Nuclear power should be an option in any carbon debate

EARLIER this month, Deputy Leader of the Opposition Julie Bishop opened the door to a nuclear debate in this country. It received surprisingly little attention given how politically risky advocating nuclear power can be.

"I believe that if your priority is to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions, then nuclear power must be in the mix", Bishop told Australian Agenda on Sky News. Pressed on whether that included nuclear power being used specifically here in Australia, she answered: "We don't have a need to at present, because we're reliant on coal." But this soon followed: "If the carbon tax taxes the coal industry out of existence, we will have to find an alternative baseload low-emission technology, and that's nuclear power."

Coal, as we know, is a very dirty means of producing energy. Alternatives such as renewable energies don't provide sufficient base load power to be anything other than an adjunct to a more substantial way of producing energy.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition put her cards on the table. If Australia wants to move on from the use of coal to fire its power stations, and thereby pursue long-term emissions reductions, we need to consider nuclear power. More than consider it. Bishop put it up as the clear alternative. The time might not be right now, as Bishop enunciated. But it will come, unless we determine not to act in more than a token way on climate change.

We need to remember there are two unofficial ideological factions in the Liberal Party on this issue: those who believe in climate change, but are politically cognisant of the divisive effect it can have on party unity, and those who don't - the so-called climate change sceptics. The latter are outnumbered by the grouping Bishop is a part of, but the events in late 2009, when Malcolm Turnbull was rolled as leader, still haunt the consciousness of MPs.

The opposition spokesman for climate action, Greg Hunt, is another member of the first group. He has echoed Bishop's observations, but with a strong political caveat. "I have no in principle objection (to nuclear power) in Australia, but (hold) an absolutely firm view that we would need bipartisan support or otherwise it could both rip communities apart; and secondly, there's always the sovereign risk of a future government changing the investment regime. So until there's bipartisan support, I don't see it happening in Australia."

Rip communities apart maybe, and a sovereign risk if a new nuclear sector risked being wound back by a new government, certainly. But these roadblocks are distractions from the real barrier: nuclear power would be political poison and Hunt knows it. That's a defining difference between the modern age and reforming periods from the past. There is no guts in modern politics. Imagine if John Howard had taken that view on the GST.

In the aftermath of the ongoing problems in Japan, now is hardly the time for a debate on nuclear power to gain momentum. But that doesn't diminish the need - for environmental reasons no less - to have one. We shouldn't forget that for all the problems at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant in Japan, radiation exposure has been contained. Compare that to the many deaths each year from coalmining.

Were Australia to implement a nuclear program, we wouldn't need to worry about unstable geography: Australia is considered the most stable land mass. We are ideally suited to take advantage of our massive uranium reserves. And as the world's highest emitter on a per capita basis, nuclear power is an obvious choice for anyone serious about reducing our carbon footprint.

Yet Labor strongly opposes nuclear power while advocating a tax on carbon, which it pledged not to introduce during the last election. The Coalition passionately believes in nuclear power, yet it is pursuing a direct action plan that doesn't support a nuclear industry. No courage there.

Meanwhile the Greens - a party that is supposed to look after the environment - have the future of the Labor government in its hands in the House, and will soon control the Senate and with that the national policy agenda. Greens will go on standing up for the environment by blocking the only option to seriously protect it from climate change. If they got their wish and nuclear power was wound back globally, emissions in countries such as China, the US, France and Italy would skyrocket.

No wonder people seriously interested in policy debates shun politics and choose to pursue other career interests instead.