Climate, nuclear, coronavirus – news to 7 July
Well, I do leave the biggest news – coronavirus – to others, although Jane Goodall eloquently reminds us that the pandemic is utterly connected with our onslaught on the natural world and may well be a foretaste of worse to come, if the human species does not respect nature. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0SoLNdftHw&t=111s It’s time to get emotional about climate change.
But anyway, Covid 19 – climate change – global phenomena that don’t care about borders, are affecting above all, the world’s poorest and most vulnerable – what are we to do? Some media are rejoicing about hot weather in the Arctic, but the reality is that the persistent Arctic heatwave is wreaking havoc, with uncontrolled forest fires in Siberia, thawing permafrost destabilising buildings and industry, especially oil and gas, in Northern Russia and the Arctic North of America. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75IxMysh10E&t=8s Meanwhile, the South Pole is warming at triple the global average. Climate change will make world too hot for 60 per cent of fish species.
It’s hard to get concerted action on global heating, with powerful influencers like Facebook and the oil industry sabotaging efforts and information about climate change. Climate denialists are increasingly spreading misinformation on Facebook, while Facebook is actively discouraging fact-checking.
Meanwhile – don’t let’s forget, even a limited nuclear war, whether started by intent or by accident, would bring a rapid climate change, a nuclear winter, which the human species might not survive.
A bit of good news – Meet the Nuns Who Created Their Own Climate Solutions Fund.
AUSTRALIA
Julian Assange’s fight for freedom. Julian Assange’s father in tireless fight to free his son, calls on Scott Morrison to help Australian citizen Julian.
Australia – USA’s Deputy Sheriff goes for bloated military expenditure. Agressive defence policy – Australian Strategic Policy Institute has too much influence on government and media.
CLIMATE. Canberra unprepared for climate upheavals that will rock the nation. Australia seen as successful in Covid-19 response, deplorable in climate response. Australia ranks second worst in world on climate action, outside top 50 on clean energy. Independent MP Zali Steggall calls for conscience vote on zero carbon bill to kickstart Covid recovery. Former Socceroos captain wants Australia to show climate leadership as World Cup host. Australia claims Kyoto success, but three decades as a climate wrecker is all it can boast.
NUCLEAR.
Napandee nuclear waste Bill.
- Labor rejects National Radioactive Management Amendment Bill. 2020– Josh Wilson MP.
- In Australian Senate Inquiry uncertainty grows over whether Kimba nuclear dump site is really needed. Impressions of Senate hearings on nuclear waste dump Bill. AustralianGovtWatcher comments on Senate Committee Inquiry hearing on Tuesday 30 June 2020.
- Independent advice essential for Kimba community: they have received only pro nuclear dump propaganda. Busting Australian govt media spin about Napandee nuclear waste plan,. Napandee nuclear waste plan futile and unnecessary, as it lacks adequate knowledge of radionuclides involved. ANSTO has been completely disingenuous in communicating to Kimba community about radioactive waste levels.
- Australia must plan for permanent disposal of Lucas Heights nuclear waste, not hurriedly transfer it to Kimba “temporarily”. Oppose Kimba nuclear waste dump plan – Senator Sarah Hanson-Young.
Yellowcake Country- a new webinar series explores the local, national and international impacts of Australia’s uranium industry.
Murdoch press enthusiastic about nuclear propagandist Michael Shellenger. Michael Shellenberger mucked up the pro nuclear “climate action” propaganda.
Queensland splinter political party North Queensland First pushing for uranium mining in Queensland.
Western Australia: call for Mt Walton hazardous waste facility to accept toxic material from across Australia, (includes radioactive wastes.)
Australia was the guinea pig population for Britain’s nuclear weapons tests radiation fallout.
RENEWABLE ENERGY. Australia’s secretive defence operations HQ to get 1.9MW solar farm. Deakin’s new Hub for world-leading energy storage and conversion. Much more renewable news, but I am running out of time.
INTERNATIONAL
Rethinking security: Nuclear sharing in Europe in the time of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Nuclear power is incompatible with a Green New Deal.
Misinformation about Energy Economics, from nuclear companies and their propagandists
US, Russia nuclear arms talks end with plans for second round.
