Faggot cares more about the future of children
Earlier this year our fearless Prime Minister, J'Ho, set up a panel of scientists, engineers and nuclear policy advisor's to look into the prospects of nuclear energy in Australia. Led by former nuclear physicist, and one time Government Employee/CEO of Telstra Dr Ziggy Switkowski the "Nuclear Task force" was charged with examining nuclear energy as a viable, safe and relatively clean alternative source of energy to the country’s heavily polluting, carbon-emitting coal industry.
The Switkowski report, a draft of which was released last week, found that it would be feasible to build 25 nuclear power stations around the country by 2050 with an estimated one third of Australia’s electricity derived from nuclear energy by this time.
The proviso was that this would only be economically viable if the government imposed a carbon "tax" through policies such as emissions trading schemes or green taxes. The report seemed to think that this was appropriate because
- new industries, such as power generation, have been heavily subsidised by government in their early years to get them up and running and make them viable.
- the underlying "cost" of carbon emissions, meaning climate change, was not being factored in to the cost of energy
Interesting.
Here is my problem with this - while pointing out that the long term costs of Carbon Energy, the report is not factored in the long term costs of Nuclear Energy. Those costs are difficult to calculate but include waste that can take thousands of years to stop being inimical to human life. Much more hostile than carbon emissions can ever be, and thats just the dangers that we KNOW about.
Who would have guessed how dangerous carbon emissions could be when, in 1663, Edward Somerset, 2nd Marquess of Worcester published designs for, and may have installed, a steam-powered engine for pumping water at Vauxhall House.
Jump ahead 323 years to April 26 1986, when the central reactor at the nuclear plant in Chernobyl, Ukraine exploded and caught fire, killing dozens and inciting panic as plumes of radioactive smoke spread outward; the toxic fallout eventually killed thousands. A massive exodus saw 150,000 people abandoning their homes and workplaces; everything for a 30-km radius from the reactor was left behind in the evacuation, creating an instant ghost town.
20 years later the area is still contaminated, the areas is largely abandoned, people still suffering the effects of radiation poisoning and the long term effects on health are still unclear.
I am a huge fag, with little to no chance or interest in procreating - but I am really concerned. Is this the future we want for the next generations, one where the dangers of climate change have been exchanged to one of radiation poisoning?
It feels to me that this nuclear debate is moving the control of energy from one industrial complex to another, that the focus of the policy makers is the success of industry. While the economy is important, its the means, not the end in itself.
Renewable energy sources are cheap and have no consumables, so why would the oil barons be interested in them? And since there are no consumables, there is nothing for governments to gain tax revenues from, so why would they be interested in them?
Answer - they're not. What they appear to be interested in is the fact that Australia has an estimated 40% of the global reserve of uranium and so any nuclear boom is going to benefit this country enormously.
That self interest is more than a little embarrassing, even to watch. Even for a "faggot" who is too "selfish" to have kids.
