New Zealand-Australia testiness over citizenship resolved, but nuclear sensitivities remain
Stuff, Thomas Manch, Apr 24 2023
A thorny trans-Tasman citizenship issue has been resolved, but Prime Minister Chris Hipkin’s Brisbane trip showed nuclear sensitivities are set to linger between New Zealand and Australia.
……………………….questions then centred on an emerging long-term issue – Australia’s planned acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines – questions Albanese was unwilling to answer.
At a joint press conference on Sunday afternoon, after a citizenship ceremony where more than 200 Kiwis pledged allegiance to Australia, Prime Minister Chris Hipkins said he had discussed with Albanese his country’s new Aukus pact.
The pact between Australia, United Kingdom and the United States, will have Australia acquire nuclear-propelled in the coming three decades.
“New Zealand, like Australia, is clear eyed that there is a challenging strategic environment in the Indo-Pacific region,” Hipkins said.
……………….Albanese, asked twice at the press conference about New Zealand’s possible involvement in Aukus, veered away from answering the question, talking instead about the Pacific Island Forum and both countries co-operating on climate change.
New Zealand maintains a strong nuclear-free stance, and Hipkins on Sunday said he welcomed Albanese’s reassurance Australia remained committed to the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.
Despite this, Defence Minister Andrew Little has said New Zealand was interested in joining a second “pillar” of the Aukus arrangement, that would involve the sharing of non-nuclear defence technologies associated with the submarines.
……………………Hipkins was unwilling to answer a hypothetical question about whether he would deny entry to nuclear-propelled Australian vessels into New Zealand waters, but said New Zealand’s nuclear-free policy, “which includes nuclear-propulsion”, had not changed. https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/131848153/transtasman-testiness-over-citizenship-resolved-but-nuclear-sensitivities-remain—
Timothy Nott Submission to Senate – as a conservative opposes risky, expensive, unsustainable nuclear power
As a conservative, I can’t support highly risky, expensive compared to the options
power provision that is unsustainable and misleading as the whole process cost is
not included for the nuclear option against the others that does include the entire
process.
Environment and Other Legislation Amendment (Removing Nuclear Energy Prohibitions) Bill 2022 Submission 141
As a private citizen of Australia, I support cheap reliable energy and thus can not
support the use of nuclear power. I also understand the costs have not included
disposal of waste which is a vital part of the assessment. If this isn’t included, no
comparison can be made for cost and sustainability. Nuclear power is a risk to
Australian national security as the pollution has no effective and safe disposal and
until the legacy of this risk to human health and safety has a solution, there can be
no way to determine the costs or risks. This is unacceptable to my family.
The current approval system for power providers has lead to ongoing losses of jobs
and prosperity for short-term profit. It is damaging the biophysical basis of humans
existence and thus the system is failing the people of Australia. Until the approval
system is changed to allow the community to maintain health and jobs, it will
continue to be unsustainable and damage Australian sovereignty. Adding nuclear
power options to a biased and unsustainable system will add further pressure and
policy that prioritises short-term profit over life. I can not support the increase in
pressures that is currently damaging the prosperity of Australians and increasing
costs on the community.
Considering Australia is the best placed globally to take advantage of the renewable
energy sector, any competition to this will damage this economic strength and limit
Australia’s competitiveness. Australia’s delay in making a transition to cheaper
energy forms has left us behind other countries and thus we are loosing jobs and
economic opportunities. Adding expensive power options that are unsustainable as
they do not include all stages of the power creation process is opposite to good
economic management. If anything like the current gas system experience, this will
lead to more of Australian wealth going overseas with Australian’s and business
paying a high price so corporations can avoid tax and profitise from the monopoly
position. Any financial subsidies that will be required are in direct opposition to
Australian economic strength and jobs creation. I support Australian jobs for
Australian products so currently can’t support including nuclear power approval.
The long time required for nuclear power creation and short lifespan make the option
unable to repair current limitations in the power system. The ongoing delay to using
the natural competitive advantage has already made the nuclear power option less
competitive and risky. Within a decade, renewable energy will be significantly
cheaper and the cost assessment should clearly articulate this. By the time a nuclear
power station is built, it may already be not viable without the entire costs being
included.
As a conservative, I can’t support highly risky, expensive compared to the options
power provision that is unsustainable and misleading as the whole process cost is
not included for the nuclear option against the others that does include the entire
process.
Please don’t waste money, increase risk of increasing costs and accidents and leave
a legacy of expensive and dangerous materials for the next 100plus generations.
The huge cost and unknowns of managing the waste makes the nuclear option far
inferior. As previously stated, I can not support increasing costs forced onto the
Australian public while increasing risk to health and national security. This proposal
demonstrates the corrupted system as no reasonable person who cares about the long-term prosperity and health of average Australians would support such short
term decision making. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Environment_and_Communications/Nuclearprohibitions/Submissions
Grusha Leeman: Submission to Senate – Australia is much too hot for safe nuclear power – let’s not dither with the nuclear distraction
Grusha Leeman. Environment and Other Legislation Amendment (Removing Nuclear Energy Prohibitions) Bill 2022 Submission 136
Retain the ban on nuclear energy.
