NZ PM heads into Apec nuke showdown

NZ PM heads into Apec nuke showdown

stuff.co.nz

Speaking at a joint press conference today, the Australian and US leaders highlighted climate change as a key focus of this week's Apec leaders summit, which brings together 21 world leaders.

But their declaration on nuclear power as a form of clean energy to reduce climate change emissions will be difficult for New Zealand to swallow, with its stated opposition to nuclear power.

(visit the link for the full news article)

This doesn't happen very often but I agree with Bush and Howard Nuclear power is a good way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. While I don't think that cutting greenhouse gases will stop climate change I still support measures that I think are good for the environment and sustainable in economic terms.

As a NZder I am in the minority when it comes to opposing NZ nuclear free stance.

stuff.co.nz
(visit the link for the full news article)

Well they really don't do anything binding at these meetings, so it's not like NZ will be forced to build nuclear power plants.

Anyway, I think the U.S./Australian plans will probably face more problems with trying to include developing economies into a new global warming treaty than with any nuclear objections from New Zealand.

xpert11, fellow New Zealander here, I say that although I'm from Texas, because my family recv'd our permanent residency recently!.

At any rate, I have to agree with you, I think the govt. is shooting itself in the foot with this stance. New Zeaaland could/would benefit greatly from nuclear power for electricity generation.

I unerstand the NZ stance on nuclear weapons and I applaud them for it, no sense in inviting disaster as well as the overall cost of maintaing a nuclear stance militarily.

But all you have to do is stand on any street corner in Christchurch on a winters nite and the layer of soot floating about 15 meters over your head will make choke up. I realize it's from coal and wood fireplaces...but that right there in itself alone shows the need for greater effeciencies in home heating, thus requiring a stronger electrical generation policy.

Deadbang excellent post.
I live in Christchurch and in my own personal experience the only kind of heating that low income family's is wood or coal fires. All the environmentalist do-gooders(SP?) want everyone to switch to electricity for there heating they don't care that the elderly and low income people already have trouble paying there power bills. Of course the same people claim to care about the environment oppose the use of nuclear power.

expert11, thanks man. last point on this. IMO U.K., Germany, and France have proven that nuclear reactors for electricl power generation is as safe as generating it via coal or oil.

Hell in Texas, we have had not 1 but I believe over the course of the 20th century we had 3 catastrophic fire/explosions at oil processing facilities in the Houston/Texas City area.

Coal, not much better, had to look this one up, I'm not from a coal state...but in 1907 362 men and boys died in a W. Virginia coal dust explosion in a coal mine. And still to this date an avg. of 93 persons die a year in the coal mining industry.
source -
en.wikipedia.org...

So my point is I believe that ole walnut about nuclear power
not being safe and reliable does not hold water anymore.

So, I guess I'm lost in the why does NZ stick with this policy?...the west coast does not have and endless supply of coal! start working on apolicy now or once again it will be the rate-payers that feel the pain and foot the bill for the foot dragging.