Nuclear should be apolitical, but 57% of Lib/Nats support it (no doubt encouraged by their fearless leader). This means that votes will move from left to right, even if Howard is asleep. The ALP will push Howard to identify nuclear electorates, so Howard will identify, say, 2 marginal Labor seats and 2 safe Liberal seats, and tell those electorates that they are "unselfishly saving the planet". Then he will announce billion dollar Pork Barrels in all of them.
Additionally, the Greens and Labor stand to lose on nuclear for these reasons:
– Teenagers have been terrorised by Global Warming, not the Cold War. 65% of them appear to approve.
– People suspect, or can easily be convinced using soundbites, that it’s an anti-capitalist agenda, rather than an environmental one.
– Greens keep sweeping Thorium fuel under the carpet, rather than seeing it as a way to take the high ground (harm minimisation).
– Anti-nuclear arguments are all based on fear, pessimism and disinformation. People tire of it, and can very easily re-value their fear.
– Opposition to wind farms is going to be just as intense, and Greens think "clean coal" is a fantasy.
Currently, baseload is being used as the excuse to reject wind and solar. If the left pushes thorium as a safer fuel, then Howard’s argument will switch to price and lack of experience in the nuclear industry.
If the Greens start advocating "harm minimisation" nuclear, and observing the way Howard actually resists it, this could muddy the waters enough that the "debate" becomes REAL, and his mandate becomes uncertain. Does he really have a mandate to implement the worst, laziest, big, river boiling American forms of nuclear in my electorate? It’s too late to argue this one after he has his landslide "mandate".
Personally, I’d rather Howard lost, and we used thorium, but there appears to be nobody to vote for to accomplish this. The Australian Greens appear to be following an all-or-nothing strategy, on the assumption that Howard can’t possibly win yet again. He CAN win yet again! You just watch the bugger.
Notes:
http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2006/4032/ [1]
http://news.sbs.com.au/insight/newspoll.html [2]
http://world-nuclear.blogspot.com/2006/04/greenpeace-founder-explains-nuclear.html <http://world-nuclear.blogspot.com/2006/04/greenpeace-founder-explains-nuclear.html> [3]
http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7222 <http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7222> [4]
http://www.habitat21.co.uk/nuclear4.html <http://www.habitat21.co.uk/nuclear4.html> [5]
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8122-2384322,00.html <http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8122-2384322,00.html> [6]
Here is my other longer explanation.
http://www.nviro.org/howard.html <http://www.nviro.org/howard.html>