Australia’s Role in Military Alliances: Risks to Sovereignty
November 12, 2024 by: The AIM Network
By Denis Hay
Description: Australia’s role in military alliances poses risks to sovereignty. