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.
P2.
P3.
P3.1.
P3.1.1.
P3.1.1.1.
P3.1.2.
P3.1.3.
P3.1.4.
P3.2.
P4.
P4.1.
P4.2.
P4.2.1.
P4.3.
P4.3.1.
P5.
P5.1.
P5.2.
P6.
P6.1.
Linked / Convergent Components
P2., P3. = Linked
P1., P4., P5., P6. = Convergent
P3.1., P3.2. = Convergent
P3.1.2., P3.1.3. = Linked
P3.1.1., P3.1.4. = Convergent
P4.1., P4.2., P4.3. = Convergent
P5.1., P5.2. = Convergent