I'm Kim B... I'm your pusher
So, the Federal ALP has decided they are not in favour of nuclear power to solve Australia's power consumption woes and alleviate our shocking greenhouse gas emission levels. Obviously, they have considered nuclear power generation too dangerous, not cost effective, and a generally bad idea politically and environmentally.
But, good old Kimbo the White Elephant has given the green light to increase Uranium sales to other countries so they may use it for exactly that purpose. This kind of hypocrisy is usually only found in the seedy underworld of drug culture, and in fact, the parallels of behaviour are quite interesting.
A drug dealer, (let's say for argument's sake a heroin supplier), is usually not addicted to the product he sells. He has decided, for whatever reason, that using the drug he distributes is not a good idea. He is well aware of the risks involved, and the dangers, yet happily sells the substance to other people who are addicted to it, and cannot control their cravings for the substance.
Looking at the supply of uranium for power generation, we see that extremely rarely, if ever, has any country's power demand gone down over time. Global power use continues to rise over time, like a kind of addiction. The more people have, the more they want, in terms of power availability. We have a fuel supply for a system we have deemed too dangerous, but will happily sell it to other countries, while being fully aware of the risks.
A dealer may say he is not doing any harm, it is up to an individual to make their own decisions, and he is just meeting a demand in the marketplace, which would otherwise be filled by someone else. The government may use the exact same justification for the sale of uranium. The only difference being that the dealer doesn't clean up after his customers, while we are offering to be garbage collectors and dumping ground to the customers we would sell to. Shiploads of radioactive waste passing through some of the most populated areas on the planet doesn't seem like the most intelligent solution to any problem.
Do we want our national conscience tested in this way? Would we do the same with substandard produce, or drugs, or other materials? We would not, I hope. And yet this issue is being kicked about like it is just another political football. This has the potential for permanent environmental destruction on a local and regional scale. Where does our responsibility lay? With our balance of payments? Or concern for our fellow inhabitants of the earth?
But, good old Kimbo the White Elephant has given the green light to increase Uranium sales to other countries so they may use it for exactly that purpose. This kind of hypocrisy is usually only found in the seedy underworld of drug culture, and in fact, the parallels of behaviour are quite interesting.
A drug dealer, (let's say for argument's sake a heroin supplier), is usually not addicted to the product he sells. He has decided, for whatever reason, that using the drug he distributes is not a good idea. He is well aware of the risks involved, and the dangers, yet happily sells the substance to other people who are addicted to it, and cannot control their cravings for the substance.
Looking at the supply of uranium for power generation, we see that extremely rarely, if ever, has any country's power demand gone down over time. Global power use continues to rise over time, like a kind of addiction. The more people have, the more they want, in terms of power availability. We have a fuel supply for a system we have deemed too dangerous, but will happily sell it to other countries, while being fully aware of the risks.
A dealer may say he is not doing any harm, it is up to an individual to make their own decisions, and he is just meeting a demand in the marketplace, which would otherwise be filled by someone else. The government may use the exact same justification for the sale of uranium. The only difference being that the dealer doesn't clean up after his customers, while we are offering to be garbage collectors and dumping ground to the customers we would sell to. Shiploads of radioactive waste passing through some of the most populated areas on the planet doesn't seem like the most intelligent solution to any problem.
Do we want our national conscience tested in this way? Would we do the same with substandard produce, or drugs, or other materials? We would not, I hope. And yet this issue is being kicked about like it is just another political football. This has the potential for permanent environmental destruction on a local and regional scale. Where does our responsibility lay? With our balance of payments? Or concern for our fellow inhabitants of the earth?
posted by The Last Scientician at 10:38 AM
7 Comments:
For what reason do you think that this "political football" has been hurled onto the field again? Why now? I see that England are doing the same. http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/may2006/2006-05-17-01.asp Just wondering what your thoughts are?
Distraction? I am not entirely sure what is going on, to be honest.
Interesting that Iran is not allowed to solve their power troubles with nuclear technology, but everyone else is supposed to think it's a fine idea.
There's more to the talk than meets the eye, without wishing to sound paranoid. How does a nuclear power station give anyone "energy security" when it is a prime target fro terrorist activity? And as for climate change, well, yes, nuclear accidents have a fantastic capacity to effect climate change, that's true. But I thought the idea was prevention.
New information comes to light which suggests the following scenario has some bearing on this issue.
1. The last big oil deposit known is underneath central Asia
2. The only way to get it out is by a pipeline through either Afghanistan or Iraq
3. The US has been so far unable to secure a safe route for such a pipeline
4. In exchange for their help, the US has offered to help out its allies by lobbying for their right to use nuclear power to make up their energy shortfall.
I'm all for nukes.
At the moment the choice is coal or nuclear and there are arguments that nuclear is the lesser of the two evils, particularly with regardsw imminent climate change. If James Lovelock changed his mind, so can I. There have been very few deaths as a direct result of nuclear disaster.
BUT, its definitely a precursor to obtaining the raw materials for nuclear weapons, which is why everyone is so angsty about Iran (which has a pretty open policy with regards Israel, among others which makes the nuke option rather scary).
Plus near developing countries with unstable (and perhaps corrupt) governments aren't the best locale for advanced technology requiring constant monitoring and effective disposal of waste products.
And of course, Howard is the master of 'public debate' to distract from national issues - IR anyone?
The only flaw I see in your argument is that all of the speed dealers I know also use their own product...
I have read your blog and never commented before. Do you write a column for a newspaper or magazine? If you don't, then you should consider it, I really enjoy reading what you have to say!
Thanks rebekah, I don't write for a proper publication at present, but such encouragement is noted.
Tobytoby, it's not whether or not nuclear power is safer or cleaner than our current alternatives that bothers me, it's more the hypocrisy inherent in the not-in-my-backyard attitude of the ALP.
Mr. Watts, that's quite apparent, and why I carefully avoided the "party drug" analogy...
Post a Comment
<< Home