It is heartwarming to know there is serious consideration being given to replacing the climate destroying fossil fuel power methods, but going back to old failed methods is not the best answer for this sunny windy country.
Australia is much too hot for safe nuclear power
We are in a time of climate crisis. Extreme weather events are inevitable and increasing. We know there will be more heatwaves and droughts and some will be more intense. As nuclear power plants consume a lot of water for cooling, the Australian climate is simply not conducive for safe nuclear power. Nuclear power plants are vulnerable to water stress, the warming of rivers, and rising temperatures, which weaken the cooling of power plants and equipment. Nuclear reactors in an increasing number of countries 1 are being shut down during heatwaves, or see their activity drastically slowed. Overheating can present a major safety risk. We can’t be spraying water on the walls of our nuclear power plants to cool the insides during a heatwave when we are also deep into a drought. As the lakes and rivers that typically supply cooling water become hotter thanks to climate change — and as droughts dry up some water bodies — nuclear power plants aren’t viable. We cannot thermally pollute our seas either. Hotter seas kill the plankton, the seagrasses and the mangroves. Sea Level rise and higher intensity storms mean situating vulnerable nuclear power plants on the coast is becoming less attractive.
We need power that is stable to function during heatwaves. Coal, gas and nuclear are notorious for failing that requirement.
Nuclear is much too expensive.
To protect the climate, we must abate the most carbon at the least cost and in the least time. We must quickly
replace our climate destroying fossil fuel plants with clean electricity. To produce stable affordable electricity we must recognise that the economic factors relating to nuclear rule it out as an option.
Not only is nuclear power greatly more expensive compared with other forms of power, it is essentially
uninsurable. Nuclear power plants depend on large government subsidies to be built, and never has nuclear
energy been profitable. On top of the initial capital costs, the cost of maintaining and decommissioning the plant, there’s the endless safe storage of the radioactive waste. Safe disposal facilities don’t come cheap and nowhere in the country are they wanted.
It is feasible that if we finally got a carbon price, nuclear powered electricity could be better able to compete, butmthe insurance risks would need to be borne by the public as none of Australia’s major insurance agencies are willing to provide cover for nuclear disasters. Indeed, if nuclear power operators were to adequately insure against the risk of nuclear accidents, the insurance premiums would make nuclear power completely uneconomic.
As the CSIRO’s GenCost 2021-22 report points out, solar and wind are the lowest cost way of producing electricity in Australia even when factoring in storage. In addition, whilst renewables are getting cheaper all the time, the costs of building and operating nuclear power plants are increasing.
We would still need to import the fuel rods.
There are currently only a few countries that are allowed to process the yellowcake into nuclear fuel rods and
Australia is likely to continue to be excluded. This would mean we would need to export our raw uranium and then import it once processed into fuel rods at an exorbitant price hike. Just because we have a resource doesn’t mean it will be economic to utilise it.
Nuclear energy is too slow
Stabilising the climate is an urgent emergency. Given the urgency of climate change, we need effective solutions now. It takes only a few years to set up a major wind or solar project, whilst nuclear power is slow. Setting up new plants takes about a decade, but some time blowouts have been extraordinary.
Also we are still waiting for long ago promised new technologies. We can’t afford to wait any longer.
Hypothetical new nuclear power technologies have been promised to be the next big thing for the last forty years, but in spite of massive public subsidies, that prospect has never panned out. That is also true for Small Modular Reactors (SMRs).
Uranium is finite and will run out……………………..
The nuclear fuel cycle produces greenhouse gases
While minimal greenhouse gases are created in the operation of a nuclear reactor, the mining, processing and
transport of uranium and the generation of nuclear waste all produce large amounts of carbon dioxide.
Nuclear power is unhealthy
Uranium mining causes lung cancer in large numbers of miners because uranium mines contain natural radon gas, some of whose decay products are carcinogenic. Uranium miners die of lung cancer at six times the expected rate. Clean, renewable energy does not have this risk because (a) it does not require the continuous mining of any material, only one-time mining to produce the energy generators; and (b) the mining does not carry the same lung cancer risk that uranium mining does.
The nuclear industry already has an immense radioactive waste legacy.
The storage and disposal of nuclear waste pose a serious risk. Waste from nuclear power plants is highly
radioactive and very difficult to dispose of safely. It can take up to 100,000 years for it to become safer. There is currently no agreed international solution for the long-term storage of high-level nuclear waste. Already there are hundreds of radioactive waste sites in other countries that must be maintained and funded for at least 200,000 years.. The more nuclear waste that accumulates, the greater the risk of radioactive leaks, which can damage water supply, crops, animals, and humans.
Nowhere in Australia is a nuclear waste dump wanted and it is unconscionable to inflict such a burden on unborn future generations along with our climate legacy.
Nuclear brings a scary weapons proliferation risk………………….
Meltdown risk is unacceptable.……………………………….
Conclusion: leave the uranium in the ground.
Australia has abundant safe and cheap renewable resources like solar and wind. As we face an increasingly urgent need to take action on climate change, we must focus on solutions that are scalable, cost-effective, and safe.
