It has been inevitable that the silliness of the NZ hysterical position on nuclear power would clash with the desire to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
To try and have a rational debate, let us not talk about NZ but China. There are actually reasonable grounds on which to say nuclear power isn’t necessarily a viable option for NZ (which is very different to saying it should be banned).
Let us talk about China, and their impact on the world environment.
China is the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world. And a major factor in this is their coal mines, with a new one opening every week or so.
Now unless one wants to argue that China’s economy should not be allowed to grow and lift more people out of poverty, then you accept China needs more and more energy.
Now if it keeps building coal mines, then their greenhouse gas emissions will continue to skyrocket. Plus around 5,000 Chinese citizens a year die in said mines.
If they build nuclear power plants, then there are basically no additional greenhouse gas emissions.
So does someone want to make a case that China should keep using coal instead of nuclear, that this will somehow be better for China and/or the world?
As Bush says:
“If you truly care about greenhouse gases, then you’ll support nuclear power. If you believe that greenhouse gases are a priority, like a lot of us, if you take the issue seriously, like I do and John [Howard] does, then you should be supportive of nuclear power.
“After all, nuclear power enables you to generate electricity without any greenhouse gases.”
Now the Greens would have us believe climate change is so bad we are faced with global extinction. So surely the relatively minor risks of a nuclear leak pale in comparison with
Now again I am not talking nuclear power in New Zealand. I am talking about whether nuclear power should be endorsed generally as a preferable power source to coal.
Why would a Government with aspirations of carbon neutrality not endorse nuclear power as an option for other countries?