Antinuclear

Australian news, and some related international items

This month

For international news, go to nuclear-news  


Websitesof the week

Pozible http://www.pozible.com/project/187985 

‘Reimagining Peace: the Art of Protest’ http://reimaginingpeace.wordpress.com/

Australian Progressive Party http://www.progressives.org.au/

 

Global Journalist: Indigenous land rights in Australia

 EVENTS

more detail  on  these at Action Australia and  Event details « Antinuclear

 

November 25 – December 12  – Melbourne – Exhibition FIRST WORLD WAR WOMEN working for peace in Melbourne

 

consumer-society

  •  November 8 –  – North America – Buy Nothing Day
  • November 9 – International – Buy Nothing Day

 

UNTIL NOV 28 Submissions received on  Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of India on Cooperation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy.

The Committee invites interested persons and organisations to make submissions by Friday, 28 November 2014.

http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Treaties/28_October_2014

(Links for the Treaty Text, the National Interest Analysis with Attachment on Consultation, and requirements for submission preparation are provided here: http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Treaties/28_October_2014/Terms_of_Reference – PDF format)

 

 More information, and petition outline at  Event Details     Petitions likely to be accepted even after 28 November

 February 28 – March 1st 2015   – New York  – Symposium – The Dynamics of  Possible Nuclear Extinction. Learn more at Action New York 2015 

 

sign-thisPETITIONS

 

globalnukeNOhttp://www.gopetition.com/petitions/more-nuclear-power-is-not-the-answer-to-the-climate-crisis/sign.htm

 

Nuclear power versus the concept of ENOUGH – the Conserver Society – theme for November

The Conserver Society is, in contrast to the current Consumer Society is a way of human life that respects and values the finite nature of our planet. A Conserver society would mean that population numbers would stall, even decline, that use of energy and natural resources would be limited, and production of rubbish would be minimised.   This is all possible, and is not a new idea.  The idea of the Conserver Society was quite popular in the Western world, in the 1970s, around the time that the famous book, from the Club of Rome,  “Limits to Growth” examined  world population, industrialization,pollution, food production, and resource depletion.

Today,  Frank Rotering introduces a similar, but more advanced idea – Contractionism: Shrinking economies to salvage the biosphere.  In the 1970s, the Club of Rome warned about the damage that continued population and industrial growth would do to the planet. Now, in 2014, Rotering is demonstrating the damage now being done, and what we need to do to stop it before the world’s environmental crises become irreversable

“Contractionism’s core assertion is that humankind’s economic activities have driven the biosphere into overshoot, that this violation of ecological limits threatens life on earth, and that reversing overshoot is a revolutionary task…….

[The current economic system  has] spurred an orgy of colonization, rising consumption, and population growth.  Today this system dominates the globe and, through its heedless expansion, threatens to destroy the natural world.  Contractionism arose in reaction to this potential catastrophe.  Its countervailing economic conception is to rapidly shrink the world’s bloated economies and to achieve sustainable well-being for the world’s people. …….Contractionism usesWilliam Catton’s word “overshoot” to refer to the violation of ecological limits due to economic activities.[2] In the broadest terms, humankind has caused overshoot because its production level, or output rate, is too high and its ecological efficiencies are too low. Reversing overshoot will require a sharp decrease in the global output rate through reduced population and per-capita consumption, as well as substantial increases in ecological efficiencies………

[A] new concept, introduced by climate analyst David Wasdell, is thecritical threshold.  This is the point where  positive feedbacks have become so strong that effective human intervention is no longer feasible.[7]  For a major threat like climate change or ocean acidification, reaching the critical threshold means that the biosphere’s partial or complete collapse has become inevitable. ……

the initial task before humankind – the planetary emergency it must immediately confront – is to stabilize the global economy in time to avoid the first point of no return we will potentially encounter…….The overshoot crisis is at root an economic problem, and therefore requires an economic solution.”

 

   

7 Comments »

  1. Imagine a planet where our families were very moderate in size – we wouldn’t be using as much energy in total and could leave some energy for the next generation.

    Comment by L Hunter | September 28, 2009 | Reply

  2. Thank you, L. Hunter.
    I totally agree with you – the goal would be moderation in human numbers, as well as moderation in the way we live, and consume the Earth’s resources.
    I read recently of someone’s suggestion that “the best tool for reducing greenhouse gas emissions is the condom”

    Comment by Christina MacPherson | September 29, 2009 | Reply

  3. I’d have to admit that my views have been influenced by the information put out by the ‘independent’ radio and television broadcasters and by the institutes you have mentioned.
    I feel that I have made a conscious effort to become better educated on the issue of nuclear power but if our public broadcasters and institutes are not providing unbiased information on the issue then where else do I go?
    I personally think the case for nuclear power is strong but I am now wary that I may not have been presented with all the relevant information.

    Comment by MattSmith | January 20, 2010 | Reply

    • Australia’s public broadcasters are not doing such a bad job, by world standards. Of course they find trivia, sensationalism, and overly sentimental topics are more popular than serious matters. And of course, they find it easier to just use the media releases that pour out from industry and government.

      Still, one can find very fair and informative stuff in Australia’s mainstream media – (eg. The Age, Sydney Morning Herald, Courier Mail), just that it’s likely to be on about page 7 of the newspaper, or on TV or radio at an unfriendly time (e.g ABC’s Lateline). Also, journalists aren’t always resourced (or inclined) to spend time at the “coal-face” or rather, the “uranium-face” – some topics just not covered.

      All coupled with Australians, (including journalists’) extraordinary reverence for the opinions of “hard” scientists, (nuclear physicists, like Ziggy Switkowski,) compared to their scepticism about “soft” scientists, ( ecologists, environmental scientists like Mark Diesendorf, or Prof Ian Lowe)

      Comment by Christina MacPherson | January 21, 2010 | Reply

  4. A message we get from the media is that Nuclear power is the only way to provide full-scale baseload power.

    Rarely do Nuclear power proponents mention REDUCING or ELIMINATING the gargantuan full-scale waste of power.

    Examples:

    millions of burning electric lights on bright sunny days, eccentric eclectic electric doors opening for any people/objects passing by and often not coming in, almost countless numbers of devices chewing up electricity in standby power-buy mode, dinosaur toasters and dinosaur ovens run on days that a solar oven could do the job, shop “background” subliminal propaganda programming music and video feeds, hair dryers when extreme water wasteful cotton for towels is unused or discarded in frantic frenzy, “boom box” speaker earthshakers human-attempted earthquakers, electric air conditioning to cool those already overflowing with excessive cold-weather-survival calories, grid iron heaters instead of exercise + no-restrictive-nicotine + no-depressive-alcohol + comfortable clothes in winter.

    The True Cost on my electric bill at home is ONE KILOWATT $0.25 per day, but outside of home, and due to waste society, is probably an order of magnitude (10 times) greater at a minimum.

    “WASTE NOT WANT NOT”

    “To Waste is a Crime.”

    Comment by NoNukes Australia | March 3, 2010 | Reply

  5. I have a query regarding using some material on your website, and getting permission from you to do so. Could you please contact me by email, and I will send you the details?

    Comment by Debbie Gallagher | July 23, 2012 | Reply


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 588 other followers

%d bloggers like this: