Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd on Sunday insisted Australia could reach ambitious emissions reductions targets without resorting to nuclear power.What this scientific ninny and his clearly equalliy ninnyish advisors are missing is that in order to hit the target existing coal-fired plants must be replaced by some other form of energy that can provide base load capacity. Nuclear is the only technology that can achieve that, as exampled by a country like France that achieves 75% of its energy needs from nuclear power.
Mr Rudd said the key was to establish an emissions trading market not to adopt nuclear power.
"The science of this is pretty basic. All the scientists around the world agree that we have got to reach a point whereby we actually bring total emissions down. That is the carbon target," he told the Ten Network.
Mr Rudd said once the target was set, the emissions trading scheme and the market could establish the most cost-effective means of achieving that target.
"The science of this is pretty basic"??? If that's the case then why has no climate model ever managed to get within cooee of an accurate prediction of past climate let alone be trusted to be right in the future?
"Then you would see a huge investment in alternative clean energies like solar, like wind, like geothermal and the rest. You'd set the right price signals for clean coal technologies and carbon sequestration and also for gas.Clean coal and gas are still a little way away. Given that Labor is setting a 20% reduction target by 2020 the price signal would have to be huge in order to drive energy companies to bring those technologies on line. Such a price signal can have no other short to medium term outcome than wrecking Australia's economy, which is why critics say that GDP will drop by 10% by 2020 through implementing this target.
"On the question of nuclear ... our position on that is for Australia, with this rich array of other alternative energy options available, we can achieve our overall carbon target without taking on the extra safety and environmental risks which the nuclear option for Australia would represent."What does Rudd have to say to France and all of those other countries in which nuclear power makes up a massive portion of their energy needs? By the definition above those countries must have unsafe and environmentally risky standards. Why hasn't Labor ever campaigned against them having such technology if it's such a grave threat to the environment?
Mr Rudd said Prime Minister John Howard's commitment to a policy of pledging and reviewing climate change targets sounded like pledging before the election then reviewing afterwards.You mean, like Labor's plan to do its own 'Stern Review' and not release results until after the election?
"Mr Howard has just got to get fair dinkum about climate change. One of the risks to Australia's economic future is us not acting on climate change and water," he said.There you go. Linking climate change to water is the first sign of a know-nothing zealot.
"Mr Howard has in fact fiddled while Rome has burned on this question."
Mr Rudd said that dated back to the late 1990s when advice started to emerge on the need to act on climate change and continued right through until the lead-up to the election.No country implemented anything back in the late 1990s and Labor has already been caught lying its pants off on this one by none other than this humble blogger.
He said Mr Howard had been a climate change sceptic now trying to convince people he was a climate change convert.If Labor was fair dinkum, seriously fair dinkum about climate change then it would be releasing the results of its 'Stern Review' along with the economic impact as early as possible. Of course, it's not fair dinkum.
"If you are fair dinkum, seriously fair dinkum about climate change there is one benchmark - you would have established a carbon target a long time ago and you'd be setting up an emission trading scheme and doing something about it," he said.
As I said at the beginning, barring some massive mood-altering occurrence, the Coalition has the next election in the bag. It's just a matter of letting election year political events take their normal course.