It was predictable that environmental groups would give the thumbs-down - and industry groups the thumbs-up - to the high-profile talks on climate change last week in Australia. The nations that took part in the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate forum meeting in Sydney saw it as an alternative to the Kyoto process, which sets out mandatory reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions. The environmental lobby in Australia is appalled over what it regards as a grossly inadequate sum of A$100 million ($585 million) pledged by Prime Minister John Howard to help support the clean-air industry, benefiting China, India and other countries. There is also outrage that Australia is continuing to pursue an agreement to export uranium to China, as long as it is used for peaceful purposes. Mr Howard announced that his government would commit A$100 million over five years to support clean development projects, capacity-building activities and Australia's continuing role in the partnership. One-quarter of the funding will be for renewable-energy projects. Don Henry, who runs Australia's largest environmental group, the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF), said that A$25 million would build only one wind farm in China - a mere drop in the ocean. And as for selling uranium to Beijing under a safeguard agreement, that's poppycock, according to Dave Sweeney, the ACF's anti-nuclear campaigner. 'The key things which have been so important in improving the nuclear industry in the west - the independent trade unions, rigorous media, independent regulators, green groups, environmental watchdogs - these don't exist in China,' said Mr Sweeney. The sale of uranium to China is not only angering the environmental movement, but it's also splitting the opposition Australian Labor Party (ALP). The ALP, a centre-left party, has long opposed the development of new uranium mines in Australia. But last week one of its senior MPs, Martin Ferguson, broke ranks with his party. Writing in The Australian newspaper, Mr Ferguson claimed that 'with nine out of 10 of the world's most polluted cities, no one can seriously deny China the right to pursue nuclear power as part of its energy mix, subject to the strictest non-proliferation safeguards'. He said it is in Australia's geopolitical interests to supply uranium to China, because Australia has 'a strict chain of custody procedures for uranium sales as well as bilateral agreements to deal with the safe and peaceful use of uranium and disposal of its waste products'. For the Howard government, selling uranium to China passed an important milestone at the Asia-Pacific Partnership meeting: the United States gave the idea a tick. The fear, until now, was that Australia would have to choose between its old and faithful friend, the US, and the nation that dominates the Asia-Pacific region, with which its future economic security lies. Fortunately, that choice did not have to be made: US Energy Secretary Sam Bodman said the US did not object to the deal. But uranium cannot be the only answer to China's greenhouse challenge. Australia's commitment of A$25 million for renewable-energy projects does seem inadequate when one considers the number of such schemes that China needs to commission over the next decade. Australia and China need to focus as much time and attention on forging an exchange of money, technology and ideas on renewable energy as they do on the lucrative and immediately available uranium. Greg Barns is a political commentator in Australia and a former Australian government adviser
