Dr. Adi Paterson, the chair of the pro-nuclear advocacy group Nuclear for Australia, has drawn sharp criticism for downplaying the role of carbon dioxide (CO2) in driving climate change. Paterson, in statements reviewed by The Guardian, described concerns over CO2 emissions as an “irrational fear of a trace gas which is plant food.” These comments appear to contradict his organization’s mission, which advocates for nuclear energy as a solution to the “climate crisis.”
Paterson’s remarks, which he made on social media platforms like LinkedIn and during public events, have been labeled as misguided by climate science experts. Prof. David Karoly, a climate scientist and member of the Climate Council, said Paterson’s claims are typical of climate science denial. Karoly pointed out that while CO2 levels were lower in some earlier periods of Earth’s history, current levels are the highest they have been since humans evolved. He emphasized that the rising CO2 levels have already caused significant climate changes, including more extreme weather events, rising sea levels, and increased wildfire risks.
Despite Paterson’s claims, Nuclear for Australia, founded by 18-year-old advocate Will Shackel, has consistently supported nuclear power as a tool to combat what Shackel refers to as the “climate crisis.” However, Paterson’s statements seem at odds with this stance, leading to confusion and controversy within environmental and scientific circles.
Dr. John Cook, a climate change misinformation expert at the University of Melbourne, criticized Paterson for recycling debunked arguments. Cook noted the inconsistency in claiming CO2 is both harmless and beneficial to plant growth while denying its role in climate change.
Paterson defended his comments, insisting he is not a climate denier but rather a “climate realist.” While he acknowledged the need to limit fossil fuel use, he argued that the likelihood of catastrophic climate events in the near future is low. Instead, he expressed concern about the environmental impact of renewable energy projects like wind and solar farms.
Paterson’s remarks continue to fuel debate over the role of nuclear energy in addressing climate change and the broader implications of climate science denial within the energy sector.