Yeelirrie uranium approval, Adani coal – Australia needs new and stronger national environment laws
|
Adani, Yeelirrie and mining: Our environmental laws are broken, https://independentaustralia.net/environment/environment-display/adani-yeelirrie-and-mining-our-environmental-laws-are-broken,12664
By Dave Sweeney | 11 May 2019, The Morrison Government’s quiet approval of a controversial uranium mine in Western Australia the day before the Federal Election was called is evidence that our national environment laws are broken and too often subverted for political purposes.
Environment Minister Melissa Price approved the Yeelirrie uranium mine on April 10, the day before the Prime Minister headed to Government House to call the 2019 Federal Election. Ms Price did not announce the approval via a public release. Instead, two weeks later a notice was placed on the Environment Department’s website, late in the day ahead of the Anzac Day public holiday. Perhaps the view was that when it comes to public awareness of irresponsible sign-offs for radioactive pollution and species extinction, we best forget. Minister Price’s approval came despite a clear commitment that she would not advance any further federal approval until a continuing legal challenge to the earlier state approval for Yeelirrie had been decided. The controversial project, which is in Ms Price’s electorate of Durack, is still being legally challenged on appeal by senior Tjiwarl native title holders and conservationists. Ms Price had previously told media: “My department advised that it was prudent to wait for the result of the WA Supreme Court proceedings before finalising the federal assessment [for Yeelirrie].” The mine had been previously rejected by the WA Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) because it could drive rare subterranean fauna species to extinction and do harm to other wildlife species like the Malleefowl, Princess parrot and Greater bilby. Critics have identified that Yeelirrie could produce more than 35 million tonnes of radioactive mine waste, use up to 10 billion litres of groundwater and require 2500 hectares of vegetation to be cleared for its nine-kilometre long open pit. The lack of respect for the Australian people and due process demonstrated by this clandestine approval under the cover of a national election is a sign of both Government desperation and the fact that environmental protection currently runs a poor second to political imperatives. The WA EPA’s prudent recommendation not to approve Yeelirrie was overruled by the conservative Barnett Government just weeks before it lost the 2017 state election. Now the Morrison Government has performed the same trick, approving Yeelirrie hours before the Federal Election was called, without regard for the Tjiwarl Traditional Owners on whose land the planned mine sits or other stakeholders who might be adversely impacted. The proposal threatens the area which is part of the Seven Sisters Dreaming songline. The word Yeelirrie translates to the word Yullala – which mean to weep or mourn – and Yeelirrie is referred to as a “place of death”. The cultural stories and connections with Yeelirrie are a major factor in the strong and consistent opposition to this project by members of the Tjiwarl Traditional Owners. The community has been dudded doubly over this project with both the State and Federal governments putting politics and corporate interests ahead of science and the national interest. The approval decision followed hard on the heels of Minister Price’s rushed approval of Adani’s plans to guzzle billions of litres of groundwater for its massive coal mine on the eve of the election and was greeted with widespread scepticism and described by Opposition leader Bill Shorten as “shonky”. Environment groups have called the assessment deficient and urged that this rushed rubber stamp be reviewed by any future federal government. The Conservation Council of West Australia has started an online call to Federal Labor: It’s not worth wiping out a species for an unsafe, unwanted and uneconomic uranium mine. Radioactive risks last longer than any politician and deserve real assessment, not backroom fast-tracking. Australia’s environment laws have long been abused and short-changed by politicians cutting deals that put the interests of big companies over nature, traditional owners and local communities. For environmentalists, the lessons from the Yeelirrie and Adani eleventh hour approvals are clear. Australia needs new and stronger national environment laws that protect nature and take politics and undue influence out of approval decisions for major industrial projects. These laws should be overseen by an independent national EPA that is charged with making approval decisions free from the interfering hand of big businesses and their politician mates. Since the Minister’s rubber stamp there have been three further developments. Mining company Cameco has stated it will not immediately develop the project due to “challenging market conditions”. An expert international body has warned of one millionlooming species extinctions. And Minister Price has been missing, just like the species at Yeelirrie will be, should this flawed project ever go ahead. Approving Yeelirrie is a deeply deficient decision that makes neither dollars nor sense. |
|
|
Australia’s major parties’ climate policies side-by-side — RenewEconomy
If climate action from every country was as inadequate as Australia’s, the world would be on track for 4°C warming. The post Australia’s major parties’ climate policies side-by-side appeared first on RenewEconomy.