According to the Climate Council, Australia is one of the sunniest and windiest countries on earth, with enough renewable energy to power resources to power our country 500 times over. Compared to nuclear power plants, we can build large-scale wind and solar farms in Australia cheap and fast.
Frankly, pursuing nuclear power is just a waste of time and resources in Australia’s race against climate change. We need to focus on renewable energy if we’re going to make a dent in our emissions.
Let’s not get distracted by the nuclear debate. There is a very real risk that the delay and distraction posed by
dithering with old failed technologies like nuclear will mean a failure to advance a just energy transition. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Environment_and_Communications/Nuclearprohibitions/Submissions
Submission refutes the spurious and dishonest nuclear claims of Senator Matt Canavan
Canavans argument that the existing prohibitions should be removed to enable the discussion of nuclear options is absurd. Canavan has already been discussing nuclear options without being constrained by any legislation to prevent him. He can go ahead by himself, knock himself out, discuss, but the protections afforded by the prohibitions do not need to be removed merely to enable the marketing arms of the nuclear industry to operate.
The nuclear industry has consistently presented itself as being on the verge of some breakthrough that would magically make the whole industry somehow viable- such as by the vitrification of waste- a dream promulgated for decades and never realised, the eternal dream of fusion, and the current marketing ploy of “small modular reactors”—none of which actually exist, except possibly one on a barge anchored off the Russian Arctic Coast operated by Russia. Any critical thinker should immediately see the sales that selling some future dream to a gullible purchaser is. The Australian public and parliament does not need to enquire into this kind of . A fantasy eternally on the verge of flowering since 1965, simply is . No further enquiry is necessary.
Environment and Other Legislation Amendment (Removing Nuclear Energy Prohibitions) Bill 2022 Submission 135 NameWithheld
I respond to the notes presented by Matt Canavan, as an explanation for his introduction of a bill to enable the expansion of the nuclear industry in Australia. Ie, the ‘Explanatory memo’ accompanying the second reading.
“First I l would like to acknowledge former Senator for South Australia, Cory Bernardi, for his work in this area “(Canavan)
Canavan acknowledges Bernardi for his ‘work’ in this area. Bernardi was a former Senator, active in obstructing effective action to minimise greenhouse emissions, and as these things roll around- he is now a commentator on Sky News.
The acknowledgement of Bernardis material as a body of work has no merit as an argument—it is merely an appeal to the cult of Cory Bernadi. Canavan has not referenced any single idea, from the “work” as an ‘explanation’, merely the mention of Cory Bernadi’s name, as if this had some meaning or merit by itself. As an argument in favour of expanding the nuclear industry in Australia- it has nil content, except for the appeal to personality- and the argument should be rejected entirely on this basis (or precisely because- it appeals to implied admiration of such a character as Bernadi)
“We are the only developed country, only G20 country in the world that actually bans nuclear energy. This ban was introduced via a Greens amendment in the Senate on 10 December 1999. There was less than 10 minutes of debate on the matter. The Howard Government at the time was seeking legislative support to build a new nuclear research reactor at Lucas Heights. With no immediate prospect of a nuclear power station being built, the Government accepted the amendment so it could proceed with the new research reactor at Lucas Heights “(Canavan).
Without this kind of caution and foresight by the Greens- perhaps the nuclear industry would now have carte-blanche in Australia. It is unclear in his presentation of his idea whether Canavan is suggesting that the debate was insufficient (that the parliamentary process at the time was insufficient), or that the argument then, as now against involvement in the nuclear industry- its connections to weapons proliferation, the cost of accidents, the risk of terrorism, the expansion of nuclear weapons empires, was so compelling as to require little debate. The duration of the debate is irrelevant- what matters is the arguments presented in this time, and the context of their delivery. Canavan has presented no new evidence to support the overturning of this decision.
“Of the 20 richest nations in the world only three do not have nuclear power: Australia, Saudi Arabia and Italy” (Canavan).
What is the purpose of this kind of classification richest versus all the rest? It cannot be to imply cause and effect (ie Nuclear power makes you rich)- otherwise these countries would not be rich. Perhaps it is to invoke some fear of being an outsider (as if a need to be in some arbitrary (15% ‘richest’) is an argument with any merit at all.
“Saudi Arabia is building a nuclear power station” (Canavan).
Saudi Arabia also overtly suppresses the freedom of its press and is known to be directly implicated in the killing and chopping into pieces the bodies of journalists who would expose the decision-making processes of its government to public scrutiny. Yet Canavan apparently holds Saudi Arabia as a meritorious exemplar of how things should be done
“Nuclear plants are generally characterised by large capacity and output, high capital cost, and long construction times, but relatively low operating costs and almost zero emissions to air from their operation “(Canavan).
The “relatively low operating costs” presumably do not include the extended costs of operation such as fisheries contamination, land contamination, air contamination, decommissioning, and waste management, or the costs of disaster management and mitigation. The Chernobyl nuclear event caused thousands of hectares of agricultural land across Scotland to be closed to Agriculture for decades precisely because of nuclear emissions to air- somehow this is ‘near zero’ in the decision-making of Canavan et al.
