over time.

As it is Shadow wants us to build a great stonking Gigawatt plant like Fukushima. Shadow, you must be smoking something if you think anybody will buy into that vision right now.

Pelican,

I am all for nuclear, but I would guess that the bunny huggers that make up the remaining 28% that are for the carbon tax would run screaming if they thought that with a carbon tax that nuclear would be on the horizon.

Yes they would SM but what is your point. Your arguments are similar to some religious fanatics who equate climate change supporters with evolutionary theories and atheism as though somehow the state of being 'one thing' ie. Christian, automatically excludes a variety of different opinions within that demographic.

How does one's opinion of a Carbon Tax have anything to do with drawing conclusions about attitudes towards nuclear energy. They are two different subjects.

I support saving old growth forests but am against a Carbon Tax. Gee whiz I don't know if that means I am a bunny hugger or not. Most environmentalists are not bunny huggers as rabbits are pests so I am assuming you mean middle class australians who run pet shops.

You are making false assumptions, particularly given Garnaut himself has raised the nuclear question suggesting not all bunny huggers are anti-nuclear.

Don't forget the Coalition has policies around moving into a Carbon Trading economy. Abbott himself mooted a Carbon Tax as one possible option. I always suspected Abbott was a closest bunny hugger.