Sticking with the spirit of ten years of energy policy debacles.
Lest we inadvertently enable another ten years of absolute nonsense at the country's expense there's a couple of things I need to get off my chest about nuclear and the Liberals and Nationals.
Lest we inadvertently enable another ten years of absolute nonsense at the country's expense there's a couple of things I need to get off my chest about nuclear and the Liberals and Nationals.
1. It's fine to have a debate about nuclear. I doubt we'll need it in Australia, but if you think we need to hit net zero by 2050 (and we do), everything should be on the table, including nuclear.
2. But if we are having this *debate*, it can't be devoid of context.
2. But if we are having this *debate*, it can't be devoid of context.
3. First thing to know: nuclear was explored by John Howard back in 2006. That debate led Howard to accept the rationale for a carbon price, which he supported in the end by backing an ETS in 2007.
4. Roll forward to Tony Abbott. The Coalition went from supporting a carbon price to opposing it. Nuclear morphed from a means of facilitating a carbon price to a means of delaying one. Ever since that point, the Coalition has invoked nuclear to DELAY the transition.
5. All the research I've seen says nuclear is not economically viable in the absence of CO2 pricing or massive government subsidies. So when Libs/Nats say they support nuclear, they need to be asked: do you support a CO2 price? Can you quantify the $ value of taxpayer subsidies?
6. If they are not pressed on these questions, then this is a debate about nothing, leading nowhere. Which is the story of the past decade in climate/energy policy. Which is partly why we are in the mess we are in today. Best not to keep enabling the mess. Seriously.
#auspol
#auspol
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