via Australia’s major parties’ climate policies side-by-side — RenewEconomy
Global fossil fuel subsidies reach $5.2 trillion, and $29 billion in Australia — RenewEconomy
IMF says fossil fuel subsidies in Australia amount to nearly $1,200 per person, or a total of $29 billion. The post Global fossil fuel subsidies reach $5.2 trillion, and $29 billion in Australia appeared first on RenewEconomy.
via Global fossil fuel subsidies reach $5.2 trillion, and $29 billion in Australia — RenewEconomy
Where do the parties stand on climate and the environment?
|
The climate change election: where do the parties stand on the environment? Guardian, Adam Morton
With the global and local environment at crisis point, Australians have a clear choice at Saturday’s election. Here are the parties’ key policies This has been called the climate change election, and with good reason: concern about the climate and environment has never been greater. A Lowy Institute poll found nearly two out of three adults believe climate change is the most serious threat to Australia’s national interests, an 18-point-increase in five years. It was taken before a landmark UN global assessment defined the extent of the unprecedented biodiversity crisis facing the planet, with a million species at risk of extinction and potentially dire consequences for human society. Australia has a big stake in these issues. It is one of the world’s top greenhouse gas emitters on a per-capita basis and in the top 20 for total pollution, with a footprint greater than Britain or France. It is already experiencing the effects of climate change, including increased heatwavesand mass coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef, and is the global leader in mammal extinction. There are clear choices between the parties on these issues at this election. Guardian Australia looks at how the policies of the Coalition, Labor and the Greens line up. EmissionsCarbon pollution in Australia has been rising since the Coalition repealed carbon price laws in 2014. The country is on track to meet its modest Kyoto protocol target – that emissions be 5% lower in 2020 than in 2000 – but not 2030 targets. Coalition Under the Paris climate deal, the Coalition says it will cut emissions to 26% less than they were in 2005 by 2030. It is significantly less than what scientists advising the government say is necessary for Australia to play its part in meeting the goals of the Paris deal (a 45%-63% cut by 2030 compared with 2005). Scott Morrison explained in February how he planned to meet this goal. About eight points of the cut would come from using what are known as Kyoto carry-over credits. Unlike international and domestic carbon credits created through offset projects, Kyoto carry-over credits do not represent an actual reduction in carbon dioxide. They are bonus credits that Australia wants to award itself for beating the low 2020 target it set itself. It would just mean counting the same emissions cut twice. It is unclear if they will be allowed under the Paris deal; almost all other developed countries have said they will not use them. Developing countries do not have the option. Scott Morrison explained in February how he planned to meet this goal. About eight points of the cut would come from using what are known as Kyoto carry-over credits. Unlike international and domestic carbon credits created through offset projects, Kyoto carry-over credits do not represent an actual reduction in carbon dioxide. They are bonus credits that Australia wants to award itself for beating the low 2020 target it set itself. It would just mean counting the same emissions cut twice. It is unclear if they will be allowed under the Paris deal; almost all other developed countries have said they will not use them. Developing countries do not have the option. The Coalition nominates two other significant sources of emissions reduction. One is the direct action emissions reduction fund, now rebadged as the climate solutions fund, under which farmers and businesses bid for cash from taxpayers to cut pollution. The government announced in February it would spend an extra $2bn on it over 10 years, but that was stretched to 15 years in the April budget, including just $189m over the next four. While some projects backed by the fund are widely considered worthwhile, an investigation by Guardian Australia has found questions over its design and uncertainty over what taxpayers were getting for their money. The biggest flaw is in the administration of the other half of the direct action program, known as the safeguard mechanism. It was supposed to put a limit on industrial emissions to