National Radioactive Waste Facility has strong community opposition – says Public Health Association of Australia
Uniting Church, South Australia, rejects National Radioactive Waste Bill as discriminatory against Aboriginal people
|
Uniting Church of Australia
Synod of South Australia Submission No.11
Submission to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee – RE: Inquiry into National Radioactive
Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill On behalf of the Uniting Church in South Australia, we make this submission to express our views
regarding the National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment Bill. The Uniting Church in South Australia stands proudly in covenantal relationship with the Uniting Aboriginal Islander Christian Congress (UAICC). The UAICC have expressed distress for the National Radioactive Waste Management Act to specify a site near Kimba for a nuclear waste facility. Our paramount concern is the lack of consultation by the federal government with the Barngarla people, the Traditional Owners of the site. ***
The explanatory memorandum of the Bill states, “The Commonwealth engaged extensively with
communities and undertook an evidence-based approach to gathering and analysing the available information about each of the shortlisted sites to consider various aspects of site suitability and identify key risks.” The notion that the Commonwealth engaged extensively with the community regarding the facility in Kimba is not adequate truth telling. The federal government excluded Barngarla Traditional Owners from a ‘community ballot’ in 2019. The Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation initiated a separate, confidential postal survey of Traditional Owners, conducted by Australian Election Company. This resulted in 100% of respondents voting ‘no’ to the proposed nuclear facility. The Uniting Church in South Australia stands against the oppression of First People. We urge the Commonwealth to truly engage with the Barngarla people and hear their voices. ***
The longstanding relationship between the Uniting Church in South Australia and the UAICC has been
life giving. Uniting Church personnel have learnt to see beyond earthly possessions. Likewise, to truly respect the relationship between First People and their Country. We lament the historical wrongs done to First People such as the dispossession of land. We stand in solidarity with First People against stopping such inequalities. We urge the Commonwealth to empower First People by listening to their voices. ***
We recommend that:
1. The Senate Economics Legislation Committee should recommend the withdrawal or rejection of the
National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment Bill 2020 (in which case a number of following recommendations are redundant) and repeal of the National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment Act. ***
2. The Committee should recommend repeal of the NRWM Act 2012 Section 12(1)(c) & 13(1), and of the Bill’s sections 34GA(1)(c) and 34GB(1), as unacceptable draconian overrides of existing State and Commonwealth legal protections for Indigenous people’s heritage and traditions. ***
3. The Committee should undertake a review of the potential impact of the existing Act, the proposed
amendments and the proposed nuclear waste facility on Aboriginal rights, interests and traditions …..
***
4. The Committee should assess the compatibility of the Act, the Bill with the UN Declaration on the Rights
of Indigenous People, in particular the right of free, prior and informed consent..
***
5 The Committee should recommend that the federal government adopt the proposal from the then
South Australian Premier Jay Weatherell, in 2017, that traditional owners should have a right of veto
over any proposed nuclear waste facility on their lands…….
***
6. The Committee should recommend withdrawal or rejection of the Bill on the grounds that the
government’s own benchmark for broad community support has not been met (43.8% support
among eligible voters in the combined ballots)
***
7. The Committee should recommend that the Bill is withdrawn, and the federal government’s nuclear
waste agenda put on hold, until such time as public opinion among other relevant stakeholders is
determined (including state-wide opinion in South Australia, and opinion along potential transport corridors
|
|
Wildfires getting close to Chernobyl nuclear station, radiation rises in smoke
Radiation levels rise as fires burn near Chernobyl’s former nuclear power plant https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-04-13/chernobyl-fires-crews-battle-contain-blaze-nuclear-power-plant/12144956?utm_medium=spredfast&utm_content=sf232669694&utm_campaign=abc_news&utm_source=m.facebook.com&sf232669694=1 13 Apr 20 A photo taken from the roof of Chernobyl’s old nuclear power plant has revealed how close the bushfires raging through Ukraine’s forests are from the site of the 1986 nuclear disaster.
