Back on 14 January 2006, I posted a comment titled “Smoking gun – part 1” in which I told you that I would be on the look out for nuclear opposition that can be directly tied to the desires of competitive industries to maintain their market share. Though there is enough circumstantial evidence out there to convince me that fossil fuel interests are often behind anti-nuclear groups, there is not a good source of evidence that can persuade those that doubt my assertions.
Here is a second installment, in an article published on Thursday, 16 March 2006 by ABC (Australian Broadcasting Company) online titled Beattie urged to rethink uranium mining opposition.
Australia, owner of the world’s largest proven reserve of uranium also has a very large coal mining industry with a large export market and a huge reserve base. Geographically, this store of coal is quite close to key markets in Asia and provides large quantities of useful currency from the international trade. As might be expected, this industry provides a substantial number of jobs, provides the income for some large and profitable companies and has a strong base of political support. One of the supporters is a man named Peter Beattie, the Premier of Queensland.
Despite strong arguments from industry and labor organizations that have tried to convince him that uranium mining and coal mining can coexist in his state, he remains opposed to uranium mining developments. Here is his quote from the article:
Mr Beattie says the coal industry has a long-term future with 300 years of deposits in reserve.
“If power is being generated by uranium we don’t need enough coal. I mean this is … black and white – I am a strong supporter of the coal industry, I’m a strong supporter of clean coal technology and I do not support the uranium industry because it will be a competing energy source,” he said.
Well, that seems pretty darned clear to me. At least the man is honest in his opposition, which is always refreshing.