Covid-19, climate change – what are we to do?
|
Both also interact – shutting down swathes of the economy and causing life as we know it to a virtual standstill. But it led to huge cuts in worldwide GHG daily emissions estimated at 17% below what they were in the same first week of April, last year. Global industrial GHG emissions are now expected to be about 8% lower in 2020, the largest annual drop since WWII. Still, the world will have more than 90% of the necessary decarbonisation left to do in the face of a pandemic, in order to be on track to meet the Paris Agreement’s ambitious goal: of a climate only 1.5 degree Celcius warmer than it was before the Industrial Revolution. Carbon pricing The challenges ahead create a unique chance to enact government policies that steer the economy away from carbon at a lower financial, social and political cost than might otherwise have been the case. Today’s low energy prices will make it easier to cut subsidies for fossil fuels; and more importantly, to introduce a tax on carbon. Revenues from the tax over the next decade can help repair battered government finances. Getting economies back on their feet through investment in friendly infrastructure will boost growth and create new jobs. Low interest rates today make it much cheaper. Carbon pricing can ensure that the shift happens in the most efficient way possible. The timing is particularly propitious because the costs of wind and solar power have tumbled. A relatively small push from a carbon price can give renewables a decisive advantage – one which can become permanent as wider deployment made them cheaper still. True, carbon prices are not popular with politicians. Even so, Europe is planning an expansion of its carbon-pricing scheme; and China is instituting a brand new one. Proceeds from a carbon tax can be over 1% of gross domestic product (GDP); and this money can either be paid as a dividend to the public or, help lower government debts (which will reach 122% of GDP in advanced nations, and will rise even further if green investments are debt-financed). Negative emissions To be sure, carbon pricing by itself is unlikely to create a network of electric-vehicle charging-points; more nuclear power plants and programmes to retrofit inefficient buildings; and to develop technologies aimed at reducing emissions that cannot simply be electrified away (such as those from large aircrafts and farms). They could be counterbalanced by “negative emissions” that take carbon dioxide (CO2) out of the atmosphere at a similar rate, i.e. through developing negative emission technologies; more gentle emissions cut in the near future to be made up by negative emissions later on; farming in ways that make the soil richer in organic carbon; restoring degraded forests and planting new ones; growing plantation crops, burning them to generate electricity and sequestering the carbon dioxide given off underground; and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage. In these areas, subsidies and direct government investment are needed. Some governments have already put efforts into greening their Covid-19 bailouts. In other countries, the risk is of climate damaging policies: US has been relaxing its environment rules; whereas China continues to build new coal plants. The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimated that emissions of CO2 in 2019 had remained the same (33.3 billion tonnes) as the previous years. Energy-related emissions (which include those produced by electricity generation, heating and transport) account for more than 70% of the world’s industrial CO2 pollution. The stall seems to have been caused by a fall in coal and oil use, combined with a rise in the use of renewable power. Some governments have already put efforts into greening their Covid-19 bailouts. In other countries, the risk is of climate damaging policies: US has been relaxing its environment rules; whereas China continues to build new coal plants. The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimated that emissions of CO2 in 2019 had remained the same (33.3 billion tonnes) as the previous years. Energy-related emissions (which include those produced by electricity generation, heating and transport) account for more than 70% of the world’s industrial CO2 pollution. The stall seems to have been caused by a fall in coal and oil use, combined with a rise in the use of renewable power. Historically, it acted as an absorbing sponge for CO2 by removing it from the atmosphere through photosynthesis. Researchers at Brazil’s National Institute for Space Research indicated that about one-fifth of south-east Amazon has lost its ability to soak up the gas, and is now a net source of emissions instead. Most disappointing. Carpe Covid I should say the Covid-19 pause is not inherently climate-friendly. Nations need to make it so, the aim being to show that by 2021, they will have made sufficient progress to meet the Paris target commitments. The pandemic demonstrated that the foundations of prosperity are precarious. Disasters come without warning, shaking all that seemed stable. Indeed, the harm from climate change will be slower than the pandemic, but more massive and longer lasting. There is a lesson to be learnt. What then are we to do? Warming depends on the cumulative emissions to date; a fraction of one year’s toll makes no appreciable difference. But returning the world to the emission levels of 2010 – for a 7% drop – raises the tantalising prospect of crossing a psychologically significant boundary. I think the peak in CO2 emissions from fossil fuels may be a lot closer than many assume. That such emissions have to peak, and soon, is a central tenet of climate policy. Precisely when they might do so, though, is policy dependent. We know the idea of stripping carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere is fraught with problems. One is the scale to make a difference. Imagine that in 2060 the world manages to renounce 90% of its fossil fuel use. To offset the remaining recalcitrant 10% will still mean soaking up about one billion tonnes of carbon a year. Industrial systems currently operate at barely a thousandth of that scale. Creating such a flow through photosynthesis will require, I