Australia to be hit by $40 billion costs due to Tony Abbott’s climate ppolicies
Tony Abbott’s climate policies a $40 billion budget slug, says Climate Institute – Peter Hannam
Environment Editor, The Sydney Morning Herald 1 May 14, The Abbott government’s changes to existing climate change policies would cost the budget as much as $40 billion by 2020, according to the Climate Institute, and the cost will blow out even further if it weakens the renewable energy target.
The estimated costs stem in part from payments to polluters to curb greenhouse gas emissions under the government’s Direct Action emissions reduction plan. This tally includes the $2.55 billion for the first four years of the Emissions 
Reduction Fund and an estimated $1.2 billion annually after that.
“This is a friendless piece of policy and not many people are standing up to defend it,” said John Connor, chief executive of the Climate Institute.
A bigger blow to the budget, though, will come from the loss of the carbon tax revenues if, as expected, the new Senate votes to repeal it after July 1. Current laws indicate the price – now a tax but due to convert to a floating price by mid-2016 at the latest – will bring in more than $18 billion.
That combined tally, at about $24 billion, swells to more than $40 billion by 2020 if the Abbott government sticks with its plan to block the purchase of cheaper international emission reductions to meet domestic commitments, the institute said……..
The costs of the Direct Action will balloon further if the government undermines other policies limiting carbon emissions, such as the Renewable Energy Target. The target, now set at supplying 41,000 gigawatt-hours of renewable energy by 2020, is currently being reviewed by businessman and climate change sceptic, Dick Warburton.
The current climate policies of the government are “a growing slug on taxpayers, and barely tenable now”, Mr Connor said. “If they start to weaken other measures, they’ll have to buy more” carbon abatement, he said.: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/tony-abbotts-climate-policies-a-40-billion-budget-slug-says-climate-institute-20140430-zr1yh.html#ixzz30V7Nazbj
Dr Helen Caldicott on the long term effects of nuclear radiation on global health
The impact of the nuclear crisis on global health Australian Medical Student Journal By Helen Caldicott in Volume 4, Issue 2 2014 “……..Conclusion In summary, the radioactive contamination and fallout from nuclear power plant accidents will have medical ramifications that will never cease, because the food will continue to concentrate the radioactive elements for hundreds to thousands of years. This will induce epidemics of cancer, leukemia and genetic disease. Already we are seeing such pathology and abnormalities in birds and insects, and because they reproduce very fast it is possible to observe disease caused by radiation over many generations within a relatively short space of time.
Pioneering research conducted by Dr Tim Mousseau, an evolutionary biologist, has demonstrated high rates of tumors, cataracts, genetic mutations, sterility and reduced brain size amongst birds in the exclusion zones of both Chernobyl and Fukushima. What happens to animals will happen to human beings. [7] The Japanese government is desperately trying to “clean up” radioactive contamination. But in reality all that can be done is collect it, place it in containers and transfer it to another location. It cannot be made neutral and it cannot be prevented from spreading in the future. Some contractors have allowed their workers to empty radioactive debris, soil and leaves into streams and other illegal places. The main question becomes: Where can they place the contaminated material to be stored safely away from the environment for thousands of years? There is no safe place in Japan for this to happen, let alone to store thousands of tons of high level radioactive waste which rests precariously at the 54 Japanese nuclear reactors.Last but not least, Australian uranium fuelled the Fukushima reactors. Australia exports uranium for use in nuclear power plants to 12 countries, including the US, Japan, France, Britain, Finland, Sweden, South Korea, China, Belgium, Spain, Canada and Taiwan. 270,000 metric tons of deadly radioactive waste exists in the world today, with 12,000 metric tons being added yearly. (Each reactor manufactures 30 tons per year and there are over 400 reactors globally.)
This high-level waste must be isolated from the environment for one million years – but no container lasts longer than 100 years. The isotopes will inevitably leak, contaminating the food chain, inducing epidemics of cancer, leukemia, congenital deformities and genetic diseases for the rest of time.
This, then, is the legacy we leave to future generations so that we can turn on our lights and computers or make nuclear weapons. It was Einstein who said “the splitting of the atom changed everything save mans’ mode of thinking, thus we drift towards unparalleled catastrophe.”
The question now is: Have we, the human species, the ability to mature psychologically in time to avert these catastrophes, or, is it in fact, too late? http://www.amsj.org/archives/3487
New ways for solar power to thrive in Australia, despite the Abbott government
Australian Business Sees the Light http://www.energymatters.com.au/index.php?main_page=news_article&article_id=4285 The Australian solar market has traditionally been composed mainly of residential systems. While 10% of the local market is made up of commercial installations, this number is forecast to grow to more than 50% of installations over the next few years says Energy Matters’ Nick Brass. 1 May 14 “
Powering this growth are two commonly used mechanisms. The first are leasing packages; and the second, for larger installations, Power Purchase Agreements (PPA),” says Mr. Brass.
“There are immediate benefits of these mechanisms for your business – you can see a reduction of your carbon footprint, reduce your exposure to future electricity price increases and attain a greener public image. All this with no upfront capital required, without the hassle of maintaining the solar system over time and with minimal impact on business operations.”
Mr Brass says business owners can enjoy the benefits of having a renewable power generation plant but none of the complexity, costs or maintenance associated with ownership. PPA can be particularly attractive to larger companies.
“You only pay for the solar power. So if the sun doesn’t shine and the solar electricity doesn’t flow; you don’t pay.”
Energy Matters has executed many commercial scale solar projects throughout Australia at schools, stadiums, factories and office buildings for local and multinational entities. The company’s portfolio includes solar plants for NEXTDC,Federation Square and RACV Cobram Resort.
“Our solar power systems have a track record of outperforming industry benchmarks and we deliver on time, on budget and to specification,” states the company.
Energy Matters says any business with a suitably sized roof space could harvest the benefits of a commercial scale system – just 200m2 of free roof space in good condition, unimpeded and unshaded; with preferably a northerly aspect is required.
Further information about commercial solar can be found on the Energy Matters web site or by calling the commercial team on 1300 553 213.
Radiation in space poses dangers to astronauts’ brains
Could deep space cause BRAIN DAMAGE? Radiation could permanently destroy an astronaut’s attention span
- Rats were exposed to radiation levels similar to that found in deep space
- Serious lapses in attention occurred in 64% of the sensitive animals
- Increase in impulsiveness took place in 45% and slower reaction in 27%
- Difference based on a rat’s specific resilience after exposure to radiation
- If same proves true in humans, scientists could identify those more susceptible to radiation before the brain becomes permanently damaged
Daily Mail, By ELLIE ZOLFAGHARIFARD, 30 April 2014
Researchers came to the conclusion after exposing rats to high-energy particles that simulate the conditions astronauts could experience in deep space.
After exposure, a team at John Hopkins University in Maryland made the rats perform a fitness test similar to the ones astronauts, pilots, and soldiers have to take prior to a mission. …….‘In our radiated rats, we found that 40 to 45 percent had these attention-related deficits, while the rest were seemingly unaffected,’ said study leader Dr Robert Hienz……The radiation-sensitive animals all showed evidence of brain damage that began at 50 to 60 days after exposure…..
Currently, astronauts are not as exposed to the damaging effects of radiation because the International Space Station flies in an orbit low enough that the Earth’s magnetic field continues to provide protection.
But several years ago brain scans of Nasa astronauts who spent more than a month in space revealed damage to their eyeballs and brain tissue. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2616792/Could-deep-space-cause-BRAIN-DAMAGE-Radiation-permanently-destroy-astronauts-attention-span.html#ixzz30Ur2J9NG
Warren Mundine helping uranium mining companies to get Aborigines off their land?
Cut land councils, says Warren Mundine PATRICIA KARVELAS THE AUSTRALIAN MAY 01, 2014 TONY Abbott’s top adviser on indigenous affairs has called for the reform of land rights and the slashing of the number of land councils with gatekeeper powers over development.Prime Minister’s Indigenous Advisory Council chairman Warren Mundine also called for an end to the requirement to establish a continuous connection with land to establish native title, arguing it “discourages indigenous people from moving away”.
