Conclusion

I have argued that man will not voluntarily decrease his demand for electricity, that the continued utilisation of fossil fuel sources for our energy is far too dangerous, and that renewable technologies cannot meet the demand. Australia has to adopt another source.

Fortunately a viable clean alternative is available with nuclear, and its over-publicised problems of waste management can be sensibly controlled. The existing public misgivings have to be addressed by the better dissemination of more accurate information, and by much more open non-emotional debate.

If major countries can act responsibly to reduce emissions in order to delay, and with luck avoid, the lights going out, by what moral right can we in Australia sanctimoniously refuse to do likewise? Is our reluctance to introduce nuclear plants not being selfish? Is it not being swayed by uninformed dramatisation and TV story chasing?

We should move quickly to this technology, accepting its shortcomings, just as we accept the shortcomings associated with each and every other technology we utilise.

The increasing political and public debate in recent months is a clear demonstration of the much-needed growing awareness of mans influence on climate change, and is a major step to an acceptance of the degree of its severity.
It is most heartening! Perhaps this paper then can be some small contribution to this awareness.

While undoubtedly the immediate reduction of CO2 is essential for the continuance of our lifestyle, the fundamental long-term problem for earth, the major problem afflicting man, is over population.

Without a morally accepted philosophy, and a practical, socially just method of population control, the chances of ever being able to solve our other pressing problems, unfortunately, do seem very remote.

 This then is our greatest challenge of all.