think, a plantation the size of Mexico. The second problem: imaginary backstops are dangerous. They deter nations in undertaking the huge efforts required to make the needed negative emissions a reality. And a third: the known unknowns – high likelihood of drought and crop failures; changes to regional climate that upset whole economies; storms more destructive in both their winds and their rains; seawater submerging beaches and infiltrating aquifers – all add to more anxiety. And in the spaces in between, are the unknown unknowns – as surprising, and deadly, as a thunderstorm that kills and the great ice-sheets that are doomed slowly to collapse. Above all, only the pathway embodying the strongest climate action (much stronger than what is promised so far) can allow the world to keep the temperature rise since the 18th century well below two degree Celcius in the 21st. This had led a new generation of climate activists to demand greater commitments at the next UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. There remain serious problems: how to get people and nations who do not share their passion and commitment, to do more – much more. If governments really want to limit climate change, they must do more. They do not have to do everything; but need to send out clear signals. Around the world, they currently provide US$400bil a year in direct support for fossil fuel consumption; more than twice what they spend subsidising renewable production. A price on carbon, which hastens the day when new renewables are sustainably cheaper than old fossil fuel plants, is a crucial step. So is research spending aimed at those emissions which are hard to electrify away. Governments have played a vital role in the development of solar panels, wind turbines and fracking. There is a lot more to do. However much they do, though, and however well they do it, they will not stop what’s on-going. On today’s policies, I think the rise by the end of the century looks closer to three degree Celcius. Besides trying to limit climate change, I am afraid the world also needs to learn how to adapt to it. |
|
Australia seen as successful in Covid-19 response, deplorable in climate response
 Global report gives Australia an A for coronavirus response but a D on climate https://theconversation.com/global-report-gives-australia-an-a-for-coronavirus-response-but-a-d-on-climate- 141982 John Thwaites Chair, Monash Sustainable Development Institute & ClimateWorks Australia, Monash University 6 July 20 The global Sustainable Development Report 2020, released this week in New York, ranks Australia third among OECD countries for the effectiveness of its response to the COVID-19 pandemic, beaten by only South Korea and Latvia.Yet Australia trundled in at 37th in the world on its overall progress in achieving the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals, which cover a range of economic, social and environmental challenges – many of which will be crucial considerations as we recover from the pandemic. Australia’s worst results are in climate action and the environment, where we rate well below most other OECD countries.
South Korea tops the list of effective COVID-19 responses, whereas New Zealand (which declared the coronavirus eliminated on June 8, albeit with a few sporadic cases since) is ranked sixth. Meanwhile, the United States, United Kingdom and several other Western European countries rank at the bottom of the list. South Korea, Latvia and Australia did well because they not only kept infection and death rates low, but did so with less economic and social disruption than other nations. Rather than having to resort to severe lockdowns, they did this by testing and tracing, encouraging community behaviour change, and quarantining people arriving from overseas. Using smartphone data from Google, the report shows that during the severe lockdown in Spain and Italy between March and May this year, mobility within the community – including visits to shops and work – declined by 62% and 60%, respectively. This shows how much these countries were struggling to keep the virus at bay. In contrast, mobility declined by less than 25% in Australia and by only 10% in South Korea. Why has Australia performed well?There are several reasons why Australia’s COVID-19 response has been strong, although major challenges remain. National and state governments have followed expert scientific advice from early in the pandemic. The creation of the National Cabinet fostered relatively harmonious decision-making between the Commonwealth and the states. Australia has a strong public health system and the Australian public has a history of successfully embracing behaviour change. We have shown admirable adaptability and innovation, for example in the radical expansion of telehealth. We should learn from these successes. The Sustainable Development Goals provide a useful framework for planning to “build back better”. The Sustainable Development Goals, agreed by all countries in 2015, encompass a set of 17 goals and 169 targets to be met by 2030. Among the central aims are economic prosperity, social inclusion, and environmental sustainability. They are arguably even more important than before in considering how best to shape our post-pandemic world. As the report points out, the fallout from COVID-19 is likely to have a highly negative impact on achievement of many of the goals: increased poverty due to job losses (goal 1), disease, death and mental health risks (goal 3), disproportionate economic impacts on women and domestic violence (goal 5), loss of jobs and business closures (goal 8), growing inequality (goal 10), and reduction in use of public transport (goal 11). The impact on the environmental goals is still unclear: the short-term reduction in global greenhouse emissions is accompanied by pressure to reduce environmental safeguards in the name of economic recovery. How do we ‘build back better’?The SDGs already give us a roadmap, so really we just need to keep our sights set firmly on the targets agreed for 2030. Before COVID-19, the world was making progress towards achieving the goals. The percentage of people living in extreme poverty fell from 10% in 2015 to 8.6% in 2018. Access to basic transport infrastructure and