The Australian,
May 22, 2006
Labor party zealots such as Anthony Albanese and the Left have never had any real energy options
THERE was a time when one's energy needs were satisfied by cutting down a tree and rubbing two boy scouts together. Then came the industrial revolution and coal and oil took over, thus ensuring tens of thousands died annually in mine disasters or from coughing up their lungs. Oil created tensions between those who had it and those who didn't. Both fouled the air and were big contributors to greenhouse gases, global warming and climate change.
As federal shadow minister for the environment (1977-80) and environment minister in the Hawke government (1983-87), I had to advise my colleagues about alternatives to this carbon scourge. Coincidentally, at the very moment Australia was getting excited about selling lots of uranium, the Soviet Union was having difficulty keeping up with the West both militarily and economically.
On cue, the Left decided there was no greater evil than the nuclear threat. It initiated an anti-uranium campaign with a fervour unmatched since its opposition to the Vietnam War.
With mining unions on one side and the Left on the other, the Labor Party found itself in a bind. After a prolonged debate it came up with a policy that would have tested Solomon. Three mines, it decided, was kosher, four mines a definite no-no. I had some difficulty explaining the logic of this to anyone with an IQ above room temperature. The present shadow minister for the environment, Anthony Albanese, is keeping the dream alive.
With coal, oil and nuclear energy off the agenda, Australia did not appear to have a lot of energy options available. Fortunately, there was one that was clean, green and available. Snowy Hydro and the Tasmanian Hydro-Electric Commission had shown that hydro-electricity was the perfect answer to our energy needs. There was one small problem. The most recent successful example of hydro-electricity generation had resulted in the drowning of one of the most beautiful wilderness areas in the world - Tasmania's Lake Pedder.
Nor were nature lovers impressed with the Tasmanian HEC's assertion that Lake Pedder was now much bigger and therefore much better suited to water sports and fishing.
They were even less impressed when the HEC announced shortly afterwards its plan to dam the wild Franklin River for more hydro-electricity that no one seemed to want. The battle to stop the damming of the Franklin River became the environmental cause celebre for almost a decade, climaxing with Labor's 1983 election victory. Labor lost all five Tasmanian seats while picking up green votes on the mainland.
I introduced the first legislation of the Hawke government, the World Heritage Act, to stop the dam proceeding. Its passage ensured a High Court challenge, which the government won four to three. Henceforth the words hydro-electricity and dam were not mentioned in polite society. From then on my discussions with leaders of the conservation movement were interesting.
"We seem to be running out of energy options?" I asked them rhetorically. Invariably I would be met with that patronising smile they reserve for the lesser of the species who fail to see the error of their ways. "Minister!" they replied in their most condescending manner, "there is wind and solar. " I resisted the temptation to point out to them that they appeared to have journeyed to Canberra without the benefit of either.
Eventually I ceased to be environment minister but my successors were subjected to the same arguments with increasing passion as global warming and climate change became the environmental issue. In recent years wind power enthusiasts became excited as more and more wind farm projects came on stream. Their excitement abated when they saw one or until birds and bats started bumping into them.
When the Coalition's environment minister, senator Ian Campbell, announced that he was giving the thumbs down to a $220 million wind farm project in Gippsland because one rare orange-bellied parrot might be killed each year, the burgeoning anti-wind farm movement was ecstatic.
Cynics suggested his decision had more to do with a promise made to the electorate of McMillan in the 2004 federal election that wind farms would not be tolerated. "Windies", on the other hand, were quick to point out that cars killed hundreds of thousands of birds annually and no one was suggesting we cease using cars. To his credit, Campbell has been consistent. He has asked the Regional Services Minister, Warren Truss, to stop funding a wind farm in Denmark, Western Australia, which just happens to be in the electorate of Wilson Tuckey. We have all learned it is unwise to cross Tuckey.
Allow me at this point to declare an interest. In the middle of all this brouhaha I had not long taken up residence in Bungendore, near Canberra, when I received a notice from the NSW Department of Planning that a 63-turbine wind farm was proposed a few kilometres north of our idyllic rural abode.
Before you could say NIMBY, No Wind Farms signs started appearing throughout the village of Bungendore. Now there's a surprise. What to do?
There are not a lot of options. I could support the wind farm and take the alternate route to Sydney, thus avoiding seeing it. Alternately, I could propose a nuclear reactor or pray that solar, which provides less than 1 per cent of the world's energy needs, becomes economically viable. As a last resort I could sell the car, stop flying, freeze in winter and fry in summer. On balance, I think I'll go with the wind farm.
Barry Cohen, a federal Labor MP from 1969 to 1990, was environment minister in the Hawke government.
0 comments:
Post a Comment