Letter to the Editor: The intergenerational opportunity of Net Zero

DEAR News Of The Area,

Achieving net zero by 2050 is considered necessary to limit global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, as outlined in the Paris Agreement.

The world is already moving towards net zero with more than 84 percent of global GDP covered by net zero commitments.

“We (Nationals members) just don’t believe that it (limiting greenhouse gas production) is as urgent as the community has been led and is still being led to believe” (Letters, NOTA 28 November).

Whilst progressive nations move from nuclear to renewables are we seriously considering this retrograde decision?

At the 11th hour we are asked to consider a nuclear option for which no policy or costing is in place and would take a 15 year build minimum?

I personally remain confused as to why the Coalition/Nationals didn’t initiate a nuclear policy during 11 years in parliament (2013 – 2022)?

This does not sound like a good “business” plan.

We need to think very carefully about who profits from the on-going distraction from research and investment into the new generation of renewables.

“There seem to be a lot of people who are making a lot of money out of this” (Letters, NOTA 28 November 2025).

Are we to believe that there are no financial interests driving the distraction for a nuclear option?

We often hear that renewables are taking a big carbon footprint (deforestation) through our forests and farmland relating to the installation of transmission lines – a valid point of concern for our natural habitats and agricultural assets.

But as we continue to debate net zero, the Australian-first research project installing floating solar panels on irrigation dams shows the potential to revolutionise irrigated agriculture by mitigating evaporation and generating energy.

The reality is, under a nuclear policy, a significant grid upgrade may still be necessary, as increased electricity demand will put pressure on transmission capacity.

And then there is our precious water security.

Nuclear power generation requires a massive volume of water to ensure the reactor does not “meltdown”.

Yes, water can be contaminated by a nuclear power plant. Water inside the reactor becomes contaminated with radionuclides, which are then managed through filtration, treatment, and storage.

While some treated water can be released, in case of accidents or leaks, contamination can escape into the environment, impacting water sources and the food chain.

Are we willing to take this risk on behalf of our families and children?

I return back to last week’s letter in NOTA – “The old adage of ‘follow the money’ is probably just as applicable here”.
Indeed.
Regards,
Dr Ljubov SIMSON,
Congarinni (also a Nambucca Valley councillor).