HOW HOWARD WILL WIN THE NEXT ELECTION: GREENS NOT SERIOUS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING.

I sniffed this about a year ago, when Howard started raising the nuclear flag. Howard learned early that if he does a mock self-crucifixion before an election, the public is impressed by his bravery and awards him a new kingdom. A year later, he's become even more "interested" in the environment and Global Warming, so the stage is now set for his next messianic stunt.

Back in 1997 the government had already chosen the sites for nuclear reactors on rivers near capital cities. But back then it wasn't politically correct to do anything about it. Nowadays, the electorate knows what carbon is, and it's time to milk this cow. For a 5th term, Howard really needs a radioactive rabbit to pull out of his hat. It's all or nothing this time.

Surely the Australian electorate are a bunch of NIMBYs and won't be impressed?

According to the latest Morgan Gallup poll, 49% of Australians want nuclear, 57% LNP, 39% ALP, 25% of Greens, 60% of men and 65% of teenagers want nuclear.

The wonder of these figures is that most nuclear supporters haven't heard of Thorium, which is a much better alternative to Uranium. It means these supporters are willing to take quite large risks to clean the atmosphere of carbon. Recently, the number of thorium proselytisers (formerly a super-secret order ) have been increasing, appearing on high profile shows, and amongst the ranks of politicians. They are still being fobbed off with trite pro-uranium answers, and trite anti-nuclear answers. But scientists are never going to let this one drop. Eventually, the mainstream debate is going to turn into thorium vs. uranium, not anti-nuclear vs. pro-nuclear. Most people are going to realise that "anti-nuclear" is a stereotype position, akin to bigotry.

Recently, the US has signed an outrageous agreement with India, designed to suppress their research into thorium reactors, and make it reliant on US uranium. Combined with our own uranium interests, this means Howard will not mention thorium voluntarily, and it will be a persistent irritant to him, but the Greens and Labor won't be able to capitalise on it. Neither side likes to mention it, but people will notice, and pro-nuclear support will grow, even from within the Greens.

Over the years, anti-nuclear campaigners have backed themselves into a corner, trying to make "nuclear" look as dirty as possible. They've based all their arguments on the popular weapons fuel, Uranium. But it's been known since the 60's that Thorium is much cleaner and has a more plentiful energy yield by a factor of 50. When the standard anti-nuclear arguments are pointed at Thorium, two of them are flattened, and the rest only partially work.

They say "Uranium will only last us a few years if we all use it", but with thorium, there is 150 times the energy reserve, and the thorium cycle can burn energy in stockpiled plutonium weapons and other Uranium mess. They say, "Uranium mining emits carbon", but thorium burns easily with 50 times the efficiency, so this is not relevant.

There is a large pool of people who potentially hate greenies, the word "renewable", recycling, windmills and anything which impacts on their standard of air conditioning. They will rally to Howard's inevitable claim that "The Greens and Labor are not serious about Global Warming, because if they were, they'd be advocating nuclear power."

I don't see any way that Howard can fail to play this card as the election approaches. It's on a silver platter next to his bed in a special envelope. It's a particularly appealing statement to rally to, because if you have usually opposed measures against Global Warming, for whatever reason, you need a good excuse to change your mind and save face. You can't embrace wind farms, because that would be an admission that you had been wrong all the time and the hippies had been right. An easy "out" needs to appear out of nowhere. As you can see from the Morgan poll, the numbers are stacked beautifully to remove votes from the left. Howard can see this a mile off.

Not only is nuclear an "out"; it's superior, because it's a big step, and it's brave and macho. You can crucify yourself with the messiah. You are the first in a new generation of people with the guts and vision to recognise how truly serious Global Warming is. (As opposed to the Left, who just use Global Warming as a way to bash capitalists. )

Opposing Howard on nuclear will make him seem stronger and more visionary. By making nuclear look more politically brave, it will appeal to the new generation of 5 minute environmentalists, who feel they have to lead, and make a real personal risk-sacrifice to save the planet. Remember it's a human sacrifice, because plants and animals don't care about nuclear. Chernobyl area has turned out to be a national park, where wolves and wild pigs now flourish. For every wimpy way of looking at nuclear, there is a macho way. James Lovelock, father of Gaia theory, is now quoted as saying he'd heat his house with nuclear waste.

When the thorium cycle enters the real public debate, people will wonder why the Greens haven't been advocating thorium since the 90's. Why have they been sweeping it under the carpet like a state secret? Why did I vote Green?

The point of this letter is not to debate nuclear power. Nuclear is already here, like the Pacific Highway bypass, or the Shannon creek dam, and every other political decision that was decided 10 years before the official enquiry. The question is, how much do you want to play a part in Howard's resurrection? (Remember, history will look back on his 18 year term and credit him with this courageous decision. I can't think of anything else he's done. It's only courageous because he is being hysterically opposed.)

Will the Greens have the flexibility to re-route their logic, and say on national TV : "If we have nuclear it all has to be streamlined towards thorium fuels. We want a reactor design that is thorium capable, and we want to see the research being done to benefit Australian thorium development. And we want to see this fuel being phased in as soon as possible. Furthermore, we want the uranium mines to be closed, because it's an obsolete and dangerous fuel."

This would advance the argument so far (and have scientific applaud), that the government would have to find a new election stunt. It will take the reactionary spirit out of Howard's vision. It's not black and white confrontation anymore, and there is a more mundane debate instead. Now, it's Howard making lame excuses as to why he doesn't want to use thorium. Let's hear exactly why he wants to go down the more dangerous, cheap and nasty route. (He has lots of Uranium friends.) The 5 minute environmentalists will be interested. How politically brave could he be, if even the Greens notionally agree with him, and have important suggestions for improving his new toy? If the Greens want to insult the government further, they could then insist that the government really follow through on this thorium nuclear plan, rather than abandon it as a failed election stunt. (How good is your poker face?)

Once the Greens have settled this political "debate" by subtly exposing it for what it is, they can then press the government on what it is going to do NOW about global warming. Until then, what Howard is doing NOW, is combating people who don't care about Global Warming like he does. He will have this excuse right up until the election if you let him, and barring catastrophic economic failure, or nuclear terrorism, he's on a winner. While there is a cane toad in opposition, Howard is not going to go away because you want him to.

By opposing all things nuclear, the Greens and Labor aren't steering anything anywhere.

-Chris