Key points:
- Crews are working to contain the forest fires burning through the territory surrounding the Chernobyl nuclear power plant
- Radiation levels near the fires have been elevated, with the blazes producing swirling smoke
- Winds are blowing smoke towards Kiev though authorities say radiation levels in the city remain normal
Firefighters are working to control the blazes burning through the irradiated forests in the territory surrounding the former nuclear plant.
Radiation levels near the wildfires have risen, and the blazes have produced swirling smoke which is being blown towards neighbouring regions.
Winds had blown the smoke towards rural areas of Russia and nearby Belarus, but they shifted in the direction of Ukrainian capital Kiev over the weekend.
Authorities in Kiev, which has a population of about 3 million people, say radiation levels in the city remain normal.
Its citizens are already in lockdown due to the coronavirus pandemic.
The winds are more of a significant headache for the site of Chernobyl’s closed nuclear power plant. Strong gusts could spread the fires towards what is left of the facility as well as the abandoned equipment used to clean up the disaster.
“At the moment we cannot say the fire is contained,” acting head of the State Agency of Ukraine on Exclusion Zone Management Kateryna Pavlova said.
What stands in the fire’s path?
Fires are common inside the “Zone of Alienation”, a circle with a 30-kilometre radius that surrounds the old nuclear plant and is fenced in barbed wire. But the current blazes are larger than normal and are stirring up radiation as they burn grass and forests.
Winds could spread fires to remnants of the nuclear plant and authorities are trying to protect the critical infrastructure in the exclusion zone.
This includes the plant itself (and its radiation-containing sarcophagus), as well as the so-called “graves” — parking lots of abandoned, contaminated trucks and vehicles left behind from the original disaster.
“We have been working all night, digging firebreaks around the plant to protect it from fire,” Ms Pavlova said. Access to the 2,600 square kilometre area is limited to workers and tourists on guided excursions.
What happens when an irradiated tree burns down?
In the 34 years since the disaster, radiation has settled into the exclusion zone’s soil and been absorbed by the roots of trees and vegetation. While many plants in the immediate vicinity of the plant died when the nuclear reactor exploded, the plant life within the exclusion zone adapted over the decades to come.
However, the radioactive particles are brought back to the surface of the soil and released in smoke when the plants burn in fires.
The exclusion zone was established after the April 1986 disaster which saw a reactor explosion send a cloud of fallout over the European continent. The Zone of Alienation is largely unpopulated, save for about 200 people who have remained in the area despite government orders to leave.
The Chernobyl Exclusion Zone was established after the April 1986 disaster at the plant sent a cloud of radioactive fallout over much of Europe.
People are not allowed to live within 30 kilometres of the old power station, where a giant protective dome was put over the fourth reactor in 2016.
The dome, called the New Safe Confinement, enclosed the temporary “sarcophagus” built around the reactor immediately after the disaster.
Chernobyl’s three other nuclear reactors continued to generate electricity until the plant finally closed in 2000.
The Coronavirus and Climate Action: We must advocate now for immediate and significant investments in green infrastructure
The major impact of coronavirus on the trajectory of climate change must not be a temporary reduction in emissions from cars, trucks and airplanes. It must be a collective recognition that rapid and significant voluntary changes in our behavior are possible. For individual climate action to be sustained, people must find honor and joy in it. And that action must also be supported by government leadership and coordination. We must advocate now, as vocally as we can, for immediate and significant investments in green infrastructure. To avert disaster, we must change how we live.
The Coronavirus and Climate Action https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/the-coronavirus-and-climate-action/ Confronting global warming will take a completely different approach from confronting the pandemic, By Laura J. Martin on April 10, 2020
In recent weeks, many Americans have voluntarily and radically altered their behavior in order to protect others from the novel coronavirus. Those who are less vulnerable are making sacrifices in order to protect those who are more vulnerable: the elderly, the immunocompromised, and—in our country, with its broken social safety net—the uninsured and the poor.
Climate scientists have been quick to draw parallels between the need to “flatten the curve” of coronavirus spread and the need to flatten the carbon emissions curve. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change states that we must reduce emissions by about 45 percent from 2010 levels by 2030 in order to lessen the severity of future emergency; to reduce, but not eliminate, the probability of catastrophic changes in sea level, ocean acidity, extreme weather, food security and biodiversity.