broadband have been growing rapidly in most parts of the world. Australia’s story is less positive, however. On a composite index of performance on 115 indicators covering all 17 goals, the report puts Australia 37th in the world, but well behind most of the countries to which we like to compare ourselves. Sweden, Denmark and Finland top the overall rankings, followed by France and Germany. New Zealand is 16th. It is not surprising, in light of our performance during the pandemic, that Australia’s strongest performance is on goal 3: good health. The report rates Australia as on track to achieve all health targets. Australia also performs strongly on education (goal 4), and moderately well on goals relating to water, economic growth, infrastructure and sustainable cities. However, we perform extremely poorly in energy (goal 7), climate change (goal 13) and responsible consumption and production (goal 12), where our reliance on fossil fuels and wasteful business practices puts us near the bottom of the field. On clean energy (goal 7), the share of renewable energy in total primary energy supply (including electricity, transport and industry) is only 6.9%. In Germany it is 14.1%, and in Denmark an impressive 33.4%. Australia rates poorly on goal 12, responsible consumption and production, with 23.6kg of electronic waste per person and high sulfur dioxide and nitrogen emissions. Australia’s performance on goal 13, climate action, is a clear fail. Our annual energy-related carbon dioxide emissions are 14.8 tonnes per person – much higher than the 5.5 tonnes for the average Brit, and 4.3 tonnes for the typical Swede. And whereas in the Nordic countries the indicators for goal 15 — biodiversity and life on land — are generally improving, the Red List measuring species survival is getting worse in Australia. There are many countries that consider themselves world leaders but now wish they had taken earlier and stronger action against COVID-19. Australia listened to the experts, took prompt action, and can hopefully look back on the pandemic with few regrets. But on current form, there will be plenty to regret about our reluctance to follow scientific advice on climate change and environmental degradation, and our refusal to show anything like the necessary urgency. |
|
Independent advice essential for Kimba community: they have received only pro nuclear dump propaganda
Having read the Hansard transcript of Tuesday’s Senate committee hearing it becomes even more imperative that the community at Kimba opposing the facility and others who are not completely convinced must get their own independent advice and assessment on the government’s proposals
The most concerning of the evidence was that on behalf of ARPANSA which contrary to expectations suggested that any community involvement or engagement in the licensing process would be rather perfunctory
The way I understand that evidence by Dr Larsson is that the extent of the consultations with the community will really be what and how the community decides – this would suggest that they will be in a far stronger position if they have proper technical information and knowledge to argue against the government’s proposals in the course of the consultations
In view of this evidence the chairman and members of the inquiry committee should be formally requested to provide the necessary funding for the independent advice and assessment and the right to bring the results into the evidence for the inquiry
The community at Kimba opposing the facility, and others must stress the disadvantage and unfairness in their being deprived of that advice and assessment, and that is it is also equitable for the Government to pay for the independent assessment having regard to the money already given to the community to bolster approval for the government’s choice of the facility location
After all how can ARPANSA expect them to be fully and properly involved in the community consultation process if they do not have the necessary information?
AustralianGovtWatcher comments on Senate Committee enquiry hearing on Tuesday 30 June 2020
In general both the committee members and the witnesses appeared to be ill prepared and lacked knowledge of some of the pertinent issues involved
Several important factors were neither raised by questions nor otherwise dealt with by the witnesses – these included:
- details of expenditure of the whole exercise particularly the cost of the reports by AECOM
- more specific description of how the Kimba proposals and present arrangements for storage of nuclear waste comply with international standards and best practice
- no information on the radionuclides inventories and mobility
- information on examination of techniques and methods for permanent disposal of intermediate level waste – merely mentioned directional drilling which no doubt refers to the borehole technology
- no specific mention of geological burial requirements and applicable codes
- complete silence on immediate availability of the highly suitable Leonora site of the Azark Project
- no questions regarding the previous nominations
- no questioning of the ballot results yet seemed to agree with the Department’s proposition that the Barngarla peoples’ own ballot was of not much help since so many had not voted
Senator Sarah Hanson-Young pursued a couple of worthwhile points regarding consultations with the Barngarla and their lack of informed consent and the issue of double handling of the intermediate level waste by initial storage at Kimba followed by permanent disposal at some other location
The other member who pursued a number of issues with some success was Senator Jenny McAllister but again she appeared to lack the required knowledge to be really effective
However she was a butt to Senator Chris Carr who is obviously very much in favour of the Kimba proposal particularly with his references to his discussions with Dr Adi Paterson from ANSTO
Senator Rex Patrick asked some good questions but regrettably this was obviously slanted towards his present campaign to get the waste disposed of at Woomera
Perhaps the most badly prepared witness was Ms Sam Chard from the Department who simply could not answer some fairly basic questions and kept asking for them to be put on notice for subsequent provision of the necessary information – she was actually castigated by Senator McAllister
