| August 29th, 2017 at 10:49 pm ET By ENENews Reuters, Aug 29, 2017 (emphasis added): [W]atchdog groups called for the [South Texas Project nuclear] facility to shut due to Tropical Storm Harvey… The groups expressed concern about workers at the plant and the safety of the general public if Harvey caused an accident at the reactors… When asked if the plant would shut if flooding worsened, [spokesman Buddy Eller] said “We are going to do what’s right from a safety standpoint.”… Eller said 250 “storm crew” workers were running the plant… Personnel from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) are also at the plant, assessing storm conditions. teleSUR, Aug 29, 2017: Groups Warn of Nuclear Accident… In the midst of Tropical Storm Harvey’s drenching onslaught, energy watchdogs are sounding the alarm over the continued operation of two nuclear reactors in East Texas that are running at full capacity despite what they claim is the clear potential for a major disaster… [The nuclear plant] risks being flooded as water pours across the region, threatening the embankment wall shielding the power plant… Beyond Nuclear is one of three groups calling for an immediate shutdown of the twin reactors in case the embankment wall surrounding the plant is breached, which could lead to electrical fires and “cascading events” could result in an accident that threatens major core damage… Some fear the threat of a new Fukushima-style disaster. Common Dreams, Aug 29, 2017: The South Texas Project nuclear power facility in Bay City, Texas could be under extreme threat from historic flood waters, groups warned… energy watchdogs groups are warning of “a credible threat of a severe accident” at two nuclear reactors… [They] are calling for the immediate shutdown of the South Texas Project (STP) which sits behind an embankment they say could be overwhelmed by the raging flood waters and torrential rains… Both the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the STP operator have previously recognized a credible threat of a severe accident initiated by a breach of the embankment wall that surrounds the 7,000-acre reactor cooling water reservoir,” said [Beyond Nuclear’s] Paul Gunter… [Harvey] was declared the most intense rain event in U.S. history… [B]reach of the embankment wall surrounding the twin reactors would create “an external flood potentially impacting the electrical supply from the switchyard to the reactor safety systems.” In turn, the water has the potential to “cause high-energy electrical fires and other cascading events initiating a severe accident leading to core damage.” Even worse, they added, “any significant loss of cooling water inventory in the Main Cooling Reservoir would reduce cooling capacity to the still operating reactors that could result in a meltdown.” With the nearby Colorado River already cresting at extremely high levels and flowing at 70 times the normal rate, Karen Hadden, director of SEED Coalition, warned that the continue rainfall might create flooding that could reach the reactors… “Our 911 system is down, no emergency services are available, and yet the nuclear reactors are still running… This is an outrageous and irresponsible decision,” declared [Susan Dancer of the South Texas Association for Responsible Energy]. “This storm and flood is absolutely without precedent even before adding the possibility of a nuclear accident that could further imperil millions of people who are already battling for their lives.” As Harvey hovers over the coastal region, heavy rains are expected to persist for days… Beyond Nuclear, Aug 29, 2017: The NRC and South Texas have refused to provide any public information on the status of the water level within in the reservoir… |
Time for Australia to have an inquiry into nuclear waste production and storage.
Advertiser, (Dr) MARGARET BEAVIS, 1 Sept 17, THE federal Government is still pushing hard for South Australia to take Australia’s nuclear waste. They make a big song and dance about nuclear medicine, but leave out facts that don’t suit them.
Firstly, most waste is not from nuclear medicine, but from CSIRO and industrial uses.
Secondly, most countries, including the UK and the US, import nuclear medicine. We sometimes do, too, with ANSTO reactor breakdowns or maintenance. Less than 1 per cent of waste comes from actually using nuclear medicine, as it loses radioactivity so quickly almost all goes in the normal rubbish.
Thirdly, the proposed facility for the most toxic waste (which lasts over 10,000 years) is 
substandard – way below world’s best practice.
Finally, they don’t mention that taxpayer-subsidised ANSTO is massively ramping up production of waste. There is no shortage of nuclear medicine – this is about grabbing market share, leaving us with lots more future waste. And no community consultation.
What we need right now is an inquiry into nuclear waste production and storage. Dodgy claims and a shonky dump should not be used to pressure SA communities.
