Nuclear waste dump debate heating up over AUKUS, Coalition plans
Australia’s AUKUS agreement with the US and Uk will pave the way for nuclear submarines – and nuclear waste. But some experts say the government has not learned the lessons of three past attempts to deal with that material.
protesters in the South Australian town of Port Augusta in 2018 were pushing back against a government proposal for a nuclear waste dump near the town of Kimba.
They took their fight all the way to the Federal Court, forcing Labor to ultimately abandon the plan.
But the issue of nuclear waste in Australia remains a controversial one.
Emeritus Professor Ian Lowe says that for now, much of Australia’s nuclear waste is stored near the nation’s only reactor at Lucas Heights in south-west Sydney, which is mostly used to make medicine, mining materials, and for research.
Low-level waste is also being stored in hundreds of cupboards, labs and hospitals nationally.
“Intermediate level waste is nastier. And it needs to be stored basically permanently for geological time, and it probably needs to be stored deep underground because the isotopes that are there can be harmful for thousands of years. At the moment, they’re in temporary storage at Lucas Heights near the research reactor. And the capacity there is okay for perhaps 10 years, but sooner or later we’re going to have to find a way of permanently disposing of the intermediate level waste. And that’s a more serious issue than the low level waste. It needs to be deep underground and it needs to be in a properly engineered storage site. And we’re talking big sums of money.”
That waste is safe and secure for now but the Australian Radioactive Waste Agency says this is not a sustainable solution long-term.
The government, opposition and Professor Lowe all agree.
“I mean, basically the temporary waste storage at Lucas Heights is just a very large shed with drums of radioactive waste.”
Australian Conservation Foundation campaigner Dave Sweeney says efforts to site a new nuclear dump have focused more on PR – and managing outrage.
“There has been 30 years of a divisive debate, of coercive attempts to impose radioactive waste, and there have been multiple fights at multiple sites, mainly in the Northern Territory and South Australia, where affected communities and particularly Aboriginal communities have been very very strident, strong and sustained in their opposition – and have defeated a proposal to put waste on their Country and the Canberra caravan has moved on.”
A spokesperson for Resources Minister Madeleine King has said the government is reflecting on lessons learned from past siting processes as it assesses options for safely disposing of nuclear waste.
But Dr Lowe says the government has not learned the lessons of history.
I think successive governments are just kicking the can down the road. If there is a plan, nobody knows about it.”
The debate is being revived because of the waste that will come from the on-board reactors of AUKUS subs.
This will be high-level waste – a more hazardous form Australia does not have right now.
The government plans to dispose of this weapons-grade waste on defence land – and Defence Minister Richard Marles says we have time to get it right.
“To be clear, we will not have to dispose of the first reactor from our nuclear-powered submarines until the 2050s. I want to assure the Parliament that there will be appropriate public consultation, particularly with First Nations communities to respect and protect cultural heritage. This will not be a matter of set and forget.”
In March last year Mr Marles told parliament the government would set out the process for selecting a site within 12 months, but 17 months on those details are yet to be announced.
Professor Lowe has criticised the bipartisan AUKUS agreement as being irresponsible without a waste management plan.
“I think if we’re being asked to approve nuclear power reactors or nuclear submarines, we’re entitled to see a clearly spelt out intellectually and morally and politically defensible solution for the problem that will inevitably be created. It’s just not responsible to create a problem saying, we hope future generations will figure out a way to deal with it.”
Campaigner Dave Sweeney opposes any high-level waste, but says we need to face up to the challenge of intermediate waste – although he doesn’t want to see the process rushed.
“I think we need to just every party take a breath, acknowledge that radioactive waste is in this country, acknowledge that it has been poorly managed to date, realise that we have because of hard efforts of contests from Aboriginal people and local communities, we have now won ourselves some breathing space with the interim storage of intermediate level waste securely at the ANSTO facility and use that time not to regroup in our trenches, but use that time to gather at the table and genuinely consider pathways forward.”
There appear to be some promising developments.
One company, called Tellus Holdings, has forged a new way forward for low-level waste, establishing a disposal site in West Australia – the first private firm ever licensed to do so.
CEO Nate Smith says the company has disposed of 6,000 cubic metres of radioactive material since its facility opened one-and-a-half-years ago – after ten years of consultation.
“With Kimba and others, I think government has announced the site, and then done engagement, and I think that puts people on the back foot. It all starts with trust. For us that was sitting down over cups of tea or going to the pub, it was sharing our vision of what we wanted to do and really understanding the community’s perspective but also their aspirations, and I think one of the biggest things we did that was in stark contrast to government is look we gave our Traditional Owners a veto right. For us, the whole concept from the start was, this is their land.”
Tellus Holdings will not accept intermediate or high-level waste, but Mr Smith says the company is eager to take on more low-level material, arguing this would free up space for interim storage at Lucas Heights.
“It would allow ANSTO and ARWA and others to focus on the real challenge right now, which is intermediate and high-level waste, because it’s coming with AUKUS and it’s already in existence from the Lucas Reactor.”
The Coalition’s plan for a nuclear power industry would also create more high-level waste if it goes ahead.
In a statement to SBS, the Opposition’s resources spokeswoman Susan McDonald said the Coalition anticipates that it would be stored on-site with the proposed nuclear power reactors and eventually disposed of permanently alongside the AUKUS material.
Professor Ian Lowe says the public deserves to know more.
“The one thing we know about nuclear reactors, they produce high level waste that has to be managed for geological time. And if we were to go ahead and build seven nuclear reactors by 2035, by 2036, we would be producing high level radioactive waste. So we really need to hear from the Coalition how they propose to resolve that problem.”
TODAY. Low dose ionising radiation as a cause of illness and death
It’s not fashionable to talk about low level radiation as causing illness. If it gets mentioned at all, well, we tentatively state low level radiation as linked with or associated with illness.
Nice and vague. We all know that you can’t respectably experiment on humans, to get absolute proof.
