The politics of climate change

Since the Three Mile Island accident in 1979, there has been considerable opposition to nuclear power in America, and obviously the coal mining industry is of great importance. No doubt Mr Obama is aware of these facts, and his plans for emissions trading will be interesting as he juggles the votes involved. No doubt he would like to have his hand forced.

China's President Hu Jintao told the recent UN summit that his country will "vigorously" develop renewable energy and do more to conserve energy. By how much? Well, "We will endeavour to cut carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP by a notable margin by 2020 from the 2005 level," Mr Hu said. Per unit of GDP? That’s interesting.

China currently has 11 operational nuclear reactors, with at least five under construction and 25 planned.

India plans to increase the contribution of nuclear power to overall electricity generation capacity from 4.2 per cent to 9 per cent within 25 years. Their High Commission in Sydney says: “India’s energy security, at its broadest level, has to do with meeting the lifeline energy needs of its population.

“Per capita energy consumption in India is only one-fifth of that in OECD countries. For electricity, the proportion is skewed even further, with per capita consumption being only one-twentieth of the OECD figures. The realization of India’s development goals cannot be possible without a significant increase in energy consumption. While India is committed to the path of sustainable development and follows environment friendly policies in its own interest, it cannot accept any commitment that limits the growth of its energy consumption or to any particular pattern of energy use.”

India’s attitude to ETS proposals is clearly stated and well justified. They currently have 17 nuclear reactors, with more than 20 planned.

Most studies predict that the world will double its consumption of energy by 2050. Both India and China, where a considerable amount of this increase will occur, are major emitters of carbon, have every intention of increasing these emissions, and together will make any efforts at climate control through reduction of emissions clearly impractical. Between them, these two countries are currently building some 650 coal-fired power plants. The combined CO2 emissions of these new plants is five times the total savings of the Kyoto accords.

The main effect of all this will be a significant increase in the use of nuclear power, with ETS providing the political justification. No form of renewable energy, no matter how promising, can provide the world demands for energy in the short to medium term.

What of our own Prime Minister? Australia has a major economic advantage in cheap and reliable power. However, if the rest of the world agrees on emissions trading schemes with economic penalties, Australia will have to follow suit. But do we need to so eagerly promote schemes which will effectively tax our natural advantages? Surely not. Why shouldn’t we at least wait until we know what the nations that can actually make a difference plan to do?

Perhaps Mr Rudd has wider ambitions, and believes that his new found beliefs in economics and the science of climate change will lead to the recognition of his abilities on the international stage. I, for one, do not want to see Australia fall on its own sword to further these ambitions.

And I’m a little surprised that someone who claims to be opposed to nuclear power can be so enthusiastic in taking a position which will clearly increase its use.

Perhaps his hidden plan is to increase exports of uranium, in which Australia has a clear competitive advantage. All it will require is for Peter Garrett to roll over - again.