The Fukishima event caused the closure of much of the Japanese fishery, and the ultimately failed containment attempt will soon see the release of millions of tonnes more of contaminated material- again into the Japanese fishery- the food supply for a nation and world- yet Canavans construction of his argument to include only emissions to air- enables him to make blatantly absurd claims. Canavan et al conveniently exclude these events from their decision-making. The magnitude of these costs might be unknown, but they are certainly very large, and overall do not allow anybody to honestly claim, ‘low operating costs’
The implicit belief apparently heald by Canavan et al, that these kinds of events will not be an ongoing part of the nuclear industry is to demonstrate a kind of faith in their own (technical, scientific, managerial) prowess that appears to exist only in the utterly deluded, the evangelical, or the utterly corrupt- and completely ignores the fundamental human factors that contribute these kinds of errors. Eg the pursuit of power, the pursuit of wealth, and the eternally renewed evidence of the failures of systems, and processes under human management.
Many nations are building new nuclear power plants because they provide reliable, emission free power (Canavan).
Nuclear Power is not emissions free. The only intellectual construction that allows this claim, is to somehow exclude the emissions associated with construction, mining, processing, decommissioning, waste-‘management’ and accident ‘management’ in nuclear facilities. When the entire chain is included, (and also including waste and accidents) then this argument fails. It is utterly disingenuous for any claim of ‘low emissions’ to be made that excludes the whole range of inevitable emissions before and after, the fission itself. It is also utterly foolish to believe such a claim made by others.
Over the next 30 years, the International Atomic Energy Agency predicts that global nuclear power capacity could increase by 80 per cent, and possibly triple in the Asia-Pacific region (Canavan).
The main role of the IAEA is to market Nuclear power for the nuclear mining weapons waste industries worldwide. Onenwould expect the IAEA to make these sorts of predictions. The ‘claim’ is entirely predictable from their job description, and need not have any regard to more independent perspectives or realities. This appeal by Canavan to join some kind of goldrush, to get in fast before they run out, to ride the wave, is the characteristic cry of spruikers, charlatans and hawkers of all manner of get rich schemes. Canavan et al’s spruiking has this characteristic, and his and his ‘co-sponsors’ other ongoing undeclared interest should raise high suspicion in anybody who hears this kind of argument as to the motive for trying to
whip up some kind of frenzy to remove bans on nuclear power development in Australia.
Nuclear power is safe. Nuclear energy has resulted in far fewer deaths than that from dam failures, oil rig explosions and even, on some measures, the number of people that fall when installing solar panels (Canavan).
Nuclear power is not safe. The use of “number of deaths” as the criterion is simplistic and these numbers are always in dispute. The IAEA (the promoter of the nuclear industry) reports 28 firemen and 2 reactor workers were killed as a direct result of the accident. The IAEA, as marketer in chief for the nuclear mining weapons waste industry, like Canavan, uses an incredibly narrow functional definition of safety , ie you must be killed directly by the event, and otherwise the practice is safe (!). Clearly, this is absurd. In its own marketing the IAEA minimises the thousands of resultant nuclear industry related cancers by claiming they are treatable, minimises the impact of the spread of the contamination across much of the northern hemisphere by saying that in some in some places it was insignificant, but does apparently acknowledge the psychological outcomes as widespread and profound with effects such as suicide, drinking problems and apathy. Canavan’s
reliance on number of immediate deaths, fails to recognise the extent of the safety harms related to the nuclear industry, ie the long term illnesses, the health and safety dangers that do not cause immediate death.
Nuclear does less damage to the natural environment than other energy options. Wind energy takes up 250 times more land than nuclear power and solar takes up 150 times more land (Canavan).
Canavan implies that ‘taking up space’ is the main damage that various energy supply options may cause. By itself, the choice of this as a damage criterion seems odd. Surely Canavan can think of other aspects of ‘damage’ that might be relevant here- water consumption, land contamination, sea contamination, water contamination, food contamination—but no – Canavan thinks as an explanation for the need to urgently consider the use of nuclear power, that taking up space in theissue.
Nevertheless, the physical footprint of uranium mine, its processing plant, a nuclear power station, its dumpsite does take up space far greater than Canavan implies, and this space, for nearly all human purposes will be forever unable to be used for other purposes ( ie space multiplied by time).
Buildings can be built under solar arrays, sheep can graze under solar arrays, and wind turbines, food crops can be grown in the wind farm. So while the egregious harm of a solar panel taking up space might be untenable for Mat- he can nevertheless use the same space for other things at the same time—this is not possible with. And if the solar or wind resource is no longer available at that site, then that space is again available to every other likely use. Not so nuclear- which will leave contamination forever (in human terms)- that denies the human use of this ‘space’, for effectively all human time.
As an explanation of the need for nuclear power, the taking up space argument, as Canavan’s idea of Environmental harm, ism weak on the face of it, and absurd in the detail.
