Will the Citizens’ jury be able to say NO to nuclear waste importing for South Australia?
Just how strictly controlled the process is becomes obvious when it emerges that the task of those 50, during two weekend meetings in June and July, will be to produce ‘a short independent guide to help every South Australian understand the recommendations raised’ by the report.
ABC news dubbed this whole process the Premier’s ‘public relations exercise’, and surely they’re not wrong.
The Premier is urging all South Australians to remain ‘open’ about the proposal. But are they, including the Citizens’ Jury, allowed to be open to refusal?
SA Premier coopts democracy for nuclear nefariousness http://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article.aspx?aeid=48345#.V0eKYTV97Gg Michele Madigan | 25 May 2016
I was trying to think what the invitation reminded me of. It took me a moment, but then I had it: the Project for the New American Century, the neo-conservative think tank and ‘educational’ organisation that went on to play a key role in shaping the foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration.
It’s a different time and different circumstances, but there was something about this invitation — a joint missive from the Premier of South Australia and the newDemocracy Foundation — that seemed to resonate with that ominous American institution; a sense that democratic ideas such as consultation and partnership were being co-opted for nefarious ends. In the address section of the envelope, in beautiful script, the partnership was emphasised: ‘An Invitation from the Premier and the newDemocracy Foundation’.
The gold and black lettered document was an invitation ‘to take part in the Citizens’ Jury of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission’s report’. This Citizens’ Jury will take place now that Royal Commissioner Kevin Scarce has handed down his final report, with the primary extraordinary recommendation that South Australia invite high-level radioactive waste from overseas. Continue reading
Xenophon wants nuclear waste referendum, but only AFTER a dump site is selected
Independent Senator Nick Xenophon might vote against company tax cuts, seeks referendum on nuclear waste dump, The Advertiser May 26, 2016 Political Reporter Peter Jean INDEPENDENT Senator Nick Xenophon wants a referendum to decide whether South Australia should be home to a nuclear waste dump……
After a South Australian Press Club election debate on Thursday, he told The Advertiser that a waste dump referendum should happen once a location was decided.
“The people of SA should have a direct say on it,” he said. If the state referendum passed, it is likely the federal Parliament would pass the legislation needed at that level…..http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/independent-senator-nick-xenophon-might-vote-against-company-tax-cuts-in-senate/news-story/0207bb0fe9c9fd5761d2ab8b474942
Federal Liberal and Labor support nuclear waste import: Xenophon suggests referendum
Xenophon calls for SA nuclear referendum http://www.9news.com.au/national/2016/05/26/15/09/sa-needs-nuclear-referendum-xenophon South Australia should hold a referendum on whether to host a high-level nuclear waste dump, independent senator Nick Xenophon says.The decision to host the dump would have far-reaching consequences, Senator Xenophon told an SA Press Club debate on Thursday.
“If we had a high-level dump it will be around for tens of thousands of years,” he said.
Premier Jay Weatherill has consistently rejected the idea of a referendum, saying the government will instead pursue “qualitative” consultation.
The government will receive feedback from two citizen juries and a bipartisan parliamentary committee.
A decision to host a high-level dump appears likely to be supported at a federal level regardless of who wins the July election.
Education Minister Simon Birmingham said the Turnbull government would change laws to facilitate a dump if the state government wanted to host one.
Labor Senator Penny Wong expressed misgivings about a nuclear dump but praised the state government’s public consultation.
“I share some of the concerns which have been raised in the community about this,” she told the debate.
“I think the process Jay and the government are going through and the way in which they’re approaching it is the right one. That process itself will yield the outcome. It will have community support or it won’t.”
The Greens remained strongly opposed to a nuclear dump, South Australian senator Sarah Hanson-Young said. http://www.9news.com.au/national/2016/05/26/15/09/sa-needs-nuclear-referendum-xenophon#lR58JolbQ0ZlvYfC.996/15/09/sa-needs-nuclear-referendum-xenophon#lR58JolbQ0ZlvYfC.99
Indigenous owners put Minister Frydenberg on the spot about nuclear waste dump
Indigenous owners appeal to Minister’s ‘human side’ to shelve proposed nuclear waste site, ABC News By Alex Mann, 27 May 16
Wallerberdina Station part-owner Grant Chapman did not consult the neighbouring Adnyamathahna community before nominating his land as a nuclear waste site. Opposition to the Federal Government’s proposed nuclear waste facility in the Flinders Ranges is heating up, with traditional owners travelling to meet with Federal Resources Minister Josh Frydenberg to demand the Government shelve its plans.
Traditional owner Regina McKenzie said she hoped travelling the more than 1,000 kilometres to Melbourne would appeal to the Minister’s “human side” and get him to change his mind.
“It’s always, every waste dump is near an Aboriginal community,” she told 7.30.
“Don’t you think that’s a bit confronting for us? When it happens to us all the time?”
Ms McKenzie is also a member of Viliwarina Yura, the corporation that was granted the land neighbouring the proposed waste site in 2000. Now she has teamed up with veteran anti-nuclear campaigner Dave Sweeney to take her message across the country.
Mr Sweeney told 7.30 that as the national anti-nuclear campaigner for the Australian Conservation Foundation, and with more than 20 years experience in nuclear issues, he would use his connections, contacts and ability to amplify the story.
“It just feels disturbingly familiar, and disturbingly like we’re replicating past mistakes,” he said.
Mr Frydenberg declined 7.30’s request for an interview but acknowledged in a statement that “legitimate issues have been raised about the Indigenous heritage in the broader area”. As a result, he said the Government would undertake a “comprehensive and independent heritage assessment and further consult with key stakeholders before any final decisions are made”.
But the traditional owners maintain that nowhere would be acceptable.
Local Indigenous owners not consulted
This is just the latest front in a battle around nuclear waste that has raged for decades…….http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-26/local-indigenous-owners-protest-hawker-nuclear-dump/7449124
Australian govt pressured UN to remove Australian topics from climate report
Australia scrubbed from UN climate change report after government intervention http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/27/australia-scrubbed-from-un-climate-change-report-after-government-intervention#comment-75076075
Exclusive: All mentions of Australia were removed from the final version of a Unesco report on climate change and world heritage sites after the Australian government objected on the grounds it could impact on tourism
Revealed: Guardian Australia has obtained the Unesco report Australia didn’t want the world to see. Read it now Guardian, Michael Slezak, 27 May 16
Every reference to Australia was scrubbed from the final version of a major UN report on climate change after the Australian government intervened, objecting that the information could harm tourism.
Guardian Australia can reveal the report “World Heritage and Tourism in a Changing Climate”, which Unesco jointly published with the United Nations environment program and the Union of Concerned Scientists on Friday, initially had a key chapter on the Great Barrier Reef, as well as small sections on Kakadu and the Tasmanian forests.
But when the Australian Department of Environment saw a draft of the report, it objected, and every mention of Australia was removed by Unesco. Will Steffen, one of the scientific reviewers of the axed section on the reef, said Australia’s move was reminiscent of “the old Soviet Union”.
No sections about any other country were removed from the report. The removals left Australia as the only inhabited continent on the planet with no mentions.
Explaining the decision to object to the report, a spokesperson for the environment department told Guardian Australia: “Recent experience in Australia had shown that negative commentary about the status of world heritage properties impacted on tourism.”
As a result of climate change combined with weather phenomena, the Great Barrier Reef is in the midst of the worst crisis in recorded history. Continue reading
A spent nuclear fuel fire would be catastrophic
Spent fuel fire on U.S. soil could dwarf impact of Fukushima, Science, By Richard Stone May. 24, 2016 A fire from spent fuel stored at a U.S. nuclear power plant could have catastrophic consequences, according to new simulations of such an event.
