US and Australian taxpayers pay billions a year to fund coal – report, http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/sep/16/us-australian-taxpayers-pay-billions-fund-coal
Ending US subsidies would lead to cuts in coal use equivalent to shutting up to 32 coal-fired power stations, according to the report. Damian Carrington, 16 Sept 15
Ending subsidies, that amount to almost a quarter of the sale price in some cases, would hugely reduce carbon emissions, new research reveals
Coal subsidies are costing US and Australian taxpayers billions of dollars a year, according to a new report.
The research examined the subsidies given to coal production in the US’s largest coal field, the Powder River Basin, and found they totalled $2.9bn (£1.9bn) a year. This equates to $8 per tonne, almost 25% of the sale price.
Ending the subsidies would lead to cuts in coal use equivalent to shutting up to 32 coal-fired power stations, the researchers found, leading to a large reduction in carbon emissions.
The report also analysed Australia’s exporting of coal for power stations in Asia and found these came to $1.3bn a year, or $4 a tonne. Ending these subsidies would cut demand by up to 7%, a smaller impact than in the US because coal users could buy supplies from other countries.
“The fossil fuel industry has gamed energy market consumers, with numerous subsidies evident over the long term,” said Tim Buckley, at the Institute forEnergy Economics and Financial Analysis, who worked on the report. “Any discussion of cost competitiveness of renewable energy and energy efficiency needs to take into account the decades of extensive subsidies evident for the coal industry and that, in many cases, remain in place today.”
Luke Sussams, senior researcher at Carbon Tracker Initiative, also part of the research team, said: “Policy makers concerned about climate change and a level playing field in energy markets should look to take coordinated action to remove the distortions to production these subsidies create.”
The subsidies given to coal companies included tax breaks, cheap leases, government-funded infrastructure including railways and ports and allowing inadequate funding of clean-up operation after mining ends.
The G20 nations pledged to end fossil fuel subsidies in 2009, but little action has been taken. However, falling oil and coal prices in the last year have seen some countries starting to reduce subsidies.
A recent study by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) took into account not just direct subsidies but also the cost to nations of the damage caused by air pollution and global warming. It estimated coal, oil and gas were being subsidised by $5.3trn a year, more than the total health spending of all the world’s governments. Much of the cost is due to the illness and death caused by air pollution.
“Eliminating coal subsidies in the Powder River Basin and throughout the world, is an obvious, no-regrets climate strategy,” said Doug Koplow, of Earth Track and another member of the research team.
The new report, called Assessing Thermal Coal Production Subsidies, was produced by the Carbon Tracker Initiative, Energy Transition Advisors, the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis and Earth Track.
Naturalist says 10-year public research and development programme, that would emulate race to put men on the moon, could halt climate change.
An Apollo-style research programme to make renewable energy cheaper than fossil fuels has won the backing of Sir David Attenborough, who says this alone would be enough to halt climate change.
The renowned naturalist joins a group of eminent scientists, business executives and politicians backing a 10-year public research and development plan to cut the costs of clean energy and deliver affordable technologies to store and transport solar and wind power.
In a letter to the Guardian, the group argue that the approach, mirroring the intense Apollo programme that put men on the moon, “will not only pay for itself but provide economic benefits to the nations of the world”.
“I have been lucky enough to spend my life exploring the world’s oceans, forests and deserts. But the…
View original post 383 more words
Australian politics is in a pretty parlous state. We have just got rid of the worst Prime Minister in Australia’s history. We now have Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, a more likable personality, with a better general intelligence. But the policies remain the same, especially on climate change, as Graham Readfern has shown, in a devastating critique. But, Malcolm Turnbull might move slowly and subtly on climate change. As PM Tony Abbott was the Labor Opposition’s best asset, we wait to see what happens in that camp.
SOUTH AUSTRALIA NUCLEAR FUEL CHAIN ROYAL COMMISSION
Uranium sales to India Government committee finds that it is too dangerous to sell uranium to India. Uranium deal with India is also bad for Australian business.
Nuclear disarmament Australian govt ‘sees no value’ in humanitarian pledge on nuclear disarmament. Australia, formerly a leader on nuclear disarmament, now a leper in the regional disarmament movement
CLIMATE CHANGE. Survey findings Rio Tinto, Business Council of Australia to be top climate hypocrites. Australia’s and New Zealand’s Prime Ministers just don’t care about Pacific Islands with sea levels rising.
Victorian Environment Protection Authority wants ILuka Resources to explain radioactive trash dump plan.
Renewable Energy: Companies looking for renewable energy investments in Australia
Aboriginal Issues. Aboriginal Freedom Summit 2 pushes for Treaty
Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission WEEK 11 – MANAGEMENT, 
STORAGE AND DISPOSAL OF NUCLEAR AND RADIOACTIVE WASTE, Jim3 17 Sept 11115
Michels Warren is a PR company working for the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission. The company was involved in the Howard government’s failed 6-year attempt to impose a national nuclear waste dump in South Australia. A great deal of information is available about the role of Michels Warren in this controversy thanks to documents released under Freedom of Information (FoI) legislation.
A September 27, 2000 email written by Stephen Middleton from Michels Warren talked about the need 
to “soften up the community” and “sell” the repository: “We will lose ground once again unless we can soften up the community on the need for the repository and the reasons why SA has been identified as the best location. The prospect of the Minister announcing the preferred site before we can get to the community with something that explains what it all means makes my head spin. The wider research into issues such as Lucas Heights, uranium mining, the nuclear fuel cycle etc etc can be tackled as a separate issue. It should not hold up anything we are doing in terms of selling the repository to South Australians. The rest of the country probably doesn’t care less about the repository, but it is a big issue in SA. Further delays could be potentially disastrous.”
Why was a South Australian company willingly involving itself in the federal government’s nuclear dump plans? After all, Michels Warren itself acknowledges that the dump is an unwanted imposition on SA.
A 2003 Michels Warren document released under FoI legislation stated: “The National Repository could never be sold as “good news” to South Australians. There are few, if any, tangible benefits such as jobs, investment or improved infrastructure. Its merits to South Australians, at the most, are intangible and the range and complexity of issues make them difficult to communicate.”
So why was Michels Warren dumping on its home state? Money, of course. In total, Michels Warren was paid at least $487,000 to dump on SA … and possibly much more. Michels Warren staff were paid at rates up to $192.50 per hour for their work on the nuclear dump campaign.
An August 16, 2000 “high priority” email reveals that Caroline Perkins, a senior official in the 
Department of Industry, Science and Resources – at that time under the direction of Senator Nick Minchin – was asked to compile information on protesters. “[T[he minister wants a short biography of our main opponents in the Ivy campaign by about 11am our time (pre-rally)”, the email said. The rest of the email is blacked out under FoI provisions. The email refers to a Michels Warren employee – no doubt Michels Warren helped compile the biographies. Continue reading
Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission WEEK 11 – MANAGEMENT,
STORAGE AND DISPOSAL OF NUCLEAR AND RADIOACTIVE WASTE, dan 17 Sept 11115 Any risk assessment for the management of spent nuclear fuel should firstly consider the current management practice internationally. In considering the possible establishment of a new facility, it should firstly be accepted that transportation of spent nuclear fuel to any centralized facility presents risk which could be avoided entirely if waste is managed at or near its present locations.
In some cases, spent nuclear fuel is currently stored in closer proximity to human populations than desirable, so I can understand some host nations’ desire to export their spent nuclear fuel liability to a distant receiving country like Australia. I also acknowledge the position presented by Barry Brook and Ben Heard that future reprocessing technology may be able to separate uranium and plutonium from the spent fuel and produce electricity as a by-product of this process. The risk associated with this vision of the future is that such technology currently expressed in theory may never eventuate, and the spent nuclear fuel may thus prove to be an extremely long-lived management liability.