Because of these facts, the critics of nuclear power now tend to focus on the high cost of building nuclear power stations in western countries (Canavan)
Simply that nuclear power might be cheaper in non-western countries is not an explanation as to the need for nuclear power in this country. Trousers too, might be cheaper in non-western countries, reflecting a whole range of considerations, such as workplace safety, transport costs, environmental and health standards, or standards of living. Is Canavan really suggesting that we should all go to work in slavery-like conditions, or where there is much lower than Australian standards for health, safety and Environmental protection, so that the cost of nuclear power could be cheaper than it realistically should be in Australia. The implicit complaint about the relative ‘expense’ of nuclear power plant construction in western countries is absurd, the costs are partly to do with standards of living, more appropriate legislation and regulation, health and safety and environmental protections, and financial integrity. Canavans argument fails at every level, and certainly does
not warrant any further discussion.
‘Stupidly dangerous’: AUKUS won’t cause a Chernobyl but experts are still worried
The Greens dubbed them ‘floating Chernobyls’. Hyperbole, perhaps, but experts say there are real reasons to fear the nuclear submarines.
It’s the $368 billion friendship bracelet that the Greens suggested would lead to “floating Chernobyls” off the coast of our major cities, and marks the first transfer in history between a nuclear-weapon state of nuclear-powered submarines to a non-nuclear state.
So just how dangerous are the three AUKUS-born nuclear submarines we’re getting from the US, and the eight we plan to build by 2055? And is there enough nuclear material onboard or around for us to be afraid of a meltdown or malfunction?
Following the announcement of the deal in September 2021, Greens Leader Adam Bandt told the ABC it was a “dangerous decision that will make Australia less safe by putting floating Chernobyls in the heart of our major cities”………………..(Subscribers only)
April 23 Energy News — geoharvey
Opinion: ¶ “Single-Use Plastic Is Wreaking Havoc On The Planet. Here’s What You Can Do To Minimize Your Impact” • The life cycle of plastic begins with oil and gas are extraction. The fossil fuels are refined in facilities that use extreme temperatures and significant amount of water and energy. The plastic is used once. […]
April 23 Energy News — geoharvey
Solar is a runaway global success, and Australia is showing the way forward — RenewEconomy
The current growth rates of solar alone will see the global energy sector decarbonised by mid-century. The post Solar is a runaway global success, and Australia is showing the way forward appeared first on RenewEconomy.
Solar is a runaway global success, and Australia is showing the way forward — RenewEconomy
NBN turns to micro wind turbines in search for power for remote sites — RenewEconomy
Mini wind was once a real contender before cheap solar stole the show; the owner of the latest iteration hopes this proves its viability. The post NBN turns to micro wind turbines in search for power for remote sites appeared first on RenewEconomy.
NBN turns to micro wind turbines in search for power for remote sites — RenewEconomy
TODAY. Space X rocket – “A successful failure” – George Orwell would love it!
If only George Orwell were alive today! He would love it – Orwell, who wrote:
“It’s a beautiful thing, the destruction of words.”
George Orwell tried to show us the danger of accepting sloppy, dishonest language, and how this erodes democracy.
Already we have the mantra on Ukraine and Taiwan, spreading one of Orwell’s favourites “War is Peace“, and the corporate media news happy with “Ignorance is strength.”
“Failure is Success” – this beautiful Orwellian-style phrase is right now being pushed across the media, as we learn of the obscenely expensive, tax-payer funded Star X space rocket launch. So successful that it lasted a full 3 minutes before it exploded!
Wake up people – we are all being taken for a ride by the space-nuclear-weapons establishment – for a pointless aim of USA ruling space and colonising Mars.
Meanwhile people are homeless, children go hungry, and global heating rampages on.
And we’re supposed to rejoice at this disgusting rocket “success” !!
Greens support Barngarla people’s opposition to Kimba radioactive waste dump set to open after 2030
ABC North and West SA / By Nicholas Ward https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-04-21/greens-affirm-nuclear-dump-opposition-at-kimba-visit/102252440
Greens senators travelled to Kimba on South Australia’s Eyre Peninsula this week to hear from farmers and First Nations groups opposed to the national radioactive waste management facility proposed at Napandee.
Key points:
- Calls are growing for the federal government to drop court action against a First Nations group opposing a nuclear dump
- The local Native Title chair says the government is “not being truthful” about listening to Aboriginal voices
- Greens senators say intermediate-level waste must stay at Lucas Heights until a permanent storage solution is found
SA senator Barbara Pocock said the federal government’s process to determine the site for permanent low-level and temporary intermediate-level waste storage was flawed.
“It didn’t listen to First Nations people, it hasn’t listened to local farmers in the community, and it’s not an appropriate site for intermediate-level waste coming out of Lucas Heights [in Sydney],” Senator Pocock said.
“It results in the double-handling of highly toxic intermediate-level waste, which will be temporarily stored at Kimba, and future generations are going to have to find a long-term solution.
“Bearing in mind the history of nuclear testing in our state, it’s especially important that we … can find a safe long-term solution, not a temporary solution.”
Calls to listen to Aboriginal voices
Jason Bilney is chair of Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation (BDAC), which is fighting the federal government in court to block the current proposal.
He said the government’s continued legal action showed a lack of commitment to listening to Aboriginal voices.