ensure they did not just wipe out the cuts taxpayers are buying through the emissions reduction fund, but in practice industrial emitters have mostly been allowed to increase pollution without penalty. The Coalition has criticised Labor for planning to use the safeguard mechanism to do what government frontbencher Greg Hunt designed it to do: reduce emissions. The other major measure on the Coalition’s carbon budget chart (see p8) is “technological improvements”, which have not been explained. An analysis by scientists from Climate Analytics released on Friday found the Coalition’s target was insufficient to deal with the climate challenge and said there was no evidence the government planned to release further policies. Labor Labor has a more ambitious emissions target: a 45% cut by 2030, which Climate Analytics says falls just within what is necessary for Australia to play its part in limiting global warming to 1.5C, and net zero emissions by 2050. Rather than an across-the-board carbon price similar to what it introduced in 2011, it is promising different policies for different parts of the economy. On electricity, it wants to bring in a national energy guarantee, a policy devised and abandoned by the Coalition. Similarly, for heavy industry, it plans to toughen up the government’s safeguard mechanism to set limits and reduce them over time. It is yet to say what the limits would be and the trajectory – how fast they would be cut – but it says both the electricity and industrial sectors will have to meet the 45% target. It wants 50% of new cars to be electric by 2030 and has pledged vehicle emissions standards to limit transport pollution, building on work done under the Coalition but not adopted. It would boost the use of carbon offsets from Australia, allow business to buy an undefined amount from offsets from overseas and has suggested it would limit land clearing. Despite some scary headlines about costs, Labor’s ambition and direction has been praised by policy analysts and scientists. But unanswered questions remain. It has not released a carbon budget explaining how it would hit the 45% target. And it has been accused of hypocrisy for a promise to spend $1.5bn to boost natural gas supply in Queensland and to connect the Northern Territory’s Beetaloo sub-basin to the east coast. Green groups say the emissions that result could dwarf those from Adani’s proposed Carmichael coalmine. Speaking of which: Labor has struggled to articulate a position on the mine. Shorten has expressed personal reservations but not committed to either blocking or supporting it. Greens The Greens want emissions cut by between 63% and 82% by 2030 compared with 2005, and zero emissions by 2040. Their policies include ending fossil fuel subsidies, phasing out fossil fuel mining and electricity generation by 2030, vehicle emissions standards that become a ban on new petrol-fueled cars by 2030 and an economy-wide carbon price to reflect the true cost of pollution. A new public authority, Renew Australia, would lead the transition to low emissions. Climate Analytics says the Greens’ goals sit well within what the scientific literature says would be Australia’s fair share of emissions cuts. Renewable energyCoalition The government does not have a renewable energy policy for beyond 2020……… The government has indicated it would underwrite some new energy projects, having released a shortlist of 12. The list includes one coal upgrade project in New South Wales. Labor Bill Shorten has promised 50% of electricity from renewable sources by 2030. He says he will aim to win support in parliament for the national energy guarantee, which would force energy companies to reduce emissions and meet reliability obligations. If unsuccessful, he would tip $10bn into the government’s green bank, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, and create a $5bn fund to modernise the power grid. Other promises include $200m over the next four years for a household battery program, with a goal of 1m homes having batteries by 2025. Greens The Greens want the electricity grid to be 100% renewable energy by 2030. They would extend and boost the renewable energy target and back public investment, feed-in tariffs and regulations for clean generation, storage and energy conservation. Environment protection and threatened species…..Waste and recycling…..Great Barrier Reef….. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/may/12/the-climate-change-election-where-do-the-parties-stand-on-the-environm
|
|
Mothers in Fukushima set up a radiation testing lab because they didn’t trust government results
|
