Transcript below.
Richard King
No nuclear no net zero. Ted O’Brien speaking at COP 28 Well, he’s back in the country and he’s at the other end of the phone line right now. Good morning, Ted.
Ted O’Brien
Good morning to you Richard.
Richard King
I must ask you first off, they were reportedly 67,000 people attended COP28 Is that roughly the figure in total?
Ted O’Brien
To be honest, I heard different figures. Some people are talking as many as 100,000 others around 70,000 A lot of people either way.
Richard King
A lot of people and obviously not all sitting in the one room all the time I gather there are things happening at multiple venues over the what the two weeks that COP 28 was happening,
Ted O’Brien
Richard, it was my first COP, but I’m very familiar with trade shows. And it was sort of like a trade show on steroids. Where you would have a lot of breakout meetings, especially with other legislators from different countries, which is what we focused on. And then there’s a political overlay where the negotiations take place. And so it’s an enormous show. There’s no doubt about that.
Richard King
And look, this final resolution which which is transitioning away from not phasing out. I gather, there was hot debate over that final wording. Yeah,
Ted O’Brien
Yeah, look a lot of hot debate. I’m happy that it didn’t land where Chris Bowen wanted it to land. Because that would have hit Australia very hard. Thankfully, where it landed was really pragmatism prevailed over ideology here. It confirmed that the name of the game is to reduce emissions, not eliminate fuels like gas and it provides sufficient flexibility for nations to map their own path to decarbonize, which I think is critically important. And it did include by the way, carbon capture and storage which is important to abate the likes of gas, and it included zero-emissions nuclear energy, and so I think the final outcome was not the ideological bent that Labor was edging towards.
Richard King
And look, there’s been a lot written and said about this since the resolution was passed yesterday. But as I understand it, it only applies to energy production is that right? The transitioning away from fossil fuels for energy production, but not necessarily to other industries? Is that right?
Ted O’Brien
There’s a high degree of ambiguity, to be honest with you, Richard. And I think we’ll only know that over the next few weeks in terms of how people really interpret it. And then these multilateral United Nations conferences, with so many individual parties coming on. The final communique always reflects compromise and ambiguity. The most important thing for us as Australia will be how the Labor Party in government interprets it. And so far, that’s not looking too flash, because they’ve made very clear they want to kill off gas. Right.
Richard King
When they say a deal has been reached, I mean, it’s not a binding thing, is it? I mean, what what effect does it have and what does it really mean?
Ted O’Brien
It’s more wording has been settled upon, for a final media release a final communique. In terms of how binding it is. While it’s not strictly binding, by international law, Australia has a history of always not just meeting but beating its obligations under these arrangements. And so for Australia, I think it carries a lot of weight. Because historically, we’ve always delivered. And so this is why it really is now up to Chris Bowen as the Minister, to explain some of his conflicting language. Only a month ago, he was here in Australia, talking about the importance of gas for our electricity our manufacturing our industry. But then when I was over in COP there he was talking about the need to kill gas that it shouldn’t be part of our future. And so I think the everyday Australian who’s involved in industry is sort of scratching their head saying, so what is your position? And it’ll now be up to him to explain how he interprets the communique coming out of COP.
Richard King
Well, look, certainly under the previous Coalition Government, you were certainly a part of that it was all about gas gas gas. And I spoke to Paul Broad on a number of occasions, he was formerly the head of Snowy Hydro and Red Energy and he had this to say on the subject of gas.
Paul Broad
We need more gas. What happens is that you can’t close Eraring, let me be absolutely clear, say it as loud as I possibly can. Closing Liddell was bad enough, can’t close, can’t close Eraring. And they can’t close Vales Point, they need to stay much longer. It is they are dreaming, if they think…
Richard King
Paul Broad was of the opinion, we should be building and well, they’re way behind way behind schedule and way over budget with this gas peaking plant, they’re building at the former hydro aluminium site at Kurri Kurri here in the Hunter Valley. It was supposed to be completed before Liddell closed earlier this year. It hasn’t happened. It’s way over budget but Paul Broad was of the opinion that we should be building these gas peaking plants right around the country. Are you on side with that belief, Ted, that we should be building more of these gas peaking plants?
Ted O’Brien
There are different options for getting gas into the system. But the core objective, I agree with what we just heard from Paul Broad there that we need more gas. That’s just the reality. And so and this is where going back to COP, you know there are people saying we need to stop any more fossil fuels, no more gas, and Chris Bowen took that position. But it misdiagnosis the problem, that the issue from a climate change perspective is not that gas is bad, but that it generates emissions. So that is why we need to embrace technologies like carbon capture and storage that abates the emissions. But if we want reliability in Australia, if we want the lights to go on, industry to keep powering, we we need gas, it’s that simple. And anything else just is a dream. It’s ideology.