“They’re breaking First Nations hearts by continuing down this path of the Liberals and outspending us 4: 1 in court to put a nuclear waste dump on our country,” Mr Bilney said.
“What does that say about the Statement from the Heart, let alone constitutional recognition?
“It’s about truth-telling and yet they’re not being truthful about listening to our voice.”
Mr Bilney welcomed the senators’ visit to Kimba and said proponents of the waste dump needed to speak honestly about its impact on Barngarla culture.
“It’s always good to come out on country and actually see for themselves where the site is and meet us on country. It’s a very positive step,” he said.
‘Don’t need a court to tell us’
BDAC holds native title over large areas of the Upper Spencer Gulf and Eyre Peninsula, including around Kimba, but not at the specific location of the proposed radioactive storage site at Napandee.
The Greens’ spokesperson for First Nations, Science and Resources, Senator Dorinda Cox, said that did not delegitimise Aboriginal concerns about its placement.
“The Barngarla people have stories, know the songlines, know the importance of birthing places, know the importance of country and practice of their culture in a very strong and traditional way still,” Senator Cox said.
“I don’t think we need a court to tell us that, and unfortunately that is a process they are pushed into.
“There was no free, prior, informed consent.”
Waste at Kimba ‘not expected before 2030’
The Australian Radioactive Waste Agency (ARWA) is overseeing site preparation works at Napandee, while awaiting final approvals to begin construction of the waste facility.
“Construction of the facility can only commence after all necessary siting, construction, nuclear, and environmental regulatory approvals are received,” an ARWA spokesperson said.
“The facility is not expected to be operational before 2030.”
Six war mongering think tanks and the military contractors that fund them.
Center for Strategic and International Studies
Center for a New American Security
Hudson Institute
Atlantic Council
International Institute for Strategic Studies
Australian Strategic Policy Institute
Australian Strategic Policy Institute
Note: ASPI has been one of the primary purveyors of the “Uyghur genocide” narrative
From their 2021-2022 annual report
$186,800: Thales Australia (aerospace and defense corporation)
$100,181: Boeing Australia
$75,927: Lockheed Martin
$20,000: Omni Executive (aerospace and defense corporation)
$27,272: SAAB Australia
Amanda Yee, March 7, 2023 https://www.liberationnews.org/six-war-mongering-think-tanks-and-the-military-contractors-that-fund-them/
From producing reports and analysis for U.S. policy-makers, to enlisting representatives to write op-eds in corporate media, to providing talking heads for corporate media to interview and give quotes, think tanks play a fundamental role in shaping both U.S. foreign policy and public perception around that foreign policy. Leaders at top think tanks like the Atlantic Council and Hudson Institute have even been called upon to set focus priorities for the House Intelligence Committee. However, one look at the funding sources of the most influential think tanks reveals whose interests they really serve: that of the U.S. military and its defense contractors.
This ecosystem of overlapping networks of government institutions, think tanks, and defense contractors is where U.S. foreign policy is derived, and a revolving door exists among these three sectors. For example, before Biden-appointed head of the Pentagon Lloyd Austin took his current position, he sat on the Board of Directors at Raytheon. Before Austin’s appointment, current defense policy advisor Michèle Flournoy was also in the running for the position. Flournoy sat on the board of Booz Allen Hamilton, another major Pentagon defense contractor. These same defense contractors also work together with think tanks like the Center for Strategic and International Studies to organize conferences attended by national security officials. On top of all this, since the end of the Cold War, intelligence analysis by the CIA and NSA has increasingly been contracted out to these same defense companies like BAE Systems and Lockheed Martin, among others — a major conflict of interest. In other words, these corporations are in the position to produce intelligence reports which raise the alarm on U.S. “enemy” nations so they can sell more military equipment!
And of course these are the same defense companies that donate hundreds of thousands of dollars each year to think tanks. Given all this, is it any wonder the U.S. government is simultaneously flooding billions of dollars of weaponry into an unwinnable proxy war in Ukraine while escalating a Cold War into a potential military confrontation with China?
The funding to these policy institutes steers the U.S. foreign policy agenda. To give you a scope of how these contributions determine national security priorities, listed below are six of some of the most influential foreign policy think tanks, along with how much in contributions they’ve received from “defense” companies in the last year.
All funding information for these policy institutes was gathered from the most recent annual report that was available online. Also note that this list is compiled from those that make this information publicly available — many think tanks, such as the hawkish American Enterprise Institute, do not release donation sources publicly.