Fukushima’s mothers became radiation experts to protect their children after nuclear meltdown https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-12/fukushima-mums-teach-themselves-how-to-be-radiation-experts/11082520
Key points:
They are testing everything — rice, vacuum cleaner dust, seafood, moss and soil — for toxic levels of radiation. But these lab workers are not typical scientists. They are ordinary mums who have built an extraordinary clinic. “Our purpose is to protect children’s health and future,” says lab director Kaori Suzuki. Continue reading |
USA government, like the Australian govt ignores the danger of transporting nuclear wastes across the country
Federal panel rejects all objections to proposed New Mexico nuclear dump https://www.krwg.org/post/federal-panel-rejects-all-objections-proposed-new-mexico-nuclear-dump?fbclid=IwAR1ROpcdsAWDegwnW0vib6ICXXy3q2lzDVTrrOuEbKN4ZbM90Q169XCM6Cc
Among the requests the panel refused to consider was the objection raised by Sierra Club that U.S. law clearly prohibits nuclear waste being moved to interim facilities before a permanent storage site has been identified. No such permanent sites exist in the U.S.
“This ‘interim’ storage facility could well become a permanent repository without the protections of a permanent repository,” Sierra Club attorney Wally Taylor said in response to Tuesday’s ruling. “Now it is up to the people and public officials in New Mexico to protect New Mexicans from this boondoggle.”
“New Mexico citizens should be very concerned about this project,” Sierra Club Rio Grande Chapter Nuclear-Waste Co-Chair John Buchser said. “Energy Secretary Rick Perry has indicated he is OK with the storage-site proposal in Texas, just across the New Mexico border, becoming a permanent facility. The Sierra Club is very concerned about possible radioactive releases from containers designed for short-term storage. The transport of this highly radioactive waste is even more risky, and the nation’s rail system is not safe enough to transport this waste.”
Taylor, representing the Sierra Club Rio Grande Chapter, and attorneys for Beyond Nuclear, Fasken, AFES and transportation intervenors raised nearly 50 different contentions before the three-judge board during oral arguments in January in Albuquerque.
The panel, charged with ruling on petitioners’ standing and the admissibility of their contentions under NRC regulations, agreed that some of the six petitioners, including the Sierra Club, had standing, but ruled that not not a single one of nearly 50 contentions raised were admissible for even an evidentiary hearing.
“The board won’t even consider transportation risk,” Buchser said.
“This decision is a perfect example and a lesson for the citizens of New Mexico and the United States of how the NRC process is shamelessly designed to prevent the public from participating,” Taylor said.
“It’s clear from the hearings across the state that the people of New Mexico don’t want this. They need to join forces and make that clear to New Mexico officials,” Taylor said. “State officials can pass and enforce laws that would require permits or other protections from the dangers posed by the transport of high-level radioactive waste to southeast New Mexico.”
The next step for Sierra Club is to appeal to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Climate emergency is here, whatever the election result – Editorial -The Age
Whatever the election result, we must tackle climate emergency https://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/whatever-the-election-result-we-must-tackle-climate-emergency-20190511-p51mcf.html May 11, 2019 Election 2019 is in its final week – and for many people that will be a relief.
Many voters have switched off from politics and been disengaged from the campaigning, which may be one reason why almost 2 million people have already voted.
But beyond the usual photo set-ups and faux outrage during the campaign, an issue of fundamental importance has gained greater prominence across the nation: climate change. It has become one of the fastest-rising issues of concern for Australians, as it has in many countries. Just over a week ago, the British parliament became the first in the world to declare a ‘‘climate emergency’’, and students across the globe have protested about the lack of action from all governments.
In Australia the issue has gained momentum on the back of relentless drought and a North Queensland flood in early February that killed tens of thousands of livestock and wildlife. A lack of coherent and effective policy on managing our waterways has also been blamed for the death of millions of fish in the Darling River near Menindee.
