�鶹��ý

She’s beauty and she’s grace, and she’s touring Australia to promote nuclear energy.

As Opposition Leader Peter Dutton argues for building nuclear reactors to solve the country’s supposed energy supply crisis, and Labor embraces the AUKUS military alliance, former Miss America and nuclear engineer, 22-year-old Grace Stanke, has partnered with a pro-nuclear lobby group to try and garner support.

Stanke is on a speaking tour from January 29 until February 6 about the benefits of nuclear.

She told the Herald Sun: “If you care about reliable energy and keeping the lights on, and you care about climate change and having emissions-free energy, let’s sit down and talk about how nuclear and renewables can work together to create a strong, resilient and clean energy grid.”

, which calls itself a “grassroots movement”, is bankrolled by Australian businessman Dick Smith.

Along with his pro-nuclear stance, Smith also argues that population growth is responsible for the environmental crisis and slashing immigration and lowering the population are solutions.

NfA is chaired by the former CEO of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO), which operates Australia’s OPAL nuclear research reactor at Lucas Heights in Sydney’s southern outskirts.

Its Expert Working Group is, unsurprisingly, full of nuclear industry figures, including energy consultants and nuclear scientists.

Stanke uses her Instagram to try to dispel fears about nuclear power.

Regarding the risk of radiation, she posted a video of herself with the caption: “Coming home after working as a nuclear engineer knowing that eating a banana provides the same amount of radiation as living next to a nuclear power plant for a year.”

On another photo of herself, with slicked-back hair and a white tank top, she posted: “I like my aesthetic like I like my energy: clean.”

Accompanying a photo of a nuclear cooling tower, she wrote: “Crazy how most cooling towers are NOT at a nuclear power plant, yet it’s become the icon of the industry. Cooling towers cool down water that is then able to be reused within the power plant. The “smoke” coming out of the top, it’s just water vapor. Nuclear power plants aren’t scary, trust me :)”

To assert that nuclear power is a clean and safe energy solution means ignoring the risks and costs involved.

For one, nuclear power requires a high volume of water to cool reactors. On a heating planet, clean water is becoming an increasingly scarce resource.

Branding nuclear energy as “clean” drastically underplays the risk of nuclear accidents and the ongoing issue of waste, which lasts for millions of years.

Power plants and waste storage can be susceptible to natural disasters, such as bushfires, earthquakes and cyclones. Handing down high volumes of nuclear waste to future generations to deal with is simply reckless.

Another concern associated with civilian nuclear reactors is their potential to produce weapons-grade plutonium for the production of nuclear weapons.

Even if we accept the argument that nuclear is a safe energy alternative, we are already well into a climate emergency: nuclear reactors cannot be built quickly enough, or last long enough, to reduce emissions enough to slow the rise of the Earth’s temperature.

Stanke’s tour coincides with the unofficial federal election campaign. If elected, Dutton proposes to build  across the country. His plan has been labelled a “nuclear nightmare” and a “cynical ploy to keep burning coal and gas” by Friends of the Earth Australia.

CSIRO’s GenCost report estimates that the first nuclear plant would cost up to , and that it wouldn’t be ready until 2040.

Nuclear reactors last about 60 years and require billions of dollars to be spent on refurbishment after 40 years.

These funds would come out of already cash-strapped electricity users’ monthly bills, and government spending on nuclear would be diverted from much-needed investment in real clean energy, housing and services. 

Dutton’s seven plants would not meaningfully aid any green transition. The estimated energy produced would amount to of that currently produced from coal.

Considering the costs and dangers, it is an incredibly short-term solution. If the world switched 70% of its energy supply to nuclear, there only exists enough-high grade uranium to last six years.

Stanke’s flawed arguments, which echo the nuclear industry, fail to mention the social and economic impacts of expanding nuclear power.

Mining for uranium, in Australia and North America, involves extracting from the land of . To disregard their rights and disrespect their wishes to nurture their historic land continues colonialism’s ecocidal and racist attitudes.

Why is the pro-nuclear lobby spearheading a PR campaign with a former beauty queen?

Since the 1960s, the device of female models at car shows and attaching female sexuality to a product has been a tried and tested method for commercial success.

Today, however, Stanke is attempting to convince women that nuclear power is the go. If women can get others on board, these industry leaders hope, Australia will lift the ban on nuclear power and private operators stand to make millions. 

How can anyone, even fervent capitalists, be so committed to expanding nuclear power when there is so much evidence against it?

Simon Butler suggested that “nuclear power appeals because it aligns with fixed notions of progress and modernity, in which technological know-how is meant to lead to human mastery over nature”.

This outlook, Butler claims, “tends to treat nature as an enemy to conquer rather than a complex living system to defend and nurture”.

Beauty queens and nuclear power are naturally compatible in this regard.

The Miss America pageant pushes the idea that women who want to succeed (under capitalism) must be attractive (thin), give back to the community (as a capitalist) and work hard (direct others to do the work). Its prize money is given in the form of college scholarships.

“Women can do anything” is the Miss America Foundation pitch. But really, they’re reflecting back to us what capitalism demands — which is that women have to do everything.

The ruthlessness required to achieve perfection as a capitalist woman is akin to the ruthlessness required to prioritise profit over the planet.

We don’t have time to mess around with nuclear energy: our planet needs to be protected and people need public services that allow them to live with dignity. We need governments to take seriously a swift transition to renewables.