A major fire “could dwarf the horrific consequences of the Fukushima accident,” says Edwin Lyman, a physicist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit in Washington, D.C. “We’re talking about trillion-dollar consequences,” says Frank von Hippel, a nuclear security expert at Princeton University, who teamed with Princeton’s Michael Schoeppner on the modeling exercise.
The revelations come on the heels of a report last week from the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine on the aftermath of the 11 March 2011 earthquake and tsunami in northern Japan. The report details how a spent fuel fire at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant that was crippled by the twin disasters could have released far more radioactivity into the environment.
The nuclear fuel in three of the plant’s six reactors melted down and released radioactive plumes that contaminated land downwind. Japan declared 1100 square kilometers uninhabitable and relocated 88,000 people. (Almost as many left voluntarily.) After the meltdowns, officials feared that spent fuel stored in pools in the reactor halls would catch fire and send radioactive smoke across a much wider swath of eastern Japan, including Tokyo. By a stroke of luck, that did not happen.
But the national academies’s report warns that spent fuel accumulating at U.S. nuclear plants is also vulnerable. After fuel is removed from a reactor core, the radioactive fission products continue to decay, generating heat. All nuclear power plants store the fuel onsite at the bottom of deep pools for at least 4 years while it slowly cools. To keep it safe, the academies report recommends that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and nuclear plant operators beef up systems for monitoring the pools and topping up water levels in case a facility is damaged. The panel also says plants should be ready to tighten security after a disaster.
At most U.S. nuclear plants, spent fuel is densely packed in pools, heightening the fire risk. NRC has estimated that a major fire at the spent fuel pool at the Peach Bottom nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania would displace an estimated 3.46 million people from 31,000 square kilometers of contaminated land, an area larger than New Jersey. But Von Hippel and Schoeppner think that NRC has grossly underestimated the scale and societal costs of such a fire…….http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/spent-fuel-fire-us-soil-could-dwarf-impact-fukushima
We can ask every candidate about climate policy, and not vote for the polluters
Our democracy has been bought. To win on climate, we have to take it back, Guardian, 26 May 16 Christine Milne “…… In an era of partisanship, these vested interests are bipartisan in providing lucrative post-politics careers. Tony Abbott made this blatantly clear when he said recently he hoped the mining industry would demonstrate their gratitude to Ian Macfarlane in his years of retirement for his magnificent achievement in scrapping the mining tax.
APPEA, the voice of the oil and gas industry, has already appointed former Labor energy minister Martin Ferguson as chair of its advisory board. Interestingly, Ian Macfarlane introduced the generous frontier tax arrangements and royalty payments for oil exploration that Martin Ferguson extended such that BP will be able to claim 150% of drilling costs in the Great Australian Bight. That’s bipartisanship for you.
The fossil fuel industry currently donates millions of dollars to both major parties, and in return secures billions in tax breaks and subsidies – not to mention preferential treatment when applying for mining and gas lease and oil drilling approvals and favourable decisions under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act.
If donations aren’t enough, then hostile advertising is held over prime ministers as a threat. This tactic worked for them in destroying the mining tax and the carbon price and they are banking on it working again in 2016.
But how do they get away with it given the level of community concern about global warming? The concern that continues to grow in the wake of the terrifying fires, extreme droughts, and devastating storm surges people are living through.
How did the fossil fuel industry get away with all their subsidies intact in this year’s budget when hospitals and schools are defunded? This includes keeping their lucrative fuel tax rebate, which is worth $2bn a year while single parents and community legal centres are done over. Why didn’t Labor raise the roof about this and why didn’t they reject utterly the LNP’s billion dollar Arena cut?
Because it is not just the Liberal party that is captured by dirty money. Labor, Liberals and National parties have proven that they are utterly captured by this pervasive and polluting industry, that is rapidly condemning our planet to burn. And they are getting away with it because politicians on both sides of the aisle – with the exception the Greens – are unwilling to stand up to the big miners.
