Andrew Forrest attacks Coalition’s nuclear “bulldust” and betraying the bush
Rachel Williamson, Feb 26, 2024, https://reneweconomy.com.au/andrew-forrest-attacks-coalitions-nuclear-bulldust-and-betraying-the-bush/—
Mining billionaire and green energy evangelist Dr Andrew Forrest has come out swinging against the deepening support for nuclear, and the aversion to wind and solar power within the National and Liberal parties in the name of farmers.
Forrest called on the federal government to speed up the transition away from carbon-intensive industries via three “simple” policies, and called on the government-in-waiting to stop spreading misinformation about renewables.
In the last fortnight opposition leader Peter Dutton doubled down on his calls for small modular nuclear reactors to be put in small Australian towns, saying he’d put one on the former Alcoa mine and power station site in the coastal Victorian town of Anglesea, while energy spokesman Ted O’Brien would put one in the Latrobe Valley.
Nationals leader David Littleproud also wants to stop the rollout of large scale renewables in Australia because rural areas are “saturated” with them, and wants to limit the energy transition to residential rooftop solar and arrays on commercial buildings.
Forrest pooh-poohed their understanding of the economics of major projects, saying the Coalition proposals would leave Australia “destitute” because of the enormously cost of nuclear compared to wind and solar.
“I ask you who claim to represent the bush now to stop dividing us with the false hope that we can cling to fossil fuels forever,” Forrest said during a talk at the National Press Club.
” We can’t, so please stop betraying the bush. If we swallow this new lie that we should stop the rollout of green energy, and that nuclear energy will be a fairy godmother, we will be worse off again.
“These misinformed, unscientific, uneconomic plucked out of thin air, bulldust nuclear policies, [from] politicians masquerading as leaders, helps no one. Politicians who do whatever they can to discourage votes are just politicians, they are not political leaders.”
Forrest cited in particular the misinformation that Australian farmers will have to give up huge tracts of land to enable the green energy transition (a meme advanced by the Institute of Public Affairs and repeated by the likes or rival iron ore billionaire Gina Rinehart and the Coalition.
Forrest also announced a fund to help with wind and solar farm decommissioning and calling on the federal government to better regulate renewables developers to ensure they set aside money for that purpose.
It’s easy with three “simple” policies
Forrest wants to see a test for all major projects that explicitly considers climate impacts, for the country to lean into least cost, firmed renewables, and for the carbon levy proposed by Rod Sims and Ross Garnaut on fossil fuel imports and exports.
“We can circuit break the cost of living crisis, turn around unemployment and play our full part in decarbonizing at least to 6 per cent of global emissions through new green export industries,” he said.
“Australia can generate not one but many of its own Australian Aramcos with the right policy settings. We can achieve all these with three simple policies.”
An impact test would create a climate trigger for every project requiring government approval, making carbon emissions and global warming automatically part of any environmental assessment.
US president Biden has already taken some action in this vein by pausing LNG export projects pending an assessment of the impacts on climate change.
Forrest claimed that it is the US’ “forward thinking climate strategy” and not the enormous funding on offer under the inflation Reduction Act (IRA) that is why Fortescue is building a liquid green hydrogen project in Phoenix, Arizona.
The second policy recommendation, leaning into renewables, repeats calls to roll out renewables faster in order to bring down the cost of electricity for Australians, while the third demanded an end to the “free ride” of fossil fuel companies via a carbon levy.
“The multi decadal polluting companies have exploited vicious lobbying for approvals so they can crowd out green energy, so they can prevent Australians from having the choice between cheaper green energy, which would destroy their livelihoods,” Forrest said.
“Let’s be clear for the sake of the visionless, a carbon solutions levy is not a carbon tax… it would only be applied to the 100-odd fossil fuel extraction sites in Australia and to importers, who are stopping us making our own energy. The beauty of this levy is that it does not penalise everyday Australians.
“It only penalises that the perpetrators of this crisis, the fossil fuel industry… Existing gas projects will continue to operate, they’ll just have to pay the levy. They’ll just have to pay their way. That’ll be new.”
He even called out taxpayer support for miners to use imported diesel, naming his own company Fortescue as one beneficiary.
“Their lobby groups quickly hide behind the Australian farm to defend the diesel fuel rebate. But they know that the vast proportion of the money goes to big mining and fossil fuel companies, not Australia’s farmers or fishermen.
” The ridiculousness of the rich crying out for more fossil fuel subsidies while denying climate change will surely go down as one of the most perversely selfish behaviours in Australian history.”
Fossil fuel subsidies increased to a record-breaking $57.1 billion in 2023, up from the $55.3 billion forecast in the 2022 budget, according to a report by The Australia Institute last year.