Aboriginal women’s long walk to stop uranium mining in Western Australia
‘Walkabout’ protesters get their day in court to fight uranium mining in WA http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/walkabout-protesters-get-their-day-in-court-to-fight-uranium-mining-in-wa-20170831-gy82w9.html, David Allan-Petale, 31 Aug 17,
A group of indigenous women have completed a month long ‘walkabout protest’ against uranium mining in Western Australia that saw them travel on foot through remote lands being considered as mine sites.
The protest was kindled by the WA government’s move in June to allow four uranium projects previously granted environmental approval to proceed, whilst blocking any future mining bids.
Toro Energy’s Wiluna project, Vimy Resources’ Mulga Rock project, and Cameco’s Kintyre and Yeelirrie projects all had the approval before Labor won the March election.
Mines and Petroleum Minister Bill Johnston said Labor, which banned uranium mining when last in power between 2002 and 2008, had received advice it could not legally deny secondary approvals for the purpose of frustrating those already granted.
“In making this decision, the McGowan government has carefully considered the potential liability risk for WA taxpayers,” Mr Johnston said.
But the government’s wider view is not shared by the Yeelirrie Traditional Owners group, whose lands they believe are under threat from any mine that’s pushed through.
The Conservation Council of WA is part of a legal challenge against a proposal by the Canadian uranium company Cameco to develop a uranium mine at Yeelirrie, 70 kilometres south-west of Wiluna in the northern Goldfields.
Shirley Wonyabong, Elizabeth Wonyabong, and Vicky Abdullah from the Walkatjurra Walkabout against uranium mining protest are part of this legal challenge, and they started their walking protest to highlight their struggle against it.
“Yeelirrie is important to my family. We have fought to protect this site for over 40 years and we won’t stop now,” Vicky Abdullah said.
“I grew up here, my ancestors were Traditional Owners of country, and I don’t want a toxic legacy here for my grandchildren.
“We have no choice but to defend our country, our culture, and the environment from the threat of uranium mining – not just for us but for everyone.
“The last government made a mistake approving the Yeelirrie mine – now we have a chance to make that right through the courts.”
The women were joined by fifty other people from around the world who wanted to join the protest, which saw the group walk through traditional lands, including Yeelirrie.
They finished the walkbout on Thursday, and were told by supporters that the Supreme Court will hear an application for Judicial Review of uranium mine proposal on November 14.
Minerals Council wants “clean” “affordable” nuclear power for Australia
Australia should add nuclear to the clean energy mix: Minerals Council, SMH, James Massola. 1 Sept 17, Australia should develop a nuclear power industry to reduce its emissions, the Minerals Council says, and the Turnbull government should take the first step by removing legal road blocks.
In a new paper titled Removing the Prohibition on Nuclear Power, the lobby group argues just four words – “a nuclear power plant” – need to be cut from the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Act to begin clearing the legal path to the development of a nuclear industry…….
Most contentiously, it argues the technology is safe, citing a British study by Friends of the Earth – a claim opponents would dispute by highlighting the Fukushima, Chernobyl and Three Mile Island disasters – and affordable, which opponents would also dispute.
The call to re-think the prohibition on nuclear power comes as the Turnbull government grapples with how, or whether, to implement a post-2020 clean energy target, as recommended by Chief Scientist Alan Finkel’s review of the electricity sector.
It also comes after Fairfax Media revealed in March that at least one in 10 of Mr Turnbull’s MPs backed nuclear power to be part of Australia’s energy mix…….http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/australia-should-add-nuclear-to-the-clean-energy-mix-minerals-council-20170831-gy7ysq.html
Most Americans comfortable with the idea of nuclear bombing Iran!
Americans Are a Little Too Relaxed About Nukes, A majority say they’d be fine with dropping a nuclear weapon on an Iranian city. What? Bloomberg ,By
The survey casts doubt on the power of what experts call the “nuclear taboo,” said Stanford University historian David Holloway, author of “Stalin and the Bomb.” The idea, or hope, behind the concept is that it’s not just luck that humans haven’t dropped any nuclear weapons for 70 years — that there’s a stigma that makes the use of nuclear weapons unthinkable.