Last week we received another grim warning: a global report on biodiversity said 1 million species around the world face extinction. The 2019 report for the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services revealed the pace of destruction was as much as 100 times faster than the natural rate over the past 10 million years.
Few mainstream politicians in Australia deny that climate change is real. So why is there not enough being done about it? The main point of contention centres around the argument that given whatever Australia does in isolation will make negligible difference, why take risks on harming the local economy?
The obvious counter to that is that Australia is and must be a global citizen. We are all in this together and Australia must pull its weight. And we, like the rest of the world, must act now.
This paper has long argued for urgent action to bring down Australia’s emissions and to prepare the economy for a cleaner future.
In his landmark review of the impact of climate change in 2006, economist Sir Nicholas Stern warned governments to make the changes early or pay a much steeper price later. His analysis – updated in 2008 – was that ignoring climate change was many times more expensive than fixing it.
Australia did not heed his advice.
Climate action became nothing more than a political weapon for the Tony Abbott-led Coalition, especially through its attacks on the carbon-abatement scheme introduced by the Gillard government – a scheme that saw the country’s emissions fall.
According to the last report of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in October 2018, we have only 12 years to halve emissions – and almost eliminate them by 2050 – to keep the rise in temperature around 2 degrees above pre-industrial levels. Exceeding 2 degrees could trigger irreversible tipping points.
“There is nothing opaque about this new data,’’ Christiana Figueres, the former UN climate chief said. ‘‘The illustrations of mounting impacts, the fast-approaching and irreversible tipping points are visceral versions of a future that no policy-maker could wish to usher in or be responsible for.”
Whatever the result of this Saturday’s federal poll, our elected politicians would do well to emulate their British counterparts. A united approach to tackling this emergency is needed. The time for shallow partisan politics has long past.
Our future depends on it.
Chernobyl – A Timeline of The Worst Nuclear Accident in History
In the immediate aftermath of Chernobyl, a total of 31 firemen and plant workers died. Some of their bodies were so radioactive, they had to be buried in lead coffins. A report by the World Health Organization estimated that 600,000 people within the Soviet Union were exposed to high levels of radiation, and of those, 4,000 would die. Those who lived near the Chernobyl site have reported increased instances of thyroid cancer, and they have an increased risk of developing leukemia.
700 Million Years
The Chernobyl accident is one of only two nuclear energy accidents that is classified as a “Level 7 Event,” the highest classification. The other is 2011’s Fukushima disaster in Japan. At the lowest level of Reactor 4 lies the famous “elephant’s foot”, a several-meter wide mass of corium that is still giving off lethal amounts of radiation. The half-life of radioactive elements is defined as the amount of time it takes for the radioactivity to fall to half its original value. The half life of U-235 is 700 million years.
Chernobyl – A Timeline of The Worst Nuclear Accident in History [the original of this article gives details on how the accident happened. ]
33 years ago, a series of missteps caused the worst nuclear accident in history, and its effects are still being felt to this day. Interesting Engineering, By Marcia Wendorf, 11 May 19,
Located 65 miles north of Kiev, Ukraine, the V.I. Lenin Nuclear Power Station at Chernobyl was a model of Soviet engineering. Its four RBMK nuclear reactors produced enough electricity for 30 million homes and businesses.
The RBMK reactor is a class of graphite-moderated nuclear power reactor that was designed and built by the Soviet Union. Certain aspects of the design contributed to the Chernobyl disaster, and there were calls for the reactors to be decommissioned. However, the reactors were redesigned, and as of 2019, ten are still in operation.
1,600 Radioactive U-235 Fuel Rods
In 1986, Chernobyl had four working reactors, with two new ones under construction. The newest of the four, Reactor No. 4, contained 1,600 radioactive uranium-235 fuel rods. Because U-235 is unstable, its atoms spontaneously release neutrons, which hit other U-235 nuclei, causing them to release neutrons. This is what is called a chain reaction.