In an address to the West Australian Chamber of Minerals and Energy, Mr Mundine attacked green groups for holding up indigenous development.
“I’m not aware of one new development project in mining, energy or infrastructure that has been supported by green groups,’’ he said yesterday…….http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/cut-land-councils-says-warren-mundine/story-fn9hm1pm-1226901405997#
Dr Helen Caldicott spells out the facts on ionising radiation
The impact of the nuclear crisis on global health Australian Medical Student Journal By Helen Caldicott in Volume 4, Issue 2 2014 “…….Types of ionizing radiation
- X-rays are electromagnetic, and cause mutations the instant they pass through the body.
- Similarly, gamma radiation is also electromagnetic, being emitted by radioactive materials generated in nuclear reactors and from some naturally occurring radioactive elements in the soil.
- Alpha radiation is particulate and is composed of two protons and two neutrons emitted from uranium atoms and other dangerous elements generated in reactors (such as plutonium, americium, curium, einsteinium, etc – all which are known as alpha emitters and have an atomic weight greater than uranium). Alpha particles travel a very short distance in the human body. They cannot penetrate the layers of dead skin in the epidermis to damage living skin cells. But when these radioactive elements enter the lung, liver, bone or other organs, they transfer a large dose of radiation over a long period of time to a very small volume of cells. Most of these cells are killed; however, some on the edge of the radiation field remain viable to be mutated, and cancer may later develop. Alpha emitters are among the most carcinogenic materials known.
- Beta radiation, like alpha radiation, is also particulate. It is a charged electron emitted from radioactive elements such as strontium 90, cesium 137 and iodine 131. The beta particle is light in mass, travels further than an alpha particle and is also mutagenic.
- Neutron radiation is released during the fission process in a reactor or a bomb. Reactor 1 at Fukushima has been periodically emitting neutron radiation as sections of the molten core become intermittently critical. Neutrons are large radioactive particles that travel many kilometers, and they pass through everything including concrete and steel. There is no way to hide from them and they are extremely mutagenic.
So, let’s describe just five of the radioactive elements that are continually being released into the air and water at Fukushima. Remember, though, there are over 200 such elements each with its own half-life, biological characteristic and pathway in the food chain and the human body. Most have never had their biological pathways examined. They are invisible, tasteless and odourless. When the cancer manifests it is impossible to determine its aetiology, but there is a large body of literature proving that radiation causes cancer, including the data from Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
- Tritium is radioactive hydrogen H3 and there is no way to separate tritium from contaminated water as it combines with oxygen to form H3O. There is no material that can prevent the escape of tritium except gold, so all reactors continuously emit tritium into the air and cooling water as they operate. It concentrates in aquatic organisms, including algae, seaweed, crustaceans and fish, and also in terrestrial food. Like all radioactive elements, it is tasteless, odorless and invisible, and will therefore inevitably be ingested in food, including seafood, for many decades. It passes unhindered through the skin if a person is immersed in fog containing tritiated water near a reactor, and also enters the body via inhalation and ingestion. It causes brain tumors, birth deformities and cancers of many organs.
- Cesium 137 is a beta and gamma emitter with a half-life of 30 years. That means in 30 years only half of its radioactive energy has decayed, so it is detectable as a radioactive hazard for over 300 years. Cesium, like all radioactive elements, bio-concentrates at each level of the food chain. The human body stands atop the food chain. As an analogue of potassium, cesium becomes ubiquitous in all cells. It concentrates in the myocardium where it induces cardiac irregularities, and in the endocrine organs where it can cause diabetes, hypothyroidism and thyroid cancer. It can also induce brain cancer, rhabdomyosarcomas, ovarian or testicular cancer and genetic disease.
- Strontium 90 is a high-energy beta emitter with a half-life of 28 years. As a calcium analogue, it is a bone-seeker. It concentrates in the food chain, specifically milk (including breast milk), and is laid down in bones and teeth in the human body. It can lead to carcinomas of the bone and leukaemia.