Richard King
Okay, so in the short term, we need more gas. And as I understand it, too, if they pull their finger out, they can be building these gas peaking plants that can easily be turned on and off when they’re needed and not needed. But you’re of the opinion that long term we need the nuclear option Ted.
Ted O’Brien
Indeed Richard and you’re right to on the gas peaking plants it you can certainly bring them to market faster. And the problem with the Kurri Kurri one was that Chris Bowen came to government demanding that it’s, it’s got to be 30% hydrogen. And so this Summer we should have Kurri up and running but of course it’s not. But I think eventually zero-emissions nuclear energy must be considered for Australia. And over in COP it was really embarrassing to sit there meeting after meeting with the Americans with the British with the French with the Japanese or the Canadians. All of our allies and friends are going down the path of having more and more nuclear energy because of zero emissions, and it plays a similar role to what coal does in the system. It can provide the baseload. But even more than that, it can ramp up and down to work together with renewables. But again, Labor just refused to even contemplate it, Richard.
Richard King
Look, I had emails this morning asking whether or not you’d be happy to have one in your electorate. But the issue that everybody raises is the waste. I had a caller yesterday, Emanuel, this is part of what Emanuel had to say.
Emmanuel (Caller)
What this country needs is more nuclear reactors. You know, when people talk about that, we didn’t know how to get rid of the waste. Can I just tell you something? My brother works at ANSTO, which is in Sydney, the nuclear research place? Right? Yep. Yep. It’s been there forty years. My brother tells me repeatedly about they’re changing the waste product into synrock.
Ted O’Brien
Have you heard of that? synrock.
Ted O’Brien
Yeah, synrok is a technology that is Australian born, and ANSTO, which is our nuclear reactor in Australia, 30 kilometers outside of Sydney, they’ve been leading the way in that regard, which is another technology for managing waste. I mean, the good thing about nuclear waste, Richard is unlike every other form of energy generation, you know, precisely where that waste is held and how it’s managed. So the world has been doing this for 70 years. They do it well, there haven’t been issues with it. And so it is miniscule, such is the density of uranium that goes into a nuclear reactor, the waste is tiny. I mean, if you and I use nuclear all our life, for all of our energy generation, the waste for any of us would fit into a can of Coke. It is so minuscule. And it’s so well managed around the world. Nuclear industries, manage waste better than any other industry in the world. Bar none. That’s a known fact.
Richard King
Right? Look, as I said, I had a couple of emails this morning to say ask you whether or not you’d be happy to have one in your electorate. Now, I know you were asked that on on q&a Earlier this year, I think, Ted. Would you welcome a nuclear facility in your electorate? And I’ve got the transcript here. You said, I would absolutely welcome a nuclear facility, whether it be in my electorate, or any electorate around the country, where it is proven to be technologically technologically feasible, has a social licence, and is going to get prices down. Well, what do you think we can do that? Do you think it is at this stage technologically feasible? Is there a social license for it in Australia? And well do you think it’d bring prices down? Because it well, certainly Chris Bowen and everybody who said, look, it’s way too expensive? It’ll push the price of energy up? Do you agree with that, or?
Ted O’Brien
No, so Chris Bowen is wrong. And it has been proven time and time again, by our allies, by our international friends, that nuclear energy brings prices down. So Ontario, in Canada, 60%. Nuclear, their households pay half the price that we do in Australia, and their grids generate 1/10 of the emissions as our does, right. So emissions come down but so to do prices. And then is it technologically feasible? This technology has been working for 60-70 years now around the world. So yes, tick to that proven technology, and then a social licence, Richard becomes the big thing that we’ve been talking about. And this is why the Coalition has been so upfront, so transparent and will continue to be because it doesn’t matter whether it’s a wind farm, whether it’s a peaking plant, or a nuclear plant, you do need local communities consent. They need to buy in, and that has to be part of the process regardless of energy infrastructure.
Richard King
Good to talk to you just quickly… I know its state and your federal but you are a Queenslander. Anastasia Palaszczuk has been the Premier of Queensland for nine years. She has stepped down Stephen Miles will officially take over he’ll be sworn in tomorrow. What do you think the major legacy of Anastasia Palaszczuk term is the Premier of Queensland is Ted?
Ted O’Brien
Richard, I find it difficult because I’m not one who likes to have a cheap shot as people are leaving the building. But Anastasia Palaszczuk and I have had many a run in. Because I led the negotiations on behalf of the Federal Government for the 2032 Olympic Paralympic Games. I think unfortunately, she has created a mess with how that’s being managed over the last, you know, two years now. I think her real legacy will be a legacy of having retained power. She’s been there for a long time. And I think retention of power is probably her greatest legacy.
Richard King
Great to talk to you throughout the year, Ted, and I hope we can do that next year and I hope that you and yours have a very safe and happy Christmas, Ted.
Ted O’Brien
Thanks very much, Mike. Merry Christmas to you, too.
Richard King Likewise, Ted O’Brien, he’s the Shadow Minister.