From Dave Sweeney – – a few thoughts after a bruising election.
This was a deeply disappointing result: Fear and loathing rewarded and so much that could be, won’t be. At least for now.
But – not all was bad. There are bright stars in a dark night sky – and they can help us navigate to a different future.
- The new Senate is not a rubber stamp
- There are two new strong climate independents in the House of Reps and there are other strong voicers on the House cross bench
- Tony Abbott is gone
- Fraser Anning is gone: a man who happily stood alongside saluting fascists is out of public life
- Climate change and energy policy is on the radar and is not going to go away
- One of the worst things about a result like this is the way it makes you think badly about the people you see on the train, at the shops, at the footy. It is worth remembering that the Greens vote held – despite Palmer’s $70m ad spend, the number of Australians that voted Greens was one-third bigger than the number that voted for UAP & One Nation combined
- UAP’s $70m ad push focused on three things (anti-Shorten, fear about China, pro-nuclear power) and it did not win him a single seat. A massive loser at this election was nuclear power: the UAP result is a clear rejection of a reactor powered future.
Change is not quick or easy. It seems to take forever and then it moves rapidly – look at the fall of the Berlin Wall, majority rule in South Africa, the emergence of Timor Leste. We need the courage and the resilience to continue to hope and to act.
This election result should have been far, far better. It also could have been much worse.
We are where we are – and we work with what we have. And we work constantly and creatively to protect and grow those people and places that we value and love – and reduce radioactive risk. There is no greater or more important mission.
MORRISON WOULD RATHER GIVE GREEN LIGHT TO NUCLEAR OVER SOLAR
https://www.pennywong.com.au/media-releases/morrison-would-rather-give-green-light-to-nuclear-over-solar/?fbclid=IwAR3YVe9E5_QsFkEOO_C1rPQUllcK-c-mhNmKECufgKWHwI_hv0zUBOgV5RQ Noah Carroll, 8 October 2018 The Prime Minister has become so desperate to find any energy policy he today refused to rule out building nuclear power stations across Australia – including in areas bordering his own electorate.
Mr Morrison today told Alan Jones there is “absolutely no reason why, when it’s economic, we shouldn’t have nuclear power generation in Australia.”
According to a report from the Australian Institute about where nuclear power would be located, Botany Bay, neighbouring Morrison’s own electorate, could be a likely candidate for a nuclear reactor. Townsville, Mackay, Rockhampton, the Sunshine Coast and Bribie Island were also named as possible locations.
Scott Morrison would rather put nuclear reactors up and down the east coast of Australia, instead of investing in solar and admitting that renewables are cheaper and cleaner.
This in spite of all the evidence nuclear power is actually much more expensive than renewable energy and would lead to higher prices.
Mr Morrison also seems blind to the well documented safety risks of nuclear power, highlighted by events like the Fukushima nuclear disaster.
Mr Morrison’s bizarre thought bubble confirms the Liberals will support any form of power generation as long as it is not the proven and sensible forms of renewable energy like wind and solar power.
Rather than floating nuclear power balloons, the Prime Minister should end his government’s war on renewable energy — the cheapest and cleanest power available.
Australian Treasurer Josh Frydenberg is adamant that there will be no increase in climate action from this government
Our plan is very clear’: No climate revamp for re-elected Coalition, Australians should not expect any change to the 
Liberal-National government’s climate change policies after their federal election win. SBS, 20 May19
Treasurer Josh Frydenberg has hosed down any suggestion that the Coalition will be going back to the drawing board on climate change after the government’s come-from-behind election win.
“Our plan is very clear and it’s the plan that we took to the Australian people,” he told ABC’s Insiders on Sunday. Treasurer Josh Frydenberg has hosed down any suggestion that the Coalition will be going back to the drawing board on climate change after the government’s come-from-behind election win.
“Our plan is very clear and it’s the plan that we took to the Australian people,” he told ABC’s Insiders on Sunday.
Mr Frydenberg was among Coalition members who faced a swing against them on Saturday, in the face of challenges from independent or Green candidates campaigning largely on climate change.
Former prime minister Tony Abbott lost his seat to Independent Zali Steggallfor whom climate change was pivotal.
As the results rolled in, outgoing MP Julie Bishop said the Coalition must reassess its position on climate change and possibly revisit former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull’s signature energy policy.
“It will have to end the uncertainty and the National Energy Guarantee was the closest thing we had to a bipartisan position.” …..
