Bernard Lagan in Sydney
Star musicians and your favourite Times writers at the Albert Hall
Australia is to repeal laws that prevent it establishing a nuclear industry, paving the way for the adoption of atomic power and uranium enriching ventures.
John Howard, the Prime Minister, announced the move as Kevin Rudd, the opposition leader, convinced Labor’s national conference in Sydney to abandon its opposition to uranium exports and agree to new mines in the Outback.
Australia has 36 per cent of the world’s low-cost uranium reserves and is expected to become the world’s largest uranium exporter once new mines are built and existing ones expanded.
Mr Howard told a weekend conference of his Liberal Party that a 1999 law which bans nuclear power stations in Australia and constrains the expansion of its uranium mining industry was no longer compatible with the need to act on climate change. He said that Australia would need progressively to wind down its reliance on traditional coal-fired power stations and adopt nuclear power generation.
“Policies or political platforms that seek to constrain the development of a safe and reliable Australian uranium industry – and which rule out the possibility of climate-friendly nuclear energy – are not really serious about addressing climate change,” he said.
Mr Howard, who is expected to call a general election in the autumn, has long opposed the adoption of firm targets for the reduction of greenhouse emissions in Australia. He said that he would not “adopt a European solution for an Australian problem”.
The timing of the announcement was widely seen as calculated to embarrass Labor, which went through a fractious debate before lifting its opposition to uranium mines after 23 years.
Opposition to the move was led by Peter Garrett, the party’s environment spokesman, a lawyer who was also the singer of the Midnight Oil rock group, whose hits included antinuclear songs.
Labor’s adoption of greenhouse gas reduction targets was ridiculed by Mr Howard, who said: “We should not, as Labor has done, pluck a target developed by the Europeans for European circumstances out of the air and say we’re going to commit to that.”
Mr Howard, who has in the past appeared to favour a national referendum on the building of nuclear power stations in Australia, said he believed that was no longer necessary because opinion polls had firmed in favour of the nuclear option.
He said that the Government would not build or own nuclear power stations. They would instead be owned by private power generation companies. The Government has set a target of having 25 nuclear reactors by 2050.
Follow our three athletes' progress in their preparations for the London Triathlon, and pick up training tips and more
Enjoy screenings of all the classic films you love, plus take advantage of two-for-one tickets
We explore leisure activities that are safe and suitable for all of the family
Times Online's new TV show helps you make the right decisions for your pet
Read our exclusive 100 Years of Fleming and Bond interactive timeline, packed with original Times articles and reviews
The latest travel news plus the best hotels and gadgets for business travellers
Shortcuts to help you find sections and articles


Overseas contacts and local business information

A treasure trove of baubles, booty and stylish quests


£129,500
Bentley Edinburgh
£79,850
Mercedes-Benz of Northampton
£26,995
Unit 1, Woodfield Business Unit, Kidderminster Road, Ombersley, Worcester.
Great car insurance deals online
90k + Bonus + Options
Confidential
London
£23,716 +
Highways Agency
National
£
£43,405 - £48,228 pa
Notting Hill Housing
London
£30,000 base, £100,000 OTE
Riches Consulting
London/South
with annexe accommodation and 5.25 acres
£1,100,000
Beautiful Gardens w/ stunning Thames Views
Studios £33K, 1 Beds £60K, 2 beds £79K
Mortgages, bank acc & money transfers to help you buy abroad
Explore mystical Jordan
From £1030 for 7nts 4*
to USA's Most Cosmopolitan City; San Francisco!
£POA
Book Now for Winter 08/09 and Get 10% off!
Great travel insurance deals online
Contact our advertising team for advertising and sponsorship in Times Online, The Times and The Sunday Times. Search globrix.com to buy or rent UK property. Visit our classified services and find jobs, used cars, property or holidays. Use our dating service, read our births, marriages and deaths announcements, or place your advertisement.
Copyright 2008 Times Newspapers Ltd.
This service is provided on Times Newspapers' standard Terms and Conditions. Please read our Privacy Policy.To inquire about a licence to reproduce material from Times Online, The Times or The Sunday Times, click here.This website is published by a member of the News International Group. News International Limited, 1 Virginia St, London E98 1XY, is the holding company for the News International group and is registered in England No 81701. VAT number GB 243 8054 69.
Mary Collins I believe you're unaware of the consequences if we use nuclear power. Yes it will reduce green house emissions but have you even considered how dangerous it could be? Radioactive matter emits radiation in three different forms; alpha, beta and gamma radiation. Alpha radiation is relatively safe, beta radiation is harder to stop but manageable but gamma radiation can cause changes in our DNA. However, radioactive matter has a half life meaning the matter remaining halves every year but never really goes away and maintains its hazardous state. Do you truly believe that its worth the risk?
jt, sydney, nsw
"Less than 30 people died and it happened in backward Russia." - This is not correct - it's just nonsense.
"The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) estimates 4,000 people died as a result of the explosion in reactor number four at the power plant in the Ukrainian town of Chernobyl on April 26, 1986."
The death toll from the Chernobyl nuclear disaster 20 years ago could be far higher than official estimates, with up to 93,000 extra cancer deaths worldwide, environmental group Greenpeace said on Tuesday, according to Reuters.
Based on research by the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus, the report said that of the 2 billion people globally affected by the Chernobyl fallout, 270,000 will develop cancers as a result, of which 93,000 will prove fatal."
Would you live in 50km from Nuclear Power Station? Do you think a station can be placed in the middle of nowhere?
Where would cooling water, waste etc be going? We live in unique country and make it polluted is easy.
Jeff, Sydney, NSW
Regarding the opinion polls in favour of the nuclear option. No-one has asked Me or any one I know for our opinions. We are NOT in favour!!
Karrin Schoen, darwin, NT
I applaud the Government in making an intelligent decision based on facts rather than the emotional ravings of tree huggers. We should have embraced nuclear power long ago.
Mary Collins, adelaide, australia/sa
Should Australia embrace nuclear energy?
I myself personally think that nuclear is the way to go. Its clean and provides abundant energy. It's the only serious alternative to coal. We can't run rapidly growing cities on sunshine and breezes.
Solar panels use nasty chemicals in their construction and cost way too much. Not only that but they have to be replaced every 20 years. Wind turbines chop up birds and are ugly. Neither are reliable as the sun doesn't shine at night and the wind is haphazard at best.
Those who decry nuclear power always refer to Chernobyl. An accident which took place over 20 years ago. Less than 30 people died and it happened in backward Russia. Every year over 30,000 people die from coal burning. Uranium exists in coal beds and gets burned up then pumped into our atmosphere. Not stored safely like with reactors. Over a million people die each year from cars. Nobody died from nuclear energy.
Wayne Smith, Brisbane, Australia/QLD
Recent events in Virginia Tech have further proven grounds for small arms control...
Why should it be any different for nuclear weapons? Australia can not conscionably export uranium to the world without taking some responsibility for its usage.
This is the 'easy fix' that pollies like to use so often. Grab a few votes, but don't take a strong stand on anything.
This is a dark day for Australia.
Simon Bossell, Sydney, NSW
There is no safe way to secure nuclear reactor waste so
why is the Federal Govt going ahead with setting things up
for nuclear power plants. There will be arguments to where
the plants will be sited so most politicians will have to be
against having one sited in their electorate.I myself am
opposed to them. We need to be looking at clean
technologies such as wind, solar and clean coal if its
feasible.
J. Linsley, Old Bar, NSW Australia