1 – Center for Strategic and International Studies
According to their 2020 annual report
$500,000+: Northrop Grumman Corporation
$200,000-$499,999: General Atomics (energy and defense corporation that manufactures Predator drones for the CIA), Lockheed Martin, SAIC (provides information technology services to U.S. military)
$100,000-$199,999: Bechtel, Boeing, Cummins (provides engines and generators for military equipment), General Dynamics, Hitachi (provides defense technology), Hanwha Group (South Korean aerospace and defense company), Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc. (largest military shipbuilding company in the United States), Mitsubishi Corporation, Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Corporation (provides intelligence and information technology services to U.S. military), Qualcomm, Inc. (semiconductor company that produces microchips for the U.S. military), Raytheon, Samsung (provides security technology to the U.S. military), SK Group (defense technology company)
$65,000-$99,999: Hyundai Motor (produces weapons systems), Oracle
$35,000-$64,999: BAE Systems
2 – Center for a New American Security
$500,000+: Northrop Grumman Corporation
$250,000-$499,999: Lockheed Martin
$100,000-$249,000: Huntington Ingalls Industries, Neal Blue (Chairman and CEO of General Atomics), Qualcomm, Inc., Raytheon, Boeing
$50,000-$99,000: BAE Systems, Booz Allen Hamilton, Intel Corporation (provides aerospace and defense technology), Elbit Systems of America (aerospace and defense company), General Dynamics, Palantir Technologies
3 – Hudson Institute
According to their 2021 annual report
$100,000+: General Atomics, Linden Blue (co-owner and Vice Chairman of General Atomics), Neal Blue, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman
$50,000-$99,000: BAE Systems, Boeing, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries
4 – Atlantic Council
According to their 2021 annual report
$250,000-$499,000: Airbus, Neal Blue, SAAB (provides defense equipment)
$100,000-$249,000: Lockheed Martin, Raytheon
$50,000-$99,000: SAIC
5 – International Institute for Strategic Studies
Based in London. From fiscal year 2021-2022
£100,000+: Airbus, BAE Systems, Boeing, General Atomics, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Rolls Royce (provides military airplane engines)
£25,000-£99,999: Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems, Northrop Grumman Corporation
6 – Australian Strategic Policy Institute
Note: ASPI has been one of the primary purveyors of the “Uyghur genocide” narrative
From their 2021-2022 annual report
$186,800: Thales Australia (aerospace and defense corporation)
$100,181: Boeing Australia
$75,927: Lockheed Martin
$20,000: Omni Executive (aerospace and defense corporation)
$27,272: SAAB Australia
Globally, taxpayers are on the hook for nuclear accidents. Nuclear is uninsurable and unacceptable
Simon Daigle – 21 Apr 23,
Simon J Daigle, B.Sc., M.Sc., M.Sc.(A) Concerned Canadian Citizen. Occupational / Industrial Hygienist, Epidemiologist. Climatologist / Air quality expert (Topospheric Ozone).
Any NPP plant globally has no guarantees from insurers, or governments, or have adequate accident liabilities to cover for just one NPP accident and any country host NPP taxpayers are always on the hook for damages.
When will governments globally understand that taxpayers should not be collateral damage (tokens) financially for potential human suffering and/or irreversible biosphere damage as « willing » participants for the nuclear industry ? The answer should be none. Yet we see a different reality and narrative. It’s all Shameful.
In India, a US company paid a fraction of the true cost of one chemical disaster: Bhopal (less than 500 million US dollars) for one chemical accident. And worse, they were never found guilty in a court of law in the US. Imagine when nuclear accident happens in India ? Who will be responsible? We know today that the true cost are billions (USD) because of Chernobyl and Fukushima tragedies for examples.
Now, in 2023, and for past decades, any nuclear accident in India, or elsewhere, citizens and taxpayers, had and will continue to absorb the true public burden in the global insurance pool for all nuclear energy countries that are contributing in for covering any NPP risks or accident liabilities.
Current insurance policy are clearly inadequate to repair and compensate for any human suffering, death, disease, and biosphere irreversible damages for any potential NPP accident, nuclear waste and compensation.
Unacceptable.
SpaceX launches most powerful rocket in history in explosive debut – like many first liftoffs, Starship’s test was a successful failure.
The Conversation, Wendy Whitman Cobb 21 Apr 23
Professor of Strategy and Security Studies, Air University
Starship is almost 400 feet (120 meters) tall and weighs 11 million pounds (4.9 million kilograms). An out-of-control rocket full of highly flammable fuel is a very dangerous object, so to prevent any harm, SpaceX engineers triggered the self-destruct mechanism and blew up the entire rocket over the Gulf of Mexico.
On April 20, 2023, a new SpaceX rocket called Starship exploded over the Gulf of Mexico three minutes into its first flight ever. SpaceX is calling the test launch a success, despite the fiery end result. As a space policy expert, I agree that the “rapid unscheduled disassembly” – the term SpaceX uses when its rockets explode – was a very successful failure.
The most powerful rocket ever built
This launch was the first fully integrated test of SpaceX’s new Starship. Starship is the most powerful rocket ever developed and is designed to be fully reusable. It is made of two different stages, or sections. The first stage, called Super Heavy, is a collection of 33 individual engines and provides more than twice the thrust of a Saturn V, the rocket that sent astronauts to the Moon in the 1960s and 1970s.
The first stage is designed to get the rocket to about 40 miles (65 kilometers) above Earth. Once Super Heavy’s job is done, it is supposed to separate from the rest of the craft and land safely back on the surface to be used again. At that point the second stage, called the Starship spacecraft, is supposed to ignite its own engines to carry the payload – whether people, satellites or anything else – into orbit.
