The Coalition’s solution to the climate crisis is set to be unveiled, with Peter Dutton reportedly planning to announce sites for a number of nuclear power stations, which would necessarily involve lifting Australia’s long-standing ban on nuclear power.
While the Coalition’s policy has been rubbished as “misinformed bulldust” by the likes of Andrew Forrest, a “dumb idea” by experts and “hot air” by the energy minister, the News Corp papers have been at the forefront of nuclear advocacy.
In the past month, The Australian has published a number of articles on nuclear power, with only one of its many op-eds (the aforementioned “hot air” piece by Energy Minister Chris Bowen) arguing in favour of Australia’s ban on nuclear.
Conversely, the paper has run several opinion pieces in favour of nuclear power, including two editorials advocating for its use, the most recent of which was published this morning.
The paper’s editorial on March 6 said it was “time for a properly costed plan on the nuclear option”, stating “Peter Dutton’s embrace of a nuclear option for consideration is worthwhile”.
“Dutton is right to develop a net-zero plan that includes nuclear,” the piece continued. “Refusing to lift the ban or even consider the issue … makes the federal government look out of touch with what is happening in the modern energy world.”
Crikey asked The Australian’s managing editor Darren Davidson on March 5 whether the paper had an editorial view on the merits of nuclear energy, and how it balanced any view it may have with the Coalition’s policy position, as well as any ethical obligations that may arise in its reportage. He declined to comment.
This morning’s editorial comes on the heels of one published on February 17 headlined “Nuclear option made easy by the renewables miscue”. It went on to describe nuclear power as “a logical option for emissions-free power”, a “sensible option”, but admitted it was “incendiary politics”.
“It rekindles the climate wars and undermines the certainty that is craved by business.”
Political editor Simon Benson has been responsible for much of this nuclear coverage, penning an op-ed on February 25 that argued the Labor government was “at risk of ending up on the wrong side of history in its fanatical opposition to nuclear power”.
Benson was also responsible for an exclusive, also published on February 25, that showed Newspoll data conducted for The Australian that showed 55% of Australian voters “supported the idea of small modular nuclear reactors as a replacement technology for coal-fired power”.
As early as February 15 Benson had insights into the Coalition’s policy, penning a piece titled “Liberals’ nuclear policy has potential to electrify”.
The Australian has also ran a number of opinion pieces over the past month in favour of the Coalition’s policy, including one by Peta Credlin headlined: “Liberal true believers stand firm against false net-zero gospel”.
However the paper also ran a piece by Sarah Ison on February 16 that highlighted one of the limits of the introduction of nuclear power in Australia. Ison interviewed Australian Industry Group climate change director Tennant Reed, who said that Australia may be waiting for more than 20 years for economically viable nuclear power.
Are you among the 55% of Australians who apparently support the idea of small modular nuclear reactors as a replacement for coal power? Let us know your thoughts by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.
So Credlin is saying that net-zero is a crock, while Dutton is saying we need nuclear to get to net-zero.
Love to see these two nitwits debate each other on this one.
“News Corp has done a climate turnaround, spruiking the Coalition’s new nuclear policy at every opportunity. But how much Kool-Aid have its reporters drunk?”
Could I ask, what reporters? All I see are paid propagandists pushing the Coalition and other right-wing causes, those who ignore scientific facts and are happy to print or say any outlandish untrue claim as fact.
It is great Crikey calls them out, unlike our ABC, who give them a platform to pretend they are just as reliable journalists as real journalists.
100% agree. News Corp is just being News Corp, like a cockroach is a cockroach, but the lazy or cowed, or both, ABC has no excuse for reiterating News Corp propaganda. They were at again this morning on RN faithfully following the News Corp talking points about 20 countries having nuclear power so why not us? Apparently ten minutes googling to demolish the presumptions and provide the critical context was unavailable so they just went with putting the proposition unthinkingly into interviews. If the ABC is too incompetent or lazy to do their own journalism perhaps they could diversify the news sources they feed off. Maybe unthinkingly repeating points, info and arguments from Crikey for example.
They did platform former Extinction Rebellion now pro nuclear activist Zion Lights few years ago, but made too easy by years of negative messaging and talking points,
One is disturbed by the social narratives and talking points being used by both rusted on ALP and LNP supporters, who are low info, disengaged and cynical of media.
On one hand it’s dismissive of all things renewable sources, environment, EVs, batteries, solar panels, wind etc., in favour of inertia, conservatism and avoiding change even if better and more economic.
Same techniques have been used by fossil fuels to not just deny climate science etc. but how we think, and are applied to demography in blaming refugees, immigrants or population growth for any environmental concerns; glib, lazy and remiss in bypassing science vs. beliefs, our national ‘character’.
Here’s my suggestion.
Any time a politician proposes nuclear fission as an energy source to address the climate emergency, we put a muzzle on them, to be worn until 2030.
I believe in free speech. I don’t believe in free stupidity.
Or just get them to explain it.
You might have to provide crayons for that…
My question is, if nuclear power is seen as the only way credible way to replace coal and gas as the generator of base power and if the coalition’s policy is such, where is their policy to electrify Australia’s transport, homes and commercial sectors dependent on gas and petrol? After all, if we are replacing fossil fuels with nuclear then we need to replace the ice vehicle fleet and all gas appliances with electric ones. If the coalition don’t have such a policy, then clearly they are not serious about climate change.
Isn’t that Simon Benson chap intimately involved with the LNP?
Simon Benson doesn’t know much, but as Scott Morrison’s favourite stenographer, he knows something about ending up on the wrong side of history.