But confronting climate change will require a completely different generational politics than confronting coronavirus. Rather than young people changing their lifestyles to protect the elderly, the large and growing proportion of older citizens in industrialized countries will have to change their lifestyles in order to protect children and those not yet born. Those with power and resources today will have to change their lifestyles dramatically in order to protect the world’s poorest and most marginalized, those who will not be able to move away from climate hazards. This is the message that youth activists like Zero Hour, Isra Hirsi and Greta Thunberg implore us to heed. It is also the premise of DearTomorrow, a storytelling project where people write climate messages to loved ones living in the future.
Who is right? Continue reading
What is needed is a green recovery, but will governments promote that?
 The Guardian view on the climate and coronavirus: global warnings, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/12/the-guardian-view-on-the-climate-and-coronavirus-global-warnings 13 Apr 20, Editorial Steep falls in emissions have been the pandemic’s immediate effect. But what’s needed is a green recovery. So far, discussions of a coronavirus exit strategy have mainly focused on the steps that could bring an end to the lockdown. In the short term, both in the UK and elsewhere, there is nothing more desirable than letting people resume their lives, once it is safe to do so.But the speed of the “return to normal” is not the only thing that matters. The manner in which the world’s leaders manage the colossal economic and political shocks caused by the virus is also of the utmost importance. And at the top of their list of priorities, alongside human welfare, must be the biosphere and its future. It’s too soon to say with any confidence what impact coronavirus will have on the climate emergency. The brakes placed on economic activities of many kinds, worldwide, have led to carbon emission cuts that would previously have been unthinkable: 18% in China between February and March; between 40% and 60% over recent weeks in Europe. Habits and behaviours once regarded as sacrosanct have been turned on their heads: road traffic in the UK has fallen by 70%. Global air traffic has halved. Meanwhile, a much-needed spotlight has been thrown on humans’ troubling relationship to wildlife, with some experts arguing that the degradation of the natural world and exploitation of other species is among the pandemic’s causes. In human terms, the economic contraction precipitated by the virus – and predicted by the World Bank to lead to a severe depression – is sure to be brutal. No one, and least of all an elected government, would have chosen to limit emissions in this way. But if further savage waves of destruction to people’s livelihoods are to be avoided, rather than simply stored up or ignored until they become unignorable, just as coronavirus was, every possible effort must now be made to ensure that the recovery, when it comes, is as green as possible; that any and every stimulus package is directed towards renewable energy and zero- or low-carbon infrastructure and transport. The urgency and desperation surrounding all such efforts are likely to militate against progressive measures. Already, governments are coming under huge pressure to bail out oil and gas companies (in the US and Canada this has already begun). But while in the short term the low oil price, which is also the result of a price war being waged by Saudi Arabia and Russia, could have the damaging effect of making oil more competitive against renewables, plunging demand and turmoil in the industry provide an opportunity that must be seized by all who oppose the continued dominance of fossil fuels. There are other questions besides the future of oil that the crisis has opened up in unexpected ways. Huge political shifts are under way, with fiscally conservative governments such as Boris Johnson’s intervening in economies to an unprecedented extent. What was once impossible (socialist, reckless) now turns out not to be, at all. Could the renewed shock of human vulnerability in the face of Covid-19 make way for an increased willingness to face other perils, climate chaos among them? Impossible to say at this stage, perhaps. Certainly not without a fight against all those who will promote a return to business (and emissions) as usual. But with the postponement of crucial UN biodiversity and climate conferences, it has never been more important to keep up the pressure. There is no exit strategy from our planet. |
|
Coronavirus set to cause largest ever annual fall in CO2 emissions — RenewEconomy
Covid-19 could trigger largest ever annual fall in CO2 emissions in 2020 – but even this would not come close to bringing the 1.5°C global temperature limit within reach. The post Coronavirus set to cause largest ever annual fall in CO2 emissions appeared first on RenewEconomy.
via Coronavirus set to cause largest ever annual fall in CO2 emissions — RenewEconomy
Antinuclear 