But many Americans say it’s quite thinkable. The taboo may be eroding, or it may never have been the protective barrier people thought it was.
The survey’s designers sketched out a hypothetical conflict with Iran — a country without nuclear weapons. Around 60 percent of those polled said that if Iran provoked the U.S. with some non-nuclear aggression, they’d approve of blowing up 2 million Iranian civilians using nuclear weapons rather than sacrificing 20,000 American lives in a ground attack.
“That just means they haven’t thought about it,” said Brian Toon, a professor of atmospheric science at the University of Colorado. They think nuclear weapons are just big bombs that blow up lots of people, he said, without considering the way a nuclear conflict -– even a “small” one involving some 10 percent of the U.S. arsenal — might poison millions of men, women and children. and change the climate enough to starve hundreds of millions.
Today, it’s not Iran but North Korea that’s the focus of concern — with its continued testing of nuclear missiles despite Trump’s threat of “fire and fury.” Serious people are starting to consider the possibility of nuclear conflict. While the North is unlikely to be capable of sending nuclear missiles all the way to the U.S., at least for now, there are plenty of ways casualties could escalate. “There are nuclear reactors all over North Korea,” Toon said. So you might have Fukushima-type contamination all over the country.
Perhaps if people more clearly understood the destruction of human life that would result, the taboo would regain its power. In the early years of the Cold War, the power of nuclear weapons apparently surprised Daniel Ellsberg, a RAND Corporation analyst on loan to the Pentagon for the purpose of nuclear war planning.
“One day in the spring of 1961, soon after my 30th birthday, I was shown how our world would end,” he wrote in 2009. Ellsberg, who is famous for leaking the Pentagon Papers in 1971, has spent recent decades examining the potential for nuclear catastrophe. His latest book, “The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner,” will be released in December.
The end of the world was described in a highly classified document, Ellsberg recalled. While it didn’t necessarily spell extinction of the human race, it estimated a nuclear war would kill at least 600 million people — or as Ellsberg put it, “a hundred Holocausts.”……https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-08-30/americans-are-a-little-too-relaxed-about-nukes
USA’s new nuclear-weapon and missile technologies increase global instability
America’s Risky Nuclear Buildup https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/31/opinion/america-nuclear-buildup.html, AUG. 31, 2017 “…….Pyongyang’s displays of its nuclear and missile technology are terrifying. But Washington’s development of new nuclear-weapon and missile technologies is also contributing to global instability. American nuclear advances threaten to start a new arms race and change the logic of mutually assured destruction, which has undergirded nuclear stability since the 1950s.
In recent years, the Pentagon has increased the overall offensive power of its nuclear arsenal. Those changes, along with further upgrading, will amount to more destructive power from all three legs of the American nuclear triad: sea, land and air-launched nuclear weapons.
From the sea, a nuclear missile “super fuze” timing element improves the accuracy of submarine-based warheads by allowing for detonation closer to targets. The United States began incorporating this new fuze system into the ballistic-missile submarine fleet in 2009, and some analysts believe the entire submarine force has already been equipped with the technology.
And last week, the Pentagon announced that it had awarded contracts for updated versions of both the ground-based nuclear intercontinental ballistic missile arsenal and the air-launched nuclear-tipped stealth cruise missile, designed to penetrate enemy territory undetected.
According to some nuclear weapons experts, enhancements like the super fuze have increased by up to threefold the destructive capacity of America’s nuclear arsenal. And Andrew C. Weber, a former assistant defense secretary, recently described the upgraded stealth cruise missiles as “a destabilizing system designed for nuclear war fighting,” rather than a necessary addition to the system of nuclear deterrence.
When initially planned during the Obama administration, the upgrades were paired with commitments to nuclear-arms reduction and a policy that narrowed the conditions under which the United States would use its nuclear weapons. The upgrades will continue under President Trump, but there is no sign that they will be accompanied by the kind of limitations on their use advocated by his predecessor.
Washington’s defensive capacity is centered on the deployment of batteries of missile interceptors — most notably the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense and the Aegis systems — and space-based technology to track incoming missiles in real time.
This missile shield is still in the early stages of development and has a mixed record of defending against missile attacks. It is incapable of stopping a full-scale missile barrage and is a long way off from attaining that ability.