An explosive first flight
While parts of Starship have been tested previously, the launch on April 20, 2023, was the first fully integrated test with the Starship spacecraft stacked on top of the Super Heavy rocket. If it had been successful, once the first stage was spent, it would have separated from the upper stage and crashed into the Gulf of Mexico. Starship would then have continued on, eventually crashing 155 miles (250 kilometers) off of Hawaii.
During the SpaceX livestream, the team stated that the primary goal of this mission was to get the rocket off the launch pad. It accomplished that goal and more. Starship flew for more than three minutes, passing through what engineers call “max Q” – the moment at which a rocket experiences the most physical stress from acceleration and air resistance.
According to SpaceX, a few things went wrong with the launch. First, multiple engines went out sometime before the point at which the Starship spacecraft and the Super Heavy rocket were supposed to separate from each other. The two stages were also unable to separate at the predetermined moment, and with the two stages stuck together, the rocket began to tumble end over end. It is still unclear what specifically caused this failure.
Starship is almost 400 feet (120 meters) tall and weighs 11 million pounds (4.9 million kilograms). An out-of-control rocket full of highly flammable fuel is a very dangerous object, so to prevent any harm, SpaceX engineers triggered the self-destruct mechanism and blew up the entire rocket over the Gulf of Mexico…………………………………… https://theconversation.com/spacex-launches-most-powerful-rocket-in-history-in-explosive-debut-like-many-first-liftoffs-starships-test-was-a-successful-failure-204248
This is why Youth, MPs and ICAN are going to Hiroshima next week
| Daniel Högsta, ICAN <admin@icanw.org> |
In May, the heads of the G7 states will meet in Hiroshima for their annual summit. Given the location, all eyes will be on these seven leaders – who represent states that either have, host or rely on nuclear weapons- to see if they can commit to real action to eliminate the weapons that once flattened Hiroshima, or whether it will all be empty rhetoric. So in the coming month we’ll be ramping up the pressure on them to do the right thing!
The signs aren’t looking great so far. Earlier this week, the G7 foreign ministers met in Japan, and their statement neglected to acknowledge how their own nuclear weapons policies including foreign stationing, modernising their arsenals and the implicit threat to use these weapons in their nuclear doctrines undermine global security. They also failed to present any new or concrete ideas for moving towards the elimination of nuclear weapons.
In May, the G7 leaders will have to do better. Reports indicate the leaders have committed to meet with atomic bomb survivors, hibakusha, during their visit. The call of the hibakusha is loud and clear – we need to prohibit and eliminate nuclear weapons. The UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) is the clearest path to doing so.
That is why we’re spending this month making these leaders feel the pressure:
That is why we’re spending this month making these leaders feel the pressure:
• Last week, ICAN coordinated with hundreds of civil society organisations around the world to present a set of joint demands to the G7 from the official civil society engagement group, the C7.
• Next week, on 25-27 April, the G7 Hiroshima Youth Summit will bring together over 50 participants to meet with survivors, visit Hiroshima, connect with others in advance of the G7 summit and announce the recommendations they’ve developed together for G7 leaders.
Immediately afterwards, the G7 Parliamentarian Forum for the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons – held in Tokyo and Hiroshima on April 28th to 30th – will bring together elected officials from all 7 states to discuss and recognise the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons, condemn threats to use them, and discuss ways to eliminate them altogether through the TPNW.
We hope these events will inspire and empower the participants to go back to their countries and demand action from their governments, so that the leaders feel the pressure even before they arrive. And in the coming weeks, we will keep you posted on ways you can get involved, particularly if you are also in a G7 state.
And of course, we will be sharing a lot of our activities on social media next week, so make sure you are following us (we’re on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Tiktok and LinkedIn) and tune in to the livestream from the Youth Summit’s public event on April 26th here.
Searing heatwave hitting Southern and South Eastern Asia
Much of southern and southeastern Asia is enduring a deadly,
record-smashing heat wave, one that’s being called the continent’s worst
ever recorded in April. Several all-time record high temperatures have been
broken, including a torrid 113.7 degrees in Tak, Thailand, the nation’s
hottest reading on record. Laos also recorded its highest reliable
temperature in its history earlier this week, with 108.9 degrees at Luang
Prabang, reported climatologist and weather historian Maximiliano Herrera.
As the searing heat spread from India to China to Thailand to Japan,
Herrera called it a “monster Asian heat wave like none before.”
USA Today 19th April 2023
One in three people on the planet hit by ‘monster Asian heatwave’. The
searing heat has spread across large parts of south and southeast Asia in
recent weeks, and impacted more than a dozen countries including India,
China, Thailand, Laos, Bangladesh, Turkmenistan, Japan and Korea. The
temperature hit a scorching 44.6 degrees Celsius in the western province of
Tak, Thailand this week, the hottest temperature ever recorded in the
country. Thailand’s Meteorological Department warned that the baking
weather would continue into next week.
Independent 20th April 2023
https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/asia-heatwave-india-china-thailand-b2323666.html
1 This month.
Australians deserve the truth
about
AUKUS – https://aukuspublicinquiry.com/
PETITION – To: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the Australian Labor Government
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 