Australian industrial leaders as well as domestic consumers of energy are now digesting with apprehension the content and fiscal consequences of the Rudd Government's Green paper on an emissions trading scheme. The apprehension stems partly from the recent remarks of Professor Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia University. Sachs has pointed out the sterility and futility of a highly politicized debate on ETS. He proposed, instead that the science, technology and economics of an optimal new ''clean'' energy policy should be properly simulated, studied and understood in the first instance. And Sachs endorses nuclear power as a pivotal clean technology.

Especially for small emitters, the impact on the economy of a ''cap'' and ''trade'' emission program can be devastating. Australia produces around 1.25 per cent of global emissions of carbon dioxide. New Zealand is responsible for around 0.2 per cent and this includes the farming sector. In New Zealand, where an ETS is already implemented, the domestic economy is expected to shrink by around $NZ 6 billion ($A4.75 billion) this year. And household costs could rise by $NZ19,000 ($A15,000) by 2020.

The call for the Rudd Government to formulate a sensible energy policy which will provide Australia with energy, water and hydrogen security and an ETS at minimal cost is growing. Advocacy is coming from all sectors of Australian industry and domestic consumers. Nuclear energy endorsement has come from former NSW premier Bob Carr and the chairman of the Commonwealth Bank and the Great Barrier Reef Trust, John Schubert. Also wanting Australia to embrace nuclear power is Paul Howes, the national secretary of the Australian Workers Union.

Following the G8 Summit, climate scientists and energy experts were quick to comment that Australia was ''the odd nation out''. . Fifteen of the 16 nations attending were already committed to or were planning to adopt civilian nuclear power to battle global warming. From the G8 ''host group'' Italy, which had for decades imported cheap and reliable nuclear power from France, has recently announced its own program for domestic nuclear power production. The other seven nations all had made a major investment in nuclear power over the past 40 years.

From the ''invited observer'' group, China, India, South Korea and South Africa already have major and rapidly expanding nuclear industries. And Brazil, Mexico and Indonesia have firm plans for programs of nuclear development. Australia alone, through political prejudice, lack of education and the pressure of special interest groups, is denying the nation the domestic adoption of this best-of-all technologies for the provision of energy security and low-cost emission trading.

Just before the G8 summit, President Sarkozy of France announced that his nation would build a second 1650MW(e) ''Generation 4'' nuclear power plant. This will follow the one at Flamanville which is due to enter service in 2012. He said these units would provide electrical energy 30 per cent to 50 per cent cheaper than gas or coal and added that ''nuclear power is more than ever the industry of the future and the key energy source''.

For France, each unit will save two billion cubic meters of natural gas per annum when it replaces gas-fired plant and 11 million tonnes of carbon dioxide per annum when it replaces a coal power plant. For more than 35 years nuclear power has been providing cheap, clean energy security for France. In 2008 it supplies 78 per cent of electricity as well as providing reliable base load power for surrounding countries.

The Rudd Government would be wise to heed the strong endorsement of nuclear power technology at recent conferences in Australia and overseas. At the Emissions Trading Conference sponsored by the Committee for the Economic Development of Australia, the managing director of Energy Australia, George Maltobarow, wanted nuclear energy to be recognized as a less costly alternative to ''renewables'' and ''clean coal'' in any Australian carbon trading scheme.

At the same time in Barcelona, the European Union's electricity industry executives held a conference on the ''De-carbonising Europe Trading Scheme''. Of the delegates, 49 per cent chose nuclear power as the key technology to lower carbon emissions, 24 per cent chose carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) and 6 per cent chose ''renewables''. The CCS advocates recognized that the technology still does not exist and must not be mandated for new or existing plant. For energy security and lowest-cost emission trading the Rudd Government should follow the European example.

With regulatory protocols in place, Australia's first five nuclear power stations could be built and commissioned in eight to 10 years. They are only ''too expensive'' and ''too slow'' if seen through the prism of pseudo-science and political prejudice. Already the world's 442 nuclear power stations are averting the emission of about 2.6 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide a year.

Australia, the world's worst per-capita emitter and the premier ''dirty coal'' exporterm, can only adopt a Kyoto-based ethical ''high ground'' in the climate change battle by embracing nuclear power. As a significant bonus, the nation will receive clean, green energy security at a generating cost of around three cents per kilowatt hour. And it will avoid the financial penalties of a bad energy policy imposed on trade-exposed emission intensive industries and domestic energy users.

Leslie Kemeny is the Australian Foundation Member of the International Nuclear Energy Academy. He is a visiting professorial research fellow and an internationally acknowledged consulting nuclear scientist and engineer.