But America’s commitment to missile defense, even to systems that have yet to work well, coupled with an aggressive improvement of offensive capacity, is worrisome to other nuclear-armed states, particularly Russia and China.
Both countries have already been working on building more modern nuclear weapons systems. Moscow is playing catch-up with the far superior United States forces, modernizing all three arms of its own nuclear triad. Beijing is upgrading and expanding its own ICBM-equipped nuclear submarine fleet, and seeking to ensure its access to strategic waters.
But we can count on Russia and China to accelerate their nuclear programs in the face of America’s strategy. Former Defense Secretary William J. Perry has argued that the enhanced stealth cruise missile will pressure Russia and China to bolster their systems. And President Vladimir Putin of Russia has cited America’s development of a missile shield as reason to build up his nation’s nuclear strike power.
We should indeed worry about the Kim regime’s nuclear weapons program and its cavalier references to nuclear war. But we should also be concerned by Washington’s expansion of a nuclear war machine under a commander in chief who has publicly questioned longstanding American nuclear policy.
One difference between Mr. Kim and Mr. Trump is that when the United States president threatens to unleash “fire and fury like the world has never seen,” he is actually able to do so. Stuart Rollo is a writer and researcher at the Sydney Democracy Network at the University of Sydney.
One small slip-up could now bring about nuclear war
He also said Australia would be wise to make ourselves less of a target to an angry North Korea.
Speaking privately to the Associated Press, officials in Washington echo the warning that Mr Trump’s now former chief strategist Steve Bannon made in his last media interview before losing his job earlier this month: it is too late for a pre-emptive strike.
There’s no military solution, forget it,” Mr Bannon told the American Prospect in an August 16 interview.
“Until somebody solves the part of the equation that shows me ten million people in Seoul don’t die in the first 30 minutes from conventional weapons, I don’t know what you’re talking about, there’s no military solution here, they got us.”
North Korea nuclear war: Why chances of conflict are higher than ever A FORMER ambassador to South Korea reveals how war could start in North Korea. And all it will take is one tiny slip up. up. news.com.au 31 Aug 17 Debra Killalea @DebKillalea THE risk of conflict breaking out on the Korean Peninsula has never been greater as the margin for error shrinks.
That’s the damning assessment by a former Australian ambassador to South Korea who warned the world was running out of options for dealing with Kim Jong-un.
Speaking to news.com.au, former senior Australian diplomat Mack Williams said the Peninsula has faced crisis points before, including in the 1990s.
He warned this time was different, citing North Korea’s weapons stockpile and an unpredictable US leader as reasons the game has changed. Continue reading
Australian government watering down the climate recommendations of the Finkel energy report
Coalition watering down Finkel review climate ambitions, leaked document reveals
Draft implementation plan lacks electricity emissions trajectory, Paris agreement alignment and low-income subsidies, Guardian, Michael Slezak 31 Aug 17, The climate ambitions of the Finkel review appear to be being watered down by the government as it is implemented, according to a draft Coag Energy Council implementation strategy obtained by the Guardian.
The draft implementation plan removes a key recommendation for an agreed emissions trajectory for the electricity system, alignment with the Paris agreement and subsidised solar and batteries for low-income houses.
Sources tell the Guardian the document was prepared by the federal government and distributed to state and territory representatives on the morning of the meeting, leaving little time for state representatives to analyse it…..
At a teleconference on Friday last week, state and territory energy ministers were presented with a draft implementation plan for discussion.
That document, obtained by the Guardian, appears to water down those recommendations in relation to climate change, and removes some altogether.
One key recommendation in the Finkel review that has been severely weakened in the draft implementation document is a change that would force the electricity market to align efforts to meet government emissions reduction commitments made as part of the Paris agreement.
But the draft implementation document removes the reference to international emissions reduction commitments, instead saying merely that the agreement will “reaffirm Australian governments’ commitment to the [national electricity market] and a national, integrated approach to energy and emissions reduction policy”.
Among Finkel’s key recommendation for an “orderly transition”, he called for three things: the clean energy target; a three-year notice of closure for existing large generators; and “an agreed emissions reduction trajectory”. All three moves were part of one recommendation, numbered 3.2.
