Why has the Australian government suddenly embraced Global warming?

Question

And at the same time has endorsed Nuclear power stations as the cure for Global warming. Is the Au government trying to scare the people into excepting Nuclear power ,because Australians have been so opposed to them? Is this a back door to fool the people into excepting radioactive poison plants . It also seems funny that a friend of The prime minister has started a nuclear power producing company before it has been decided by the people if they are having these plants in the first place. Has the decision to build them already been approved?

Answer 1

Your suggestion is right in there, but the main reason is that we are just coming up to an election, and Howard, ever wise to the pollsters has cottoned on that it is a really important issue to voters, and so he has done an about face on it.

The nuclear thing has fairly broad bipartisan support. No decision to build stations has been passed, and don't expect one any time this side of the election.

Answer 2

To carry on the Nuclear theme, here in the UK while Nuclear ha s govt. support there is a serios problem of siting due to predicted rising sea levels. Remember nuclear plants need access to massess of water for cooling, the sea is rising and there is stormy weather on the way.

They may not be able to find a site south of the scottish border, which means inefficiently connecting the supply to the demand in the SE. Wind power is already at saturation point in Scotland due to the distance problem.

reduce, reduce, reduce,

Answer 3

Like George Bush, the Australian government has been overcome by the tidal wave of undeniable scientific evidence. Denying global warming is not tenable anymore.

Many environmentalists now support nuclear power, simply because global warming is clearly a much bigger threat.

We can build nuclear plants that are safe and safe from terrorism. We're good at that kind of engineering problem.

We know how to bury the waste safely.

http://www.wipp.energy.gov/

It's just a political problem to designate sites.

Solar and wind can't do the job, yet. A reasonable goal is to build a lot of nuclear plants now and retire them without replacement at the end of their life span.

Answer 4

Hey Algore liked it


Another reason is that the nuclear lobby has enjoyed a long and profitable relationship with both Clinton and Gore. Al Gore, who wrote of the potential green virtues of nuclear power in his book Earth in the Balance, earned his stripes as a congressman protecting the interests of two of the nuclear industry's more problematic enterprises, the TVA and the Oak Ridge Labs. And, of course, Bill Clinton backed Entergy's outrageous plan to make Arkansas ratepayers pay for cost overruns on the company's Grand Gulf reactor which provided power to electricity consumers in Louisiana

Ok ya thumbs down I know, that's how Algore used to feel about Nuclear power, now that the Nuc industry has no big carbon foot print like coal it has no use in Algore's carbon offset trading for profit hence not a viable power source according to algore

Answer 5

Nuclear power is one of the safest industries in the world. People are just scared of modern technology, especially when they don't understand it.

Why is the gvmt accepting an idea? My bet is there's an election coming up. Politicians tend to do what it takes to get elected, even lie if needed. Remember the Roman saying "Vox populi, vox dei"