Asking for requests to be put on notice is invariably good tactics to avoid having to answer immediately an uncomfortable question and I suspect there is more use of this than necessary
However this can be reduced to some extent if the inquiry committee made greater use of its powers of production and discovery before and even during the hearings
The witness with whose answers I was disappointed – and I did see a bit of him on video – was Dr Carl-Magnus Larsson from ARPANSA who was very noncommittal and not extremely helpful by continuously claiming that ARPANSA would only become involved once it received the applications for the necessary licences for the Kimba facility
The very disappointing aspect of his evidence is that he would not provide any significant technical information and seemed too interested in shoring up the position of ANSTO
It is of course very difficult in these hearings since the members of the enquiring committee are mostly not trained in the art of forensic questioning as well as having insufficient knowledge to make the inquiry process very effective
It also seems that the research team for the enquiry did not delve sufficiently into various issues that should be investigated which only makes it more difficult for the committee considering the limited time given to each member for questions
From the submissions by the government and its agencies it is now quite clear that the community members opposing the Kimba facility must get proper independent assessment and advice to be able to be involved in the consultations with ARPANSA during the licensing process in a meaningful manner
They should ask the committee to ensure sufficient funds are available for that purpose as otherwise it will be practically impossible for the community members to deal with the technical and rather scientific aspects of the licensing applications particularly as Dr Larsson was not overly encouraging in his evidence about assisting them
The best self serving evidence was from AEMCO who simply relied on their report and very stated that quite a few of the issues raised by questions ere outside of its commission
Murdoch press enthusiastic about nuclear propagandist Michael Shellenger
Murdoch press supports ‘reformed climate activist’ Michael Shellenberger https://independentaustralia.net/business/business-display/murdoch-press-supports-reformed-climate-activist-michael-shellenberger,14065 By Steve Bishop | 3 July 2020, The mainstream press published an attack on climate science by a supposed environmentalist who is, in fact, a nuclear lobbyist, writes Steve Bishop.
THE AUSTRALIAN misled its readers this week when it carried a major article purporting to be written by a climate activist who was, as it turned out, admitting climate science was bunkum.
Michael Shellenberger, headlined as an environmentalist in the article, is, in fact, a self-advertised nuclear power lobbyist and an advocate for nuclear weapons proliferation.
Other Murdoch newspapers and Australia’s Sky News have also carried Shellenberger’s claim that:
‘On behalf of environmentalists everywhere, I would like to formally apologise for the climate scare we created over the past 30 years.’
He may once have been an environmentalist, but the fact is he was exposed – not for the first time – for attacking climate science as long ago as 2010 by the Public Interest Research Centre which reported that along with a co-author he had restated:
‘…a plethora of half-truths, misrepresentations and outright fantasies that have lately become almost canonical in the public sphere.’
Shellenberger makes his agenda clear on various websites and elsewhere: the present approach to dealing with climate change is not working, renewable power sources won’t solve the problem and, therefore, the entire world needs to be nuclear powered.
He told the Sydney Morning Herald in 2017 that the widespread adoption of nuclear power across the world would solve the climate change problem:
“…because it basically reduces your carbon emissions to near zero in the power sector.”
The Herald described him not as an environmentalist but as a ‘nuclear power advocate’.
In 2003, he co-founded the Breakthrough Institute which says on its website:
Breakthrough’s energy work has focused heavily on the future of nuclear energy. Along with a growing cohort of scientists, journalists, philanthropists, and environmentalists, we have made the case that addressing climate change will require abundant, cheap, safe, and reliable nuclear energy.’
In 2016, he became the founder and president of an enterprise lobbying for the nuclear industry, giving it the misleading title of Environmental Progress.
He describes its aim:
‘The greatest threat to the climate today comes from the decline of clean energy as a share of electricity globally. EP is working with scientists, conservationists and citizens around the world to defend our largest source of clean energy, nuclear power.’
The website boasts:
‘He has helped save nuclear reactors around the world, from Illinois and New York to South Korea and Taiwan, thereby preventing an increase in air pollution equivalent to adding over 24 million cars to the road.’
In a major article for Forbes magazine in 2018, Shellenberger wrote:
‘Who are we to deny weak nations the nuclear weapons they need for self-defence?’
In another 2018 Forbes article under the cross-heading ‘Why nuclear energy prevents war’, Shellenberger wrote:
‘After over 60 years of national security driving nuclear power into the international system, we can now add “preventing war” to the list of nuclear energy’s superior characteristics.’
Renew Economy reported in 2017 he was:
‘…stridently pro-nuclear, hostile towards renewable energy and hostile towards the environment movement.’
At that time, Shellenberger was in Australia to speak at a major conference – not a climate change summit but the International Mining and Resources Conference – to advance the cause of nuclear power.
This is not the first time The Australian has used this nuclear lobbyist to attack renewable energy and climate science. It featured him three years ago under the headline: ‘Nuclear “must replace coal, gas”’.
