Anti-nuclear movement in Australia

Australia has no nuclear power stations and the current Rudd Labor government is opposed to nuclear power for Australia. However, Australia does have a small research reactor (OPAL) in Sydney, and it does export uranium. Australia has 40% of the world's known uranium deposits.

Uranium mining and export and nuclear issues have often been the subject of public debate, and the anti-nuclear movement in Australia has a long history. Its origins date back to the 1972–73 debate over French nuclear testing in the Pacific, which mobilised several groups, and the 1976–77 debate about uranium mining in Australia.

Jabiluka

Jabiluka was a planned uranium mine on the land of the indigenious Mirarr people. The proposed Jabiluka mine site was occupied by environmental activists in 1998 and protests were held in major cities around Australia. In 2002, the project was stopped.

Issues

The case against nuclear power and uranium mining in Australia has been concerned with the environmental, political, economic, social and cultural impacts of nuclear energy; with the shortcomings of nuclear power as an energy source; and with presenting a sustainable energy strategy. The most prominent adverse impact of nuclear power is seen to be its potential contribution towards proliferation of nuclear weapons. For example, the 1976 Ranger Inquiry report stated unequivocally "The nuclear power industry is unintentionally contributing to an increased risk of nuclear war. This is the most serious hazard associated with the industry".

The health risks associated with nuclear materials have also featured prominently in Australian anti-nuclear campaigns. This has been the case worldwide because of incidents like the Chernobyl disaster, but Australian concerns have also involved specific local factors such as controversy over the health effects of nuclear testing in Australia and the South Pacific, and the emergence of prominent anti-nuclear campaigner Helen Caldicott, who is a medical practitioner.

The economics of nuclear power has been a factor in anti-nuclear campaigns, with critics arguing that such power is uneconomical in Australia, particularly given the country's abundance of coal resources.

From the perspective of the anti-nuclear movement, most of the problems with nuclear power today are much the same as in the 1970s. Nuclear reactor accidents remain a possibility and no convincing solution to the problem of long-lived radioactive waste has been proposed. Nuclear weapons proliferation continues to occur, notably in Pakistan and North Korea, building on facilities and expertise from civilian nuclear operations. The alternatives to nuclear power, efficient energy use and renewable energy (especially wind power), have been further developed and commercialised.

Active groups

• Anti-Nuclear Alliance of Western Australia
• Australian Conservation Foundation
• Australian Nuclear Free Alliance
• Cycle Against the Nuclear Cycle
• EnergyScience
• Friends of the Earth
• Greenpeace Australia Pacific
• Kupa Piti Kungka Tjuta
• Mineral Policy Institute
• Nuclear Free Australia
• Peace Organisation of Australia
• People for a Nuclear-Free Australia
• The Australia Institute
• The Sustainable Energy and Anti-Uranium Service Inc.
• The Wilderness Society (Australia)

Individuals

There are several prominent Australians who have publicly expressed anti-nuclear views in recent years:

Kevin Buzzacott Helen Caldicott Ian Cohen Mark Diesendorf Jim Falk Peter Garrett Jim Green Jacqui Katona

Ian Lowe Scott Ludlam Yvonne Margarula Dee Margetts Brian Martin Kerry Nettle Stuart White Jo Vallentine

Quotes

Nuclear power in particular is rejected because of its substantial risks (proliferation of nuclear weapons, terrorism, waste management and reactor failures) and economic costs, and because within several decades it will become a significant emitter of CO2, mainly from the fossil fuels used in mining and milling low-grade uranium ore. Based on existing technologies, nuclear power is neither a long-term nor a short-term solution to global warming. -- Dr Mark Diesendorf, 2007.

Promoting nuclear power as the solution to climate change is like advocating smoking as a cure for obesity. That is, taking up the nuclear option will make it much more difficult to move to the sort of sustainable, ecologically healthy future that should be our goal. -- Professor Ian Lowe, 2007.

There are significant constraints on the growth of nuclear power, such as its high capital cost and, in many countries, lack of public acceptability. As a method of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, nuclear power is further limited because it is used almost exclusively for electricity generation, which is responsible for less than one third of global greenhouse gas emissions. Because of these problems, the potential for nuclear power to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions by replacing fossil fuels is limited. Few predict a doubling of nuclear power output by 2050, but even if it did eventuate it would still only reduce greenhouse gas emissions by about 5% – less than one tenth of the reductions required to stabilise atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. -- Dr Jim Green, 2005.