The Fuel Tax Act which subsidises the consumption of diesel, has cost over $95 billion in tax foregone to the Australian economy, via the Fuel Tax Credit Scheme (FTCS), since it was legislated in 2006.
Andrew Forrest and Peter Dutton are on a collision course over Nuclear Power
National Times 26 Feb 24
Andrew ‘Twiggy’ Forrest labels Coalition push for nuclear energy ‘bulldust’ and a ‘new lie’ ( Paul Karp Chief political correspondent for The Guardian)
Mining billionaire says cost of nuclear will be four to five times that of renewables and opposition’s policy is ‘an excuse for doing nothing’
The mining billionaire Andrew “Twiggy” Forrest has labelled the Coalition’s push for nuclear energy “bulldust” and a “new lie” that would delay the clean energy transition and harm regional Australia.
The executive chair and founder of mining company Fortescue and the renewable energy investor Tattarang on Monday urged the opposition to stop advocating expensive and unfeasible alternatives to renewables.
The Coalition is yet to produce a costed energy policy, despite arguing to lift Australia’s ban on nuclear energy and recent comments from the Nationals leader, David Littleproud, that expanded rooftop solar could be rolled out instead of large-scale renewables.
The Liberals and Nationals have complained that large-scale renewables and transmission projects will ruin agricultural land, despite experts debunking the extent of this claimed impact.
Forrest told the National Press Club that “even the fossil fuel industry has taken responsibility” for global heating, and that “doing nothing” is not an option, with Australia to face tariffs from the European Union if it doesn’t reduce emissions.
Forrest told politicians who “claim to represent the bush” – a reference to the Nationals – to “stop dividing us with the false hope that we can cling to fossil fuels for ever … We can’t. So, please stop betraying the bush.”
“If we swallow this new lie that we should stop the rollout of green energy and that nuclear energy will be our fairy godmother, we will be worse off again,” he said.
Forrest said it was “hopeless” that politicians are asking Australians “to wait for new technology in 20 years’ time that may never happen”.
“It’s just an excuse for doing nothing. This is the straight admission that fossil fuels have to go, but their solutions risk leaving us destitute.”
According to energy department estimates for the Albanese government, replacing Australia’s coal power plants with nuclear would cost $387bn.
Forrest said he had “done the numbers” and nuclear will cost four to five times more than renewables, which can reduce emissions within a few years.
“A leader will remind the farming community offline that global warming is real and that all their customers are taking it very seriously,” he said.
“Instead of knocking a slow-moving, gracious wind turbine, try a nuclear power plant or a belching coal plant next door.
“The fact that we can feel climate change already despite the ocean soaking up most of out heat-generated emissions means Australia has finally run out of time.
“We get the next few years wrong and Australia’s economy and the rest of us cook. We get it right, and Australia enjoys decades of economic growth, full employment and reinvigoration of its natural environment.”
Forrest backed the proposal for a carbon solutions levy to raise $100bn, advanced by Ross Garnaut, a leading economist during the Hawke government, and Rod Sims, a former head of the competition watchdog.
Forrest also called for a green hydrogen tax credit to grow the industry, on top of the $2bn hydrogen head start fund, and a climate trigger to block approval of major projects if they contribute to global heating.
Forrest announced that Squadron, his renewable energy venture, will create an industry fund for decommissioning wind turbines so landowners can have “peace of mind” that the landscape will not be harmed if turbines are not renewed and extended.
Sarah Hanson-Young, the Greens environment spokesperson, said that “business leaders like Forrest can see that, for the sake of our environment and economy, we need to stop expanding fossil fuels”.
“Forrest backed the growing call for a climate trigger in environment law and I hope that Labor were listening.”
Earlier on Monday the shadow energy and climate change minister, Ted O’Brien, told reporters in Canberra there was “no doubt that the experts are advising us that one of the best places to locate zero-emissions nuclear reactors would be where coal plants are retired”.
O’Brien accused Labor of “steamrolling regional communities” to build renewables, but could not say what the Coalition would do if communities around existing coal power stations objected to nuclear power.
O’Brien was unable to say how much nuclear power would cost, responding that “a lot of questions that can only be answered once we release our policy”.
“We have been formulating an all-of-the-above [technologies], balanced policy for Australia’s future energy mix.”
No nuclear option for $275m green-manufacturing and innovation grants
Sam McKeith, Feb 26, 2024, https://reneweconomy.com.au/green-manufacturing-gets-275m-boost-with-launch-of-innovation-grant-scheme/
Grants from a NSW $275 million green manufacturing fund will not go towards nuclear projects as the state says the technology is not part of its plans to reach net-zero emissions.
Under the Net Zero Manufacturing Initiative program, announced on Monday, businesses can access grants for manufacture of renewable energy systems, low-carbon products and clean-technology innovation.