Risks which Australia should consider if considering the prospect of importing spent nuclear fuel include the possible appropriation of shipments by terrorist groups either in transit or after receipt. Similarly, a transport vessel may be attacked and join the number of sunken nuclear-fuelled submarines slowly corroding on the seabed around the world, destined to have unknown ecological impacts. As this Commission is no doubt aware, spent nuclear fuel can be reprocessed to obtain plutonium and uranium, both of which can be then repurposed as weapons material. This has serious implications for nuclear weapons proliferation risk.
Following receipt of spent nuclear fuel, the responsibility for protecting this material would presumably become Australia’s and would remain so for centuries (pending some technological breakthough in speculative technology). Should Australia enter war during the course of the life of the radioactivity contained in the stored spent fuel, or otherwise become a future terrorist target, any centralized repository of spent nuclear fuel represents a potential air-strike or bomb target.
If such an attack were to occur, storage vessels may be ruptured and release radioactive material to the atmosphere, essentially functioning as a ‘dirty bomb’. Wherever spent nuclear fuel is stored, it is my opinion that every measure should be made to protect it from air-strike or terrorist attack. The fallout from such an event would lead to the establishment of a new sacrifice zone, akin to those surrounding stricken Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear power plants. Consequences for human health would take years to manifest and be demonstrably linked to such an event- meanwhile displaced persons would suffer anguish and may, as in the case of Fukushima, lead to people taking their own lives. Should such a facility be located in the South Australian outback, those most directly affected would likely be indigenous Australians, who would mourn the event as a colossal, cultural loss as their connection to country is severely damaged.
Obviously wartime or terror attack-proofing of spent fuel storage is not achieved in many locations where spent nuclear fuel is currently stored. I would assume that the quantity of these stores would be smaller than any proposed new facility, dedicated exclusively to the storage of spent nuclear fuel. Perhaps there is a case for improving management of spent nuclear fuel at or near existing storage.
Should a new facility be constructed, it should (in my opinion) be secure and underground, in a position where water infiltration is extremely unlikely. Examples of corrosion and water infiltration proving problematic for nuclear waste storage facilities include Orchid Island (Taiwan) and Yucca Mountain (USA).
When all is thoroughly considered, it might be concluded that the improvement and standardisation of current storage practise at or near locations where spent fuel is currently held provides an alternative pathway to proceed down if the objective of this exercise is risk minimisation.
“Support for the humanitarian consequences pledge is making Australia’s position more difficult; it is galvanising public and political opinion, and Australia finds itself running against the domestic and international tide.”
Australia defends opposition to global push for nuclear weapons ban, Guardian, Ben Doherty, 18 Sept 15 Foreign affairs department ‘sees no value’ in a pledge, endorsed by 116 countries to eliminate nuclear weapons worldwide. Australia has defended its position on nuclear disarmament, saying a push for a global treaty banning nuclear weapons “will not lead to their elimination”.
The pledge, now endorsed by 116 countries, is seen as a precursor to a new global treaty outlawing all nuclear weapons.
But a spokeswoman for the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (Dfat) told Guardian Australia it “sees no value” in the Austrian pledge because it ignores the realpolitik of the global nuclear landscape.
None of the five “declared” nuclear nations under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty – the US, Britain, France, China and Russia – have endorsed the Austrian pledge. Continue reading
Is new Australian prime minister Malcolm Turnbull already a climate change turncoat?
Malcolm Turnbull once endorsed common sense positions on climate change. Then he became prime minister, Guardian, Graham Readfearn , 18 Sept 15 During the first few days of being prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull seems to be doing his best to argue about climate change with a former version of himself.
I know I might have already given the game away here, but who do you think said this only five years ago?