……… This night involved the continuation of a test that was begun twelve hours earlier.
……..“The odds of a meltdown are one in 10,000 years.” — Vitali Sklyarov, Minister of Power and Electrification of Ukraine
Saturday, April 26, 1986
Crooked nuclear deals in South Africa
Did Australians know that the Australian nuclear lobby, presumably The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO, had done a deal to partner with the corrupt Zuma 
South African regime, to develop nuclear technologies?Tshelane – who was party to a cooperation agreement signed with Rusatom Healthcare, a subsidiary of Russian nuclear agency Rosatom – was found guilty on Friday of four charges of misconduct by its chairperson advocate Nazeer Cassim SC.
Documents obtained by City Press revealed that Tshelane was found guilty of having signed the nuclear cooperation agreement without the approval of Energy Minister Jeff Radebe, as well as splurging R500 000 on a golf day when the entity could not afford to pay salaries and unlawfully appointing one of the board members and paying him a monthly retainer.
“The CEO was not entitled to participate in the signing of the so-called nuclear deal without ministerial approval,” Cassim said…….
According to the charge sheet, in July last year Necsa, with the State Atomic Energy Corporation (Rosatom), concluded the Strategic Document on Cooperation in the Sphere of Non-Power Related Uses of Nuclear Technologies.
That agreement “bound Necsa to cooperate with Rosatom to investigate the possible deepening of commercial cooperation in areas of production and distribution of MO-99 Radio Isotope for the global market”.
They also wanted to build solution reactors in South Africa.
The charge sheet states that the draft agreement was discussed with Radebe who said the collaboration would amount to a conflict of interest as South Africa was already in partnership with Australia on similar projects.
But the Rosatom signing went ahead, regardless, and it was announced soon after………. https://city-press.news24.com/News/nuclear-deal-claims-first-scalp-necsas-ceo-phumzile-tshelane-20190511
UK to become the first major economy to embrace a legally-binding net zero emissions goal.
Business Green 10th May 2019 The UK government is preparing to announce that it will broadly embrace the
recommendations of the Committee on Climate Change and introduce a new target to cut emissions to net zero by 2050, according to reports from news agency Bloomberg. Citing officials familiar with the plan, the agency
reported the new target is likely to be announced within two months. Such a fast tracked timetable could potentially allow for amendments to theClimate Change Act to be passed before Parliament’s summer recess,
especially given the limited nature of the government’s legislative agenda in the wake of the delay to Brexit.
Since the CCC’s wide-ranging report was released last week, leading Ministers have repeatedly hinted they want to
see the government adopt the target as quickly as possible and ensure the UK becomes the first major economy to embrace a legally-binding net zero emissions goal.
https://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/3075426/reports-uk-prepares-to-fast-track-new-net-zero-target
UK piously espouses climate action, while trying to stifle domestic solar power
Independent 10th May 2019 James Dyke – Professor of Sustainability Southampton Univ. The UK can’t
fight the climate emergency when the Tories are entirely opposed to renewables like solar. The party’s decision to increase tax on domestic solar power shows that its head is still firmly in the sand.
Why does the UK government appear to be intent on frustrating the deployment of solar power? The real reason for this tax hike is that domestic solar has proved too popular. The cost of solar panels have plummeted and people
increasingly see them as desirable improvements to their homes.
The accelerating update of domestic solar threatens to disrupt the UK’s still largely centralised energy grid. It also butts up against seemingly ideological opposition to renewable energy in the current Conservative Party. The decision to increase tax on domestic solar power needs to be considered alongside its support of fracking for gas, billions of pounds of subsidies to continue to pump fossil fuels out of the North Sea, and resistance to onshore wind turbines.