The Coalition has not agreed to adopt the clean energy target but it has agreed to the three-year notice-of-closure rule, which appears in the implementation plan. However, the plan does not contain any mention of an agreed emissions reduction trajectory…….
Another Finkel recommendation calls for low-income households to be given subsidised access to “energy efficient appliances, rooftop solar photovoltaic and battery storage systems”.
Explicit references to renewable energy has been removed in the draft implementation plan and replaced with “energy efficiency and demand management technologies”.
Sources say representatives of the ACT raised the question of the trajectory being removed, and asked for it to be included. Representatives of Queensland and Victoria also apparently raised concerns about some of the other changes.
Sources said the document, which was prepared by the federal government, was circulated to state energy ministers only hours before the meeting was held, leaving little time for proper scrutiny.
The document is expected to be finalised and sent to heads of government today. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/aug/31/coalition-watering-down-finkel-review-climate-ambitions
Donald Trump’s unwise obsession with Iran
Donald Trump’s nuclear obsession with Iran is misplaced, The US president would be better advised to try defusing tensions with North Korea, Ft.com Roula Khalaf, 30 Aug 17,
Donald Trump had two nuclear tantrums this summer, though you may know about only one of them. He warned North Korea it would face “fire and fury like the world has never seen” if it made further threats to the US, and set much of the world fretting about nuclear war as a consequence. The former director of national intelligence James Clapper noted that there is nothing to stop Mr Trump from carrying out a first strike, which, as he rightly puts it, is “pretty damn scary”. Also scary is Mr Trump’s determination to reopen another nuclear dispute that was parked in 2015, thanks to deft diplomacy by his predecessor. He doesn’t rage as much about Iran as North Korea but Mr Trump hates the Iran nuclear deal, which rolled back Tehran’s enrichment programme in exchange for a lifting of international sanctions. Every time the state department confirms Iran is in compliance with it (Congress mandates this every 90 days), the president has a fit.
This summer, according to US media, during one such episode, Mr Trump ordered his lieutenants to come up with a reason why Iran is flouting the agreement next time they report back to him. For foreign policy watchers, this brought back memories of George W Bush’s obsession with Saddam Hussein and the resulting politicisation of intelligence on weapons of mass destruction to justify the invasion of Iraq. The consequences of that misguided adventure are still spilling Iraqi and American blood……
With the crisis intensifying in North Korea — which, unlike Iran, does have nuclear weapons — ensuring an Iranian nuclear programme stays inactive for a decade is rather reassuring. Though the circumstances and the nature of the regimes of North Korea and Iran are different, the same painstaking multilateral diplomacy that produced the deal with Tehran will be needed to resolve the stand-off with Pyongyang peacefully….
while it would have been preferable to force Iran into a total surrender, it was not possible. If there had been a better deal to be had, the six world powers involved in the talks would have negotiated it. Mr Trump fancies himself as a master negotiator, but he would meet his match if he sat down with the Iranians. The US administration is under the impression that undermining the nuclear agreement would force Iran into submission to its Sunni Arab neighbours. More likely, quite the opposite would happen. Mr Trump is obsessing about Iran for the wrong reasons. More useful would be to study the nuclear agreement for the lessons it might offer about dealing with North Korea. roula.khalaf@ft.com https://www.ft.com/content/3534bbf6-8c96-11e7-9084-d0c17942ba93
For the third time, a WW2 bomb found close to Hinkley Point nuclear reactor
Third WWII bomb found in Bristol Channel near Hinkley Point, Guardian 30th Aug 2017 Matthew Weaver Half-mile exclusion zone set up near nuclear plants after third unexploded device discovered in as many weeks
A half-mile (1km) exclusion zone has been set up in the Bristol Channel near the Hinkley Point nuclear power stations after a third unexploded second world war bomb was discovered in as many weeks.
Bomb disposal experts will carry out a controlled explosion on the 250lb (113kg) ordnance on Wednesday, two miles north-west of the power plants. HM Coastguard has set up an exclusion zone around the unexploded device and warned ships to avoid the area.
