The announcement of the Coalition Liberal National Party’s (LNP) energy policy under Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has sparked significant backlash and concern among energy experts, climate advocates, and regional communities across Australia.
The policy, which includes plans for large nuclear reactors and a rollback of Australia’s 2030 climate targets, is seen by many as a disastrous move that could lead to severe environmental and economic repercussions.
“Dutton’s climate policy is a disaster”
Amanda McKenzie, CEO of the Climate Council, expressed strong disapproval of Dutton’s proposal, emphasizing the detrimental effects it would have on the country.
“Dutton’s climate policy is a disaster, and the consequence for Australians would be more extreme heat, fires, and floods,” she stated. McKenzie criticized the idea of abandoning Australia’s 2030 climate targets, urging Dutton to consider the communities already suffering from escalating climate disasters.
She also highlighted the international implications, noting that Australia would become a “global laughing stock” by opting out of the Paris Agreement, which is supported by 195 countries.
“Dutton’s policy would lead to increased climate pollution”
Dr. Jennifer Rayner, Head of Policy and Advocacy at the Climate Council, echoed McKenzie’s sentiments, warning that Dutton’s policy would lead to increased climate pollution and a more perilous future for the next generation.
She underscored the urgency of the current decade in cutting climate pollution and transitioning to clean energy to safeguard Australia’s future prosperity.
Rayner pointed out that the country is already making significant progress, with 40% of the power in the national grid coming from clean energy and one in three households equipped with solar panels.
Reversing this momentum, she argued, would be senseless when it should be accelerated instead.
Energy and health experts united in their criticism
The condemnation of the Coalition’s nuclear policy extends beyond environmentalists. Energy and health experts, along with affected regional and global communities, have united in their criticism.
The policy, which includes situating large nuclear reactors on decommissioned coal-fired power stations, is seen as a false solution to Australia’s emission reduction commitments.
“Time doesn’t mean anything when you’re about to be, you know, have water lapping at your door” – Peter Dutton, when he didn’t know the microphones were on.
CSIRO says Renewable Energy is faster, cheaper and safer
The CSIRO’s GenCost report underscores that renewable energy remains the fastest, safest, and lowest-cost energy option currently available.
Clean energy, such as solar and wind, already constitutes a significant portion of Australia’s electricity grid, and maintaining this trajectory is crucial for reducing emissions and mitigating the worst impacts of climate change.
Regional Communities
Andrew Bray, National Director of RE-Alliance, has extensive experience working with regional communities hosting large-scale renewable and transmission infrastructure.
He criticized the Coalition’s policy, stating, “Policies relying on non-existent small modular reactor (SMR) nuclear technologies and large-scale nuclear plants that take decades to build would commit Australia to a polluting and unreliable fossil fuel-powered system for the next 20 years.”
Bray emphasized the immediate availability and benefits of renewable energy, urging sustained investment in community engagement to ensure regional communities reap the rewards of the clean energy transition.
Questioning the financial viability of nuclear power
Amandine Denis Ryan, CEO of IEEFA Australia, questioned the financial viability of nuclear power for Australia. Citing research by IEEFA’s nuclear experts, she highlighted the significant timing, cost, and compatibility issues associated with nuclear power.
According to their research, nuclear reactors in comparable countries have consistently exceeded expected construction times and costs.
For Australia, starting from scratch, nuclear power reactors would likely not reach commercial operation before the 2040s and would require substantial government support.
Ryan pointed out that nuclear plants cannot be built in time to replace Australia’s retiring coal power stations, with more than 90% expected to close within the next decade.
Nuclear plants are notorious for cost overruns. Ryan noted that SMRs and large reactors often face significant financial challenges, with SMRs in operation or under construction costing three to seven times more than initially planned.
The economics of nuclear power also do not align well with the anticipated dominance of renewable energy in Australia’s future energy mix. By the 2040s, over 90% of generation is expected to come from variable renewables like wind and solar, making nuclear power an inefficient and costly option.
Distraction from real climate action
Mia Pepper, Campaign Director at the Conservation Council of Western Australia, described the Coalition’s nuclear power plans as a distraction from real climate action. She emphasized that nuclear power is expensive, slow, and dangerous, and cannot meet the urgent need to decarbonize.
Western Australia, in particular, is already transitioning to cheaper, safer, and cleaner renewable alternatives.
The WA Liberals have ruled out nuclear power, deeming it too costly and impractical for the state’s grid. Pepper highlighted the significant water requirements for cooling nuclear plants, which pose additional risks in an uncertain climate future.
Masayoshi Iyoda, a campaigner for 350.org Japan, argued that nuclear power cannot be considered clean energy due to the long-lasting impact on disaster victims and future generations.
Iyoda stressed that nuclear energy is too costly, risky, undemocratic, and time-consuming, advocating instead for renewable energy and energy efficiency as the faster, safer, and more democratic solutions to the climate crisis.
Legacy of nuclear power
Joseph Sikulu, Managing Director of 350.org Pacific, voiced concerns over the legacy of nuclear power in the Asia Pacific region. He described Australia’s potential venture into nuclear energy as dangerous and distracting from the necessary transition to renewable energy.
The widespread condemnation of the Coalition’s nuclear policy highlights the pressing need for Australia to continue its progress towards clean energy.
Abandoning climate targets and investing in nuclear power is seen as a regressive move that risks exacerbating climate change and delaying the transition to a sustainable and prosperous future.
Instead, experts and advocates call for increased investment in renewable energy and community engagement to ensure a cleaner, safer, and more resilient Australia.
Related stories
Victoria’s Offshore Gas Drilling Approval Condemned
NT Govt Signs Deal for Unapproved Fracking Project
Emissions wildly underestimated from fracking in NT
Fracking incidents on cattle station in Beetaloo Basin NT
UN Secretary-General Calls for Fossil Fuel Advertising Ban
Meet the Frackers: Origin Energy ASX:ORG company information
Santos accused of misleading advertising
Global Methane Pledge: UN launch methane detection satellite
Net Zero+ International Programme for Action on Climate
Climate of the Nation Report: Australia Climate Research
Carbon Credits Used to Plug Orphan Oil & Gas Wells
Best way to reduce climate change is stop gas industry methane leaks
What is Greenwashing and How to spot it
How the Queensland Government fracked the state
Meet the Frackers: Gas explorers in Australia
