Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Climate Change and Water (Senator Wong) to a question without notice asked by Senator Ludlam today relating to nuclear power.

I would like to make some brief comments on the answer to the question that I asked of Minister Wong on the role of nuclear power in the Clean Development Mechanism. As we know, this is an instrument that was devised under the Kyoto protocol as one of its flexible mechanisms. Perhaps it proves in one sense the idea that the road to hell is often paved with good intentions. It is meant to allow industrialised countries to meet a part of their greenhouse gas reduction targets by funding projects in industrialising countries that lead to reduced emissions. It was also meant to assist developing countries in achieving sustainable development. All of this makes a lot of sense on paper, recognising the disproportionate impacts of climate change on the world’s poor and the different responsibilities for emissions reductions that developed and developing countries have.

One of the most important issues is which technologies and practices should be eligible for the Clean Development Mechanism, or CDM. In 2001 the efforts of the nuclear industry globally to claim that nuclear was clean were rejected by the world’s governments. The governments decided that, with the production of more radioactive waste and the constant risk of catastrophic accidents in transport of radioactive fuel and waste, it was simply not worth it and acknowledged the fact that a dollar spent on nuclear power would be diverted away from the development of sustainable energy systems, energy efficiency and effective measures to combat climate change. Of course, this was rather embarrassing for the industry, and it has meant that since that time the nuclear industry has not been eligible for significant sources of financing and—although it has certainly been happy to make the claim—has not had the legal underpinnings of international greenhouse gas reduction measures. Of course, it has never been able to compete in the Clean Development Mechanism market.

The nuclear industry has always required huge public subsidies to do the business that it does and, of course, it needs protection from liability in the event of accidents, tax breaks and so on. They missed out on this new source of subsidy under the CDM. They missed out on being able to claim carbon reduction credits from new nuclear power stations to help them meet emission reduction targets. It is essential to remember—and, I think, often forgotten in the nuclear industry’s claims to be clean and green—that they were in fact rejected. The last time this question was put in international fora, the nuclear industry was rejected, and with very good reason.

The industry knew at that time—as it still does today—that its last hope was in exploiting global concern over climate change by promoting itself as carbon-free energy technology. The case was made in 2001 by everybody else—and the arguments are just as valid today—that the nuclear industry is not clean and that it is simply not an answer to climate change. It is, in fact, a deeply embedded part of the problem.

The reason that this move by the industry was defeated in 2001 is worth recalling. The European Union took a position that excluded nuclear from the CDM by calling for a positive list of safe, environmentally sound and eligible projects based on renewable energy and energy efficiency. The small island states who are already being directly affected by climate change and stand to lose the most—in some cases, their very existence—also strongly rejected the cynical push by the industry. This is crucial because they know the direct consequences of expanded shipments of plutonium oxide fuel and high-level waste through the Pacific Ocean and through their waters. These are the countries with the most to lose at this stage of climate change and they led the charge to reject the nuclear industry being included.

So neither the grave threat of climate change nor the industry’s opportunistic public relations efforts can transform an obsolete, expensive and unsafe industry into a green source of energy, because it simply is not. There is still no place for nuclear in the post Kyoto architecture or various mechanisms or instruments that will be developed. Our government should not be taking a position to Copenhagen to roll the clock back on that clear decision that was made in 2001. That was the reason for the question that I put to the minister this afternoon. She said that, to her knowledge, the Australian government has not taken a position and that she was not really aware of the situation worldwide on whether the industry were making a pitch—which, of course, they are—to be included at Copenhagen. The argument put by the nuclear industry ignores the highly carbon intensive nature of nuclear power and nuclear technology. They like to talk about nuclear energy being nuclear free but not all the other stages in the nuclear fuel chain, which are highly carbon intensive. Those arguments may yet have to come to light.

What has essentially happened? We know that the nuclear industry is mounting a sustained attempt to get this technology accepted under the CDM or its successor within the post Kyoto regime. So what I really wanted to know—and we did not get a clear answer on this from the Australian government today—is: do the government support this push or not? Have they taken a position in these international fora? Will they be taking a position to Copenhagen? We know that, as a consequence of nuclear being given access to the CDM, the Australian uranium mining industry will be knocking at the door suggesting that we should be allowed to avoid making emission reductions here in Australia because of uranium exports. I think that is a key issue that the government need to address. We need the government to rule this out at this stage. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.