Friday, December 2, 2011

Australia, uranium and fracking

There are two good articles over on New Matilda worth reading.

Inquiry Bursts The Gas Bubble by Ben Eltham covers the recent Senate inquiry into fracking and the not too subtle rebuke that resulted.

India's Nuclear Horror Story by (Australian Greens Senator) Scott Ludlam is a criticism of the ALP government's plant to sell uranium to India.

A fella named 'duffer' commented on the India article;

So a reason why we shouldn’t export uranium to India is conditions in a mine there.

Think about that for a moment.

Ludlam’s second reason - an incident 18 years ago. Obviously, according to Ludlam, Indians aren’t capable of learning anything in 18 years.


As for the third reason - if India or anyone else really wants nuclear weapons, it will get them, even if they have to extract the uranium from seawater. U simply isn’t that rare, and as such the whole export=proliferation thing is a red herring. The sole practical upshot of an Australian export ban will be to make U somewhat more expensive, retard reliable electricity provision and extend coal generation for India.


An alternative perspective:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/06/18/greenpeaces-plan-for-india/

While my forehead is not quite the right shape to understand the details listed at BNC.com, I do object to duffer's simplistic rendering of the main points Ludlam made.

"...a reason why we shouldn’t export uranium to India is conditions in a mine there..."

Think about that for a moment, we are asked. Well, sure, thanks I will. The problem is not conditions in one mine, the problem is that those conditions are indicative of the nuclear industry's general standard there. That and the industry is killing and poisoning people. I think that's a problem. No, I don't have an answer for where India's power is coming from. There are people much smarter and more experienced than I am who can work that out. My issue is that I don't think we should contribute uranium to a nation that seems to handle it that irresponsibly, and doesn't give a shit what happens to its own citizens exposed to waste.

"Ludlam’s second reason - an incident 18 years ago. Obviously, according to Ludlam, Indians aren’t capable of learning anything in 18 years."

 Scott Ludlam, true, referred to an incident 18 years ago. Mind you, he also referred to one 2 years ago, and ongoing concerns. No-one disparaged what India is capable of and incapable of learning but you. He simply pointed out that the industry has a history (including a recent history) of being poorly regulated and irresponsible.

"As for the third reason - if India or anyone else really wants nuclear weapons, it will get them..."

Sure, but do we need to feed their domestic nuclear energy needs so they can use all of their local uranium stockpile for enrichment and nuclear proliferation purposes? Isn't that an important question? It's not the entire issue of course, but if someone wants a gun, wouldn't you prefer to be one of the people refusing to sell one, than one of the mob who doesn't give a crap who buys it and what it's used for? To say 'Oh they won't use our uranium for weapons, only their own' is a bit facile. They'll use our uranium for power, so they can maintain a nuclear arms race with Pakistan.

We need to take a stand on this. While India is NOT a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, while they keep rattling the nuclear sabre at Pakistan, while they have a badly regulated industry, it is the height of irresponsibility for us to sell uranium to India.

0 comments:

Post a Comment