Torres Strait islanders to United Nations – allege Australian government failure to act on climate change
 Torres Strait Islanders take climate change complaint to the United Nations https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/may/13/torres-strait-islanders-take-climate-change-complaint-to-the-united-nations
Morrison government accused of failing to take action to reduce emissions or pursue adaptation measures A group of Torres Strait Islanders from low-lying islands off the northern coast of Australia will on Monday lodge a complaint with the United NationsHuman Rights Committee against the Australian government, alleging climate inaction.The complaint will assert that the Morrison government has failed to take adequate action to reduce emissions or pursue proper adaptation measures on the islands and, as a consequence, has failed fundamental human rights obligations to Torres Strait Islander people. One of the complainants, sixth-generation Warraber man, Kabay Tamu, said in a statement: “When erosion happens, and the lands get taken away by the seas, it’s like a piece of us that gets taken with it – a piece of our heart, a piece of our body. That’s why it has an effect on us. Not only the islands but us, as people. “We have a sacred site here, which we are connected to spiritually. And disconnecting people from the land, and from the spirits of the land, is devastating. “It’s devastating to even imagine that my grandchildren or my great-grandchildren being forced to leave because of the effects that are out of our hands. “We’re currently seeing the effects of climate change on our islands daily, with rising seas, tidal surges, coastal erosion and inundation of our communities.” The non-profit coordinating the complaint by the Torres Strait Islanders says this will be the first climate change litigation brought against the Australian government based on a human rights complaint, and also the first legal action worldwide brought by inhabitants of low-lying islands against a nation state. Lawyers with environmental law non-profit ClientEarth, are representing the islanders, with support from British-based barristers. The UN Human Rights Committee is a body of 18 legal experts that sits in Geneva. The committee monitors compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The complainants are alleging that Australia has violated article 27, the right to culture; article 17, the right to be free from arbitrary interference with privacy, family and home; and article 6, the right to life. According to briefing material supplied by ClientEarth, the complaint alleges these rights have been violated both by Australia’s insufficient greenhouse gas mitigation targets and plans, and by its failure to fund adequate coastal defence and resilience measures on the islands, such as seawalls. Lawyers for the islanders allege that the catastrophic nature of the predicted future impacts of climate change on the Torres Strait Islands, including the total submergence of ancestral homelands, is a sufficiently severe impact as to constitute a violation of the rights to culture, family and life. The islanders want the government to commit at least $20m for emergency measures such as seawalls, as requested by local authorities, and sustained investment in long-term adaptation measures to ensure the islands can continue to be inhabited. They want a commitment to reduce emissions by at least 65% below 2005 levels by 2030 and going net zero before 2050 and a phase out of thermal coal, both for domestic electricity generation and export markets. ClientEarth’s lead lawyer for the case, Sophie Marjanac, said in a statement: “Climate change is fundamentally a human rights issue. The predicted impacts of climate change in the Torres Strait, including the inundation of ancestral homelands, would be catastrophic for its people. “Australia’s continued failure to build infrastructure to protect the islands, and to take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, constitutes a clear violation of the islanders’ rights to culture, family and life.” The impact of climate change has been a significant touchstone in the 2019 election. A recent poll from a respected foreign policy thinktank, the Lowy Institute, has found a majority of Australians believe global warming is a critical threat. The 2019 result is the first time climate has topped the list of threats since Lowy began the research in 2006. |
|
Melissa Price – the Environment Minster you get from an anti environment government
|
‘Missing in action’: hunt goes on for Coalition’s invisible environment minister, Guardian, Lisa Cox, Sat 11 May 2019