There is an unspoken bipartisan agreement supported by the mainstream media that the continuation of the coal, gas and oil industries is a given and will not be debated. The approval of Adani’s Carmichael mega coal mine still stands……
We can make a choice to stay lukewarm and lose any possibility of keeping warming below dangerous levels or we can ask every candidate for a yes or no answer and not vote for anyone who props up the big polluters and lets dangerous climate change runaway on their watch. It’s the only way to start reforming a broken system. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/26/our-democracy-has-been-bought-to-win-on-climate-we-have-to-take-it-back
Politicians selling out Australian ports to nuclear waste transport
Darwin at Center of Nuclear Waste Controversy The Maritime Executive, By MarEx 2016-05-23 The Maritime Union of Australia (MUA) has said it will fight any plans to allow the world’s spent nuclear fuel rods and radioactive waste to enter Australia through the Port of Darwin.
The MUA is outraged that Northern Territory Chief Minister Adam Giles has offered to accept the waste which would then be transported thousands of kilometers to South Australia.
“Mr Giles is happy to sell out Territorians so that Malcolm Turnbull can use them as a dirty rag for his own personal gain and to benefit his top end of town mates,” MUA Northern Territory branch secretary Thomas Mayor said.
“It’s like putting Homer Simpson in charge of nuclear waste and his big business “Mr Burns” mates are rubbing their hands together. All the while Chief Clancy, aka Natasha Griggs, is none the wiser.”…….
Turnbull has already sold out Australian shipping, says Mayor. “Not only will foreign flagged ships carry the hazardous cargo, but the port that they are taking it to will also be run by foreign interests.”
Mayor said there was no agreement with traditional land owners to use their land……http://www.maritime-executive.com/article/darwin-at-center-of-nuclear-waste-controversy
Australia – free of coal-fired electricity by 2030 – it can be done
How Australia can eliminate coal-fired electricity by 203 0 Canberra Times, May 26 2016 Andrew Blakers Australia has agreed to limit global temperature rise to “well below” 2 degrees Celsius. The replacement of fossil fuels with renewable energy sources will be much easier, quicker and cheaper than many people realise because the technologies required – solar photovoltaics (PV), wind power and pumped hydro energy storage (PHES) – are affordable and are already deployed on a large scale.
PV and wind energy are price competitive with new-build fossil and nuclear power in most parts of the world, and price reductions continue. PV and wind constitute all new electrical generation capacity installed in Australia, and half of new generation capacity installed each year worldwide, more than fossil, nuclear and hydro power combined.
PV and wind are being installed at 20 times the annual rate worldwide of all other non-hydro renewables combined. Other low emission energy technologies will require heroic technical breakthroughs and growth rates to catch up. Continue reading
Australia now a plutocracy – don’t let fossil fuel lobby run this election!
To win on the climate we have to take our democracy back from the corporates who have bought it. That means making the urgency of the climate emergency, the need to keep coal, gas and oil in the ground, political donations reform, fossil fuel subsidies and a national Icac, red hot issues in this election.
Our democracy has been bought. To win on climate, we have to take it back, Guardian, 26 May 16 Christine Milne A majority of voters are in support of more government action on climate change – and yet somehow it’s not an election issue. Let’s make it one The current dissonance between election campaign rhetoric and the facts of climate change is unfathomable, that is, until you dig a little deeper.
This month, the world passed a disastrous tipping point from which there will be no return: the Cape Grim Air Quality Monitoring Station registered a count of 400 parts per million CO2 in the atmosphere. Climate scientists have acknowledged that there is basically no going back from this point. We are in a climate emergency.
At the same time, 93% of the Great Barrier Reef is experiencing devastating bleaching; the biggest ever anti-coal protest at Newcastle – the world’s largest coal port – stopped exports for a day, and yet at the federal election leaders’ debate not one question was asked on what the parties would do about global warming or fossil fuel subsidies, coal or coal seam gas.
What is going on? A lack of interest or a debate with parameters and audience selection overseen by Rupert Murdoch’s Sky News and Daily Telegraph? It is not credible that a representative selection of voters would not have raised global warming or asylum seekers as issues at all. Especially when a poll released this week showed that an overwhelming majority of voters are in favour of more government action on climate change.
