Nuclear debate: let's start with the facts

Posted June 26, 2012 12:28:30

Climate change and energy policies are central issues in the Australian political economy. It is hard to identify other issues that have attracted so much attention over such a long period of time; or issues that will continue to occupy the political stage and public attention into the future.

And every time the subject of electricity comes up, the subject of nuclear power comes up.

The evidence of the Australian nuclear debate is everywhere and constant: in newspapers, on websites, on blogs, in pubs, at barbeques, over a few drinks and something to eat. Everyone I meet has an opinion when they learn what I do for a living.

The frequency with which critics of the uranium industry and of nuclear power feel they have to express their criticisms is also solid evidence that there are matters about nuclear energy that are hotly disputed in this country.

So, those who are disappointed that there is insufficient nuclear debate should be reassured.

But we shouldn't take the fact that people love to argue about nuclear energy as evidence that it is a truly salient matter in the life of Australians generally. The things that excite the interest of Australians most are those which relate to the security and the wellbeing of their families.

So Australians tend to identify issues such as education, health and the state of the economy as important to them. When they take a wider perspective, they think about poverty, war and climate change.

I'm not claiming any special insight here. These are unremarkable observations that every opinion poll about issues-in-general will reveal.

Nevertheless, the nuclear debate will continue, even if it is only truly salient at the moment for people who have an occupational, scientific, professional or ideological interest in it. The discussion at that level will help set the bounds of the broader discussion that must occur if and when an organisation, probably an energy company, makes a real business proposal to install a nuclear reactor in Australia.

The fact that the nuclear debate will continue raises the question: how should we conduct it?

The starting point is the facts. Everybody who takes part in the debate, especially those who claim leadership in it, should make sure they at least get the facts right. I am sure most nuclear debaters try to do that. But there are some real howlers from time to time. Here's one example of many:

Writing about the Fukushima disaster on Crikey on March 18, 2011, Guy Rundle supposed the irradiation of helicopter crews dropping water on the reactors: "The Japanese crews will slough their skin and muscles, and bleed out internally under the full glare of the world's media."

It didn't happen and was never going to happen because, even in the midst of the confusion at the time, the fact is that radiation just doesn't work in the way Rundle was claiming.

So, start responsibly with the facts, even agree on what the facts are, if you can. Then recognise that people approach the debate from very different perspectives, from a different world view and, in particular, make very personal assessments of risk.

Why is it important to recognise that in the debate? Because it is very easy to excite overreaction to the risks that the nuclear industry has to manage and to scare people. 

Faced with an argument founded in fear and perceiving a threat to their wellbeing, people will react very rationally: they will likely take flight into opposition. This is perhaps a 'win' in a debate, but not very respectful of the audience.

I expect high standards apply to my side of the debate too. On our side, we should not overstate our case; we should lay out the risks honestly and as well as we can, using the science we know well, and acknowledge that people really want to be able to make the best possible assessments in their own best interests.

This is not to argue that emotion has no place in the nuclear debate. Appeal to emotion is a legitimate tool in political debate, including the nuclear one; and, in any case, debaters are unlikely to be able to persuade their audiences to make only cool, 'rational' assessments. People are not like that, and 'debate' is not just deductive reasoning or a factual argument which only examines whether something is or isn't the case.

Yet nuclear debaters do have a responsibility to put their arguments, even those with an emotional foundation, in ways that genuinely enable their audiences to make up their minds. That is more important than 'winning' a debate.

Finally, nuclear debaters – or debaters in the energy/climate change policy debate more generally – need to avoid the zero-sum energy game which goes along these lines: "The source of electricity to which I am particularly attached can supply all the electricity that is needed and no other source is necessary."   

The future is a diverse energy portfolio both shaped and constrained by economic, social, political and technological factors. Any other starting point won't help people make up their minds. Our audiences, both current and future, deserve better than that.

Let the debate continue.

Michael Angwin is Chief Executive of the Australian Uranium Association. He is also a participant in the iq2 debate in Sydney tonight. View his full profile here.

Topics: nuclear-energy, uranium-mining