The program is part of the state’s legislated pledge to cut greenhouse gas emissions to 50 per cent of 2005 levels by 2030 and hit net zero by 2050.
But Climate Change Minister Penny Sharpe ruled out any grants going to projects such as the development of small modular nuclear reactors, despite a Newspoll on Monday showing two-thirds of younger Australians backed the technology.
“We’re looking at, even if you wanted to start today … a 14-year horizon to get it in the ground, which we don’t actually have,” she told reporters.
“The second point that I make is that nuclear energy is 350 per cent more expensive than renewables.”
Premier Chris Minns said the grants would bolster local manufacturing in the renewable and clean-technology industries, especially among small and medium-sized firms.
“The thing I like about this so much is that it enhances what is taking place in our research universities in the state as it currently stands,” he said.
The initiative will focus on lab-proven tech and the build of “market-ready products” ready to be scaled up and rolled out in NSW, the government says.
It comes as the state scrambles to replace ageing coal power stations with renewable energy to meet its emission targets, while also trying to keep a lid on power prices and maintain capacity.
The Cost of Nuclear War in Space
Putting a weapon into orbit is not just a military threat. It’s also a risk to the billions of dollars pouring into the space economy.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/24/business/dealbook/the-cost-of-nuclear-war-in-space.html By Ephrat Livni and Vivienne Walt
Just before the Russian-Ukrainian war reached its two-year milestone today, U.S. intelligence agencies warned that Russia might aim a nuclear weapon at an unusual target: not any place on Earth, but satellites orbiting in space.
Putting a weapon into orbit is not just a military threat. It’s also a risk to the space economy — and the one on the ground. There is a little-known but fast-growing industry that insures satellites, but it doesn’t provide insurance against nuclear arms.
What’s at stake: hundreds of billions (and probably trillions) of dollars when including the services that rely on satellites, according to David Wade, an underwriter at the Atrium Space Insurance Consortium, which insures satellites for Lloyd’s.
Of more than 8,000 satellites in orbit, thousands belong to private companies, according to Orbiting Now, a site that compiles real-time satellite tracking data from NASA and other sources. The Russian weapon is said to be designed to target satellites in low Earth orbit, where most commercial satellites operate.
SpaceX’s Starlink dominates the space-based internet services industry, and Amazon also has big aspirations in space. But the sharp drop in launch costs in recent years — driven largely by SpaceX — has made entry possible for many smaller players, leading to a satellite-business frenzy that prompted the Federal Communications Commission to open a Space Bureau last year.
Wade estimated the total value of all insured satellites in orbit at $25 billion. That doesn’t include the revenue they generate. The Satellite Industry Association estimated revenues for nongovernmental satellite services at $113 billion in 2022.
Investment in the space economy is increasing quickly. Space activity could total $620 billion this year, according to the most recently available estimate. That’s up from $545 billion in 2022, according to an estimate from the Space Foundation, a nonprofit that promotes space education and enterprise.
Aspirations for the space economy include mining for rare minerals and water, tourism, communications, and data transfer infrastructure. On Thursday, a lunar lander from Intuitive Machines, traveling on a SpaceX rocket, became the first private craft to land on the moon, which some are hopeful leads to mining for water that could be used to make fuel for more distant industrial missions.
A space weapon would cast a pall across other businesses, too. Industries from agriculture to tech depend on satellites, and sectors like shipping, transport, banking and supply chain management rely on GPS, which uses satellites. The threat would also have “a depressive effect” on space company valuations broadly, said Donald Moore, C.E.O. of the Space Finance Corporation and a space policy lecturer at the University of Michigan Law School.
The new threat could also put a dent in the U.S. government’s plans to rely on private players just as the Department of Defense is expected to release details of a new strategy to integrate commercial satellites in national security, noted Brian Weeden, the chief program officer for the Secure World Foundation, a nonprofit that works on space policy.
Some are skeptical of the risk. The precise effects would depend on unknowns about the weapon, company contingency planning and other factors. “We could still communicate,” said Henry Hertzfeld, a space policy professor at George Washington University and former chief economist at NASA. “We still have some landlines,” he added, speaking from his office phone. And he doubts that Russia will introduce this menace, as it would also endanger its space activities. Notably, it would also violate an international space treaty.
But the risk is not covered by insurance. “Exclusions for acts of war, antisatellite devices and nuclear reaction, nuclear radiation or radioactive contamination (except for radiation naturally occurring in the space environment) are typically listed in a space insurance policy,” Wade said in an email.
The U.S. space model depends heavily on commercialization, noted Russell Sawyer, a space insurance broker at Lockton in London. The government has pushed risk out onto private companies, he said, and this trend could shift if this nuclear threat really is serious: “The government would be needed.” — Ephrat Livni
Biden administration restores Trump-rescinded policy on illegitimacy of Israeli settlements
BY MATTHEW LEE, February 24, 2024
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Biden administration on Friday restored a U.S. legal finding dating back nearly 50 years that Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories are “illegitimate” under international law.