- Radioactive iodine 131 is a beta and gamma emitter. It has a half-life of eight days and is hazardous for ten weeks. It bio-concentrates in the food chain, in vegetables and milk, then in the the human thyroid gland where it is a potent carcinogen, inducing thyroid disease and/or thyroid cancer. It is important to note that of 174,376 children under the age of 18 that have been examined by thyroid ultrasound in the Fukushima Prefecture, 12 have been definitively diagnosed with thyroid cancer and 15 more are suspected to have the disease. Almost 200,000 more children are yet to be examined. Of these 174,367 children, 43.2% have either thyroid cysts and/or nodules.
In Chernobyl, thyroid cancers were not diagnosed until four years post-accident. This early presentation indicates that these Japanese children almost certainly received a high dose of radioactive iodine. High doses of other radioactive elements released during the meltdowns were received by the exposed population so the rate of cancer is almost certain to rise. - Plutonium, one of the most deadly radioactive substances, is an alpha emitter. It is highly toxic, and one millionth of a gram will induce cancer if inhaled into the lung. As an iron analogue, it combines with transferrin. It causes liver cancer, bone cancer, leukemia, or multiple myeloma. It concentrates in the testicles and ovaries where it can induce testicular or ovarian cancer, or genetic diseases in future generations. It also crosses the placenta where it is teratogenic, like thalidomide. There are medical homes near Chernobyl full of grossly deformed children, the deformities of which have never before been seen in the history of medicine.
The half-life of plutonium is 24,400 years, and thus it is radioactive for 250,000 years. It will induce cancers, congenital deformities, and genetic diseases for virtually the rest of time.
Plutonium is also fuel for atomic bombs. Five kilos is fuel for a weapon which would vaporize a city. Each reactor makes 250 kg of plutonium a year. It is postulated that less than one kilo of plutonium, if adequately distributed, could induce lung cancer in every person on earth.http://www.amsj.org/archives/3487
Clive Palmer’s poor record on Aboriginal relations –
Clive Palmer firm Mineralogy’s ‘poor’ indigenous relations HEDLEY THOMAS AND PAIGE TAYLOR THE 
AUSTRALIAN MAY 01, 2014 CLIVE Palmer’s flagship company Mineralogy has a “particularly poor” record of working with Aborigines, who say their rights and culture have been trampled in his pursuit of mineral wealth on sacred sites.
Mr Palmer’s new political merger with three indigenous Northern Territory politicians comes amid his expressions of grave concern about the health and poverty of Aborigines.
But an examination by The Australian of findings by magistrates in mining court and native title cases show his main company has failed to act in good faith, flouted rules, operated combatively, had little regard for indigenous landowners and may even have destroyed ancient burial sites.
A key witness and senior member of the native title claim group whose evidence was accepted by the mining court, Mathew Sampi, said yesterday he had no confidence in Mr Palmer as the tycoon had broken past pledges to spend money on indigenous health.
“We don’t believe anything he says now,’’ said Mr Sampi, who represents the Kuruma Marthudunera people and grew up fishing and hunting in the Cape Preston area in the Pilbara, near an iron ore project built by Chinese companyCITIC Pacific.Findings by magistrates include that Mr Palmer’s company and staff exhibited “a sense of absolute entitlement in relation to mining endeavours” and “adopted an unduly confrontational approach” with indigenous owners. One of Mr Palmer’s top executives was found to have been an unreliable witness and the architect of “misleading” sworn documents.
Trumpeting the defection of the three indigenous MPs to his Palmer United Party this week, Mr Palmer appealed to indigenous voters to trust his commitment to reduce child deaths above other parties.
