Hot topics                    

Thursday 4 October 2007

RAPID ROUNDUP

Media coverage of the energy debate - Experts respond

A new research report, The Energy Debate, released today by Media Monitors, looks at the way energy issues are being covered in the Australian media. The independent study focuses on the major energy sources under discussion - including nuclear, coal, solar and wind - from May to July 2007.

According to the report, media coverage of the energy debate shows mild optimism that solutions will be found to balance environmental and economic interests, but that serious concerns also abound in relation to safety, the environment and consumer protection.

The full report and media release are now available on the Media Monitors website.

Co-author and Media Monitors Group Research Director, Jim Macnamara, spoke to the AusSMC's Annie Hastwell about the report. Listen to the interview here.

Below, several energy and related experts comment on the report. Feel free to use these quotes in your stories. If you have any further queries, don’t hesitate to contact the AusSMC on 08 8207 7415 or email us.

Mr Barney Foran is visiting fellow at the centre for Resource and Environmental Studies at the Australian National University. He led the Resource Futures Programme at CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems and has a background in agriculture, ecology and physical economics.

“Australian reporters and broadcasters help delay a concerted national response to the energy and greenhouse conundrum by their fragmented and non-expert commentary. Were it economics, most news bureaus would boast a premiership team of learned commentators and analysts. But for energy and greenhouse, where are the reporters that understand and report on thermodynamics, energy profit ratios, energy rebound and life cycle analysis? They seem not to exist yet, and so the tired old misinformation (eg. wind turbines cause bird strikes) are repeated frequently. When are we reminded that our individual consumption patterns, on average, emit at least 19 tonnes yearly (power 20%, transport 10%, food 25% and shopping 35%) and that ‘we’ not ‘them’ will have to be the ones to provide solutions? When we buy Chinese made goods, ‘we’ cause those greenhouse emissions in mainland China.

And just for the record, the trade adjusted greenhouse responsibility rests with the USA (6 billion tonnes/year), China (3 bt/y), Russia, Japan and India (each around 1 bt/y) and then Germany, UK, Italy, Canada and France (900 down to 500 mt/y each). So affluence and lifestyle dominates, but population size also matters.”

Martin Sevior is an Associate Professor at the University of Melbourne’s School of Physics, focussing on experimental particle physics. He has helped develop a website to explain the risks and benefits of both employing, or not employing, nuclear power for energy generation.

"I have been involved in numerous community debates and forums as well as many internet discussions. In the process I have acquired a reasonable amount of anecdotal experience of public opinion. It appears to me that this report is right on the money with regard to public mood about energy issues. However, in addition to global warming, people are also becoming concerned about Peak Oil in the face of rising petrol prices."

Professor Mike Sandiford is an ARC senior research fellow at the University of Melbourne’s School of Earth Sciences.

“The energy future debate is the most serious of our time. The choices we make, or fail to make, to deal with the consequences of our great unplanned CO2 experiment, will have implications for generations to come. There is no question we must find the right solutions, and not just for ourselves. To this end we must critically revaluate all future energy options, and do so in way that accounts for the full repercussions of our choices. In so doing, it is imperative that we deal with the moral dimensions to the whole life-cycle of energy generation. For example, to sell uranium for our own gain, without detailing how the waste will be secured for all time, must be seen to be as repugnant as belching, knowingly, obscene quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere. Furthering the debate in an objective and balanced way as CARMA has done is an essential and profoundly good thing.”