If there is any topic that demonstrates the shallowness of Irish political debate, it is nuclear power. Let's be clear about something first-off: nuclear is not a panacea for all our energy needs. There are genuine reasons to be concerned about the safety of nuclear energy, its cost and the very real environmental issue of how to dispose of nuclear waste.

But the blanket, knee-jerk dismissal of nuclear power by all the political parties in Ireland is a blatant, and lazy, cop-out.

The government said it would consider taking a legal challenge against any proposed nuclear plants on the Sellafield site . . . excellent idea; let's waste millions of euro of taxpayers' money in an utterly futile attempt to interfere in the decision-making process of another sovereign government.

Environment (unfriendly) minister Dick Roche thundered: "I thought there was going to be a logical debate about nuclear power, but the outcome of this energy review appears to be predetermined".

Fine Gael, not to be outdone, jumped into the fray by warning that the "increased risk to the Irish people from a rise in the amount of nuclear waste reprocessed one hundred miles off the Irish coast at this appalling facility is unacceptable".

Next up was Labour, and a statement from its . . . wait for it . . . spokesperson on nuclear safety (Does Labour have a spokesperson on deep-fat fryer safety? While I'm not aware of any Irish people killed by an accident at a nuclear power plant, many have died in fires begun by deep-fat fryers). With no little hyperbole, the statement argued that "for the past 50 years, we have had to put up with the series of mini-Chernobyl disasters at the Sellafield plant in Cumbria. Rather than upgrading this and other plants, the British government should be pursuing alternative sources of energy production".

Sinn Fein, meanwhile, is hosting a conference in Dundalk promoting the closure of the Cumbrian nuclear plant entitled:

'Sellafield . . . it hasn't gone away you know'.

(Ok, I made up the title. It really reads: 'Sellafield . . . Still a Danger').

No doubt, the vast majority of Irish people would agree with the sentiments expressed by the main political parties on nuclear power. They don't feel comfortable with nuclear power and its safety record; they don't like its waste being dumped into the Irish Sea; they are concerned about a terrorist attack on Sellafield. So what is wrong with political parties articulating those concerns?

Leave aside how any Irish politician can keep a straight face while accusing another country of failing to engage in "a logical debate about nuclear power, " or Labour's plainly ludicrous assertion that there had been a series of mini-Chernobyl disasters at the Sellafield plant in Cumbria. What's wrong is that, Ian Paisley-like, the vast majority of the country's politicians are saying 'no' to nuclear power without giving a moment's thought to the alternatives.

A quick reality-check. Every year, thousands globally are killed by respiratory diseases caused directly by coal-based air pollution. Plus, there have been more deaths at one Yorkshire Colliery . . .

Markham Main . . . than in all the accidents at nuclear power stations put together, including Chernobyl. Meanwhile, global warming has killed hundreds of thousands of people across the globe. Yet how many Irish politicians are taking a strong line on CO2 emissions, the main cause of global warming?

Although nuclear power . . . unlike for example, burning peat . . . does not create CO2 emissions, Irish politicians love to hammer Sellafied because there is no political downside. No votes will be lost by doing so and some might be gained by jumping on the bandwagon.

But consider a few of the following questions. How many of those politicians would be so outspoken if Sellafied was sited in the heart of their constituency, employing thousands of constituents? And given their supposed concern for the environment, how many of those politicians would be willing to support the introduction of carbon taxes . . . vital if Ireland is to live up to its commitments under Kyoto? How many of those politicians, who pay lip-service to renewable energy sources, would be willing to face down opposition in their constituency to a windfarm? How many of those politicians would support additional car taxes on the petrol-guzzling SUVs increasingly favoured by middle-class voters? How many of those politicians choose not to drive to work to their free car-parking space in Dail Eireann every day because cycling or public transport is less harmful to the environment? How many of those politicians are willing to take a genuinely tough line on farmers who pollute water supplies? And how many of those politicians have formulated credible policies to tackle the energy crisis that this country faces within a few short years, as the gap between electricity supply and demand continues to narrow?

The answer, of course, is precious few.

And it is that fact which makes the pious pronouncements on Britain's nuclear power policy from our own political establishment so hard to stomach.