It’s supposed to be the climate change election, and the UN says the planet’s ecosystem is under existential threat. But Melissa Price is nowhere to be seen, ours after the release of a UN report on the dire state of the planet’s ecosystems, the environment minister, Melissa Price, posted a photo of herself on Facebook at the opening of a miniature railway in her electorate.It wasn’t until more than 12 hours after the Facebook post that the West Australian MP issued a statement responding to the analysis by 450 scientists and diplomats that warned the decline of the natural world was accelerating, and a million species were at risk of extinction. There was no interview. The written statement referenced Coalitionprograms, including a $100m fund announced in the federal budget, aimed at tackling biodiversity loss. It was the most that had been heard of Price so far in the election campaign. It’s one thing to not want the environment portfolio,” Labor’s environment spokesman, Tony Burke, said. “It’s another thing to refuse to do the job.” Since she took over the environment portfolio last year, the most conspicuous thing about Price’s performance has been her low profile. In February, she defended herself against criticism from environment groups calling her the “invisible minister”. At the beginning of this month, she was not by prime minister Scott Morrison’s side for the launch of the Coalition’s environment platform for the election. The executive producer of the ABC’s 7.30 program, Justin Stevens, tweeted this week that Price had turned down 11 requests for an interview since becoming minister. In an election where climate change and the environment have been identified as dominant concerns for voters, Price’s opponents are dismayed the Coalition would hide the person with ministerial responsibility for environmental protection from view. Both Burke and Labor’s climate spokesman, Mark Butler, have written to Price requesting a debate similar to those that have been held for the health and Treasury portfolios. They said they had received no response. “In an election when it’s clear that climate change is right at the top of issues of importance for voters, it is extraordinary that the minister has been absent from the whole campaign,” Butler said. “Melissa Price has been missing in action this election campaign, and since she took the job in August,” she said in a statement this week. “When she has surfaced it has been to insult world leaders fighting for climate action, or to approve the Adani coalmine and a mega uranium mine in WA.” Immediately before the election was called, Price signed off on Adani’s groundwater management plan for its Carmichael coal mine, despite the CSIRO and Geoscience Australia raising concerns about groundwater drawdown and the monitoring approaches proposed by the company. A day before the government entered caretaker mode, Price approved a massive uranium mine in Western Australia. Both the federal and WA governments have been warned it could lead to the extinction of native species. Burke says Price’s absence from the campaign and refusal to participate in interviews has denied voters the opportunity to scrutinise those decisions. “It’s completely reasonable for the public to expect an explanation,” he said. Since the release of the UN report, Morrison has been forced to defend the minister…… https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/may/11/missing-in-action-hunt-goes-on-for-coalitions-invisible-environment-minister |
|
Adani project faces another hurdle – another groundwater review
Adani’s controversial Carmichael coal mine project is facing another hurdle, with the Queensland government seeking a further review of their groundwater plans.
Adani Mining’s chief executive Lucas Dow said the new request came from the Department of Environment and Science last Friday.
“It appears this process will again go beyond the scope of what our project is required to deliver under regulatory conditions – and, put simply, is another fishing expedition,” he said in a statement.
Federal Environment Minister Melissa Price signed off the company’s groundwater plans just before the start of the election campaign. ….
The new review means Adani can’t start construction on the mine which has been stuck in the courts and approval process for almost a decade.
The mine, to be developed in central Queensland’s Galilee Basin, has been a political football, with the country divided on the value of the $2 billion project.
It has dogged the federal election campaign and the coalition believes the Queensland Labor government is putting up road blocks to win over Green preferences in inner-city seats.
This is the second road block for the mine in less than two weeks, with the government recently rejecting Adani’s plans for managing the endangered Black-Throated Finch on the site………..https://www.sbs.com.au/news/adani-project-faces-another-hurdle
Numurkah solar farm, to help power steel works, Melbourne trams, begins production — RenewEconomy
Neoen’s 100MW Numurkah solar farm, which will help power Sanjeev Gupta’s Laverton steel works, and Melbourne’s trams, starts production. The post Numurkah solar farm, to help power steel works, Melbourne trams, begins production appeared first on RenewEconomy.
via Numurkah solar farm, to help power steel works, Melbourne trams, begins production — RenewEconomy
Antinuclear 