But then we no longer live in a democracy. We have morphed into a plutocracy: government by the wealthy for the wealthy greased by political donations. You don’t need to be in parliament to secure your interests, you only need to buy or exert enough influence through cash or concentrated media ownership to make sure things don’t change regardless of whether the LNP or Labor is in government.
Big corporations call these donations “diversifying their investment”, and when you look at the donation records of fossil fuel companies, they donate to both major parties, capturing them both within their destructive and pervasive web of influence.
To make sense of this election and to understand why certain issues are buried and others promoted as open to debate, it is necessary to follow the money, and the electoral objectives of those who have it.
Australia is a disproportionately resource-based economy dependent on subsidised digging up and shipping away. The vested interests who have made their fortunes out of coal, oil and gas will fight to keep it that way. This is despite crystal clear evidence that the demand for our coal, oil and gas on the global stage is declining.
Rather than work to transition our economy to a more diverse and clean one, they will instead fight to keep every grant, subsidy, tax break and overseas tax haven they currently enjoy. They will tear down every job, research project or grants scheme that supports a renewable energy future, such as they have done by gutting of the CSIRO, the renewable energy target and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (Arena)……..
To win on the climate we have to take our democracy back from the corporates who have bought it. That means making the urgency of the climate emergency, the need to keep coal, gas and oil in the ground, political donations reform, fossil fuel subsidies and a national Icac, red hot issues in this election. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/26/our-democracy-has-been-bought-to-win-on-climate-we-have-to-take-it-back
Greg Hunt “didn’t know” his favoured climate report written by former Liberal candidate
Climate policy report hailed by Greg Hunt written by former Liberal candidate, , May 26, 2016 –Peter Hannam Environment Editor, The Sydney Morning Herald The lead author of a consultants’ report hailed by Environment Minister Greg Hunt as supporting the government’s climate policies is a current member of the Liberal Party and former candidate for the federal seat of Sydney, prompting questions about its independence.
Gordon Weiss is an associate of energy consultancy Energetics and was one of three authors of a report commissioned by the Environment Department exploring how Australia could meet its 2030 carbon emissions targets. The report did not disclose his affiliation.
The report drew criticism from groups such as The Climate Institute for its findings, in particular that Australia could achieve the Abbott-Turnbull government’s goal of cutting 2005-level emissions 26-28 per cent “under the current policy framework”…….
New South Wales lags behind in renewable energy use
NSW last in class on Climate Council report card for renewable energy use
South Australia and the Australian Capital Territory take the green podium for their efforts and policies pushing renewable energy targets, Guardian, Michael Slezak, 26 May 16. New South Wales is the worst Australian state at driving renewable energy, and South Australia and the ACT lead the pack, a report produced by the Climate Council has found.
The results came just weeks after South Australia closed its last coal power station, and the ACT announced a target to source 100% of its energy from renewable sources by 2020.
The report examined state and territory percentages of renewable electricity, the amount of large-scale renewable capacity per capita and the policy settings driving renewables.
NSW was bottom of the class in every category except rooftop solar. But it beat only Tasmania, which receives less solar radiation than any state or territory.
The territories had no comparable data for the percentage of their electricity that came from renewables, so they were scored separately. But the ACT was singled out as a leader for its 100% renewable energy target, which it will achieve using reverse auctions for large-scale renewable energy.
In the middle of the pack were Queensland, Western Australia and Victoria, although Queensland recently overtook South Australia with rooftop solar, now at 29.6% of households.
NSW and Victoria were the only states to have decreased the percentage of their electricity sourced from renewables. Between 2013 and 2014, NSW’s share of renewable energy dropped from 7% to 6% and Victoria’s from 12% to 10%. The Northern Territory was highlighted as lagging, along with NSW, with no specific renewable energy targets or policies and a low uptake of rooftop solar……http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/25/nsw-last-in-class-on-climate-council-report-card-for-renewable-energy-use
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 