We are as humans conducting a massive science experiment with this planet. It’s the only planet we’ve got…. We know that the consequences of unchecked global warming would be catastrophic. We know that extreme weather events are occurring with greater and greater frequency and while it is never possible to point to one drought or one storm or one flood and say that particular incident is caused by global warming, we know that these trends are entirely consistent with the climate change forecasts with the climate models that the scientists are relying on…. We as a human species have a deep and abiding obligation to this planet and to the generations that will come after us.
Stirring stuff eh?
That was Turnbull in August 2010, speaking at the launch of a report demonstrating the technical feasibility of moving Australia to a 100 per cent renewable energy nation.
During his first Question Time as PM earlier this week, Turnbull was asked if he would join Labor in its aspiration (and that’s about the extent of Labor’s policy on this right now) that Australia should be generating 50 per cent of its electricity from renewables by 2030.
Turnbull’s response?
[Opposition leader Bill Shorten] is highlighting one of the most reckless proposals the Labor party has made. Fancy proposing, without any idea of the cost of the abatement, the cost of proposing that 50 per cent of energy had to come from renewables! What if that reduction in emissions you needed could come more cost-effectively from carbon storage, by planting trees, by soil carbon, by using gas, by using clean coal, by energy efficiency?
What did the Turnbull of 2010 make of a plan to move away from fossil fuels that was twice as ambitious as Labor’s, that actually explained how it could be done and that proposed doing it faster?
But now it seems, Turnbull wants to ridicule an idea that he enthusiastically supported five years earlier. Turnbull once described the government’s Direct Action climate change policy as “fiscal recklessness on a grand scale” but now thinks the policy is a “resounding success”.
During his Question Time response, Turnbull also listed “clean coal” and “carbon capture” as viable responses to the problem……..
now, Turnbull is defending his government’s weak targets on climate change that, if they were replicated by other countries around the world, analysts saywould likely see the planet warm by 3C or more.
Not only is Turnbull abandoning the science, he is abandoning his previous common sense position on climate for what a former Turnbull described as a policy that was no more than fig leaf…… http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2015/sep/18/is-new-australian-prime-minister-malcolm-turnbull-already-a-climate-change-turncoat
Rio Tinto, Business Council of Australia among ‘climate hypocrites’, survey says SMH, September 16, 2015 Peter Hannam Environment Editor, The Sydney Morning Herald BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto and the Business Council of Australia are among the world’s largest companies and industry groups holding back action on climate change, according to a new survey.
The research, based on methodology developed by the US-based Union of Concerned Scientists and applied by UK-based non-profit group InfluenceMap, found 45 per cent of the 100 biggest industrial companies were “climate hypocrites” that obstruct action on global warming. Some 95 per cent of the delaying firms were also members of trade associations that demonstrated “the same obstructionist behaviour”.
BHP Billiton was rated a “D”, keeping it just outside the lower 45 per cent of companies that were ranked as “hypocrites”.
“More and more, we’re seeing companies rely on their trade groups to do their dirty work of lobbying against comprehensive climate policies,” Gretchen Goldman, lead analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said. “It is unacceptable that companies can obstruct climate action in this way without any accountability.”
Google topped the list of best performers, along with Unilever and Cisco Systems, each of which received a “B” rating for their relatively positive involvement on tackling greenhouse gas emissions and backing laws that supported such action.
Unilever, which has consumer brands including Dove and Flora, gained kudos for “strongly” supporting the introduction of a carbon tax in Australia in 2012.
The Abbott government scrapped the policy two years later and newly installed Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull indicated in his first speech after toppling Tony Abbott that he would stick to the replacement direct action policy to pay polluters to curb emissions.
BHP Billiton, which has coal and oil interests, received its “D” for having a “low level but negative engagement on climate regulation”, including supporting the repeal of the carbon price. “The company appears to be supportive of [greenhouse gas] intensive energy sources, supporting continued use of coal,” the survey said.