Labor frontbencher Tanya Plibersek hopes the government finally grapples with climate and energy with a policy aimed at bringing down pollution, reducing power prices and boosting investment in renewables.
“How is this government going to manage that when they are still so broken inside with climate change deniers on one side and people who at least accept the science on the other side, but 14 different energy policies?” https://www.sbs.com.au/news/our-plan-is-very-clear-no-climate-revamp-for-re-elected-coalition
Environmentalists shocked at election result, but resolute
|
After the climate election: shellshocked green groups remain resolute, Guardian, Paul Karp 20 May 19,
Environmentalists reject suggestions tactics such as the Stop Adani convoy cost Labor the election The environmental movement drew first blood on election night by helping independent Zali Steggall oust Tony Abbott but, in the end, the Coalition – which rated a miserable 4% on the Australian Conservation Foundation’sclimate change scorecard – won.After the unexpected result environmentalists have questioned whether their campaign tactics need revision or whether the progressive side of politics was let down by other factors.The Australian Conservation Foundation chief executive, Kelly O’Shanassy, told Guardian Australia climate “was definitely a top issue in the election … but it didn’t convert to votes in all the places it needed to”…….. in Queensland, Nationals MPs including Michelle Landry and George Christensen are prepared to heap the blame – or more accurately, the credit for the conservatives’ strong vote in central Queensland – on campaigns like Stop Adani and particularly the convoy organised by the Bob Brown Foundation. …… in Queensland, Nationals MPs including Michelle Landry and George Christensen are prepared to heap the blame – or more accurately, the credit for the conservatives’ strong vote in central Queensland – on campaigns like Stop Adani and particularly the convoy organised by the Bob Brown Foundation. …….. GetUp’s exit polling found climate change was the voters’ top issue in Warringah, where Tony Abbott lost to Zali Steggall, in Josh Frydenberg’s seat of Kooyong and in Menzies. Independents including Steggall and Helen Haines in Indi and the Centre Alliance’s Rebekha Sharkie in Mayo all want a better climate policy and there were swings to Labor in inner-city Melbourne. Paul Oosting, the national director of GetUp, said “the leading climate denier Tony Abbott was unseated”. “It’s clear the Coalition aren’t meeting the public’s expectations and need to change their approach or face more Warringahs.” Schneiders said it would be “unwise for the prime minister not to recognise his government is very vulnerable on the environment”. The Coalition may feel “they’ve had a happy day now – but the job just gets harder again as soon as they get sworn in”. “It’s a tactical win – the problem hasn’t gone away.” O’Shanassy said concern about climate change “goes across political lines”. During door-knocking in the electorate of Chisholm, eight out of 10 voters committed to consider the climate, including Liberal voters. So while the Liberal party retained most of its blue-ribbon seats, like Higgins and Kooyong, O’Shanassy said there is “rising concern from Liberal voters” that the party will need to take seriously – in the same way the state election drubbing in Victoria sparked a flurry of environmental policy announcements from Scott Morrison. “There’s no doubt the Morrison government needs to deal with climate and energy – and they won’t be able to continue to put it in the too-hard basket.”…… https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/may/20/after-the-climate-election-shellshocked-green-groups-remain-resolute |
|
What to expect from Coalition: Coal, coal, coal and a battle over NEG — RenewEconomy
Coalition digs in for a fight for coal, as speculation grows on whether Taylor and Price will continue in key portfolios, and who might replace them. The post What to expect from Coalition: Coal, coal, coal and a battle over NEG appeared first on RenewEconomy.
via What to expect from Coalition: Coal, coal, coal and a battle over NEG — RenewEconomy
Crossbenchers put climate on agenda
SBS 20 May 19, New independent MP Helen Haines says she doesn’t intend to operate in a bloc with other crossbenchers, saying she runs her own race in Indi., The Victorian seat of Indi’s likely new independent MP Helen Haines says she doesn’t intend to operate as a bloc with fellow crossbenchers, but expects they’ll work together on issues such as climate change.
Ms Haines looks set to take the seat that was previously held by independent Cathy McGowan, winning almost 52 per cent of the vote so far after preferences.
It would make her the first independent to succeed another independent in a seat……..
“I’m not operating as a bloc with the other independents. I very much run my own race in Indi,” she said.