“He can suck a lot of Aboriginal people in and some of them really don’t know what they have been talked into. He seemed real good in the beginning, saying he was going to help the Aboriginal people in the area. They destroyed a lot of things, they disturbed special places where there used to be ancient tools.”……
In an earlier Native Title Tribunal case, Mineralogy was found to have given a “take it or leave it” ultimatum to indigenous owners of the land the company wanted to mine. Tribunal deputy president John Sosso found that Mineralogy had not acted prudently, reasonably or responsibly in its dealings with Aborigines. In a case involving the Kuruma Marthudundera group, elders Neil Ricky Finlay and Mr Sampi told the court of bad experiences with the company in the Pilbara region, which includes sacred burial grounds near the Cane River and the town of Karratha.
The Mining Court’s magistrate, Elaine Campione, described the two elders as “respected, senior and knowledgeable men” and she accepted their evidence………http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/investigations/clive-palmer-firm-mineralogys-poor-indigenous-relations/story-fnk76wj3-1226901468114#
USA Science Editor told by Fox News not to mention Climate Change
A 2013 study also found that the more time viewers spend watching conservative media, the more skeptical they become of climate science.
Science Editor: Fox News Told Me Not To Talk About Climate Change The Huffington Post | by Dominique Mosbergen 04/30/2014 This week, a science writer was asked to appear on Fox News to discuss the future of science and technology. However, he says there was one caveat: The issue of climate change would be off-limits.
On Wednesday, Michael Moyer, an editor at Scientific American, described his experience with the news outlet this way:
In a blog post on Scientific American, Moyer explained that he had offered to discuss what he foresees as the “trends for the future” on “Fox & Friends.” In a blog post on Scientific American, Moyer explained that he had offered to discuss what he foresees as the “trends for the future” on “Fox & Friends.”
“About the only interesting thing that the scientific community is sure will happen in the next 50 years is that climate change is going to get worse, and that we’re going to have to deal with the impacts. So I put that as one of my talking points,” he wrote.
But Moyer says a producer of the show soon reached out to him to tell him explicitly to not discuss climate change during the segment. Not wanting to back out of an opportunity to “share cool science with whomever will listen,” Moyer agreed to still appear on “Fox & Friends” Wednesday.
That, however, will likely be the last time Moyer will appear on the show.
“I found the tone and topics of coverage while I was sitting in the green room this morning to be not something that I wanted to be a part of in the future,” he told Talking Points Memo of his “Fox & Friends” experience. “I didn’t realize that the drumbeat of conservative propaganda was so ubiquitous on the show.”……
Moyer, however, insists that the Fox producer wrote this in an email: “[C]an we replace the climate change with something else?”
This wouldn’t be the first time that Fox News’ coverage of climate change has beencalled into question. A recent study by the Union of Concerned Scientists found the conservative news outlet covers climate change inaccurately 72 percent of the time.
A 2013 study also found that the more time viewers spend watching conservative media, the more skeptical they become of climate science.
“There are some things that in science and scientific discourse are not controversial at all,” Moyer told Talking Points Memo in light of his Fox News experience. “I hope that we can all as a society agree to at least discuss them and come up with good solutions. Just because you don’t want something to be true doesn’t make it not true.”
According to a recent Associated Press-GfK poll, about four in 10 Americans said “they are not too confident or outright disbelieve that the earth is warming, mostly a result of man-made heat-trapping gases,” per the AP. That’s in stark contrast to the97 percent of climate scientists who say global warming in the last 100 years has very likely been caused by human activity. http://linkis.com/zite.to/eoXrO
Medical Implications of Radiation
The impact of the nuclear crisis on global health Australian Medical Student Journal By Helen Caldicott in Volume 4, Issue 2 2014 “……..Medical Implications of Radiation
Fact number one
No dose of radiation is safe. Each dose received by the body is cumulative and adds to the risk of developing malignancy or genetic disease.
Fact number two
Children are ten to twenty times more vulnerable to the carcinogenic effects of radiation than adults. Females tend to be more sensitive compared to males, whilst foetuses and immuno-compromised patients are also extremely sensitive.
Fact number three
High doses of radiation received from a nuclear meltdown or from a nuclear weapon explosion can cause acute radiation sickness, with alopecia, severe nausea, diarrhea and thrombocytopenia. Reports of such illnesses, particularly in children, appeared within the first few months after the Fukushima accident.