He was in Australia to promote his message that wind and solar have failed, that they are doubling the cost of electricity and that:
“…all existing renewable technologies do is make the electricity system chaotic and provide greenwash for fossil fuels.”
In his article, Shellenberger gives 12 examples of scientific findings which he says are incorrect and which are climate alarmism.
Take just the first: ‘Humans are not causing a “sixth mass extinction”’.
His assertion contradicts the work of more than 1,000 scientists contributing to the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) which found ‘1,000,000 species threatened with extinction’ and warned:
“We are eroding the very foundations of our economies, livelihoods, food security, health and quality of life worldwide.”
What makes The Australian’s publishing of the article all the more risible is that in reality, it is a puff piece for Shellenberger’s new book, ‘Apocalypse Never’ and is more or less identical with what he had published on his website on 29 June.
Forbes, which has carried Shellenberger’s articles in the past, withdrew the puff piece.
National Post asked Forbes why this had happened and was told:
‘Forbes requires its contributors to adhere to strict editorial guidelines. This story did not follow those guidelines and was removed.’
Don’t expect The Australian to follow suit.
(Readers who might want to read about a real climate scientist changing his mind about global warming should read Professor Richard Muller’s story.)
Australia was the guinea pig population for Britain’s nuclear weapons tests radiation fallout
Jane Goodall on conservation, climate change and COVID-19
CBS News recently spoke to Goodall over a video conference call and asked her questions about the state of our planet. Her soft-spoken grace somehow helped cushion what was otherwise extremely sobering news: “I just know that if we carry on with business as usual, we’re going to destroy ourselves. It would be the end of us, as well as life on Earth as we know it,” warned Goodall.
What follows is a lightly edited transcript of our conversation.
Jeff Berardelli: Destruction of nature is causing some really big concerns around the world. One that comes to the forefront right now is emergent diseases like COVID-19. Can you describe how destruction of the environment contributes to this?
Dr. Jane Goodall: Well, the thing is, we brought this on ourselves because the scientists that have been studying these so-called zoonotic diseases that jump from an animal to a human have been predicting something like this for so long. As we chop down at stake tropical rainforest, with its rich biodiversity, we are eating away the habitats of millions of animals, and many of them are being pushed into greater contact with humans. We’re driving deeper and deeper, making roads throughout the habitat, which again brings people and animals in contact with each other. People are hunting the animals and selling the meat, or trafficking the infants, and all of this is creating environments which are perfect for a virus or a bacteria to cross that species barrier and sometimes, like COVID-19, it becomes very contagious and we’re suffering from it.
But we know if we don’t stop destroying the environment and disrespecting animals — we’re hunting them, killing them, eating them; killing and eating chimpanzees in Central Africa led to HIV/AIDS — there will be another one. It’s inevitable.
Do you fear that the next [pandemic] will be a lot worse than this one?
Well, we’ve been lucky with this one because, although it’s incredibly infectious, the percentage of people who die is relatively low. Mostly they recover and hopefully then build up some immunity. But supposing the next one is just as contagious and has a percentage of deaths like Ebola, for example, this would have an even more devastating effect on humanity than this one.
I think people have a hard time connecting these, what may look like chance events, with our interactions and relationship with nature. Can you describe to people why the way that we treat the natural world is so important?
Well, first of all, it’s not just leading to zoonotic diseases, and there are many of them. The destruction of the environment is also contributing to the climate crisis, which tends to be put in second place because of our panic about the pandemic. We will get through the pandemic like we got through World War II, World War I, and the horrors following the World Trade towers being destroyed. But climate change is a very real existential threat to humankind and we don’t have that long to slow it down.
Intensive farming, where we’re destroying the land slowly with the chemical poisons, and the monocultures — which can be wiped out by a disease because there is no variation of crops being grown — is leading to habitat destruction. It’s leading to the creation of more CO2 through fossil fuels, methane gas and other greenhouse gas [released] by digestion from the billions of domestic animals.
It’s pretty grim. We need to realize we’re part of the environment, that we need the natural world. We depend on it. We can’t go on destroying. We’ve got to somehow understand that we’re not separated from it, we are all intertwined. Harm nature, harm ourselves.
If we continue on with business as usual, what do you fear the outcome will be?
Well, if we continue with business as usual, we’re going to come to the point of no return. At a certain point the ecosystems of the world will just give up and collapse and that’s the end of us eventually too.
What about our children? We’re still bringing children into the world — what a grim future is theirs to look forward to. It’s pretty shocking but my hope is, during this pandemic, with people trapped inside, factories closed down temporarily, and people not driving, it has cleared up the atmosphere amazingly. The people in the big cities can look up at the night sky and sea stars are bright, not looking through a layer of pollution. So when people emerge [from the pandemic] they’re not going to want to go back to the old polluted days.