“There’s no doubt, though, that we do see eye-to-eye on action on climate. I think climate is the one that we will be collaborating very closely on the crossbench.”……. https://www.sbs.com.au/news/crossbenchers-put-climate-on-agenda
USA spending $billions in attempt to clean up dangerous nuclear waste sites
Soaring costs but limited progress in cleanup of “scariest” nuclear sites https://www.salon.com/2019/05/18/soaring-costs-but-limited-progress-in-cleanup-of-scariest-nuclear-sites_partner/
The progress to clean up nuclear waste sites appears to be slowing down though still devouring billions of dollars, PHIL ZAHODIAKIN, MAY 18, 2019 THE PROGRESS OF A DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY PROGRAM TO CLEAN UP THE NATION’S MOST DANGEROUS NUCLEAR WASTE SITES APPEARS TO BE SLOWING DOWN EVEN THOUGH IT’S STILL DEVOURING BILLIONS OF DOLLARS.
That discouraging picture emerges in the latest report by the federal Government Accountability Office on the long-running cleanup effort. Launched in 1989, it was designed to clean up 107 sites engaged in research or production of enriched uranium or plutonium for making nuclear weapons.
Cleanup work at 91 of the Cold War-era sites is finished. But the remaining 16 pose the greatest health risks — especially those with underground storage tanks leaking highly radioactive waste.
Testifying last week before the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, a GAO official said that for reasons that are unclear, estimated cleanup costs at the 16 ”biggest and scariest sites” have increased by $214 billion despite the Department of Energy (DOE) spending $48 billion since 2011.
David C. Trimble, the GAO’s director for natural resources and the environment, said the soaring costs ”are getting worse as the growth in cleanup liabilities vastly outpaces [the DOE’s] ability to reduce them.”
DOE officials are trying to pin down the reasons for delays and cost overruns, Trimble said, “but they haven’t finished their ‘root cause’ analysis.”
Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) asked Trimble and Ann Marie White, director of the DOE’s Office of Environmental Management how they would “explain to the taxpayers this astonishing cost increase when the number of cleanup sites hasn’t changed.” White replied that the 56 million gallons of radioactive liquids and sludge in the underground tanks at the immense Hanford Nuclear Reservation in southeastern Washington are driving “much of the increase.”
But the GAO has cited other problems, too, including DOE providing Congress with inconsistent and misleading information. For example, Trimble said, legislation passed in 2011 required DOE to annually report on its funding needs, but the reports have been submitted in only two of the years since.
“So, what are [the taxpayers] buying for all this money?” Rep. Joseph P. Kennedy (D-Mass.) asked, observing that the latest estimate to complete the work at all 16 sites has reached $377 billion.
Rep. Ann M. Kuster (D-N.H.) pointed out that, besides costs, the risk of accidents or sabotage at the 16 sites only increases with time. And Trimble drew an analogy to a type of mortgage popular during the housing bubble of the early 2000s.
By spending billions to contain radioactive soil, water, and nuclear materials at their sites of origin without a path to completing cleanups, “There’s a danger that, at some point, the dynamic starts to look like an interest-only loan that doesn’t require you to pay down the principal amount of the loan,” Trimble said.
Trimble said he was encouraged by DOE’s willingness to accept management improvements recommended by GAO
But Ed Lyman, acting director of the nuclear safety project for the Union of Concerned Scientists, told Fair Warning that “GAO issues one report after another about DOE’s mismanagement of the nuclear cleanup program but the reports don’t seem to move the ball.”
Pointing out that the experiments to condense and vitrify (or turn into glass) the liquid wastes at Hanford and Savannah River, S.C., “have not been going well,” Lyman added that the long disposal delays leave the safety of the sites in a nether world of “borrowed time.”
Besides Hanford, where cleanup activities are expected to continue at least until 2070, and the Savannah River Nuclear Reservation, which will keep producing radioactive tritium during its cleanup, some of the other, major sites among the 16 left to clean up include the World War 2-era facility in Oak Ridge, Tenn.; and the gaseous diffusion plants in Piketon, Ohio and Paducah, Ky.: formerly principal source of enriched uranium.
Britain’s Committee on Climate Change calls for challenging climate action from government and community
Sussex Energy Group 17th May 2019 , Another climate report and another urgent call for action, along with a dizzying 
array of graphs and figures. The Committee on Climate Change (CCC), who advise the UK government on policies and planning for a low carbon economy, have produced their analysis and recommendations on how to stop UK’s contribution to global warming by 2050.
This follows the “Paris Agreement” signed in December 2015 where the UK, along with 196 other countries, agreed to reduce their nation’s greenhouse gas emissions in efforts to limit global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.
