Macquarie Network ::: 2GB | 2CH | LIVENEWS | STREET CORNER | RUGBYLEAGUELIVE | WHAT CAREER | AMAZING AUSTRALIANS :::
Tuesday, 02 December 2008

'We just don't need it': Garrett trashes Libs' nuclear ambition

20/08/2008 11:19:00 AM.  | John Barrington & Anil Lambert-Patel

RELATED ARTICLES

LATEST FEATURES

Nuclear power is back in the minds of the federal opposition, but the government says it's not needed.

Shadow Trade Minister Ian Macfarlane has this week spruiked nuclear power as an answer to climate change, and Brendan Nelson admits it should be considered.

Environment Minister Peter Garrett has told LIVENEWS.com.au Australia has enough clean energy resources to avoid a nuclear industry.

“Australia is in the enviable position of being able to meet its future energy needs by cleaning up coal, significant investment in renewable, making sure that we embrace energy efficiency, taking advantage of the abundant sunlight that we have, geothermal power…” he noted.

“We have extraordinary sources of power in this country and we do not need, nor should we take, the nuclear option.”

Mr Garrett also argued the Opposition has no coherent plan on the issue.

“Dr Nelson has completely backtracked on assurances he gave the Australian people in February when he said the Liberal Party certainly has no plans for Australia having a nuclear power industry at any time in the future

“But within five minutes of his frontbenchers starting to raise this issue again he completely backtracks and reverses his position.”

Yesterday Shadow Trade Minister Ian MacFarlane signalled intentions to tell industry heavyweights that nuclear has to be seriously considered if Australia is to cut greenhouse gases.

Mr MacFarlane was the first MP to make such strong pro-nuclear remarks since John Howard was Prime Minister.

COMMENTS

Wednesday, 20 August 2008

The new Guru of the new cult, Global Warming. Pete has found his calling at last, and i know Rudd will be his preacher.

Posted by: justme ms special, my place

 

Wednesday, 20 August 2008

Peter Who ???????????

Posted by: Dennis Smith, Sydney

 

Wednesday, 20 August 2008

Peter Garrett, the man who sold out on the Greens, the man who wants the GUNN Mill, has what to say? The Opposition is backtracking? Pots and Kettles garrett. Mean much to you? You dont mean much to me Mr. Garrett, ripped me off as a kid then as an adult with your party switch, so your word isnt very sound is it ?

Posted by: Nick Again, maryborough

 

Wednesday, 20 August 2008

Does one need any more proof as to the stupidity and hypocrisy of these Labor morons? They are risking the Nations economy with their useless Carbon Trading schemes. A policy that they naively think will some how help Australia even though our Coal exports are adding a great deal more to Greenhouse emissions than we can ever hope to reduce domestically. Rudd must put his money where his mouth is. If he believes that Global warming is such a serious threat he should ban all Coal exports and have a good look at Nuclear Power.

Posted by: Desmond Harris, Beacon Hill

Wednesday, 20 August 2008

The problem with Banning the coal exports comes down to countries then getting the coal from wherever they can. Australia is blessed with HIGH quality coal, less imopurities to burn. Labor's idea that we have enough power resources points heavily to the Coal we have. We can still mine the coal and ship it while using Nuclear ourselves.Peter Garrett on the Other hand should be the last pollie to talk down at someone for a backflip though. He's king of flip himself.

Posted by: Nick Again, Maryborough

Wednesday, 20 August 2008

Nick-No matter how clean the Coal is it will still create massive amounts of Greenhouse gasses. Now this is where the Rudd inconstancy kicks in - to score points against the Coalition he says that he will go ahead with the Carbon Trading Scheme by 2010 regardless of what the other Nations do. That is his stated policy. To be consistent then he must say that he is going to ban Coal exports regardless of what the other Nations do. He won't do that and that is why I say he is a brainless hypocrite.

