Monday, 23 July, 2007

The Age

THE news that Australia and the United States may be about to enter negotiations on a nuclear energy partnership should not be dismissed in a knee-jerk ideological fashion. The Age reported late last week on a briefing note on proposed co-operation between the two countries in relation to the nuclear energy industry. Not only would it open the way for co-operation, "it would also be consistent with the Government's strategy for the nuclear industry in Australia". It would also have "bilateral advantages further broadening our relationship" with the US.

Nuclear power is an emotive issue. By the very nature of that power, its apocalyptic force as a weapon and its long after-life, it polarises opinion. It also has some of the nightmarish totems of the 20th century on which fear is based: Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Chernobyl, and of course MAD, or Mutually Assured Destruction, the Cold War policy of the Soviet Union and the US, who between them had tens of thousands of nuclear weapons aimed at each other.

In the dawn of the post-Cold War era, another global threat took over, although it took a decade for the world's leaders to consider its implications: global warming. Nuclear energy is now being looked upon for its utility as a force for good, that is as an alternative to fossil fuel power. It is clean, but it is also very dangerous when something goes wrong.

Australia is the repository for 40 per cent of the world's uranium. It exports to more than 30 countries who use it for peaceful purposes. The export of Australian uranium becomes more problematic when it is to countries such as India and China. India, a nuclear power, is not a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, though it has been lobbying Australia to sell uranium to it. Its relationship with Pakistan, another nuclear state, has in recent years been pushed to the edge of nuclear brinkmanship.

The potential wealth to Australia from uranium exports is calculated in the billions of dollars. But with the export of such a commodity comes a requisite and equal responsibility along the entire chain of production. Australia cannot take the profits and run. It is on this point that the nation needs to look hard at its position. Both the Coalition and the Labor Party have no objection to the export of uranium, yet both say the "leasing back" arrangement of the process, in effect the return and storage of the waste from uranium enrichment in other countries, is not an option.

Australia as a haven for the safe storage of waste was raised this month by the former US ambassador on disarmament and weapons of mass destruction, Robert Gallucci. The former envoy said the Australian outback was the perfect place because of its geological stability and the nation's political stability. That may be the view from an outsider, but from the inside the perspective changes greatly. And none more so than from the view of the indigenous population, who are the owners of some of the world's biggest uranium deposits and who would be, presumably, those most closely affected by any waste storage facility built in this country.

That said, the storage of nuclear waste should not be dismissed without proper debate between all parties that would be affected by it. It is part of the wider debate that needs to continue as to whether nuclear energy is a viable option for Australia's energy needs. If the country has no compunction in shipping uranium around the world, why then does it have a problem establishing an industry in its own backyard?

Of course, if this is just too unpalatable as a political option for the main parties then the focus must shift to making greater use of clean technologies. Australia is also home to vast coal deposits. What a lucky country we would be if its production for our energy needs were to become clean.