BHP getting out of uranium mining
BHP weighs divestment options Mining Weekly By: Esmarie Swanepoel 1st April 2014 PERTH – Mining giant BHP Billiton on Tuesday said it was “reviewing” and “assessing” its divestment options, after media outlets in Australia reported that the company was considering a $20-billion demerger plan……..As we have said previously, the simplification of our portfolio is a priority and is something we have pursued for several years,” BHP said in response to the market speculation, adding that in the last two years, the company had completed a number of divestments in Australia, the US, Canada, South Africa and the UK.
Divestments included petroleum, copper, coal, mineral sands, uranium and diamond assets……….
BHP told shareholders that the company would actively continue to study the next phase of simplification, including its structural options, but noted that it would only pursue those avenues that maximised value for the company’s shareholders.
BHP CEO Andrew Mackenzie has previously said that Australia would remain a focal point for the company, pointing out that the country accounted for about 70% of its profits……..http://www.miningweekly.com/article/bhp-weighs-divestment-options-2014-04-01
Latest UNSCEAR report on Fukushima and health – very UNCLEAR
I have not yet read the report. But I have seen many headlines – telling us that there will be few or no health effects from Fukushima radiation.
Here are a few of the points that I noticed in the news reports.
- It talks about cancer predictions for the whole of Japan with “ low impact” – rather than focussing on the Fukushima exposed population
- It finds that there will be no discernable change in cancer rates for the whole of Japan, nor of birth defects.
- It finds that any effects on terrestrial and marine ecosystems would be “transient”
- effects on flora and fauna of marine ecosywas limited to the shoreline area adjacent to the power station
- the potential for marine effects over the long term was considered insignificant
If you bother to analyse all this – it really means nothing. The report admits to a few thyroid cancers amongst children. But that doesn’t seem to matter!
As to mixing up the exposed population with the whole Japanese population – then the cancer incidence increase would look negligible. But it mentions “low impact” – So there IS some impact!
There’s no “discernable ” change – there could be a change but they won’t be able to pin[point it, therefore it doesn’t exist?
As no-one really registers birth defects – there is no baseline to compare whether or not birth defects will increase. (also stillbirths, spontaneous abortions – all not measured)
Effects on ecosystems are “transient”. That’s not what the studies by Dr Timothy Mousseau are finding. but then UNSCEAR hasn’t done any ecological studies, as far as I can find out
Marine effects are limited to the shoreline – so where did the newly arrived radioactive Cesium in Pacific fish come from? (Radioactive cesium is unknown except from nuclear industry sources – does not exist in nature)
Scott Ludlam’s speech went viral -by 13 March 700,000 viewings
Scott Ludlam’s speech worth paying attention to, SMH, Elizabeth Farrelly 13 March 14 Australian politics measures itself in landmark speeches. Menzies’ ”forgotten people” speech, 1942. Keating’s ”Redfern” speech, 1992. Gillard’s misogyny speech, Hockey’s entitlement speech. And now, Scott Ludlam’s ”Welcome to WA, Tony Abbott” speech.
I like such speeches, if only for their comforting illusion that there’s more to our political life than the mundane squabble over money and resources. Not exactly ”I have a dream” territory, perhaps, but they do at least imply core principle.
And apparently I’m not the only one hungry for it. Sorry to say I don’t mean our political leaders, whose indifference to the parlay for which we pay them is so profound that Ludlam found himself delivering his adjournment speech to a near-empty Senate, occupied by just one of his 75 elected colleagues.
But it was the populace came thundering through on horseback. Ten days on YouTube garnered Ludlam’s speech 700,000 views; more than Cate Blanchett’s Oscar win. This kind of response makes Australian politicians’ disdain for principle the more surprising. Take, for example, Tony Abbott’s recent address to the ForestWorks dinner. It was a classic crowd-pleaser, a cynical exercise in wrongful and duplicitous nonsense.