Secretary of State Antony Blinken said the U.S. believes settlements are inconsistent with Israel’s obligations, reversing a determination made by his predecessor, Mike Pompeo, in the Biden administration’s latest shift away from the pro-Israel policies pursued by former President Donald Trump.
Blinken’s comments came in response to a reporter’s question about an announcement that Israel would build more than 3,300 new homes in West Bank settlements as a riposte to a fatal Palestinian shooting attack.
It wasn’t clear why Blinken chose this moment, more than three years into his tenure, to reverse Pompeo’s decision. But it came at a time of growing U.S.-Israeli tensions over the war in Gaza, with the latest settlement announcement only adding to the strain. It also came as the United Nations’ highest court, the International Court of Justice, is holding hearings into the legality of the Israeli occupation.
Biden administration officials did not cast Blinken’s comments as a reversal — but only because they claim Pompeo’s determination was never issued formally. Biden administration lawyers concluded Pompeo’s determination was merely his opinion and not legally binding, according to two administration officials who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss private discussions.
But formally issued or not, Pompeo’s announcement in November 2019 was widely accepted as U.S. policy and had not been publicly repudiated until Blinken spoke on Friday.
Speaking in the Argentine capital of Buenos Aires, Blinken said the U.S. was “disappointed” to learn of the new settlement plan announced by Israel’s far-right firebrand finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, after three Palestinian gunmen opened fire on cars near the Maale Adumim settlement, killing one Israeli and wounding five.
Blinken condemned the attack but said the U.S. is opposed to settlement expansion and made clear that Washington would once again abide by the Carter administration-era legal finding that determined settlements were not consistent with international law.
“It’s been longstanding U.S. policy under Republican and Democratic administrations alike that new settlements are counter-productive to reaching an enduring peace,” he said in his news conference with Argentine Foreign Minister Diana Mondino.
“They’re also inconsistent with international law. Our administration maintains a firm opposition to settlement expansion and in our judgment this only weakens, it doesn’t strengthen, Israel’s security,” Blinken said……………………………….. more https://apnews.com/article/israel-settlements-illegitimate-palestine-biden-rescind-law-0bed7cf5d6f98012193e9f5075eb719a
Shock Horror! Serious risk TO INVESTORS of nuclear war in space!
Are investors prepared for *checks notes* nuclear war in space? Space boom, meet actual boom
F.com Sinead O’Sullivan FEBRUARY 24 2024 Sinéad O’Sullivan is a former Senior Researcher at Harvard Business School’s Institute for Strategy and Competitiveness.
Imagine if a country launched a 1.4-megaton nuclear warhead into space and detonated it 400 kilometres above the Pacific Ocean, generating such a huge burst of electromagnetic energy that it resulted in an artificial aurora while disrupting electrical systems over land masses up to 1,500km away and destroying several satellites…………………………………..
This actually happened in 1962. And the actor, naturally, was the United States of America. In the early 1960’s, the United States conducted a series of nuclear tests in space, which were primarily aimed at studying the effects and potential military applications of deploying nuclear weapons in space. The explosion test, called Starfish Prime, was a high-altitude nuclear test conducted as a joint effort of the Atomic Energy Commission and the Defense Atomic Support Agency.
One of the test’s consequences was to catalyse Russian enthusiasm for some ground rules: the Outer Space Treaty was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly a few years later, in 1967……
Today, most people — including investors who have bet billions of dollars on SpaceX’s Starlink constellation — have probably not heard of Starfish Prime, and don’t worry much about the impact of mega-radiation war in space………………….
Regardless, what we do know is that any nuclear weapon in space would — along with a great number of other consequences — pose a huge risk to the $300bn of private capital invested into the space sector in the last decade………………..
It is unideal that there are currently no globally binding rules that protect investor interests and assets in space. Consider the $180bn valuation of SpaceX, which is largely credited to its Starlink satellite communications constellation. This constellation could disappear in the space of minutes with the use of a single nuclear anti-satellite weapon in space — Russian or otherwise. It is possible many investors have not considered that a single adversarial event could destroy value so quickly. …………………………………..
The Outer Space Treaty says that nations cannot militarise space, place weapons in space, or take ownership of any celestial space bodies. This makes it an established investor’s friend, not foe — especially if that investor is American.
It is overseen by the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (UN COPUOUS), but this body cannot legally mandate any nation to follow it. After all, in the jurisdiction of space, adherence is done via the complex mechanisms of diplomacy, something capital markets grossly lack……………….. https://www.ft.com/content/5a9c4477-6db9-4ea5-8ba2-7065f2370b02
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 