Posted by: Desmond Harris, Beacon Hill

Wednesday, 20 August 2008

Des, if he cut the coal export, Where does he get $ from to replace it? What does he do with the 1000's of workers in the Industry? His Union powerbrokers wont stand by and let it happen either. Now after the Coal comes all the other things ripped from the ground, all require Smelting which produces copious Emissions. Stop them too? Mate the world wont have it? I hear what you say of KRUDD n Co, but we have to retain some semblence of rational, much as i dont like Labor, no one can do it.

Posted by: Nick Again, Maryborough

Thursday, 21 August 2008

What Harris no coal shares in your portfolio? Fancy someone like you claiming Labour are morons.Anyone with 10% of a brain knows nuclear cannot compete with coal on a cost basis .So any talk of an ETS being more costly than nuclear is plain rubbish.Maybe Harris you have a few shares in Howards nuclear energy co.Which party do you think will go to an election with a nuclear policy. NONE!!!.Such is the mood of Australians either side will run a scare campaign against the other.

Posted by: Lance Freestone, Cambridge Park

Thursday, 21 August 2008

Nick-Thank you for actually proving my point. Rudd cannot influence the World with his sham of being green. You see if man made Global Warming is true then it means that pollution that goes up in China or India is eventually going to have an adverse effect on Australia. And it will be Australian Coal that is going to come back to harm Australians. So what earthly good is his Carbon Trading scheme going to do? It is just political tokenism

Posted by: Desmond Harris, Beacon Hill

Thursday, 21 August 2008

Freestone-What is it with you Labor people with your jealous hatred of the Share Market. That is one of the reasons why I class people like you as morons-you lot cannot understand that, if one works hard and has a brain, it is all right to make money legally. So now you are worried about the cost of Nuclear energy as compared to Fossil fuel energy-I would have thought that you ultraistic Laborites would simply be interested in which one was going to create less greenhouse gas. Go and give yourself an upper cut you fool.

Posted by: Desmond Harris, Beacon Hill

Thursday, 21 August 2008

Des - Freestone obviously doesn't want to prepare for his retirement...or doesn't understand how it all works. Maybe he just waits for handouts?

Posted by: Geoff Bolton, Lane Cove

 

Wednesday, 20 August 2008

Even the founder of the greens has woken up to the fact that we MUST go nuclear. http://www.nuclearaustralia.com

Posted by: Wayne Smith, QLD

 

Wednesday, 20 August 2008

Garrett, Rudd & Co. represent ideological dinosaurs. Nick has it right as does Des, and most of the other "intelligent" contributors here.

Posted by: Geoff Bolton, Lane Cove

 

Wednesday, 20 August 2008

I am a bit of a greenie, but I want it done properly & i want any transfer of power systems to take into account economics. I don't care about the global warming arguments, I just want cleaner fuels, and coal is dirty. I have always been anti nuclear, based on safety & waste concerns. Can anyone convince me otherwise (in laymens terms please).

Posted by: Concerned Liberal, Minto

Wednesday, 20 August 2008

Ok..lets start with Options. Coal..Filthy. Gas, high in emissions, doesnt burn as black. Solar..Hmm long way away. geo thermal, still in developement. Wind, How much land do you want to resume, is least on emissions. Nuclear,can destroy all if it melts down, waste can be an issue( depending on who you listen to), with a life of 1000 odd yrs( not 200,000 like some say). Costs, i know nothing about. We have fuel here though and should set up a peoples miine for it, to cut costs.

Posted by: Nick Again, Maryborough

Thursday, 21 August 2008

Yeah - thats kind of what i'd worked out - and therein lies my conundrum. I want cleaner, but i absolsutlety am not prepared to do some half arsed measure, that is not ready, just as dirty, or dangerous!

Posted by: Concerned Liberal, Minto

 

Wednesday, 20 August 2008

Nuclear; Too dangerous, (The still have not managed to fix Chernobyl.) Too expensive, when all the costs are added up it's extremely expensive. Not needed, this is important. No safe storage available. Nuclear is not the solution, the industry is corrupt, pollution is covered up and lies are the norm. Pro Nuclear people go and spend a month right at the Chernobyl site, stay there, eat food grown there, and after a year we'll talk about it. Some things can't be swept under the carpet.

Posted by: Graeme Henderson, Darling Downs

 

Wednesday, 20 August 2008

Nick, for one of those "uneducated" people, you seem to have the FACTS on many issues. Perhaps you can help some of the intellectual academics get it right. Australia does have coal with far less impurities than some countries. Peter Garrett and the Tasmanian State premier , Lennon, both supported Gunns, and I have seen their clear felling areas in Tasmania. A debate on nuclear power is long overdue. Stay uneducated Nick, you speak more sense than many who have degrees. Life is the best teacher.

Posted by: susan lowe, gippsland

 

Wednesday, 20 August 2008

Graeme you should travel to Sweden, take a look at their Nuclear power and the storage of its waste. Chernobyl was an accident waiting to happen in a country depressed and with little compassion for its peoples welfare or safety.Serious talks should happen before we committ to anything, unlike the rudd dudds hysterical carbon emissions tax he wants to saddle us with to fill the coffers. tax grab, no different to the alcopops. His only source of info, Gore and economists. your to hysterical gh

Posted by: carol lyn, sydney

 

Wednesday, 20 August 2008

Chernobyl/long Island style reactorslike GH are OLD tech. Nuclear generators of today "seem" to be going ok at present. Waste issues, Graeme we have waste all over this land sitting in Shipping containers, we need to start getting this isuue on the roll NOW! Safe storage? Tell that to Sweden old boy. Personaly, I'll continue to use electricity where ever it comes from,Gas coal or Nuke. Dont forget, New technologies will come to help deal with that waste. Emotion clouds this issue not science

Posted by: Nick Again, Maryborough

 

Wednesday, 20 August 2008

Garrett and Rudd are hanging onto the tails of the Worlds newest religion. The new Religion shall be named Global Warming and its diciples shall be Gore, Rudd, Garrett.They shall bring the new scrolls to you and the new ten commandments. Commandment 1: Thou shalt stop breathing 2: Thou shalt not exhale 3:Do as I have said unto you, pay more taxes. 4:Do not allow those who shall oppose us to speak 5:Thou shalt not have cars, hot water, lights. 6/7/8/9/10 Thou shalt pay more pay more pay more tax

Posted by: justme ms special, my place

 

Wednesday, 20 August 2008

Justme, It seems that KRUDD n Co are on track to have the economy stalled in our near future, so we wont be able to pay for anything. The loss of Jobs tally is going skyrocket, and the New controls on bussiness with the ETS means morer will loose jobs yet. Garrett say" they have no coherent plan". So far all the KRUDD n co have to show is a broad area of possibilities? Nothing solid, just possibilities, reviews will be needed to go further of course, maybe we should wait a yr or 2 for the report

Posted by: Nick Again, maryborough

 

Wednesday, 20 August 2008

is kevin rudd or peter garret going to put food on the table when you loose your job for no gain.

Posted by: david keg, griffith

 

Wednesday, 20 August 2008

China is going to build more than 30 reactors, UK is going to build 10 reactors to replace the old ones. France has 80% of it power from reactors, Sweden is building the biggest reactor in Europe, Get the message Garrett, swan and Rudd. what does this say about your economic vandalism of the Australian economy.

Posted by: Andy Mac, HK

 

Thursday, 21 August 2008

Andy Mac, HK. What economic vandalism? How would utilizing very expensive nuclear energy help the economy in ways that renewable energy won't? From here the economy looks pretty good, and when one looks at the global situation it could hardly look better. Nuclear is outdated technology, there is plenty of better alternatives and it will be interesting to see how much it costs to decommission those French reactors, and where they store the polluted material.

Posted by: Graeme Henderson, Darling Downs

 
 

YOUR SAY




 


 

500 characters maximum. 500 characters left.


 

* Required field