Abbott told the logging industry lobby group that ”too much” of our pristine forest is protected, that loggers are the ”true conservationists” and that the Greens – which he characterised as ”the devil” – are to blame for Tasmania’s high unemployment, low life-expectancy and low school retention rates. It was dumb. It was embarrassing. But it worked.
The subtext was appeasement; a placatory sop to an angry state for Abbott’s shameless downgrade of his national broadband network optic fibre promise to slow old copper.
Against such background blather, statements of principle stand in stark contrast. True, even principled speeches can have destructive consequences. Menzies’ ”forgotten people” speech, in validating the middle classes, helped justify a century of bloat and sprawl. Helped feed the entitlement from which we are now forced painfully to resile.
Far more dangerous, however, are those speeches that appear principled and are not. A comparison of Ludlam’s ”Abbott” speech with Joe Hockey’s ”entitlement” speech is edifying here. The first, marked by a kind of reckless candour (driven, no doubt, by Labor’s threat to redirect preferences on April 5) is a lucid, point-by-point explication of principle. The other merely deploys principle to cloak economic expedience.
As opponents, the Liberals and the Greens could hardly be more adamant. Yet the weird thing is, if Hockey were serious about ending entitlement he would adopt just about every principle Ludlam so eloquently voiced……..
by far the bigger and more urgent picture is how entitlement on all our parts, and most especially the parts of wealthy hyper-consumers, drives our wanton planetary destruction.
Ludlam’s speech showed where Hockey’s reasoning should have taken him, if he’d only had the courage and imagination to go there.
Ludlam begged Abbott to see Western Australia as ”a place where the drought never ended, where climate change from land clearing and fossil fuel combustion is a lived reality that is already costing jobs, property and lives”. He sketched a moving vision of ”Australia as it could be – an economy running on infinite flows of renewable energy; a society that never forgets it lives on country occupied by the planet’s oldest continuing civilisation; and a country that values education, innovation and equality”.
He went on to log some of the ways in which Abbott’s government has allowed its agenda to be driven by expectations of entitlement. Entitlement to what? Well, broadly, to exploit natural resources for immediate financial gain, entitlement to predator capitalism, whatever the long-term cost.
Ludlam cited Abbott’s ”blank cheque” for West Australian Premier Colin Barnett’s ”bloody and unnecessary” shark cull (over which an unprecedented 12,000 public submissions were received), and his summary cancellation of half a billion dollars’ worth of funding for Perth light rail.
He also cited Abbott’s support for gas-fracking and uranium mining, despite the known dangers and evident toxicity. And Abbott’s determination to log Tasmania’s old-growth forests, pretending that they’re already ”degraded” when in fact only a fraction of the world’s-tallest flowering forest has ever been logged.
And Abbott’s support for Monsanto and other global biotechs, in proposing the so-called Investor State Dispute Resolution clauses for the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. ISDRs will effectively allow these massive biotechs, their clanking war-chests bigger than many state budgets, to sue Australian states that try to legislate against coal-seam gas or GM crops or for consumer labelling.
The writer Tim Winton says WA’s ground-wealth has bred a ”smugness that has paralysed parts of the communal brain”. Ludlam insists otherwise. This is his gamble, that we’re wrong to act ”as though the western third of our ancient continent is just Gina Rinehart’s inheritance, to be chopped, benched and blasted”.
Ludlam finished by thanking the PM because ”every time you open your mouth the Green vote goes up”. In three weeks, we’ll know whether he was right.http://www.smh.com.au/comment/scott-ludlams-speech–worth-paying-attention-to-20140312-34ml1.html
University of Western Australia has resisted intimidation from climate denialists
‘Conspiracist’ climate change study withdrawn amid legal threats April 2, 2014 Peter Hannam Lunar landings? Made in Hollywood. Smoking causes cancer? No way. And as for climate change, better not ask.
