I don’t normally do two posts in a day, but I hope you will excuse me in this case.
This morning, Peter Dutton announced his alleged plans for an Australian nuclear energy industry and in so doing he has set a test for all Australian media: are they willing to do their job as a fourth estate and call this out for the nonsense it is, or they all going to play games until the next election pretending this is some sort of legitimate alternative that deserves to be taken seriously?
Phil Coorey summed up the basic proposition Dutton announced:
Peter Dutton has pledged to build seven government-owned nuclear power stations by 2050, with the first unit to be operational in a just over a decade, saying it was integral to the energy mix if Australia was to have cheap, clean and reliable power in the long term.
But then immediately fell into the trap Dutton has set. Or more accurately, immediately fell into the unthinking habits of a mainstream media that operates in terms of adversarial, horse-race politics rather than in terms of calling a spade a spade:
Ensuring energy will be a key battleground of the next election, the federal Opposition Leader declined to provide an estimate as to how much his power plants would cost, saying that had to be worked through.
Ensuring?
Only if you and the rest of the press gallery let him get away with it. You have a choice here.
As former editor of The Monthly, Nick Feik, tweeted, “[A]ny journalist who treats Dutton’s nuclear announcement as a serious policy should quit. It’s uncosted and has no credible timeline; no detail about who will build it; what sort of reactors; where the waste will go; no financial plan; just … nothing.”
Underlining the unreality of Dutton’s proposal, Simon Holmes à Court tweeted out this morning 18 baseline questions that have to be asked of this proposal—and answered fully—if we are going to take the leader of the Opposition remotely seriously (click to enlarge):
If anyone thinks Dutton has coherent answers to any of these questions, you should watch his press conference where he fobs off the most basic question of all: how much will it cost?
Bernard Keane underlines the utter lack of credibility in the Opposition’s proposal:
The glossy brochure handed out by the Coalition claims “the timeline for establishing a civil nuclear program in Australia including building two establishment projects is 10 to 12 years from the government making a decision until zero emissions nuclear electricity first enters the grid.”
Separately, it also states “a federal Coalition government will initially develop two establishment projects using either small modular reactors or modern larger plants such as the AP1000 or APR1400. They will start producing electricity by 2035 (with small modular reactors) or 2037 (if modern larger plants are found to be the best option).”
That timeline is at odds with the CSIRO’s estimate that nuclear could not be deployed until 2040 at the earliest. There are no small modular reactors currently in operation in any developed country, and the US project touted by the Coalition, NuScale in Idaho, was shut down in November due to soaring costs.
Politics can be messy and the line between truth and lie, between deception and opinion can sometimes be difficult to draw. Politics happens in the grey areas, is a matter of values—or of opinion—as often as it is a matter of facts. But sometimes the truth is so blindingly obvious that there is no argument to be had and this is one of those times.
What the LNP are proposing is not a viable option to deal with climate change or our ongoing issues with energy. Understand the context and it is blindingly obvious what is going on: the Opposition has a long history of not just climate denial but also an ideological opposition to alternative energy sources. They have a political commitment to fossil fuel industries, particularly on the part of the National Party, who long ago abandoned their rural base in favour of mining interests.
All that has happening with this proposal is that Peter Dutton can no longer—with a straight face—deny the risks of climate change, while at the same time he lacks the political will and integrity to call time on the fossil fuel industry. All the LNP have left, then, is the bullshit prospect of a viable nuclear energy program—seven power stations by 2050!—a fabricated piece of agitprop designed to fob off questions about energy policy and climate change in the short term while ensuring the long-term viability of their major political backers.
It’s a total disgrace, rendering them unfit for office, and if the media lets them get away with this ridiculous and dangerous piece of political kabuki, if it doesn’t hold them properly to account, it will be a tragedy for Australian democracy.
I’ll let Zali Steggall have the last word.
UPDATE: Amy Remeikas from The Guardian does actual journalism
Tim, you give me hope, thank you.
Love Zali's tweet.
As you say, will be interesting to see the response from the mainstream media about Dutton's vague uncosted plan....going on past experience I assume they will lap it up and think it is wonderful. 🙄
Where does he get the 'trillion' dollar cost of Labor's plan? Is that legit, or just a figure plucked out of the air (or from somewhere a bit darker! 😁 )