Now, in some countries there’s not much they can do about it. But if enough of them, a groundswell becomes bigger and bigger and bigger [and] people say: “No I don’t want to go down this road. We want to find a different, green economy. We don’t want to always put economic development ahead of protecting the environment. We care about the future. We care about the health of the planet. We need nature,” maybe in the end the big guys will have to listen……….https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jane-goodall-climate-change-coronavirus-environment-interview/?ftag=CNM-00-10aab7e&linkId=92720503
Julian Assange’s fight for freedom
Julian Assange’s fight for freedom https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/latenightlive/julian-assanges-fight-for-freedom/12409182?fbclid=IwAR2rdBdg8aKbjWtITDgh-0EYRgJ_jqGuHL2HhlBxZe6cWz_Jwtt5HxUXl9k
By Phillip Adams on Late Night Live n a revised edition of his book ‘The Most Dangerous Man in the World’, Investigative reporter Andrew Fowler reports on a tangled tale regarding the negotiations between Julian Assange and the US Department of Justice, to strike a deal with the incoming Trump Administration. At that time, Wikileaks was in a strong bargaining position with its Vault 7 CIA disclosures, but a lack of trust and mounting pressure from various sources saw Assange decide to publish the CIA secrets.
Michael Shellenberger mucked up the pro nuclear “climate action” propaganda
The environmentalist’s apology: how Michael Shellenberger unsettled some of his prominent supporters
The American environment and energy commentator’s piece in the Australian has found praise in conservative media , Guardian Graham Readfearn @readfearn, 4 Jul 2020 Few things engage a particular subset of conservative media more than an environmentalist having an apparent change of heart and dumping all over the “climate scare”.
Earlier this week, the Australian newspaper ran an opinion piece that fitted this narrative so perfectly that room was found on its front page.
The American environment and energy commentator and nuclear power supporter Michael Shellenberger was the provider.
“On behalf of environmentalists everywhere, I would like to formally apologise for the climate scare we created over the past 30 years,” wrote Shellenberger in his 1,700-word article.
A long interview on Australia’s Sky television, known for airing derisory views of environmentalism and climate change in its evening schedules, soon followed.
Though he had almost no profile in Australia before the piece, Shellenberger has been a contrarian voice on environmental issues and a critic of aspects of environmentalism for more than 15 years.
But his “apology for the climate scare” has unsettled some supporters of his who spoke to Guardian Australia.
His op-ed was first published three days earlier on Forbes, but was removed by the outlet.
Shellenberger claimed on social media he had been censored and told rightwing site the Daily Wire he was grateful Forbes was committed to publishing viewpoints that “challenge the conventional wisdom, and thus was disappointed my editors removed my piece from the web”.
Forbes told Guardian Australia the article was removed “because it violated our editorial guidelines around self-promotion”.
Before appearing in the Australian, the op-ed also ran on the website of Shellenberger’s thinktank, Environmental Progress, and on at least three other sites. The article heavily promoted Shellenberger’s new book, Apocalypse Never.
The article contained a list of “facts few people know” to buttress his claim that while climate change was happening, “it’s not even our most serious environmental problem”.
Among Shellenberger’s many claims was that climate change was not making natural disasters worse, fires had declined around the world since 2003, and the more dangerous fires being experienced in Australia and California were because of the build up of wood fuel and more houses near forests, not climate change.
Voices that have questioned human-caused climate change have embraced and applauded Shellenberger’s article.
At the same time, climate science experts have also offered qualified praise, while expressing concerns about the broader impact of the opinion article.
Respected MIT climate expert Prof Kerry Emanuel sits on a line-up of science advisers of Environmental Progress.
He told Guardian Australia he was “very concerned” about the opinion piece, and was consulting with other members of the advisory group before deciding whether to remain listed…….
He said: “For example, he states ‘climate change is not making natural disasters worse’ when there is plenty of evidence that it is.”….
One example of the more questionable claims in the opinion piece comes when Shellenberger claims fires in Australia and California were becoming more dangerous because of the “build-up of wood fuel and more houses near forests, not climate change”.
That claim is at odds with many studies showing higher temperatures driven by rising levels of greenhouse have already increased the risks of bushfires in Australia and will continue to do so in the future.
A review of the academic literature produced earlier this year in response to Australia’s devastating bushfire summer found “human-induced warming has already led to a global increase in the frequency and severity of fire weather, increasing the risks of wildfire”. …..
According to the latest publicly available financial records, Environmental Progress earned US$809,000 in revenue in 2017 from gifts, grants and donations.
In the process of researching this article, Guardian Australia emailed questions to Shellenberger to clarify why Forbes had removed his article and who funded his organisation.