The nuclear lobby doesn’t mind admitting to the harmful effects of immediate high doses of ionising radiation. Those effects are so bad for the relatively few individuals that suffer them, – why it almost seems to prove that low doses are OK, (even good for you as the “hormesis” fans claim)! It’s easier to dwell on, and deplore the effects of high dose radiation on one person, which is, for some unknown reason, now the most popular topic on my nuclear-news website.
What is ignored, especially by the nuclear lobby, is the collective effect over time, of low level radiation. Nobody seems to have a figure for this. But there have been several thoroughly researched epidemiological studies, showing the harmful effects on exposed populations. The most recent was published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ Aug 16, 2023 accessible free of charge).
The thing is – people can get their head around the idea of one individual having a painful illness and death.
The less dramatic thought is – say for example – if 10 million people were exposed over time to low level radiation, and their risk of fatal cancer was increased from the normal risk of 5%, by another 8% (as the BMJ study showed) that would result in one million three hundred thousand fatal cancers.
When we pause to think about this less exciting information about slowly developing illness of great numbers of people – it’s pretty serious!
So this is the collective effect of low level radiation – that doesn’t get talked about.
One huge study recently has been based on dual research – i.e. on epidemiological research and experimentation on mice. This kind of study is similar to the work of Sir Richard Doll in the 1950s proving that cigarette-smoking causes cancer.
Now the corporate world prefers terms like “linked” and “associated with’ – terms that blur the reality of the scandals of environmental pollution and health. And there’s no bigger scandal than the pervasive lie that low level ionising radiation does not matter.
Chair of Nuclear for Australia denies that calling CO2 ‘plant food’ means he is a climate denier
Dr Adi Paterson’s statements are apparently at odds with the group’s official position, which says nuclear is needed to tackle the climate crisis
Graham Readfearn, 17 Aug 24, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/aug/17/dr-adi-paterson-nuclear-for-australia-climate-change
The chair of a leading Australian nuclear advocacy group has called concerns that carbon dioxide emissions are driving a climate crisis an “irrational fear of a trace gas which is plant food” and has rejected links between worsening extreme weather and global heating.
Several statements from Dr Adi Paterson, reviewed by the Guardian, appear at odds with statements from the group he chairs, Nuclear for Australia, which is hosting a petition saying nuclear is needed to tackle an “energy and climate crisis”.
Nuclear for Australia was founded by 18-year-old Queensland nuclear advocate Will Shackel, who has said repeatedly he believes reactors are needed to fight “the climate crisis”.
Two climate science experts told the Guardian that Paterson’s statements were misguided and typical of climate science denial.
Paterson defended his statements, telling the Guardian he was “not a climate denier”. He described himself as “a climate realist” and an “expert on climate science”.
In May, Paterson, who resigned in 2020 as the chief executive of the government’s Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, suggested on LinkedIn that concerns about climate change were “an irrational fear of a trace gas which is plant food”. He has been a regular guest on right-wing media outlets since the Coalition earlier this year said it wanted to lift the ban on nuclear and build reactors in seven locations.
On his Facebook page, Paterson has said that “cold is more dangerous than warm” and described a leading scientist as a “climate creep”.
On LinkedIn, he said US space agency Nasa was “deliberately confusing public understanding by publishing ground surface temperatures”, saying the agency’s climate work “should be given to a credible independent group. Defund NASA!”
In April, Paterson told an audience at the Centre for Independent Studies that “you can’t make a correlation between extreme events and climate” and said “no matter what you believe about carbon dioxide – it is plant food”.
“Increasing carbon a little bit is not going to dramatically change the climate. The plants will grow better,” he said, saying the planet was in a period of low CO2.
Prof David Karoly, a councillor at the Climate Council and a respected atmospheric scientist who has been studying the affects of CO2 on the climate since the late 1980s, said Paterson’s statements were typical of those from climate science deniers.
He said while CO2 levels were currently low in comparison to other times in Earth’s history, they were higher than at any time since the emergence of homo sapiens.
“He is misguided,” Karoly said. “CO2 has led to increases in temperature extremes, extreme rainfall, sea level rise and increases in bushfires and fire weather. CO2 has already dramatically changed the climate.”
Dr John Cook, an expert on climate change misinformation at the University of Melbourne, said Paterson was “regurgitating arguments” across a range of “thoroughly debunked talking points”.
He said: “It’s inconsistent to argue that CO2 is a trace gas which can’t possibly make any difference but at the same time claim that CO2 is going to green the planet.”
Shackel did not respond to questions. In an interview with the Guardian, Paterson argued the UN’s climate change panel “has made it very clear” that it was “not possible at this point” to link extreme events to changes in the climate.
But the panel’s latest report said it was “an established fact that human-induced greenhouse gas emissions have led to an increased frequency and/or intensity of some weather and climate extremes”, with evidence for rising temperature extremes, extreme rainfall, droughts, tropical cyclones and more dangerous fire weather.
Paterson said he did think rising levels of CO2 were a problem and that fossil fuels needed to be limited “as soon as we can”. “It is a very, very serious problem but it is not a climate crisis,” he said.
He said he had been concerned about climate change for many years but said unduly worrying children over the issue was “a form of child abuse”, and “the chance of significant catastrophic events” occurring in the next 30 years “related to an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere in the southern hemisphere” was “small”.
Paterson added he was more concerned about the “ecocide” from building wind and solar farms” than about climate change.
When glaciers calve: Huge underwater tsunamis found at edge of Antarctica, likely affecting ice melt.
Bulletin, By Michael Meredith | July 15, 2024
Antarctica is huge, it affects pretty much every place and every living thing on our planet, and it is changing. This should be a concern for all of us, and yet we know troublingly little about some key aspects of the great white continent.
Despite its position in the far distant south, Antarctica is a vital component in the functioning of the planet. It is central to global ocean circulation, thus exerting a profound influence on the world’s climate (Figure 1 on original). The vast Southern Ocean that surrounds Antarctica absorbs huge quantities of heat and carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and distributes them around the rest of the world, thereby slowing the rate of global warming elsewhere. This “climate favor” has comes at a cost, however—the Southern Ocean is overheating and acidifying, with marked impacts on the marine ecosystem. The extra heat in the ocean is also melting the fringes of the Antarctic Ice Sheet, destabilizing its glaciers, and increasingly pushing up sea levels worldwide. The sea ice around Antarctica—formed in the fall and winter of the Southern Hemisphere, when the ocean surface freezes—has now reached record low extents, affecting the Earth’s energy budget and acting to further accelerate climate change.
All the information we have from Antarctica comes from sparse networks of sensors and equipment deployed directly, augmented with satellite measurements of the ice and ocean surface and computer simulations. While we know more about Antarctica and the Southern Ocean than ever before, it is still one of the least-well measured places on our planet, with some areas still remaining “data deserts.” We need to know more, so that we can better understand the causes of the changes happening here, how they will continue to change in future, and hence what the global impacts are likely to be.
One feature of the Southern Ocean that is often overlooked is how (and how strongly) it is mixed. This is a key process that redistributes heat, carbon, nutrients, plankton, and all other things in the sea, with profound consequences.
………………………………………glacier calving event had caused a sudden massive burst in the mixing of the ocean, stretching many kilometers from the ice front.
How did it do this? The data revealed that the glacier calving had triggered an underwater tsunami event. In essence, large waves (the height of a two-story house) were generated and moved rapidly away from the glacier, riding the interface between layers in the ocean that were tens of meters down. When these internal tsunami waves finally broke—like surface waves on a beach—they caused massive churn and mixing…………………………………………………………………………
This process—of glacier calving generating internal tsunamis and bursts of ocean mixing—is entirely absent from the computer models that are used to simulate our climate and ecosystem, hampering our ability to reliably project future changes. We need to know more about how this process works, how it will change, and what its consequences will be. ……. https://thebulletin.org/premium/2024-07/when-glaciers-calve-huge-underwater-tsunamis-found-at-edge-of-antarctica-likely-affecting-ice-melt/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=ThursdayNewsletter08152024&utm_content=ClimateChange_HugeUnderwaterTsunamis_07152024&utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=ThursdayNewsletter08152024&utm_content=ClimateChange_HugeUnderwaterTsunamis_07152024
UK Nuclear Free Local Authorities send message of solidarity to Canadian First Nations opposed to nuke dump
14th August 2024
Following the United Nations’ International Day of the World’s Indigenous Peoples (9 August), the UK/Ireland Nuclear Free Local Authorities have joined the Cumbrian campaign group, Lakes against Nuclear Dump (LAND) in sending a message of solidarity and support to the Canadian First Nations who have publicly declared their opposition to the development of an underground nuclear waste dump at Ignace, Ontario.
On July 15, the Anishinaabeg of Kabapikotawangag Resource Council (the “AKRC”), representing five tribal groups, published their Declaration of Opposition in which the Council states declared that the Deep Geological Repository proposed near Ignace ‘poses and unprecedented threat to the integrity, safety, and sanctity of Kabapikotawangag and its surrounding environments. It has the potential to compromise the health, welfare, and cultural heritage of our Anishinaabeg people.
As stewards of the lands and waters in our territory, we have not provided our free, prior, and informed consent. We have a duty to protect and safeguard Kabapikotawangag (also known as Lake of the Woods). We cannot let this type of project move forward.’
The Nuclear Waste Management Organisation was established by the Canadian nuclear industry to lead the effort to find a location for an underground nuclear waste repository. Its attempt to foist a nuclear waste dump on First Nation land near Ignace, in collaboration with provincial and local authorities, appears to contravene the legal obligations made originally by the British Government to the First Nations under Treaty 3 and the commitments made by the Canadian Government in signing the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People.
………………………………………………………………………………………..This represents another example of ‘nuclear colonialism’, in which militaries, the nuclear industry, and their supporters in government disproportionately locate their activities in lands traditionally occupied by Indigenous People, impacting their environment, health, culture and future. At the first and last of the nuclear cycle, from the mining of uranium to the disposal of radioactive waste, the lands of Indigenous people are seen as fair game by big business, whilst their land has also been seen as ideal for nuclear weapons testing by the major powers.
The NFLAs have participated in several online meetings with campaign groups in the UK and Canada which are opposed to nuclear waste dumps in their locality. We are delighted now to be in contact with the Canadian First Nations. https://www.nuclearpolicy.info/news/nflas-send-message-of-solidarity-to-canadian-first-nations-opposed-to-nuke-dump/
Transition ‘well under way’ as AGL rejects nuclear push
Illawarra Mercury, By Marion Rae, August 14 2024 –
AGL Energy has staked millions more on the clean energy transition as higher power prices and fewer outages generate stellar profit growth and spare cash.
Australia’s biggest emitter announced on Wednesday the $250 million acquisition of Firm Power and Terrain Solar, adding solar power and battery storage across all states.
Their combined projects, at 8.1 gigawatts, will add to renewable sources of electricity as coal-fired power plants close from coast to coast.
However, recent polls show that many Australians don’t believe the transition is feasible or on track for the national target of 82 per cent renewable energy by 2030.
“We’re investing back into the transition … it’s well underway,” AGL managing director Damien Nicks told AAP.
He said big batteries would ultimately assist renewable generation by responding to market demand in milliseconds, along with pumped hydro and other firming assets including fast-start gas.
“It is the most complex transition this country has seen but you’re right, community engagement through this time is going to be critical … whether that’s on our sites or outside of our sites,” Mr Nicks said.
“We’re also trying to utilise the infrastructure and grid that’s available to us today, whilst the transmission gets built out around the rest of the country – that’s incredibly important.”
But he dismissed the option of nuclear reactors, which the coalition has promised to build if it wins power in 2025.
“Nuclear is not part of our plans, nor our strategy … we cannot sit around and wait for nuclear,” Mr Nicks said.
“The rationale for that is both cost and time to get there.
“We need to find 12 gigawatts of renewable and firming assets by 2035.”
AGL earlier posted an underlying net profit of $812 million for the year to June 30, up 189 per cent, while underlying earnings rose 63 per cent to $2.22 billion.
Shares in AGL rose in the wake of the results, delivering paper gains for AGL’s major shareholder billionaire Mike Cannon-Brookes…………………………………………………. more https://www.illawarramercury.com.au/story/8729378/transition-well-under-way-as-agl-rejects-nuclear-push/
China urges US, UK and Australia not to advance nuclear submarine cooperation
By Reuters, August 14, 2024, https://www.reuters.com/world/china-urges-us-uk-australia-not-advance-nuclear-submarine-cooperation-2024-08-14/
BEIJING, China’s foreign ministry said on Wednesday the United States, Britain and Australia should not advance their nuclear submarine cooperation until the international community has reached a consensus on safeguards and other issues.
Australia, Britain and the United States have agreed to work to transfer a fleet of eight nuclear powered and conventionally armed submarines to Australia by 2050 under their AUKUS programme.
The foreign ministry spokesperson Lin Jian said the programme undermined efforts to maintain regional peace and security.
Forced Posture: has Australia already ceded military control to the US?
by Michelle Fahy Aug 13, 2024, https://michaelwest.com.au/forced-posture-has-australia-already-ceded-military-control-to-the-us/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=2024-08-15&utm_campaign=Michael+West+Media+Weekly+Update
The war of words between Defence Minister Richard Marles and Paul Keating belies how the US bid for military control of Australia has been underway for over a decade, supported by both the Coalition and Labor. Michelle Fahy and Elizabeth Minter explain the Force Posture Agreement.
The Albanese government has not explained the full picture in its rejection of Paul Keating’s concerns about Australia’s defence policy. The former Labor prime minister said on ABC’s 7:30 last Thursday that AUKUS was likely to turn Australia into the 51st state of the United States: “AUKUS is really about, in American terms, the military control of Australia.”
The next morning deputy prime minister Richard Marles claimed Keating’s remarks were “not a fair characterisation” and that Keating’s remarks were not news.
Unmentioned by either Keating or Marles was that America’s bid for military control of Australia has been under way for more than a decade, with the enthusiastic support of both Coalition and Labor governments. As we write this, the US is spending $630 million as part of an extensive militarisation of the Australian Top End to suit its purposes.
Furthermore, five days ago, after the annual Ausmin (Australia-US Ministerial Consultations) talks, it was announced that the US was planning more frequent deployments to Australia of long-range B-52 bombers, which can carry nuclear weapons.
When asked last year whether Australia would allow US aircraft operating out of Tindal air base in the Northern Territory to carry nuclear weapons, the response of Foreign Minister Penny Wong was simply: “We understand and respect the longstanding US policy of neither confirming or denying.”
Compare that stance with that of Malcolm Fraser’s government. As John Menadue explained in a recent podcast “The Americanisation of our public policy, media and national interest”, then prime minister Fraser stood up in Parliament and insisted that no US aircraft or ships carrying nuclear weapons could access Australian ports or operate over Australia without the permission of the Australian government.
As Menadue said: “This is our territory, this is our sovereignty, [yet today] we won’t even ask the Americans operating out of Tindal whether they’re carrying nuclear weapons.”
Unimpeded access for the US
A critical piece of evidence regarding Australia’s sellout is the little-known Force Posture Agreement (FPA) with the United States, which the Abbott Coalition government signed in 2014, building on agreements made with the US by the Gillard Labor government. Her government allowed up to 2,500 US marines to be stationed on a permanent rotation in Darwin, and increased the number of military aircraft that could fly in and out of the Top End and use Australia’s outback bombing ranges.
The FPA provides the legal basis for the extensive militarisation of Australia by the US. In short, it permits the US to prepare for, launch and control its own military operations from Australian territory: “United States Forces and United States Contractors shall have unimpeded access to and use of Agreed Facilities and Areas for activities undertaken in connection with this Agreement.”
Defence Minister Marles has been effusive in his support for the force posture agreement and the control the US has been given over Australian soil.
Just last week, he announced that: “American force posture now in Australia involves every domain: land, sea, air, cyber and space.” Yet the longstanding Outer Space Treaty, which each AUKUS ally has ratified, reserves outer space for purely peaceful purposes.
Two months after Labor won office in May 2022, Marles was in Washington DC announcing that Labor would “continue the ambitious trajectory of its force posture cooperation” with the US.
He added that Australia’s military engagement with the US military would “move beyond interoperability to interchangeability” and Australia would “ensure we have all the enablers in place to operate seamlessly together, at speed”.
While the FPA strongly supports America’s ability to wage war against China, politicians have not explained its significance to the Australian public. Moreover, public consultation on the FPA was virtually non-existent. The Northern Territory government was consulted, while other state and territory governments merely received advice about it.
Defence Minister Marles speaks of the “appreciation for the contribution that America is making to the stability and the peace of the Indo-Pacific region by its presence in Australia”, but numerous critics, including Sam Roggeveen, the director of the Lowy Institute’s international security program and a former Australian intelligence analyst, warn of the risks of bringing “US combat forces, and its military strategy to fight China, on to our shores”.
The FPA allows the following and much more:
- unimpeded access to our airfields and airport facilities for US combat aircraft and bombers;
- unimpeded access to our seaports for US naval vessels, including US nuclear submarines at HMAS Stirling in Western Australia;
- the construction of a US Air Force mission planning, intelligence and operations centre in Darwin as part of $630 million in American spending across the Top End over the next two years;
- the establishment, under US military control, of several storage facilities for aircraft fuel, spare parts and munitions, including 11 giant jet fuel storage tanks near Darwin’s main port, which “will allow the US to run large-scale exercises and operations from Northern Australia”.
AUKUS, in conjunction with the FPA, ensures that Australia’s navy, in particular, will be tightly integrated with the US navy for the purpose of fighting China, and that the two navies can operate as one from Australian ports and waters.
Handcuffed to the US
Australia’s high-tech major weapons systems also make us more reliant than ever on the United States. As respected veteran journalist Brian Toohey reported in 2020, “The US … denies Australia access to the computer source code essential to operate key electronic components in its ships, planes, missiles, sensors and so on.”
This includes the F-35 fighter jets, which both Foreign Minister Penny Wong and Defence Minister Marles have noted this year form the largest proportion of the Australian Air Force’s fast jet capacity.
The significant erosion of Australian sovereignty did not start with AUKUS. Australians were warned as far back as 2001 of the high costs of our dependence on the US by a Parliamentary Library research paper that stated: “It is almost literally true that Australia cannot go to war without the consent and support of the US.”
The paper also noted that the Australian Defence Force is critically dependent on US supply and support for the conduct of all its operations except those at the lowest level and of the shortest duration.
It is more than dependency though? Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles boasts that “American force posture now in Australia involves every domain: land, sea, air, cyber and space” yet the Albanese government denies that Australia is turning into the 51st state of America.
Wake up Australia! We need what Britain’s got – a NUCLEAR FREE LOCAL AUTHORITIES!
Read the article below, if you can dredge through it all. It’s about the complexities of placing a nuclear waste dump.
Note the words used – the willingness of the community to accept it – a public referendum.
Australia cannot afford to leave our future in the hands of incompetent twits like these AUSMIN fools.
People like Defence Minister Richard Marles have the nerve to sign up to “undisclosed political commitments” , that involve us getting nuclear fuel wastes from submarines. No public information, discussion, consent……….
Now the unfortunate Brits have already got their burden of this toxic stuff. We don’t. This absurd plan to buy obsolete nuclear submarines looks like a cover for introducing foreign radioactive trash to Australia .
NFLA 13th Aug 2024
NFLAs welcome developments to move forward to an early poll in Theddlethorpe
The NFLAs have welcomed recent developments to move towards an early Test of Public Support of the proposal to bring a Geological Disposal Facility to Theddlethorpe in East Lincolnshire.
Nuclear Waste Services, a division of the taxpayer-funded Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, is seeking to identify a potential site for the GDF in West Cumbria or in Lincolnshire. The GDF would be the final repository for Britain’s legacy and future high-level radioactive waste. Most of this is currently in storage at Sellafield. Any final decision on the location of the nuclear waste dump would be based on two key factors – the suitability of the geology and the willingness of the community to accept it.
In Theddlethorpe, the shock revelation that the former Conoco gas terminal was being considered as a surface site generated an immediate public response. An opposition group, the Guardians of the East Coast, was soon formed and members now work with supportive elected Councillors to oppose the plan.
Amongst the Labour, Green and independent members elected in May 2023 on a platform of opposing the GDF, Theddlethorpe Councillor Travis Hesketh and Sutton on Sea Councillor Robert Watson have been active in championing the need for an early ballot to determine public support for the plan. The two Leaders of East Lindsey District Council and Lincolnshire County Council have already agreed to hold a poll in 2025, but at the last meeting of East Lindsey District Council, the two Councillors brought a further motion to commit the authority to back a local ballot within twelve months or otherwise withdraw from the process.
Under the government’s established procedures for determining public support for a GDF, Lincolnshire County Council and East Lindsey District Council are deemed to be ‘Relevant Principal Local Authorities’ with the right to decide when a ‘Test of Public Support’ should be held. However, the Community Partnership, which provides limited oversight to the process, determines the boundaries of the ‘Potential Host Community’, the geographic area within which the residents are eligible to participate in any test, and determines the nature of the ‘Test of Public Support’, which does not have to be a public referendum.
At the East Lindsey District Council meeting, the motion was carried, but with an amendment proposed by the Council Leader. Councillor Colin Leyland said he had now come round to supporting an earlier poll in principle, but with certain caveats; namely that the boundary of the ‘Potential Host Community’ be first defined and subject to Nuclear Waste Services being given an additional twelve months to provide more information to residents impacted by the proposal. Councillor Leyland indicated that, if after a year, no poll had been held and NWS engagement efforts remained unsatisfactory, he would recommend to his Executive that Council withdraw from the process. This would be subject to a review by the Council’s Overview Board.
After this amended motion was carried, the NFLA Secretary wrote to David Fannin, the newly elected Chair of the Theddlethorpe GDF Community Partnership, urging him to consider as his ‘urgent workstreams’ defining the Potential Host Community and preparing to hold a local referendum as a Test of Public Support.
The NFLAs have now received Mr Fannin’s response; in it the Community Partnership Chair said: ‘The Community Partnership will continue to press NWS (Nuclear Waste Services) to make this (open and transparent dialogue) a priority and produce information for the local community and supports the local authorities’ ambition for an early Test of Public Support. I can assure you that activities that lead to determining the Potential Host Community and preparing for the Test of Public Support are the top priority for the Community Partnership.’
In a second interesting development, newly elected Louth and Horncastle MP, Victoria Atkins, has invited her constituents to complete an online survey in which they are asked whether and when they would like to see a referendum on the GDF and who they would like to see invited to participate in such a ballot. Ms Atkins circulated a letter just before the General Election in which she made a welcome affirmation that she had ‘always argued for a swift conclusion to this and will support local residents in their quest for a prompt referendum’. In the preamble to her survey, Ms Atkins stated that ‘I will back the call for a public vote within the next 12 months if this is the will of the majority of constituents in Theddlethorpe’.
The NFLAs hope that as many Theddlethorpe residents will participate in the survey. We look forward to hearing the result and hope that it will reflect a local desire to hold a referendum within twelve months and limit participation to those local residents who are directly affected.
A letter was sent by the NFLA Secretary to Ms Atkins the day after the general election is which the MP was asked ‘to use (her) influence as the local MP to speak with your Conservative colleagues, the Leaders of East Lindsey District Council and Lincolnshire County Council, to urge the Leader of East Lindsey District Council to throw his support, and that of his Conservative Group, behind (the recent) motion and for the Leader of Lincolnshire County Council to indicate his support for its aspirations, either to hold a poll by 2025 or withdraw from the process’. The letter remains unanswered.
Ends://… For more information, contact NFLA Secretary Richard Outram by email at richard.outram@manchester.gov.uk or by telephone on 07583 097793
Australian nuclear news headlines 13 -20 August.
Headlines as they come in:
- Gareth Evans: AUKUS is terrible for Australian national interests – but we’re probably stuck with it.
- Nuclear waste dump debate heating up over AUKUS, Coalition plans
- Chair of Nuclear for Australia denies that calling CO2 ‘plant food’ means he is a climate denier
- Transition ‘well under way’ as AGL rejects nuclear push
- Forced Posture: has Australia already ceded military control to the US?
- Wake up Australia! We need what Britain’s got – a NUCLEAR FREE LOCAL AUTHORITIES!
- Albo’s Trojan Horse | The West Report – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JVfESp-A3Q
- Resisting AUKUS: The Paul Keating Formula.
- Australia blasted for new Aukus deal over nuclear waste fears – ‘blow to sovereignty’.
- AUKUS revamped: Australia to indemnify US and UK against ‘any liability’ from nuclear risks
- China urges US, UK and Australia not to advance nuclear submarine cooperation
- 31 August Friends of the Earth Nuclear-Free Art Auction – (in person and online)
- Revamped AUKUS document reveals how US and UK can walk away from nuclear submarine deal
AUKUS revamped: Australia to indemnify US and UK against ‘any liability’ from nuclear risks
Documents tabled in parliament on Monday have also revealed the United States or United Kingdom could walk away from the AUKUS deal with Australia with a year’s notice.
SBS News, 12 August 2024
Key Points
- The US, UK and Australia signed a new AUKUS agreement in Washington last week.
- Documents tabled in parliament on Monday revealed several key elements of the revamped agreement.
- Australia will indemnify the US and UK from any ‘liability’ arising from nuclear risks related to the program.
The United States or the United Kingdom could exit the AUKUS agreement to provide nuclear-powered submarines with Australia with a year’s notice under a new arrangement.
The revamped agreement also requires Australia to legally protect both allies against costs or injuries arising from nuclear risks.
The arrangement was signed by all three partner countries in Washington in the US last week.
Advertisement
Documents tabled in parliament on Monday set out the agreed legal framework for transferring nuclear materials and equipment to Australia for the $368 billion acquisition of atomic-powered submarines announced in 2021.
The plan will bring eight nuclear-powered subs into service by the 2050s.
US and UK could walk away with a year’s notice
The agreement, which “shall remain in force until 31 December 2075”, says the AUKUS deal shouldn’t adversely affect the ability of the US and UK to “meet their respective military requirements and to not degrade their respective naval nuclear propulsion programs”.
“Any party may terminate the agreement … by giving at least one year’s written notice to the other parties,” it reads.
Australia responsible for storage and disposal of waste
Nuclear material for the future submarines’ propulsion would be transferred from the US or UK in “complete, welded power units”, the agreement says.
But Australia would be responsible for the storage and disposal of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste from the nuclear power units that are transferred under the deal.
Australia to cover other members for nuclear risks
The updated agreement also means Australia will indemnify the US and UK from any “liability, loss, costs, damage, or injury (including third party claims)” arising from nuclear risks related to the program.
But the legal protection won’t apply in relation to a conventionally armed, nuclear-powered submarine that has been in service with the US Navy “until such time as it is transferred to Australia”…………………..
Greens attack revamped agreement
Greens defence spokesman David Shoebridge criticised the new agreement for its “multiple escape hatches” which risked Australia being left high and dry.
“This is a $368 billion gamble with taxpayers’ money from the Albanese government,” he said…………………..more https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/aukus-revamped-australia-to-indemnify-us-and-uk-against-any-liability-from-nuclear-risks/rudp9zf10
Resisting AUKUS: The Paul Keating Formula
The venomous icing on the cake – at least for AUKUS critics – comes in the form of an undisclosed “Understanding” that involves “additional related political commitments.”
The contents of Biden’s letter irked Keating less than the spectacular show of servility shown by Australia’s Defence Minister Richard Marles, and Foreign Minister Penny Wong on their visit to Annapolis for the latest AUSMIN talks. In what has become a pattern of increasing subordination of Australian interests to the US Imperium, US Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III and US Secretary of State Antony Blinken played happy hosts and must have been delighted by what they heard.
August 13, 2024, : Dr Binoy Kampmark, https://theaimn.com/resisting-aukus-the-paul-keating-formula/
From his own redoubt of critical inquiry, the former Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating has made fighting the imperialising leprosy of the AUKUS security pact between Australia, the UK and the United States a matter of solemn duty.
In March 15, 2023, he excoriated a Canberra press gallery seduced and tantalised by the prospect of nuclear-powered submarines, calling the Albanese government’s complicit arrangements with the US and UK to acquire such a capability “the worst international decision by an Australian Labor government since the former Labor leader, Billy Hughes, sought to introduce conscription to augment Australian forces in World War one.
His latest spray was launched in the aftermath of a touched-up AUKUS, much of it discussed in a letter by US President Joe Biden to the US House Speaker and President of the Senate. The revised agreement between the three powers for Cooperation Related to Naval Nuclear Propulsion is intended to supersede the November 22, 2021 agreement between the three powers on the Exchange of Naval Nuclear Propulsion Information (ENNPIA)
The new agreement permits “the continued communication and exchange of NNPI, including certain RD, and would also expand the cooperation between the governments by enabling the transfer of naval nuclear propulsion plants of conventionally armed, nuclear-powered submarines, including component parts and spare parts thereof, and other related equipment.” The new arrangements will also permit the sale of special nuclear material in the welded power units, along with other relevant “material as needed for such naval propulsion plants.”
The contents of Biden’s letter irked Keating less than the spectacular show of servility shown by Australia’s Defence Minister Richard Marles, and Foreign Minister Penny Wong on their visit to Annapolis for the latest AUSMIN talks. In what has become a pattern of increasing subordination of Australian interests to the US Imperium, US Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III and US Secretary of State Antony Blinken played happy hosts and must have been delighted by what they heard.
The details that emerged from the conversations held between the four – details which rendered Keating passionately apoplectic – can only make those wishing for an independent Australian defence policy weep. Words such as “Enhanced Force Posture Cooperation” were used to describe the intrusion of the US armed forces into every sphere of Australian defence:the domains of land, maritime, air, and space.
Ongoing infrastructure investments at such Royal Australian Air Force Bases as Darwin and Tindal continue to take place, not to bolster Australian defence but fortify the country as a US forward defensive position. To these can be added, as the Pentagonfact sheet reveals, “site surveys for potential upgrades at RAAF Bases Curtin, Learmonth, and Scherger.”
The degree of subservience Canberra affords is guaranteed by increased numbers of US personnel to take place in rotational deployments. These will include “frequent rotations of bombers, fighter aircraft, and Maritime Patrol and Reconnaissance Aircraft.” Secret arrangements have also been made involving the disposal of nuclear propulsion plants that will feature in Australia’s nuclear powered submarine fleet, though it is unclear how broad that commitment is.
The venomous icing on the cake – at least for AUKUS critics – comes in the form of an undisclosed “Understanding” that involves “additional related political commitments.” The Australian Greens spokesperson on Defence, Senator David Shoebridge, rightly wonders “what has to be kept secret from the Australian public? There are real concerns the secret understanding includes commitments binding us to the US in the event they go to war with China in return for getting nuclear submarines.”
Marles has been stumblingly unforthcoming in that regard. When asked what such “additional political commitments” were, he coldly replied that the agreement was “as we’ve done it.” The rest was “misinformation” being spread by detractors of the alliance.
It is precisely the nature of these undertakings, and what was made public at Annapolis, that paved the way for Keating’s hefty salvo on ABC’s 7.30. The slavishness of the whole affair had made Keating “cringe”. “This government has sold out to the United States. They’ve fallen for the dinner on the White House lawn.”
He proved unsparing about Washington’s intentions. “What AUKUS is about in the American mind is turning [Australia into suckers], locking us up for 40 years with American bases all around … not Australian bases.” It meant, quite simply, “in American terms, the military control of Australia. I mean, what’s happened … is likely to turn Australia into the 51st state of the United States.”
Having the US as an ally was itself problematic, largely because of its belligerent intentions. “If we didn’t have an aggressive ally like the United States – aggressive to others in the region – there’d be nobody attacking Australia. We are better left alone than we are being ‘protected’ by an aggressive power like the United States.”
As for what Australian obligations to the US entailed, the former PM was in little doubt. “What this is all about is the Chinese laying claim to Taiwan, and the Americans are going to say ‘no, no, we’re going to keep these Taiwanese people protected’, even though they’re sitting on Chinese real estate.” Were Australia to intervene, the picture would rapidly change: an initial confrontation between Beijing and Washington over the island would eventually lead to the realisation that catastrophic loss would simply not be worth it, leaving Australia “the ones who have done all the offence.”
As for Australia’s own means of self-defence against any adversary or enemy, Keating uttered the fundamental heresy long stomped on by the country’s political and intelligence establishment: Canberra could, if needed, go it alone. “Australia is capable of defending itself. There’s no way another state can invade a country like Australia with an armada of ships without it all failing.” Australia did not “need to be basically a pair of shoes hanging out of Americans’ backside.” With Keating’s savage rhetoric, and the possibility that AUKUS may collapse before the implosions of US domestic politics, improbable peace may break out.
Revamped AUKUS document reveals how US and UK can walk away from nuclear submarine deal
ABC News, By defence correspondent Andrew Greene 14 Aug 24
In short:
A revamped AUKUS agreement has been tabled in federal parliament revealing the submarine project can be cancelled with a year’s notice.
Under the deal, Australia has also agreed to indemnify the US and UK against any loss or injury connected to nuclear materials transferred here.
What’s next?
The deal will last until December 2075, provided the ANZUS alliance continues and the US and UK remain in NATO.
Australia would foot the bill for any loss or injury caused by sensitive technology and radioactive materials transferred by the United States and United Kingdom for nuclear submarines, under a revamped version of the AUKUS agreement.
An updated document for the trilateral partnership reveals Australia would indemnify the United States and the United Kingdom against such an outcome.
It also reveals the US or the UK could pull out of the submarine deal with just a year’s notice if either nation decides the deal weakens their own nuclear submarine programs
Details of the “understanding” signed by all three AUKUS partners last week in Washington have now been tabled in federal parliament with the agreement to “remain in force until 31 December 2075”.
Article I specifies that the US and UK can transfer “material and equipment relating to conventionally armed, nuclear-powered submarines to Australia” providing this does not constitute an “unreasonable risk” to their own defence and security.
“This is a $368 billion gamble with taxpayers’ money from the Albanese government,” Greens senator David Shoebridge said following the tabling of the document on Monday.
“Article I of the new AUKUS agreement says that if at any point the United States thinks supplying material under the AUKUS agreement to Australia prejudices their defence, they can effectively terminate the agreement and pull out.
“What this agreement makes clear in black and white: If the United States at any point thinks they don’t have enough submarines for themselves, they can pull out of AUKUS 2.0 — why isn’t the Albanese government being honest about the size of the gamble?”
According to the document, “Australia shall be responsible for the management, disposition, storage, and disposal of any spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste resulting from the operation of Naval Nuclear Propulsion Plants”.
The Albanese government has also agreed to indemnify the US and UK against “any liability, loss, costs, damage or injury (including third-party claims) arising out of, related to, or resulting from Nuclear Risks” connected with the project……………….
The head of the AUKUS submarine program has refused to say whether an almost $5 billion government payment to the United States would be refunded if no nuclear-powered boats were delivered to Australia.
The agreement for “cooperation for naval nuclear propulsion” is also contingent on Australia and the US remaining in the ANZUS alliance, along with the US and UK staying as NATO members.
Defence Minister Richard Marles said the agreement “expressly rules out enriching uranium or reprocessing spent nuclear fuel in Australia” and prevents AUKUS partners from any activity that would contravene international non-proliferation obligations.
“The Albanese government, alongside AUKUS partners, continues to re-affirm that Australia’s acquisition of conventionally-armed, nuclear-powered submarines will set the highest non-proliferation standards through the AUKUS partnership.
“The agreement is unequivocal that, as a non-nuclear weapons state, Australia does not seek to acquire nuclear weapons,” Mr Marles stressed.
Last week, President Joe Biden revealed the existence of a new agreement in a letter to Congress in which he said the non-legally binding “understanding” had provided “additional related political commitments”. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-08-12/revamped-aukus-document-reveals-how-us-and-uk-can-walk-away/104214398
Australia blasted for new Aukus deal over nuclear waste fears – ‘blow to sovereignty’
A part of the deal involves a transfer of nuclear material to Australia, which has sparked anger among some politicians and green activists
SCMP, Su-Lin Tan, in Singapore, 12 Aug 24
Australia has signed a new agreement with the US and the UK that would allow not just an exchange of naval nuclear propulsion information as part of Aukus, but also the transfer of nuclear material to Australia, a move that critics warn could lead to dumping of the radioactive material in the country.
Critics are also concerned over its secrecy and Australia cosying up to the US, particularly after a letter by US President Joe Biden to the US House of Representatives and the US Senate president last week revealed a further side agreement of “additional related political commitments” between the Aukus countries.
The additional commitments were not mentioned in the official agreement tabled in the Australian parliament on Monday, which replaced an earlier agreement allowing just the exchange of naval nuclear propulsion information.
The controversial Aukus deal, which involved the manufacture and supply of nuclear-powered submarines to Australia, has long raised eyebrows since its surprise announcement in 2021 due to the proposed use of nuclear power in the region, the steep A$368 billion (US$242 billion) cost to Australian taxpayers and perceptions as a platform to counter China.
Last Friday, former Australian prime minister Paul Keating, said in an interview with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation that Aukus could sell Australia out as “the 51st state of the United States” after information about the new agreement started trickling in following the announcement from Washington.
“What Aukus is about in the American mind is locking us up for 40 years, with American bases all around Australia, not Australian bases. Aukus is really about – in American terms – the military control of Australia,” he said.
Unlike other nations which have American bases, Australia did not need to host them as it was a continent with borders with no other countries, Keating said.
“The only threat [to us] is because we have an aggressive ally because of Aukus,” he said, referring to the US……………………………………………………………….
When asked if Australia had made “additional commitments” to the US, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said Australia was committed to the US alliance. In response to Keating’s claims, Albanese said Canberra did things differently now as the “world has changed”.
Keating, who famously called for Australia to boost security ties with Asia rather than with the US in the 1990s, said in a statement over the weekend that while international conditions had changed, the geography of Asia and Australia had not.
The Albanese government has instead turned to the “Anglosphere to garner Australia’s security”, Keating added.
Call for more transparency
The Australians for War Powers Reform has also called on Canberra to divulge to Australians the “additional commitments” made to the US.
“If the commitments made by the Australian government are ‘political’ and not based on national security, surely these should be made public,” said Alison Broinowski, the organisation’s spokeswoman and former diplomat.
“Is it possible that these secret ‘undisclosed political commitments’ relate to Australia’s involvement in a future overseas war?”
Leading activist group GetUp! has started a petition to stop “opening the floodgates for Australia going full-scale nuclear” and called for an explanation on how Australia would be storing radioactive waste from the Aukus submarines.
A parliamentary inquiry earlier this year sounded the alarm that Australia could be a nuclear waste dump under the current Aukus arrangement and called for a rewriting of laws to specifically rule out accepting nuclear waste from the US or the UK.
Separately, on Friday, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), the Nobel Peace Prize-winning civil society coalition, pushed Canberra to sign the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) “without further delay”.
Australia, like the US, has not signed or ratified the treaty, which was adopted in 2017 and has attracted 93 signatories.
The new Aukus agreement put Australia in danger of wasting taxpayer funds if the US or the UK were to walk away from the deal, the Australian Greens said.
It also indemnified the US and UK for any “liability, loss, costs, damage, or injury” associated with the use of nuclear submarines and allowed these two countries to determine the price of uranium it was selling to Australia, Greens senator David Shoebridge said.
“I have never seen such an irresponsible one-sided international agreement signed by an Australian government. Every aspect of this agreement is a blow to Australian sovereignty,” he said. https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/politics/article/3274188/australia-blasted-new-aukus-deal-over-nuclear-waste-fears-blow-sovereignty
Albo’s Trojan Horse | The West Report
Michael West 13 Aug 24 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JVfESp-A3Q
1 This month.
4 June Webinar – where is our public inquiry into AUKUS?
Thu, Jun 04, 2026 11am AEST Zoom. Register at https://nb.australiainstitute.org.au/in_the_dark_on_aukus_where_is_our_public_inquiry
7 June – WEBINAR- Get Inspired by Protests Against Military Bases!
Jun 7, 2026 12:00 AM in Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney
PETITION – To: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the Australian Labor Government
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 