Blinded by nuclear science

Letter to the editor to Canberra Times:

Professor Leslie Kemeny (“Emission and population targets impossible without nuclear power”, Canberra Times, 1/2/10) takes a typical engineer’s attitude to issues – the solutions to big problems have to be big solutions.

But greenhouse emissions are largely a result of the cumulative impacts of many millions of decisions taken by individuals and organisation. And as incremental decisions have caused the problem, so can incremental actions work to reverse it.

Everyone can choose to say no to the spectre of nuclear power stations and radioactive waste dumps by choosing to improve their own ways of going about their daily lives. From small things like the method of their daily commute to big things like their new home design or installing rooftop solar panels.

Most people would recognise this approach as ‘demand management’. But engineers only make money from designing great big projects, so we shouldn’t be surprised that demand management doesn’t get a look in from Professor Kemeny and his profession.

As for population, the professor should have a better understanding of the difference between a ‘target’ and a ‘projection’. I don’t believe Kevin Rudd proposed 35 million as a 2050 ‘target’ population. As a projection, again it remains something that we can all choose to reject, and to do something about.