The bomb was reported in the early hours of Wednesday by a diving team from the Hinkley Point plant. They were clearing the seabed for intake and outtake pipes for cooling water for the reactors on the Hinkley Point C plant.
It is the third suspected second world war bomb to be found in the Bristol Channel in the past three weeks. An EDF source conceded that divers could find more unexploded ordnance before the exercise to clear the area was completed, as the channel was used as a former army training range. The project to clear the seabed is expected to take several more weeks. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/30/third-wwii-bomb-bristol-channel-near-hinkley-point-nuclear
Australian government cracking down on environmental activists
Charity crackdown would be a ‘torpedo’ to environmental groups, Bob Brown says, ABC, 7.30 , By Liz Hobday and Gus Goswell , 31 August 17, The Federal Government has denied it is trying to silence environmental activists, as prominent voices in the environment and charities sectors speak out against a series of regulatory changes.
Key points:
- Federal government is proposing changes to regulations dealing with charities
- Some environmental groups could face the loss of their tax-deductible charity status
- Charities concerned about appointment of coal seam gas company boss
- Government will not re-appoint charities commissioner
As Treasury canvasses a proposal to limit tax concessions for green groups, there have been changes at the top of the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (ACNC), including the appointment of Peter Hogan, chairman of coal seam gas company, Carbon Energy, to the regulator’s advisory board.
That has raised the ire of environment groups, many of which are registered charities.
“We’ve got the Turnbull Government arranging to put the fox in charge of the chicken coop,” former Australian Greens leader Bob Brown told 7.30……..
former ACNC advisory board member, and now head of the Community Council for Australia, David Crosbie says the sector is under attack.
“It feels, right now, there is a campaign to try and restrict the voice of charities,” he told 7.30.
“And there are a number of elements to that.”
Tax deductibility status at risk
Among the changes is a push to make environmental groups curb their activism or risk losing their charity taxation status. Continue reading
Danger of Hurrican Harvey and flooding to South Texas nuclear stations
WARNING: “Credible threat of severe accident at two nuclear reactors” due to Hurricane Harvey — “Clear potential for major disaster” — Plant “could be overwhelmed by raging flood waters” — Officials refuse to provide public with information http://enenews.com/warning-credible-threat-of-severe-accident-at-two-nuclear-reactors-due-to-hurricane-harvey-clear-potential-for-major-disaster-plant-could-be-overwhelmed-by-raging-flood-waters-of
Despite pressure from USA, U.N. nuclear watchdog sees no need to check Iran military sites
U.S. pressure or not, U.N. nuclear watchdog sees no need to check Iran military sites, http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear-inspections-idUSKCN1BB1JC , Francois Murphy, VIENNA , 31 Aug 17, – The United States is pushing U.N. nuclear inspectors to check military sites in Iran to verify it is not breaching its nuclear deal with world powers. But for this to happen, inspectors must believe such checks are necessary and so far they do not, officials say.
Last week, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley visited the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which is scrutinizing compliance with the 2015 agreement, as part of a review of the pact by the administration of President Donald Trump. He has called it “the worst deal ever negotiated”.
After her talks with officials of the U.N. nuclear watchdog, Haley said: “There are… numerous undeclared sites that have not been inspected. That is a problem.” Iran dismissed her demands as “merely a dream”.
The IAEA has the authority to request access to facilities in Iran, including military ones, if there are new and credible indications of banned nuclear activities there, according to officials from the agency and signatories to the deal.
But they said Washington has not provided such indications to back up its pressure on the IAEA to make such a request.
“We’re not going to visit a military site like Parchin just to send a political signal,” an IAEA official said, mentioning a military site often cited by opponents of the deal including Iran’s arch-adversary Israel and many U.S. Republicans. The deal was struck under Trump’s Democratic predecessor Barack Obama.
IAEA Director-General Yukiya Amano frequently describes his Vienna-based agency as a technical rather than a political one, underscoring the need for its work to be based on facts alone.
The accord restricts Iran’s atomic activities with a view to keeping the Islamic Republic a year’s work away from having enough enriched uranium or plutonium for a nuclear bomb, should it pull out of the accord and sprint towards making a weapon.
