Bring on the energy debate
Crikey readers weigh in on the big issues of the day.
Going nuclear Rebecca Barnett writes: Re. "Nuclear denied? Why the energy white paper should start a debate" (yesterday). I agree that we do need to have a better quality debate about energy sources for the future but am not convinced by Tony Wood's argument for nuclear power. The article clearly states that there are still no long term storage solutions, so is it sensible to spend money increasing our reliance on nuclear power in the hope that this is resolved? In considering Fukushima I believe that it is understandable people are concerned about nuclear power. We are seeing, with events such as the Brisbane floods and Sandy, that the affects of climate change are going to have a greater and greater impact on us and our structures. This would, as Fukushima showed, include nuclear power plants. Wood also discusses the affordability of nuclear power and this raises questions of what our values are and how much affordability affects these values. For me, I value clean waterways and untainted natural habitats and personally believe that as well as discussing where our energy comes from we need to have a debate about how much of it we are using and whether we should be paying the true price for it. American influence Geoff Coyne writes: Is Roger Kelly (comments, yesterday) being ironic when he writes: "I feel that the presence of the USA in all media has gotten quite out of proportion". "Gotten" is one of those Americanisms which has arrived in the last generation and is now ubiquitous, thus proving his point. Rudd and Adams bromance Margery Clark writes: Re. ("Media briefs", yesterday). Mention was made in this section about the "interview" between Kevin Rudd and Philip Adams. I tuned in to listen to Bruce Shapiro and instead the airwaves were assailed by these two narcissists in self-laudatory mode. I had to reach for the bucket. They both seemed incredibly pleased with themselves and each other. One wonders why the ABC bothers to broadcast this drivel. Q&A shake-up Steve Tucker writes: Re. ("Tips and rumours", yesterday). Hitting the road has been good but if the program wants to remain "unpredictable" it needs to ditch some of the regular pollies with their pages of crib sheets to keep them on message. By far the most interesting episodes are those with unfamiliar faces with interesting backgrounds and experiences. Oh and maybe no more Liberal pollies until their dear leader has appeared.