Standardise your argument
Error:
Span logic: Span 'spanc8lxjwxa35yxhgyg7qkgz0tn' start index does not match global text index
Please contact Peter with reproduction steps
Select text and choose "Add conclusion" or "Add Premise".
Add an argument component
Last week, you may have had the misfortune to hear local ‘businessman’ Bernie Montgomery’s tirade, admonishing us to give in to vested interests of noisy lobbyists and sacrifice our town, handing it over to be defiled by the scourge of a large nuclear reactor. Fellow citizens, we must not let this happen.
Nuclear power is objectively, unavoidably, insurmountably, and undeniably dangerous. Does Montgomery not remember Chernobyl, Fukushima, or even Hiroshima? How could he and his cohort want to bring that kind of devastation to Australia? He claims to be concerned about our children, and our children’s children, but there won’t be any children if we allow them to be wiped out in a nuclear catastrophe. Because of these dangers, it clearly follows that it would only be permissible to accept nuclear power if there were no adequate alternatives. As it happens, there are plenty of perfectly good alternatives.
One option we should strongly support over nuclear power is coal. Despite the concerns some have raised about potential environmental issues that may be associated with coal, as Scott Morrison has said in parliament, coal is nothing to be afraid of. Montgomery talks about coal as if it were the enemy, but right-thinking Australians don’t see it that way. According to an ABC report, a 2019 survey found that more Australians think of the coal industry as supporting the economy and creating jobs, than think of it as damaging the environment. Montgomery’s attitudes here show how out of touch he is with community sentiment, which is still firmly in support of our proud Australian coal industry. It’s an industry which has supported the growth of this great nation for hundreds of years, so why let a few contrary voices stop that now?
Transitioning from coal to nuclear energy would also cost an estimated $387 billion, according to Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen. Think of all the schools, hospitals, and aged care facilities Australia could have if we keep using coal instead of making this irresponsible and expensive leap into the unknown!
Renewable energy is another option.
Even if, against reason and evidence, Australia did find itself forced to adopt nuclear power, Cobar would not be an appropriate place to build a large nuclear reactor. Although some EU countries with nuclear energy have so far avoided major disasters, their climates and geography are very different to outback NSW, so the fact that they’ve been lucky so far should offer us no comfort. And although the EU may not have had any major accidents, people are telling me that they haven’t avoided the devastating effects of nuclear power. As the graph clearly shows, the increase in nuclear power in Europe has been associated with a decimation of bee populations. Coincidence? That’s not what I’ve been hearing.
Not only would Cobar’s natural environment be placed under threat, but so would our important cultural and historical sites. Cobar is known for its classic 19th century architecture, and the rock paintings of nearby Mt Grenfall are of great cultural and spiritual significance to the Ngiyampaa People.
We cannot allow these treasures to be put at risk.
And while towns like Cobar are doing it tough, it’s ridiculous to suggest, as Montgomery does, that a nuclear power plant will solve all of the challenges facing rural communities. No-one wants a nuclear power plant in their town, and if we let the Government impose this on us, what will be next? Cobar will becoming a dumping ground for any dreadful developments the rest of Australia rejects. Fellow residents of our fragile and yet mighty town, don’t be misled into listening to Montgomery and others like him. Are we sure his interest in building this monstrosity is not a result of some back-room deal with his friends in government, to sell his land to them for development? What explanation other than vested interest could there really be for his willingness to violate our town, going against all the evidence and community opinion?
Stand up for our town, and defend Cobar against the nuclear threat.
C
P1.
P1.1.
P1.2.
P1.3.
P1.4.
P2.
P2.1.
P2.2.
P2.2.1.
P2.3.
P2.4.
P2.4.1.
P3.
P4.
P4.1.
P4.2.
P4.2.1.
P5.
P5.1.
P5.1.1.
P5.1.2.
P6.
P6.1.
P6.2.
P6.2.1.
Linked / Convergent Components
P1., P2., P3., P4., P5., P6. = Convergent
P1.3., P1.4. = Linked
P1.1., P1.2. = Convergent
P2.1., P2.2., P2.3., P2.4. = Convergent
P4.1., P4.2. = Linked
P5.1.1., P5.1.2. = Linked
P6.1., P6.2. = Convergent