1 September More REneweconomy news
RenewEconomy-
Turnbull’s new energy target: Drop the “clean” and ignore climateCoalition reportedly drops links to emission trajectories in draft proposal for a Clean Energy Target. It comes as Turnbull changes tone again on new coal, and the Queensland LNP releases a renewables policy derided immediately as a “farce”.
-
How consumers got burned on electricity prices: It started with networksPolicy responses to high electricity prices should pay more attention to how consumers can be helped to use less electricity
-
Inspiring green homes open their doors on Sustainable House DayAustralia’s most innovative green homes will be open to the public on Sustainable House Day, taking place on Sunday 17 September.
Adani company’s links to corruption in India
The ‘crony capitalist’: Understanding Adani — an Indian perspective, Independent Australia , 31 August 2017 Freelance Indian journalist Gaurav Tyagi charts the rise of Adani, its finances, its links to corruption and its proposed coal mines in Australia.
The rise of Adani
Adani Group, led by Gautam Adani, has risen phenomenally during the last decade. It is one of the biggest leveraged business house in India. It is very easy for corporate tycoons with proximity to political powers in India to borrow money from state controlled banks. As a result, Adani borrows a lot of capital from India’s state-owned banks.
Government banks in India have a huge problem with bad loans, wherein businessmen borrow huge capital from them but don’t pay it back, resulting in bank’s writing off these sums as non performing assets or bad loans.
Adani is the head of a conglomerate, which is India’s biggest port operator, largest private producer of electricity. The group also has substantial interests in coal mining, civil construction, logistics, international trade, education, real estate, edible oils and food storage.
Contrary to media reports about his humble origins, Gautam Adani comes from a business background. ..
According to Forbes magazine, the 55-year-old Ahmedabad-based businessman had a net worth of US$8 billion (AUD$10 billion) as at 30 August 2017.
Adani’s close links with the Indian Prime Minister
Both hailing from the Indian province of Gujarat, Gautam Adani is one of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s closest associates. During the campaigning for Indian parliamentary elections in 2014, Modi used Adani’s private aircrafts to fly around Indian for his electoral campaign. During that time, Modi made corruption by the incumbent government a big point in his election speeches…….
Adani’s Misdeeds
The biggest case involving black money (unexplained/untaxed funds) before the establishment of the SIT was that of the Adani Group.
Adani group allegedly took out over Rs (Indian rupees) 5,000 crores (1 crore = 10,000,000, therefore about AUD$1 billion) to tax havens through inflated bills for the import of power equipment from South Korea and China.
As per a senior official of SIT, if the Adani case reaches its logical conclusion the business group will be required to pay a fine of approximately Rs15,000 crores (AUD$3 billion)
He further says it’s a “watertight” case. The trail of documents shows how the Adani group diverted Rs 5,468 crores (AUD$1.1 billion) to Mauritius via Dubai after Modi became Indian Prime-Minister.
The officer heading the Ahmedabad branch was raided by Government agencies. He was accused of possessing disproportionate assets. Nothing, however, was proved against him, despite months of investigation.
The two other senior-most officers, who were looking after this case against Adani were forced out of the agency.
The service tenure of the man holding the Enforcement Directorate (ED) when the case was opened also ended abruptly. The Ahmedabad ED investigators were hot on the trail of Adani at that time……..
Conclusion
Gautam Adani is a crony capitalist. Adani’s phenomenal and rapid rise has solely been due to his proximity with the political powers in India.
Modi, the Indian Prime Minister, ensures that wrongdoings and malpractices of Adani business house go unpunished in India.
In return, Adani finances Modi’s political party, the BJP, through large scale cash donations, in which the majority goes unreported.
Modi is acting like a marketing director of Adani on his foreign trips and trying his best to get lucrative deals for Adani group globally…….
Australians should, therefore, say a firm no to Gautam Adani’s coal project in their country. If Australian politicians do not listen, then the Australian media and citizens need to rise up on serious issue.
Neither Australia nor the world needs more polluting coal plants, when environment friendly, cost effective alternatives are available in abundance.
Small amount of warming changes biodiversity in shallow Antarctic waters
Ocean warming in Antarctic triggers surprising changes, study shows, ABC Science, By Bianca Nogrady,
Antinuclear 