Nuclear the way, but not for Australia

With all this hype recently in the media about how Australia should go nuclear to help clean the world of carbon emission, taking a global perspective and stance at reducing greenhouse gas emissions will be the most effective way of combating climate change.

The proposal and renewed focus on nuclear power in Australia has come from an opinion poll stating that 49% of Australian's would accept nuclear power. Possibly not enough of a swing to change the Labour government's mind on the subject, as they directly oppose it. However public support for nuclear energy falls like a lemming off a cliff when the subject of location for the plants arise. This is because the Australian public doesn't fully support the science of nuclear fusion, and changes in the way nuclear reactors operate in order to prevent another disaster.

Though developing countries are quite comfortable with the science of nuclear fusion, because their insatiable demand for energy outstrips public or government concerns, and also because these poorer nations would prefer to have electricity than nothing. Nations such as China and India are soon to become the worlds largest emitters because of their tremendous growth. Ironically Australia produces less than 2% of total global greenhouse gas emissions, though we are trying to stop climate change by enacting policy (CPRS) to reduce our emission. If Australia really wants to make a difference, we need to help tackle other developing countries, like China and India's emissions not ours.

The main source of greenhouse gas emissions from Australia come from the burning of brown or black coal. However 80% of the coal we mine is exported, hence exporting and covering up our true effect on the climate. Instead of Australia becoming a nuclear nation, we should be encouraging through all avenues possible for developing nations to only built nuclear power stations. Because nuclear power is low in carbon emissions and is a proven technology that is effective in supplying power for the next hundred years or more, and it is perfectly suited to their situation. But because Australia has the worlds largest source of uranium, it also means we don't loose, but economically gain from such a pollution reduction deal. Furthermore from this, it also frees up financial and political capital which can be spent on renewable energies, to which Australia's climate and location is well suited.

For Australia to transform its energy industry from coal to nuclear power is a mistake. We can continue burning coal in the interim, because stopping it is not going to save the world. However Australia lobbying and supplying uranium to nuclear reactors in developing nations (hint hint Rudd, India), will be key to reducing global emissions as quickly as possible...not to mention avoiding Copenhagen at the end of this year. 

One step not far enough

With Barack Obama recently being awarded the Nobel Peace prize for creating a renewed focus on reducing the worlds stockpiles of nuclear weapons, his previous actions on banning torture in the US (during the decommissioning of Guantanamo bay), were excellent for human rights, but they didn't go far enough.

Barack Obama's promise and policy of closing Guantanamo bay by January 22 looks like it will fall short. However his promise to close Guantanamo remains strong, with plans and inmate transportation still under way. Though the first hurdle main hurdle in achieving this step was selling to the US public the notion that "convicted terrorists" were going to be housed in US jails, on US soil! Despite the Republican party trying to make the situation look as though US jails would become al-Qaeda training camps, it has been publicly accepted without too much public backlash that these terrorists would be held on US soil, in SuperMax prisons (to which no prisoner has ever escaped from).

But the real concern comes from the 100 or more Yemen terrorists who the US government claim are too dangerous to be released, despite enough evidence for them to be convicted of any terrorist charges. These terrorists, the US government and Barack Obama have acknowledged, may be withheld indefinitely without trial or prosecution (the exact number of terrorists and their sentences has not been released). This blatant disregard for human rights and the US justice system can not continue. If there is enough evidence to prove that these people being detained are terrorists, or are too dangerous to be released, then let that evidence stand up in court. If not, then there is no grounds or evidence to prove that these so called "terrorists" are dangerous to US national security and they should be released. The only benefit that comes from this situation is that US citizens can sleep well at night believing that the bad bad terrorists are rotting away in a jail somewhere. Though infinite detention without trial or conviction doesn't make slumber any more easier for me.

Despite Barack Obama abolishing torture in the US, reaching out to long sworn cold war foes, trying to rid the world of nuclear weapons and with limited success attempt to convince the Islamic world that the US was not at war with them (ending the War on Terror), he didn't take that last step and really prove that the US had changed its ways. The US, despite and new president, needs to follow its own rules and ethics that it would like the rest of the developed and developing world to embrace, freedom, liberty and justice 


Links
Gitmo closure deadline fading - The Age

Perception is reality

I read a book awhile back called Syrup by Maxx Barry, which highlighted one of the most important rules for advertising, "perception is reality". That being that if something appears to be clean, or good, then it must be good or clean. The very power of advertising is enormous. It's what makes a Mercedes different from a Ford. One is perceived to be a better car than the other, despite sometimes their similar construction and driving ability. Advertising however, is entering into the political sphere more profoundly these days.

Barrack Obama created and marketed his catchphrase, and turned it into a powerful icon: "yes we can". His campaign symbol was cleverly marketed and designed, to the point where it has been trade marked and other people were trying to scamp off on the 'Obama high/craze' that swept the US at the very start of his presidency. Kevin Rudd was elected under the banner "Kevin 07", and his whole political advertising campaign was run by a professional advertising company (who are now running the latter mentioned). This is nothing especially new, but both these campaigns were the largest ever run (by size and monetary value). Thus the connection between large expensive and successful advertising campaigns and changed public perceptions (which creates a new reality).

Hence someone else who has a lot of money to spend, and a dirty public image is now going to great lengths to turn their perceptions, into the public's new reality. We're talking about the Coal Industry. They have spent millions across the globe advertising how they're investing in carbon capture and storage (even though it is a far off, untested science that only a handful of small scientific plants are actually doing), making the world a greener place (by putting up green posters, replanting the lawn around the power plant etc), but now they're running a campaign claiming that an ETS in Australia could risk thousands of jobs, cost $14 Billion in lost revenue and not cut emissions. The coal industry is running this advertising campaign in marginal Labour seats to try and force the government to disband the ETS (despite the coal industry already getting massive concessions)

Despite the overwhelming economic, engineering and scientific evidence to prove that a) emissions will be reduced (from marginal to dramatic, depending on who you ask), b) the lost revenue will be minimal, followed by increased revenue from a lowering emissions economy and c) more jobs will be created over 10 years than will be lost, through the creation of new jobs (like building new power plants)

So will this new advertising campaign "Let's cut emissions, not jobs" be powerful and effective enough to change public perceptions about the ETS and coal industry?  Or will it be like McDonald's trying to change its ever sticking image that it is an obesity factory outlet? My personal belief is with enough advertising and money, little public knowledge (and interest), plus mentioning 'jobs', the 'economy', and 'bad' at this time will change enough of the public's perceptions, to change reality. That is the sad power of advertising.

Links
Coal industry launches charm offensive - The Age
Coal firms advertisements hit emissions plan