BHP also lost marks for its membership of the International Association of Oil and Gas Producers and the Business Council of Australia (BCA), “both of which appear to be opposing climate policy”, the report argued. http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/rio-tinto-business-council-of-australia-among-climate-hypocrites-survey-says-20150915-gjn3rz.html#ixzz3m2HDgRjw
I don’t think Labor has a hope of defeating Malcolm Turnbull as things currently stand—unless we change our politics.
Our only hope of defeating Malcolm Turnbull is also our only hope of seriously tackling climate change. We have to come together across divides to articulate a different way of doing things, to mount a cohesive, comprehensive, and strategic campaign for a better, fairer, greener world.
Malcolm Turnbull’s elevation to the Prime Ministership will change very little on its own. But it could be the stimulus we need to work with the new recruits brought to us by Tony Abbott to change everything.
The Fall of Tony Abbott Changes…Not What You Think It Might http://theleap.thischangeseverything.org/the-fall-of-tony-abbott-changes-not-what-you-think-it-might/
September 15, 2015 by Tim Hollo Australia’s climate vandal Prime Minister is no more.
Tony Abbott, elected under two years ago after a lie-filled, Murdoch-fuelled anti-climate campaign, has been deposed by his own party.
Abbott, who famously declared that “coal is good for humanity,” led the first government in the world to reverse a price on carbon or slash a renewable energy target. He rejected funding for mass transit and increased it for roads; he attacked wind farms as ugly and pandered to the junk science of “wind turbine syndrome.” He took Australia’s treatment of refugees to new depths of depravity, even banning doctors from reporting on abuses in the detention camps; begged Barack Obama to let Australia join the bombing of Syria; slashed funding for universities, research and the arts; and escalated the “war on terror” rhetoric.
Tony Abbott’s political demise is cause for celebration.
But what can we expect of his replacement, Malcolm Turnbull, a man seen by some as Australia’s climate saviour? My expectation is: far too little to make a difference, but just enough to threaten to defuse the growing radicalization that Abbott’s clumsy approach was fomenting. We may have just replaced our movement’s most unlikely recruitment tool with someone more dangerous. Continue reading
The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) connects state lawmakers 
with corporateHow Charles Koch Prevents Clean Energy Businesses From Succeeding, TruthOut 02 September 2015 By Matthew Kasper, Republic Report | News Analysis Last week, President Obama correctly singled out the Koch brothers – Charles and David – and the Koch-funded network for standing in the way of America’s clean energy Continue reading
Iluka Resources asked for more proof that waste won’t pollute river, KATE DOWLER THE WEEKLY TIMES SEPTEMBER 16, 2015 THE Environment Protection Authority Victoria has asked miner Iluka Resources to provide more proof that its plans to continue dumping radioactive waste south of Horsham will not pollute the Glenelg River.
The EPA has formally asked Iuka to provide more information by Friday on the company’s works approval application to continue dumping interstate mining waste at its former Douglas mine site.
Among the EPA requests, Iluka has been asked to install new groundwater bores to prove potentially contaminated water from the dump site is not moving from the dumping pit into the Glenelg River or local lakes, and raw groundwater data from before and after dumping at the site began.
Many residents in the Douglas and Kanagulk regions, and in the surrounding regions that are linked to the Glenelg River catchment — Balmoral, Rocklands, Harrow, Casterton, Cavendish, Hamilton, Digby, Dartmoor and Nelson — are concerned the radioactive waste could leach into waterways and threaten human health and the environment.
The Horsham Rural City Council, with EPA support, must decide if Iluka Resources can continue using the pit to dump mine waste — low-level radioactive byproducts and concrete and steel that has been in contact with radioactive material — from both old Victorian mines and active sites interstate……….http://www.weeklytimesnow.com.au/news/national/iluka-resources-asked-for-more-proof-that-waste-wont-pollute-river/story-fnkfnspy-1227530458473
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 