The CCC’s excellent and thorough report makes for some tough reading; not for its 277 pages and plethora of statistics and figures, but for the scale of collective effort required. The benign-sounding estimate of costs – 1-2% of GDP – disguises the extent of system change and efforts required, not only of government and businesses, but households as well.
http://blogs.sussex.ac.uk/sussexenergygroup/2019/05/17/net-zero/
Voters feared climate policy more than climate change
A range of polls and surveys had left many analysts, myself included, with the sense that this would be a crucial issue at the ballot box.
The annual Lowy Institute Poll demonstrated stronger support for climate change action in Australia in 2019 than in any previous survey since 2006.
In the survey more than 60 per cent of Australians agreed with the sentiment that “Global warming is a serious and pressing problem. We should begin taking steps now even if this involves significant cost”.
And while a self-selecting sample, those filling out the ABC’s Vote Compass survey consistently emphasised climate change as a crucial issue for them at the election.
Crucially, those identifying it as the most important issue had risen from 9 per cent in 2016 to 29 per cent in 2019.
Advocacy groups and even media outlets also encouraged the view that 2019 was, and should be, Australia’s climate election.
This was prominent in pre-election statements from NGOs like ACF and Oxfam. GetUp! ran this argument strongly before and during the campaign, and The Guardian’s editorial on the eve of the election exhorted all Australians to view the election as an opportunity to vote for substantive action on climate change.
But in the end, we saw a decline in the primary vote for the Labor Opposition, who had announced a more significant reduction target than the Government and a suite of measures — from investment in renewable energy to an energy guarantee — to get there.
And we saw a rise of only around 0.5 per cent of the primary vote for the party with the most progressive and ambitious climate policy: the Greens. More consequentially, of course, we saw the re-election of a Government with limited ambition on emissions reductions.
How did this happen?
While it’s too early for fine-grained analysis, we can draw a few conclusions at this point.
First, the seats where climate change was significant as an issue at the election tells us something. As the most significant political issue for Greens supporters in the election, climate change clearly played a role in the re-election of Adam Bandt in Melbourne, and in strong primary votes for the Greens in nearby electorates of Higgins, Kooyong and Macnamara.
In Sydney, it was clearly prominent in Wentworth (undecided at the time of writing), and most prominently Warringah where Zali Steggall won the seat from Tony Abbott.
In Warringah, not only was the LNP’s position on climate change inconsistent with the views of most in this constituency, but Mr Abbott was (rightly) seen as the chief architect of an extended period of climate inaction in Australia.
Simply put, he was (in Opposition, in Government and in public debate) the chief contributor to the toxic politics of climate change in this country over the past decade.
Mr Abbott’s re-election was, in short, a bridge too far for his constituency.
But in this case and in other inner-city seats, support for climate action looks broadly consistent with a ‘post-materialist’ sensibility.
Here the emphasis on quality of life over immediate economic and physical needs encourages a focus on issues like climate change. But this is a sensibility that speaks to those in higher socio-economic brackets, and principally with higher levels of education.
It isn’t particularly applicable to regional Queensland, for example, especially when constituents in the latter view large scale mining operations as a crucial potential source of income and employment.
Voters feared climate policy more than climate change
Second, the Lowy Institute polling data also tells us something about when climate support rises and falls.
Simply put, climate concern is at its highest in Australia when there’s a perception (eg 2006, 2019) that the government isn’t doing anything about the issue and isn’t taking it seriously. Conversely, climate concern has been at its lowest as the Government began to pursue substantive climate action, bottoming out when the so-called carbon tax was legislated in 2012.
In this election, Australians were suddenly faced with a prospective Labor Government ready with a suite of measures to tackle climate change.
And they were presented with an account of these measures as a devastating economic blow to Australian prosperity and growth.
However discredited much of this modelling ultimately was, and the broader fear campaign about everything from electricity prices to the end of petrol-based cars, it raised the spectre of immediate economic sacrifice for Australian
We’re already in a climate emergency
So what would it take to make climate change a major political concern in Australia, and a crucial issue in future Australian elections?
A climate emergency, perhaps? The problem with this argument is that by most accounts, we’re in one.
The five hottest years on record have been the past five, natural disasters have increased in intensity and frequency, we’re in the midst of an extinction crisis and the average global temperatures suggest that we’ve almost reached the agreed Paris target for warming: no more than 1.5 degrees.
So the issue is not whether there’s a problem. Rather, it’s how to get Australian policy makers and voters to recognise and respond to it credibly and seriously. It should be easier to do.
