The global warming of debate will be with us for some time, so I'll take the opportunity to state my views. I accept that the Earth's temperature has increased compared to the 60's and 70's although it seems to have leveled off during the last decade or so. I do not know if global temperature will increase, decrease stay the same or what. I am unconvinced that anybody really does either. Certainly I'm unaware that climatologists were able to predict the current stability.
However what I'm really sceptical about is that any government policy can effect climate. I can't see any real benefit in cap and trade proposals. The ETS will enrich financial traders and public servants at the expense of the ordinary taxpayer. Any effect on emissions will be limited, that has been the experience in Europe. The government wants to cut Australia's emissions at the same time they want to improve infrastructure so we can export more coal to China! Why the Opposition supports ETS I don't know. f there must be financial incentives to reduce CO2 a carbon tax is probably the lesser of the two evils.
Now there is a proven effective way to reduce carbon emissions without sending us broke or having to give up air conditioners. Replace fossil fuels with that safe renewable energy source- nuclear power. Solar, wind etc are useless for base load power, they are to intermittent. The Howard government had the sense to start moving Australia in that direction but Rudd has banned any consideration of the nuclear alternative. There are good environmental and strategic reason for going nuclear that have nothing to do with carbon emissions (for one thing it would allow the RAN to have nuclear vessels) but the facts are startling; Australia's per ca pita carbon emissions 16.3 tons, France 6.2 tons. The French receive 80% of their electricity from nuclear power. As far as I'm concerned people who wants to lower our carbon emissions and refuses to support nuclear power are just not fair dinkum.
However what I'm really sceptical about is that any government policy can effect climate. I can't see any real benefit in cap and trade proposals. The ETS will enrich financial traders and public servants at the expense of the ordinary taxpayer. Any effect on emissions will be limited, that has been the experience in Europe. The government wants to cut Australia's emissions at the same time they want to improve infrastructure so we can export more coal to China! Why the Opposition supports ETS I don't know. f there must be financial incentives to reduce CO2 a carbon tax is probably the lesser of the two evils.
Now there is a proven effective way to reduce carbon emissions without sending us broke or having to give up air conditioners. Replace fossil fuels with that safe renewable energy source- nuclear power. Solar, wind etc are useless for base load power, they are to intermittent. The Howard government had the sense to start moving Australia in that direction but Rudd has banned any consideration of the nuclear alternative. There are good environmental and strategic reason for going nuclear that have nothing to do with carbon emissions (for one thing it would allow the RAN to have nuclear vessels) but the facts are startling; Australia's per ca pita carbon emissions 16.3 tons, France 6.2 tons. The French receive 80% of their electricity from nuclear power. As far as I'm concerned people who wants to lower our carbon emissions and refuses to support nuclear power are just not fair dinkum.
The Western Lines is proud supporter of nuclear energy and has signed the petition.
No comments:
Post a Comment