Recent talk of a “debate on nuclear energy” by John Howard and Peter Costello and others raise the issue about how our democracy should handle this topic. In reality, there really is no debate. The public sees and hears a variety of opinions expressed by politicians and think tank consultants aired in newspapers and on television. Views can also be expressed via editorial comment (Age 30/4/06).
However, this is no debate. The dialogue is edited and controlled by media interests and public relations consultancies. The public can engage in a limited way by writing letter to editors or to politicians. The former has a slim chance of being published and the latter is just put onto a pile.
In the run up to the next election, the nuclear power issue may get some more airtime. However, if both the Coalition and the ALP under Kim Beasley have similar policies, Australian’s who don’t wish to embrace nuclear power, nuclear waste and expanded uranium exports can only express their views at the ballot box by voting for a minor party such as the Greens, who oppose the development and spread of nuclear power.
Unfortunately, as the Greens are unlikely to win government, this means Australia will be stuck with policies that may support the development of nuclear power, the storage of toxic nuclear waste, increased uranium exports, and anything else the major parties deem appropriate and curiously agree upon.
We need to have a genuine debate on whether Australia should embrace nuclear power or not. We need a debate in the federal parliament so we can see and hear what our politicians’ views are and what they are based on. We also need to see how they are representing their constituent’s views.
We need an independent scientific and social enquiry to assess the pros and cons of nuclear power based on factual information, not just opinions, which the Australian public can read and assess. This enquiry should take public submissions.
Then we need a referendum that asks Australian voters whether they support increased uranium exports, investment in nuclear power over renewable energy technologies, and whether they agree with Australian becoming a dumping ground for other country’s nuclear waste.
We need a proper public debate that is well informed, followed by genuine democratic process so that we all have input in determining how our energy needs are met for the future.
Links
However, this is no debate. The dialogue is edited and controlled by media interests and public relations consultancies. The public can engage in a limited way by writing letter to editors or to politicians. The former has a slim chance of being published and the latter is just put onto a pile.
In the run up to the next election, the nuclear power issue may get some more airtime. However, if both the Coalition and the ALP under Kim Beasley have similar policies, Australian’s who don’t wish to embrace nuclear power, nuclear waste and expanded uranium exports can only express their views at the ballot box by voting for a minor party such as the Greens, who oppose the development and spread of nuclear power.
Unfortunately, as the Greens are unlikely to win government, this means Australia will be stuck with policies that may support the development of nuclear power, the storage of toxic nuclear waste, increased uranium exports, and anything else the major parties deem appropriate and curiously agree upon.
We need to have a genuine debate on whether Australia should embrace nuclear power or not. We need a debate in the federal parliament so we can see and hear what our politicians’ views are and what they are based on. We also need to see how they are representing their constituent’s views.
We need an independent scientific and social enquiry to assess the pros and cons of nuclear power based on factual information, not just opinions, which the Australian public can read and assess. This enquiry should take public submissions.
Then we need a referendum that asks Australian voters whether they support increased uranium exports, investment in nuclear power over renewable energy technologies, and whether they agree with Australian becoming a dumping ground for other country’s nuclear waste.
We need a proper public debate that is well informed, followed by genuine democratic process so that we all have input in determining how our energy needs are met for the future.
Links
- A disaster we must not repeat, Christine Milne, April 26, 2006
- Nuclear power: it's time to face the realities, Age editorial, April 30 2006
- We want big role in nuclear club: Howard, Michael Gordon, May 14, 2006
- Safely, greenly nuclear, Ian Hore Lacy, April 28 2006
- GHOST TOWN - KiddofSpeed - Chernobyl Pictures, Elena