Fact number four
Ionizing radiation from radioactive elements and radiation emitted from X-ray machines and CT scanners can be carcinogenic. The latent period of carcinogenesis for leukemia is 5-10 years and solid cancers 15-80 years. It has been shown that all modes of cancer can be induced by radiation, as well as over 6000 genetic diseases now described in the medical literature.
But, as we increase the level of background radiation in our environment from medical procedures, X-ray scanning machines at airports, or radioactive materials continually escaping from nuclear reactors and nuclear waste dumps, we will inevitably increase the incidence of cancer as well as the incidence of genetic disease in future generations…..”.http://www.amsj.org/archives/3487
Electricity prices will go up with removal of Renewable Energy Target
Households face higher power bills by 2020 if renewable-energy target is scrapped, study finds , SMH, April 29, 2014 Tom Arup Environment editor, The Age Axing Australia’s renewable-energy target – currently under review by the Abbott government – would halt $11 billion in future investments and mean higher household power bills by decade’s end, new modelling has found.
The modelling, commissioned by the Clean Energy Council, which represents the renewables industry, finds power bills are higher in the short term because of the target, but households would end up about $50 a year better off in 2020 if the target is left in place.
The work is part of the industry’s pitch to protect the renewable-energy target, under which at least 20 per cent of Australia’s electricity will come from renewable sources by 2020.
The Abbott government has commissioned a review of the target, headed by senior business figure Dick Warburton, who is sceptical of the science underpinning human-caused climate change.
Prime Minister Tony Abbott has previously declared that he wants Australia to be the ”affordable energy capital of the world”,……
the modelling finds that if the target is left in place then at the end of the decade, the boost to renewable-energy facilities would displace the need to use more gas power as growing energy demand returns, keeping wholesale power prices low. The report says that as a result, average household power bills would be $51 lower in 2020 than if the target was axed, and an average of $100 a year lower after 2020.
The report also says that if the renewable energy target was repealed, $11 billion in new investments would not go ahead – and Australia’s cumulative greenhouse gas emissions would be 34.7 million tonnes higher by 2020. http://www.smh.com.au/environment/households-face-higher-power-bills-by-2020-if-renewableenergy-target-is-scrapped-study-finds-20140429-zr1ec.html#ixzz30QLYra8v
A treaty with Australia’s Aboriginal people
TREATIES ARE AGREEMENTS BETWEEN EQUALS IC Magazine, by Callum Clayton-Dixon on April 28, 2014 All of a sudden [Australia’s] conservative coalition government is welcoming discussion about something we have demanded for decades, something Prime Minister Bob Hawke promised to deliver by 1990, and a proposal the current Labor opposition has labelled “stupid”.
While Herald Sun columnist Andrew Bolt claims treaties will cause “racial division”, Indigenous Affairs Minister Nigel Scullion says they are “agreements between equals” and considers this to be one of the issues Abbott’s Indigenous Advisory Council (IAC) should be looking at.
However, many would dispute whether a handpicked government advisory body has the mandate to control such a debate. The nature of any treaty process must be owned by Aboriginal people on the ground.
WHAT IS OUR STATUS?
Before going any deeper, it’s probably a good idea to take a step back and have a look at what exactly is our status as First Nations peoples. Continue reading
A most expensive funeral – dealing with a dead nuclear reactor
The rising cost of decommissioning a nuclear power plant Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Dan Drollette Jr 30 April 14“……. The Yankee Nuclear Power Station in Rowe, Massachusetts, took 15 years to decommission—or five times longer than was needed to build it. And decommissioning the plant—constructed early in the 1960s for $39 million—cost $608 million. The plant’s spent fuel rods are still stored in a facility on-site, because there is no permanent disposal repository to put them in. To monitor them and make sure the material does not fall into the hands of terrorists or spill into the nearby river costs $8 million per year. That cost will continue for an unknown number of years. David Lochbaum of the Union of Concerned Scientists estimates that even without the ongoing costs of monitoring and security, the average reactor now costs about $500 million to deactivate……..
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 