Net Zero Without Nuclear?
The Brisbane Dialogues continues its mission to facilitate productive, across-the-aisle discussions in pursuit of common ground and possible solutions, or at the very least, better understanding of conflicting views.
People understandably have strong opinions about energy policy, fundamental as it is to prosperity and progress. This is particularly so in Australia when the discussion ranges to nuclear energy. And since we first conceived this event, it has become an explicitly party political issue, raising the temperature somewhat. So let’s demonstrate once again that contentious national issues can be discussed frankly, fearlessly and civilly, in a non-partisan way, in public, by people of goodwill, in good faith, in pursuit of truth, progress and better policy.
The Brisbane Dialogues is not for everyone. It is for curious, concerned citizens who are willing to listen respectfully to views they don't agree with in order to understand complexities better and are open to refining or even changing their own position. It is not for those who have made their minds up, who want to promote a fixed position, or just want to cheer on speakers they agree with. It is definitely not for anyone wanting to denigrate speakers or fellow citizens they don't agree with.
"The aim of argument, or of discussion, should not be victory, but progress." Joseph Joubert
As always, the dialogue will be conducted under The Brisbane Rule, which includes the audience as well as the speakers on stage! "All participants agree to listen carefully, speak civilly and concentrate on the content of discussions, not on characters - before, during and afterwards, online and offline."
Everyone wants an energy policy which optimises cost, security and environmental impact - the energy trilemma - but there are fiendish trade-offs to be made. Between supporters of the mainstream policy position that Australia can and must completely decarbonise with mainly renewable generation, and those who think that adding nuclear is necessary and desirable, is there any possible common ground?
What might both sides agree on?
As before, we will have a small number of panellists with differing perspectives and expertise, moderated in an in-depth, long-form, enlightening discussion in a congenial, conducive setting.