3 ms·

Do you have sources regarding the "left's irrational opposition to nuclear power"?

AmericanChopper 7y ago
The left in New Zealand literally banned all forms of nuclear energy, going as far as prohibiting essentially all US Navy vessels from entering its waters just in case they had fissile material on board.
- zknz 7y ago
  This is a mainstream political position in NZ, not one of the "left".
  - AmericanChopper 7y ago
    It’s actually a very controversial position, implemented by a left wing government.
    - CamouflagedKiwi 7y ago
      It's not a controversial stance within NZ these days, nor seen as particularly partisan there. Other countries (especially the US given what it meant for ANZUS) might find it more so.
      - AmericanChopper 7y ago
        It was controversial at the time, resulting in the US kicking NZ out of their security alliance (something that was of no detriment to the US), and continues to be controversial every time the topic of a US ship coming to NZ is brought up. The fact that the only outcome this policy has ever achieved is the prevention of allied navy visiting NZ is a very consistent source of controversy in NZ. To claim otherwise is simply rewriting history.
- crummy 7y ago
  I thought it was more that NZ banned nuclear weapons and the US didn't want to confirm or deny the presence of such weapons on board any ships so they weren't able to visit. I guess it's a manner of perspective.
  - AmericanChopper 7y ago
    The ban applies to nuclear propulsion too. Excluding a large amount of Navy vessels off the bat. The rest being excluded because Navies tend not to advertise which ships are nuclear armed. The great irony of that being that those same ships protect a lot of water that NZ exporters rely on for shipping.
- phs318u 7y ago
  You may be unaware that this position was enshrined in legislation that has remained untouched in the last 3 decades including by conservative governments. A couple of interesting facts: 1) the galvanising moment for this was the “Rainbow Warrior affair” in which French intelligence agents were caught after having sunk the Greenpeace vessel of the same name; 2) the nuclear-free zone act does not prohibit use of nuclear generation in NZ. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_nuclear-free_zone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_nuclear-free_zone
  - AmericanChopper 7y ago
    I am aware of all these things. It is a law that will likely stay in place forever, as it is such a divisive and controversial issue, yet has barely any impact on anything in NZ, no politician will ever have a motive to take political risks required to change it. The only thing it’s ever achieved is straining the relationships NZ has with some of its closest allies. Specifically it doesn’t prohibit all power generation, but it does prohibit nuclear propulsion. Which again has no impact outside of irritating allies, as NZ never has had and never will have a use case for commercial nuclear power production. It’s a very small country, and 80% of its electricity is already renewable.
    - phs318u 7y ago
      You’re contradicting yourself. Your earlier post says “they banned all forms of nuclear energy” while now you claim to be aware that they didn’t. Given that this whole article is about energy policy (as opposed to the narrow scope regarding the existing NZ ban on nuclear armed vessels in their waters), what is your point? If 80% of its electricity is already renewable, why the drama over taking that from 80% to 100% over the next 30 years? Doesn’t sound like a huge stretch frankly.

The left in New Zealand literally banned all forms of nuclear energy, going as far as prohibiting essentially all US Navy vessels from entering its waters just in case they had fissile material on board.

zknz 7y ago
This is a mainstream political position in NZ, not one of the "left".
- AmericanChopper 7y ago
  It’s actually a very controversial position, implemented by a left wing government.
  - CamouflagedKiwi 7y ago
    It's not a controversial stance within NZ these days, nor seen as particularly partisan there. Other countries (especially the US given what it meant for ANZUS) might find it more so.
    - AmericanChopper 7y ago
      It was controversial at the time, resulting in the US kicking NZ out of their security alliance (something that was of no detriment to the US), and continues to be controversial every time the topic of a US ship coming to NZ is brought up. The fact that the only outcome this policy has ever achieved is the prevention of allied navy visiting NZ is a very consistent source of controversy in NZ. To claim otherwise is simply rewriting history.
crummy 7y ago
I thought it was more that NZ banned nuclear weapons and the US didn't want to confirm or deny the presence of such weapons on board any ships so they weren't able to visit. I guess it's a manner of perspective.
- AmericanChopper 7y ago
  The ban applies to nuclear propulsion too. Excluding a large amount of Navy vessels off the bat. The rest being excluded because Navies tend not to advertise which ships are nuclear armed. The great irony of that being that those same ships protect a lot of water that NZ exporters rely on for shipping.
phs318u 7y ago
You may be unaware that this position was enshrined in legislation that has remained untouched in the last 3 decades including by conservative governments. A couple of interesting facts: 1) the galvanising moment for this was the “Rainbow Warrior affair” in which French intelligence agents were caught after having sunk the Greenpeace vessel of the same name; 2) the nuclear-free zone act does not prohibit use of nuclear generation in NZ. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_nuclear-free_zone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_nuclear-free_zone
- AmericanChopper 7y ago
  I am aware of all these things. It is a law that will likely stay in place forever, as it is such a divisive and controversial issue, yet has barely any impact on anything in NZ, no politician will ever have a motive to take political risks required to change it. The only thing it’s ever achieved is straining the relationships NZ has with some of its closest allies. Specifically it doesn’t prohibit all power generation, but it does prohibit nuclear propulsion. Which again has no impact outside of irritating allies, as NZ never has had and never will have a use case for commercial nuclear power production. It’s a very small country, and 80% of its electricity is already renewable.
  - phs318u 7y ago
    You’re contradicting yourself. Your earlier post says “they banned all forms of nuclear energy” while now you claim to be aware that they didn’t. Given that this whole article is about energy policy (as opposed to the narrow scope regarding the existing NZ ban on nuclear armed vessels in their waters), what is your point? If 80% of its electricity is already renewable, why the drama over taking that from 80% to 100% over the next 30 years? Doesn’t sound like a huge stretch frankly.