A third question related to a 2017 internal report from the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) which said the institute, which represents the nuclear energy industry, had “engaged third parties to engage with media through interviews and op-eds” and named “environmentalist Michael Shellenberger” as one of those it had engaged……… https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jul/04/the-environmentalists-apology-how-michael-shellenberger-unsettled-some-of-his-prominent-supporters
Rare type of leukaemia, other health effects, in British veterans of nuclear testing
“My task was to go in and pick up all the radioactive debris, load them into my truck and take them to the decontamination centre.
“I had no protection whatsoever. The only people who had protection on Christmas Island were civilian AWREs – Atomic Weapons Research Establishment people.”
A study undertaken by Sue Rabbitt Roff, a social scientist at Dundee University in 1999, found that of 2,261 children born to veterans, 39% were born with serious medical conditions. By contrast, the national incidence figure in Britain is around 2.5%.
“I want them to apologise to all the nuclear veterans for using us as experiments,” he said.
I still maintain that they wanted to find out the level of radiation that a person could survive the nuclear bombs with.
I want them to apologise to all the nuclear veterans for using us as experiments’, says Fife Christmas Island veteran, https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/local/fife/1377815/i-want-them-to-apologise-to-all-the-nuclear-veterans-for-using-us-as-experiments-says-fife-christmas-island-veteran/ July 4 2020 Michael Alexander. Here’s why nuclear test veteran Dave Whyte from Fife intends to campaign for justice “until the end”
In the 18 years that Christmas Island veteran Dave Whyte from Fife has been campaigning for “justice” for Britain’s nuclear test veterans, he has never held back with the language he has used to describe the Ministry of Defence’s treatment of British soldiers during the nuclear tests of the 1950s.
He has compared the nuclear tests with the “experiments of Nazi Doctor Joseph Mengele”, accused the MoD of treating soldiers as “guinea pigs” and made comparisons with the aftermath of “Chernobyl”.
He blames his exposure to the fallout from five atomic and hydrogen bomb blasts in 1958 for a catalogue of health problems he’s experienced over the years including the loss of all his teeth at 25 and the discovery in his mid-30s that he was sterile.
The Ministry of Defence, meanwhile, has said there is no valid evidence linking the nuclear tests to ill health.
But despite numerous attempts at legal action against the MoD over the years, which, he admits have “hit every brick wall available”, the now 83-year-old, of Kirkcaldy, is refusing to give up as he continues searching for an admission that he, and thousands of other servicemen – now dwindling in numbers – were exposed to more radiation than the authorities have ever admitted.
Born and raised in Montrose before a spell living in Edinburgh and Germany where his sergeant major father served with the Royal Artillery, Mr Whyte was 22-years-old and serving with the Royal Engineers when he was sent to Christmas Island in the South Pacific in 1958.
The Cold War was at its height and Mr Whyte was stationed there, off the north-eastern coast of Australia, to assist with British nuclear tests.
His job was to collect samples afterwards.
At the time the stakes were high. Amid real fears that the Cold War could escalate into open warfare with the USSR, Britain was determined that it should have its own nuclear deterrent.
In all, Britain and the USA caused some 40 nuclear test explosions in the Pacific region between 1952 and 1962.
Something like 21,000 British servicemen were exposed to these explosions.
But little did Mr Whyte and his colleagues realise that in years to come, some would suffer ill health and in some cases premature death.
Some would suffer from rare forms of leukaemia.
Others reported congenital deformities in their children with a disproportionate number of stillbirths.
“I was at Grapple Y – the largest hydrogen bomb exploded by Britain,” said Mr Whyte. Continue reading
Australia ranks second worst in world on climate action, outside top 50 on clean energy — RenewEconomy
Australia ranks second last in world for climate action in the latest assessment of progress towards the UN Sustainable Development Goals, beaten only by Brunei. The post Australia ranks second worst in world on climate action, outside top 50 on clean energy appeared first on RenewEconomy.
Australia ranks second worst in world on climate action, outside top 50 on clean energy — RenewEconomy
Know your NEM: Prices down, despite seasonality of rooftop solar — RenewEconomy
It’s a time of low output for rooftop solar, and the share of large scale wind and solar is also off its peak, but Australia’s power prices are still at low levels. The post Know your NEM: Prices down, despite seasonality of rooftop solar appeared first on RenewEconomy.
Know your NEM: Prices down, despite seasonality of rooftop solar — RenewEconomy
Former Socceroos captain wants Australia to show climate leadership as World Cup host — RenewEconomy
Former Socceroos captain calls for Australia to use role as 2023 World Cup hosts to show leadership on climate change. The post Former Socceroos captain wants Australia to show climate leadership as World Cup host appeared first on RenewEconomy.
Former Socceroos captain wants Australia to show climate leadership as World Cup host — RenewEconomy
Antinuclear 