 |
| Policies have consequences. Pro-nuclear/gas in France and Sweden vs Anti-nuclear/gas in Australia |
maria.poulosconklin@acf.org.au
Hi Maria,
Thanks for the invitation to the event tomorrow. As I live in Hong Kong, I regret I won't be able to attend.
I joined the ACF way back in 1970, and recently rejoined after many years in Asia, where I now live. I fully support efforts to decarbonise our life on earth. We have solar panels on our house here in Hong Kong. We don't own a car. Our carbon footprint is negative.
And here's a thing: Hong Kong has just one third of the CO2 emissions per capita as Australia has.
We've achieved that by Nuclear electricity (from China) and having converted our Australian-coal-fired power stations to Gas power. Result: we have just one third of the emissions as does Australia. (Source).
The Greens, including ACF, have opposed clean, safe and reliable Nuclear energy for over half a century, for no scientific reason. They have also chosen to make Gas a "bad" thing, when in fact it's a path to carbon reduction.
Look at what's happened in countries that have adopted the policy of Nuclear and Gas. Look at France and Sweden vs Australia (top).
Australia would already be at the reduced levels of CO2/capita that it aims for by 2030, if only it had done what France, Sweden, and we here in Hong Kong are doing.
Can't we learn from that? Do we need to reinvent the wheel? Do we need keep "doing harm" by doing so?
The only reason we are not at those low levels of CO2/capita is the Greens. Sorry to say it, as an old time Greenie, but it's true.
You say "Do no harm". Fair enough. Then stop opposing Nuclear and Gas. New Clear is clean. Gas is good.
To reframe: the Middle Arm gas project is not, as your ad says, "climate heating", but "CO2 reducing"!
Wind and Solar are fine. But they won't do it alone. (not even with batteries….).
(Hmm… I wonder. If I had been in Canberra and come along and voiced these views, how do you think I might have been received?).
With best regards,
Pf, etc...