Or rather, better not study – at least if the case of a Swiss-based journal is any guide. It means that if a paper is published that the climate deniers don’t like the look of, they can bombard the journal with complaints or threats
Climate change academics say the decision by a publisher to retract their paper examining the links between conspiracy theorists and denial of global warming because of legal threats could have a “chilling effect” on research.
A year-long investigation “did not identify any issues with the academic and ethical aspects of the study,” it said. However, the probe found “the legal context (to be) insufficiently clear”.
The paper, though, is being carried by the website of the University of Western Australia where one of its authors, cognitive scientist Stephan Lewandowsky, was based.
“Sadly, it has turned into a routine for outsiders with no scientific standing to approach, bully, or intimidate journals, editors, and academics,” said Professor Lewandowsky, now at the UK’s University of Bristol.
One person commenting on the Frontiers’ website asked for the ‘‘full details of the investigation,’’ saying the paper had been ‘‘derogatory and insulting’’ by naming people as conspiracy theorists who were ‘‘merely pointing out errors in the previous paper’’.
According to Graham Readfearn ofDeSmogblog.com, the legal threats were that the paper was defamatory.
Scientific rejection
The genesis of the rejected paper was a 4000-word paper in Psychological Science in 2012 by Professor Lewandowsky and co-authors that explored the links between an endorsement of free-market economics and a rejection of climate change science.
Support for free markets was also a predictor of rejection of mainstream science in other fields, such the link between smoking and cancer, the authors wrote.
Endorsement of a range of conspiracy theories, such as a belief NASA faked the moon landing in a Hollywood studio or that the FBI had killed US civil rights campaigner Martin Luther King Jr., also predicted a climate change denial stance.
Professor Lewandowsky and co-authors then studied how internet bloggers reacted to their initial work, producing the Recursive Fury paper that Frontiers published in February 2013 and has now retracted.
“The extent and vehemence of contrarian activity provided a particularly informative testbed for an analysis of how conspiracist ideation contributes to the rejection of science among web denizens,” the authors wrote.
Responses took several paths: opponents objected to UWA alleging misconduct by Professor Lewandowsky; requests for freedom of information were submitted seeking emails and documents; findings were re-analysed to show the facts did not exist; and several theories began circulating “with arguably conspiracist content”, the researchers said.
Two typical conspiracist attributes emerged: an immutable belief that “something must be wrong” and that the authors were engaged in intentional malfeasance”, they wrote.
‘Bombard’ the journal
John Cook, a researcher at the University of Queensland and a co-author of the second paper, said the Frontiers’ decision to retract the work might have a “chilling effect” on research.
“It means that if a paper is published that the climate deniers don’t like the look of, they can bombard the journal with complaints or threats,” Mr Cook said.
“Knowing they have had success once might embolden them to try to retreat the strategy again.” (Mr Cook also helms the Skeptical Science website.)
Kim Heitman, a lawyer for the UWA, said the university had done its own risk analysis before publishing the paper online. “There’s no reason to take it down,” Mr Heitman said.
The university had also received complaints from some groups. “It’s quite relentless,” he said.
“There’s always a close interest in everything that Steve (Lewandowsky) does,” Mr Heitman said. “We are conscious that we are going to be targeted by people opposed to his works.”
The university, though, had also received plaudits from around the world for its decision to publish the paper.
“I couldn’t list them,” Mr Heitman said. “And I wouldn’t list them, having regard to the fact that anyone who issues a ‘thanks UWA’ will probably get their own enquiry.”
‘Spineless’
Elaine McKewon, one of the retracted paper’s three independent reviewers, said Frontiers had been “spineless” in its response to complaints. Kim Heitman, a lawyer for the UWA, said the university had done its own risk analysis before publishing the paper online. “There’s no reason to take it down,” Mr Heitman said.
The university had also received complaints from some groups. “It’s quite relentless,” he said.
“There’s always a close interest in everything that Steve (Lewandowsky) does,” Mr Heitman said. “We are conscious that we are going to be targeted by people opposed to his works.”
