jump to navigation

Even Obama does what Rudd won’t dare February 17, 2010

Posted by BlueGreen in Author Comment, Hypocrisy.
trackback

Bolt’s Post 18 February, 2010

The issue of nuclear energy as a low-CO2 alternative is one that I’m completely open about and, given my conviction that we need to urgently do something about CO2, also one I’d advocate for, even if only to demonstrate to ideologues like Bolt that the issue really is serious.

But, let’s look at Bolt’s post and consider what it says about his consistency and integrity on this issue. Bolt says:

Barack Obama says yes to two more nuclear power stations:

To meet our growing energy needs and prevent the worst consequences of climate change, we’ll need to increase our supply of nuclear power. It’s that simple.

But somehow it isn’t simple to Kevin Rudd, the alarmist who claims global warming ”is the great moral challenge of our generation” yet is too much the timid populist to do the only useful thing that could slash our emissions by what he wants:

Our policy is that Australia has multiple other energy sources and we will not be heading in the direction of civil nuclear power.

Setting aside the fact that the USA likely has very different energy needs to Australia’s, consider the fact that the chief obstacles in implementing a nuclear energy program in Australia would be:

  1. Public concerns over safety and radioactive waste disposal;
  2. Changes and job losses associated with the change from a coal-based energy system to nuclear.

Whilst I would expect that any government, Coalition or Labor could change public opinion if they really wanted to, I think it’s the latter that would present the real problem.

But now, look at how this issue so readily demonstrates Bolt’s hypocrisy. He’s apparently completely open to the idea of changing our whole energy system and willing to take on all the economic uncertainty and disruption that creates in order to implement a nuclear program but has constantly preached economic doom should we consider such a strategy with using other alternative energy solutions to combat AGW.

Hypocrisy and, given what economic studies have actually shown, misrepresentation. Pure and very simple.

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: