Paul Gilding: Ecological landslide fuels nuclear debate

August 23, 2005

The Australian

23aug05

IF we're going to have a nuclear debate in Australia, then let's have an honestone that puts all the options and arguments on the table, not just theconvenient ones.

Let's start that debate in the Siberian tundra, where a sleeping giant may havewoken. A vast area within the one million square miles of peatbog that has beenfrozen since it formed 11,000 years ago is turning into a mass of shallow lakes.It was described by the scientist releasing the study as an "ecologicallandslide that is probably irreversible".

Why irreversible? When peatbogs melt, they can release one of the most potentgreenhouse gases, methane. If enough is released, and in Siberia there arebillions of tonnes locked below the ice, it can directly accelerate globalwarming and thus more is released. In theory it can end with the ultimateclimate nightmare - runaway global warming.

So maybe we'll look back on the Siberian tundra as the 9/11 of climate change -the point where everything changed. That remains to be seen, but what is clearfrom this and many other indicators is that considerable transformational changeis now on, ecologically, commercially and politically. So that's where thenuclear debate starts. In the peatbogs of Siberia.

Forget the ideologues who argue that we have no choice but to keep burning morecoal or the economy will suffer. When the choice comes between a runawaygreenhouse effect and changing our energy use, infrastructure and technology,the latter will win an election every time. As a species we may be slow, butwe're not stupid.

So in this context, to nukes. One of the key principles of sustainability, andone accepted by environmentalists and governments around the world including ourown, is product stewardship. The logic is simple. If you put something outthere, you need to accept some responsibility for the consequences, even if theproduct's use is not directly under your control.This is why we see McDonald's acting on obesity, Ford and Toyota on climatechange and BP on air pollution.

If we accept this principle, there are only two morally defensible positions forAustralia on matters nuclear. Either we sell uranium, use nuclear power and takeback nuclear waste for storage in Australia or none of these. It is politicallyconvenient for the Howard Government to raise the nuclear power in Australiadebate as a distraction from their agenda of selling more uranium. However, ifthey are serious about nuclear power, they should be proposing that we ship ourshare of the world's nuclear waste back to Australia and store it herepermanently.

If the South Australian and West Australian governments want to expand uraniummining because of the economic benefits it brings, they should have the courageto also propose to their electorates that they host storage facilities forhigh-level nuclear waste. After all, 240,000 years is a serious, long-termeconomic benefit.

Done well, this also could be incredibly strategic and lucrative for Australia.Imagine Australia providing long-term, geologically safe storage for nuclearwaste in the Australian outback as part of its sales package.

This could be extended to providing the service for the retirement of nuclearweapons and associated radioactive materials, the decommissioning of out-of-datenuclear power stations and the clearing of inadequate temporary storagefacilities in many nations.

That in turn would be a big contribution towards moving the world to nuclearweapons reductions, to the closure of unsafe ageing plants, and to adoption ofarguably far-better nuclear power technologies, such as pebble bed modularreactors. So let's have that debate.

For the record, I remain unconvinced that nuclear power is an intelligent oreffective response to climate change, economically or environmentally. It stillfeels to me like trying to cure a malaria sufferer by giving them typhoid.

For the very reasons our political leaders are too scared to take on nuclearwaste storage, I can't see how we can manage a global nuclear power and wasteindustry in an economic way. Community opposition equals slow approvals andlarge financial risk for investors. That means significant governmentintervention is required for it to be viable, as evidenced by this industry'shistory.

This makes it more suitable to a centrally planned economy than the modernvibrant free market one we aspire to. Besides, I don't trust government to makedecisions on technology, that's a job best left to markets.

The answer is simple. Put a cap on carbon emissions, at a level that willstabilise the climate, put in place a trading system to set the right price forcarbon (and therefore the value of avoided emissions) and let the market fightit out.

That will give an equal and fair benefit to all technologies that can help usaddress climate change. If the glow in the dark brigade, with this commercialboost, can then win the public debate and convince us that going nuclear is theanswer and can be delivered economically and safely then so be it.

So let's have the debate but let's make it an honest one, morally andintellectually, and strip out the ideology on both sides.

Will nukes win? A few months ago I would have said no. Now I'm not so sure.With Siberia melting, my world has changed, and all bets are off.

Paul Gilding, former executive director of Greenpeace International, is foundingpartner of Ecos Corporation.