The university, though, had also received plaudits from around the world for its decision to publish the paper.
“I couldn’t list them,” Mr Heitman said. “And I wouldn’t list them, having regard to the fact that anyone who issues a ‘thanks UWA’ will probably get their own enquiry.”
‘Spineless’
Elaine McKewon, one of the retracted paper’s three independent reviewers, said Frontiers had been “spineless” in its response to complaints……….http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/conspiracist-climate-change-study-withdrawn-amid-legal-threats-20140402-35xao.html
Will Liberal MP Rowan Ramsay stand up for Port Augusta and clean energy?
Repower Port Augusta urges MP support for CEFC ABC A renewable energy group in Port Augusta is calling on local federal MP Rowan Ramsay to stand up to his Coalition colleagues against scrapping the clean energy fund.
Repower Port Augusta has been campaigning for the Alinta coal-fired power station to be transformed into a solar thermal plant. Repower’s Lisa Lumsden says the Government’s plans to scrap the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC) could convince Alinta that the project is not viable.
Alinta is doing a feasibility study on the proposal and Ms Lumsden says if it is viable, the clean energy fund will be crucial to its realisation. “At this point in time, we haven’t got a deal for solar thermal from the CEFC,” she said. “The feasibility study isn’t due to be finished until another 18 months.” “It will require some additional funding because it’s a first build … it’s a first build for the nation.”……..
A bill to abolish the CEFC will return to the Senate in coming months, after being rejected once before. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-02/repower-port-augusta-urges-mp-support-for-cefc/53618702
Opposition to Wallarah Two coal mine across the political divide
Community rallies outside Wallarah public hearing ABC Mary-Louise Vince Wed 2 Apr 2014 A public hearing has been told the risk to the central coast water catchment far outweighs the benefit of an underground coal mine proposed for the area………
The Mayor of Wyong, Doug Eaton told the Commission the risk to the region’s water catchment far outweighs any employment benefits from the mine.The potential impact on the region’s water supplies remains the key concern about the project, which is backed largely by the Korean Government.
President of the Liberal Party’s Gosford branch and former Gosford Mayor Malcolm Brooks said he was against the mine. Mr Brooks said little had changed since the mine’s original development application, which was rejected by the Labor Government in 2011.”Nothing has changed except a new application, a new government and an ICAC inquiry,” he said.
Outside the meeting Labor’s Environment spokesman, Luke Foley says the Premier has betrayed central coast residents by failing to stop the mine project. Mr Foley told the crowd legislation is needed to stop the mine going ahead.
The Wallarah Two mine has become a political headache for the O’Farrell Government……….
ICAC inquiry still to be held
Meanwhile, an Independent Commission Against Corruption inquiry is yet to to be held into Wallarah’s major players, including Liberal party fundraiser and lobbyist Nick di Girolamo, and the former Resources Minister and Central Coast MP, Chris Hartcher.
Labor and the Greens want the the project halted until that investigation is complete…….
An economist from the Australia Institute, Rod Campbell said the mine’s economic value had been overstated and its economic benefits were based on discredited modelling.
The Darkinjung Aboriginal Land Council declared the the entire mining proposal invalid.
Darkinjung’s CEO, Sean Gordon said he would never approve access to build a rail spur across Land Council land and legal action is underway on the issue………http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-02/mine-pac/5362728
Indigenous future needs security and independence of The Land Account
The Land Account must be protected for future Indigenous generations By Dawn Casey -Online opinion, 1 April 2014
Connections to and caring for land have been central to the lives of Indigenous peoples in Australia for thousands of years. The Indigenous Land Corporation (ILC) has released a Draft Bill to focus attention on a key land issue for the future. The Draft Bill seeks to strengthen and protect the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Account and mark an important stage in the journey towards greater recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples within our nation.
The Land Account and the Indigenous Land Corporation were legislated together, some 20 years ago, as part of the national settlement following the High Court’s recognition of native title in the Mabo judgment. The Land Account provides partial compensation for the vast majority of Indigenous Australians who are unlikely to benefit from the Native Title Act because they have been dispossessed of their land.
Revenue from the Land Account, which currently has a fixed capital base, provides guaranteed funding for the ILC to buy and manage land for Indigenous Australians for a range of social, cultural, environmental and economic benefits.
As Australia moves towards another landmark—the recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the Constitution—we must preserve and build on the achievements of the past. The provisions in the ILC’s Draft Bill, if legislated by the Australian Parliament, would place the Land Account above and beyond politics. Its unique and historic status would be recognised. Indigenous involvement in the management of the ILC and the Land Account would be strengthened. The current ILC Board’s commitment to accountability would be locked in for the future. And the Land Account would be able to grow over time. A stronger ILC and a larger Land Account would ensure greater land-related benefits for current and future generations of Indigenous Australians.
Above all, the Draft Bill would prevent the Land Account from being used for anything other than its original legislated purpose: to buy and manage land for Indigenous Australians………..
………..The Land Account and the ILC were part of the ‘grand bargain’ of the mid-1990s. This was a high point in Indigenous peoples’ struggle for recognition in this nation. After the Mabo judgment, Indigenous leaders sat down with the executive level of government to negotiate. For the first time in Australia’s history, they were at the table as equals in a national matter of profound significance to them. We need to be at the table again. http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=16176
The business case for renewable energy
IRENA: Making A Business Case for Renewable Energy , WSJ By ASA FITCH, 3 April 14 Solid progress has been made in the past three years promoting renewable energy as a policy choice, especially in parts of the developing world where demand is expected to grow rapidly, although more must be done to make clean energy a significant share of the global mix, according to the director general of the International Renewable Energy Agency.
Renewable technologies are quickly becoming cheaper, IRENA director general Adnan Amin said this week, which is making things like solar, wind and geothermal power increasingly practical. Continue reading
National Australia Bank and Clean Energy week
NAB A Major Sponsor Of Clean Energy Week http://www.energymatters.com.au/index.php?main_page=news_article&article_id=4247National Australia Bank (NAB) will be the major conference sponsor for Australia’s largest clean energy industry event, Clean Energy Week 2014.”This major conference partnership between NAB and Clean Energy Week demonstrates NAB’s leadership and forward-thinking strategy for Australia’s future economic development,: said Clean Energy Council Deputy Chief Executive Kane Thornton.
“At a time when energy is at the crossroads and Australia’s Renewable Energy Target is under review, it’s great to see a major player in the finance sector like NAB recognise the importance of the $18 billion clean energy industry both now and in the future.”
NAB’s involvement in Australia’s clean energy future goes well beyond the sponsorship of this event. According to NAB Executive General Manager of Specialised Finance, Swati Dave, it is also the leading arranger of project finance to Australia’s renewable energy sector by market share; having arranged more than $1.8 billion of finance in the past eight years.
“At NAB we recognise the importance of the environment and the role it plays in our long-term sustainability, and the wellbeing and prosperity of our economy and communities,” she said. National Australian Bank was the first bank to provide finance for a large scale solar project in Australia; the 20MW Royalla solar farm near Canberra.
Clean Energy Week 2014 will be held across two venues and incorporate ATRAA (Australia’s largest solar event), a major trade exhibition and two awards programs.The Trade Show will be staged across 10,000 square meters of floor space and more than 100 companies from the renewable energy and energy efficiency industry will have a presence.
Clean Energy Week 2014 includes conference sessions focusing on wind power, large-scale solar, energy efficiency, off-grid, geothermal, bioenergy, marine power and cogeneration/trigeneration.
The event will be held in Sydney from 22 to 25 July 2014. Further details can be viewed at CleanEnergyWeek.com.au
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 