'Business as usual' wins nuclear power debate

"Business as usual" effectively won a recent Melbourne debate about whether or not Australia should embrace nuclear power.
Both those arguing for and against the idea were unable, it seemed, to escape from the mindset that either nuclear energy or renewable power should be employed in allowing us to maintain existing life styles.
An advocate of nuclear power, American D James Hansen (above right), who has been described as the grandfather of the climate change debate, had a slightly different view suggesting that nuclear and renewable power were harmonious and so both should be used.
Some 1200 people listened to the debate and a poll taken before proceedings it was the “don’t knows” who easily won the count followed by those who voted “for” the idea of nuclear power with those opposed being next.
A poll taken at the end of the debate reversed those results – those opposed to nuclear power headed the count, followed by nuclear power supporters and in last place, the “don’t knows”.
Many at the debate, beyond just one questioner, were seeking confirmation that life as we know it would continue.
In fact all those on both three-strong debating teams appeared to be arguing their case from an assumed position of whatever energy source was chosen, business would continue as usual – it won’t.
There appeared to be harmony at the debate about the reality that is climate change and in fact all those on the team opposing nuclear power congratulated D Hansen on alerting the world to this difficulty.
Dr Hansen, as were all other debaters, concerned about the world’s reliance on electricity provided by coal fired power plants, hence his call for those plants for to be replaced by nuclear generators.
The business as usual clique, made up by most of us, overlooks the fragility of life; overlooks the increasing brutality of our usually benign nature; overlooks the reality that our lifestyle of the 20th century is not appropriate for survival in the 21st, literally; and so the debate really should have been about achieving a sustainable life style, not how we power that which isn’t.