Headlines from The Australian about nuclear power (Image: Private Media/Zennie)

The Coalition’s solution to the climate crisis is set to be unveiled, with Peter Dutton reportedly planning to announce sites for a number of nuclear power stations, which would necessarily involve lifting Australia’s long-standing ban on nuclear power.

While the Coalition’s policy has been rubbished as “misinformed bulldust” by the likes of Andrew Forrest, a “dumb idea” by experts and “hot air” by the energy minister, the News Corp papers have been at the forefront of nuclear advocacy. 

In the past month, The Australian has published a number of articles on nuclear power, with only one of its many op-eds (the aforementioned “hot air” piece by Energy Minister Chris Bowen) arguing in favour of Australia’s ban on nuclear. 

Conversely, the paper has run several opinion pieces in favour of nuclear power, including two editorials advocating for its use, the most recent of which was published this morning. 

The paper’s editorial on March 6 said it was “time for a properly costed plan on the nuclear option”, stating “Peter Dutton’s embrace of a nuclear option for consideration is worthwhile”. 

“Dutton is right to develop a net-zero plan that includes nuclear,” the piece continued. “Refusing to lift the ban or even consider the issue … makes the federal government look out of touch with what is happening in the modern energy world.” 

Crikey asked The Australian’s managing editor Darren Davidson on March 5 whether the paper had an editorial view on the merits of nuclear energy, and how it balanced any view it may have with the Coalition’s policy position, as well as any ethical obligations that may arise in its reportage. He declined to comment. 

This morning’s editorial comes on the heels of one published on February 17 headlined “Nuclear option made easy by the renewables miscue”. It went on to describe nuclear power as “a logical option for emissions-free power”, a “sensible option”, but admitted it was “incendiary politics”.

“It rekindles the climate wars and undermines the certainty that is craved by business.” 

Political editor Simon Benson has been responsible for much of this nuclear coverage, penning an op-ed on February 25 that argued the Labor government was “at risk of ending up on the wrong side of history in its fanatical opposition to nuclear power”. 

Benson was also responsible for an exclusive, also published on February 25, that showed Newspoll data conducted for The Australian that showed 55% of Australian voters “supported the idea of small modular nuclear reactors as a replacement technology for coal-fired power”. 

As early as February 15 Benson had insights into the Coalition’s policy, penning a piece titled “Liberals’ nuclear policy has potential to electrify”. 

The Australian has also ran a number of opinion pieces over the past month in favour of the Coalition’s policy, including one by Peta Credlin headlined: “Liberal true believers stand firm against false net-zero gospel”. 

However the paper also ran a piece by Sarah Ison on February 16 that highlighted one of the limits of the introduction of nuclear power in Australia. Ison interviewed Australian Industry Group climate change director Tennant Reed, who said that Australia may be waiting for more than 20 years for economically viable nuclear power.

Are you among the 55% of Australians who apparently support the idea of small modular nuclear reactors as a replacement for coal power? Let us know your thoughts by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.