We’re confronted more than ever with manifestations of climate change.
The five hottest years on record have been the past five, natural disasters have increased in intensity and frequency, we’re in the midst of an extinction crisis and the average global temperatures suggest that we’ve almost reached the agreed Paris target for warming: no more than 1.5 degrees.
So the issue is not whether there’s a problem. Rather, it’s how to get Australian policy makers and voters to recognise and respond to it credibly and seriously. It should be easier to do.
We’re confronted more than ever with manifestations of climate change.
Why do politicians appear to believe shock jock Alan Jones on nuclear power? Scott Morrison has his doubts
Nuclear Fuel Cycle Watch South Australia, Steve Dale 20 May 19, I listened to that Alan Jones, Morrison interview (that Wong’s press release references) – Jones was rabidly pro-nuclear (as usual) and Morrison was trying to point out that nuclear is not cost effective. When Alan Jones goes, I wonder how many pollies will drop their support for nuclear power – I think many say they support it just to get on the right side of him.
“Mr Morrison told broadcaster Alan Jones that he would do whatever it takes to bring electricity prices down but when it came to nuclear power, “I don’t have any issues” but the “investment doesn’t stack up”.
He compared nuclear power unfavourably with Hydro Tasmania’s Battery of the nation – a proposal to develop thousands of megawatts of pumped hydro capacity in addition to the island state’s existing hydro capacity to back up rapidly expanding solar and wind power.”
https://www.afr.com/…/scott-morrison-no-issue-with…
Iran’s top diplomat presses efforts to save nuclear deal
Concerns about a possible conflict have flared since the White House ordered warships and bombers to the region to counter an alleged, unexplained threat from Iran that has seen America order nonessential diplomatic staff out of Iraq……
mposing sanctions while seeking talks is like “pointing a gun at someone and demanding friendship,” said Iranian Gen. Rasool Sanaeirad, according to the semi-official Mehr news agency.
That comment was echoed by Majid Takht-e Ravanchi, Iran’s ambassador to the United Nations.
“They want to have the stick in their hands, trying to intimidate Iran at the same time calling for a dialogue,” Ravanchi told CBS. “What type of dialogue is this?”…..https://www.apnews.com/04eabdee60dc4a399b22a2c6a5f0c672
Environment markets suffer as Coalition win kills emissions, renewable targets — RenewEconomy
Share market surges, but price of renewable energy certificates and Australian carbon credits fall as clean energy transition is delayed. The post Environment markets suffer as Coalition win kills emissions, renewable targets appeared first on RenewEconomy.
via Environment markets suffer as Coalition win kills emissions, renewable targets — RenewEconomy
Edwell to head taskforce to plot Western Australia’s exit from coal — RenewEconomy
W.A. government names economist, energy regulation expert Stephen Edwell as chair of taskforce to lead state’s shift to renewables, EVs – and its exit from coal. The post Edwell to head taskforce to plot Western Australia’s exit from coal appeared first on RenewEconomy.
via Edwell to head taskforce to plot Western Australia’s exit from coal — RenewEconomy
Know your NEM: We may still get to 50% renewables by 2030 — RenewEconomy
We may still get to 50 per cent renewables by 2030, even with the re-election of the Morrison government. The post Know your NEM: We may still get to 50% renewables by 2030 appeared first on RenewEconomy.
via Know your NEM: We may still get to 50% renewables by 2030 — RenewEconomy
Scotland stepped up its response to the Climate Emergency
Business Green 17th May 2019 Scotland stepped up its response to the ‘climate emergency’ earlier this
week as Glasgow and Edinburgh adopted zero-carbon targets in swift
succession and the Scottish Parliament provided further details on how it
plans to meet its new target of building a net zero emission economy by
2045.
ScottishPower pledged on Monday to help make Glasgow the first UK
city to reach net-zero carbon emissions, setting a target for meeting the
goal of 2045. In related news, SSE announced this week that the last of 84
offshore wind turbines was commissioned this week at Beatrice, Scotland’s
largest offshore wind farm. The company said the project – which is a joint venture development led by SSE Renewables, Copenhagen InfrastructurePartners and Red Rock Power Limited – has been completed on time and under
budget after three years of construction. The final 7MW Siemens Gamesa
turbine was installed in the Outer Moray Firth, around 13km off the coast
of Caithness, bringing the site’s total installed capacity to 588MW –
enough to provide clean, low carbon energy to over 450,000 homes.
Antinuclear 