New Zealand, The Nuclear Free Oasis-video

I watched this fantastic beer commercial in New Zealand and it got me thinking….how many countries are declared 'nuclear free' and rogourously defend this position?

I understand New Zealand is staunchly nuclear free, such that no nuclear technology of any form is allowed in New Zealand’s space (ocean/land/air). This policy led to the sinking of the Greenpeace vessel, Rainbow Warrior and cost NZ a lot in their relationships with France and the USA (both allies).

So are there other countries that are similar to NZ and won’t let nukes anywhere near their country?

Great commercial with Willam Dafoe…

www.lineinthesand.co.nz...

Surely if more countries stood up for what their citizines believed inthey might be able to convince the nuclear powers that exist to remove or limit the most destructive force on this planet. Just a thought.

They play that add here (NZ) all the time, it gets annoying.While im proud we have stuck to our anti nuke guns and our principles regarding the whole thing, we have sacrificed alot because of it and the US has held out with free trade deals because of our stance.However i would like to see nuclear power generation here instead of coal as long as we keep weapons and nuclear powered boats and subs out.

Interesting. I understand the ideals that NZ is advocating but I too feel we could benefit from safe nuclear technology (possibly an oxymoron I know).

For better or worse the NZ government respects the beliefs of its citizens to the extent they feel it's worth the sacrifice of various trade and technological advantages to maintain NZ’s peaceful/green reputation.

I can see both sides of the coin. I believe the government knows that we could safely manage nuclear power, but with NZ's history and the popular animosity towards nuclear technology any political entity endorsing the acceptance of nuclear energy would be sunk as quickly as it was launched. For such a progressive country we can be narrow-minded on some issues.

The government department, Environmental Efficiency and Conservation Authority, has just been handed $6 billion to make NZ ‘greener’, if they were truly concerned about efficiency from a sustainable point of view they wouldn’t be covering NZ in the giant windmills like they are currently constructing and would be considering all prospective energy sources. I’m not saying nuclear power is the one, but it is an option.

A close acquaintance of mine works for EECA and she informed me of their development plans. EECA have mapped out areas for turbine coverage which largely include most of the north island’s rural farming areas north of Wellington and south of Auckland. It’s easy to convince farmers to sell their land when the government’s doing little in the way of helping struggling farmers who are being killed off by export tariffs.

These windmills are highly inefficient and costly when compared to some other forms of greener energy. I know nuclear power is not ‘greener’ in the traditional sense but in some ways, compared to the proposed windmills, as I said before, it’s worth considering. These turbines require extensive maintenance and construction costs. Nuclear energy would provide an abundance of power (with little aesthetic pollution) and set up costs rivaling the proposed cost of the combined wind turbines.

So is it worth dropping our morals in exchange for more suitable development?

Anyway, sorry for the rant, just my 2.5c.