Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

You can’t have your yellow cake and eat it too

By Chris Dey and Manfred Lenzen - posted Tuesday, 12 December 2006


The future of Australia’s energy needs has opened a discussion about the various sources of power and how these will be able to sustain our increasing demand over the next 50 years and beyond.

There is divided opinion about nuclear energy with important issues including the potential misuse of uranium, long-term disposal of radioactive waste, and the infrastructure that needs to be created in order to support nuclear power, being cited as key concerns. However, nuclear power is an energy source that will produce less greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, effectively helping to dissipate possibly the even more serious problem of climate change.

While Australia has, in the main, depended on coal as its main source for generating electricity, coal mining and combustions produce high levels of GHG emissions that lead to potentially dangerous climate change. It does not appear that by 2050 renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind, will be able to supply sufficiently large amounts of energy, at any time of demand, to an ever-burgeoning population.

Advertisement

It has often been argued that Australia contributes only negligibly to global emissions, and that China and India contribute much more, and that therefore those countries should be made to act to decrease their emissions. Since climate change is a global concern, it is our considered opinion that this issue addresses all of us equally as people, as personal affluence is the main determinant for the level of emissions.

Twenty five per cent of the world’s affluent population cause 75 per cent of global emissions. Therefore the responsibility for abatement has to be measured per capita and not per country. In other words, we should not be comparing Australia versus India but rather Australians versus Indians.

Emissions in Australia have been increasing at an average rate of 2.3 per cent a year since 1970. The main driver for this is affluence.

In detailed research on the changes in the Australian economy over the last 35 years, we have shown that affluence increases have clearly outstripped technological improvements. The average Australian emits 26 tonnes of greenhouse gases a year, which is about 17 times more than the average Indian.

This demonstrates how the issue of climate change is very much entwined with the issue of global inequity. Why is this so? The basic story is that rich countries have high emissions, and poor countries have low emissions. This is due to material comforts such as cars, plasma televisions, computers, refrigerators, microwave ovens, washing machines - basically modern comforts that are taken for granted in more affluent countries but not necessarily owned by citizens in those less developed nations.

In fact, the average world citizen emits about just five tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) a year. To give all people on the planet an equal right to emit, Australians alone would need to reduce their emissions by 80 per cent, down from 26 tonnes to 5 tonnes.

Advertisement

Of course, this involves a major cultural change that can only commence with the commitment of individuals to make a difference in their lifestyles. For instance: are people really willing to use less power, walk or take public transport rather than drive a car?

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the international body that collates information on the science and impacts of climate change, has drawn up future scenarios that would lead to the stabilisation of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations at 450 parts per million, which is almost double the pre-industrial level.

Under this scenario, we have to halve emissions globally by 2050, leaving just 2.5 tonnes of CO2 a year for everyone on the planet. (Note that this scenario would still lead to an average global warming of +2C and many climatic disruptions.)

To give all people on the planet an equal right to emit plus halving emissions globally, Australians would need to reduce their emissions by 90 per cent, down from 26 tonnes to 2.5 tonnes.

In their submission to the IPCC, the Brazilian Government holds the view that the problem we are now facing is the result of 100 years of economic development by the developed world. The 20th century saw major developments such as motor cars, aeroplanes, refrigeration and television, but it has left a legacy. This legacy is our accumulated effect on the climate over the last 100 years.

According to the 2002 Long-term Greenhouse Gas Scenarios report from the Australian Institute, energy efficiency measures and renewable energy can achieve greenhouse emissions reductions of up to 60 per cent by 2050. However, these emissions reductions are not enough nor, more importantly, will they occur soon enough.

The IPCC says that the earlier and the quicker emissions are reduced now, the better we can avert potentially dangerous climates a few generations down the track.

Researchers have calculated that over the past 15 years alone, Europe and North America have incurred an “emissions debt” of more than 400 billion tonnes of CO2, while the developing world has an “emissions credit” of 100 billion tonnes of CO2.

It would be hard to imagine that if Australia halved emissions, as well as giving each person an equal right to emit, while also repaying our emissions debt, we would be able to do so without nuclear energy.

Therefore there is a “Sophie’s choice” to be made between nuclear energy and fossil fuels. One risks damages from dangerous climate change and one risks damages from radioactivity. While there is no 100 per cent objective and scientific comparative assessment of these risks, which stretch many generations into the future, results of a study by the European Commission and the US Department of Energy indicate that the damages to be expected from fossil fuels are likely to exceed those from nuclear energy by an order of magnitude.

This means there is a clear trade-off between nuclear energy and fossil fuels and this is why an increasing number of scientists are realising that the real question in the debate about nuclear energy is what role our affluent lifestyles and our energy needs will play in the future.

The difficult questions to answer are: is our level of affluence non-negotiable, and if yes, what is the lesser of two undesirable outcomes - the management of the disadvantages of nuclear power (which tend to be concentrated but local) or the dispersed and global consequences of climatic disruption, with even greater unknowns.

Nuclear electricity for Australia has to be considered in this light. By changing our lifestyles and resorting to more humble needs will we be able to evade this Sophie’s choice altogether.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All

Professor Manfred Lenzen and Dr Chris Dey took part in last week’s Sydney Ideas forum: ‘Is Australia’s Future Nuclear?’



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

23 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Authors

Dr Chris Dey is a research physicist from the Integrated Sustainability Analysis Group at the University of Sydney’s School of Physics.

Professor Manfred Lenzen is a research physicist from the Integrated Sustainability Analysis Group at the University of Sydney’s School of Physics.

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 23 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy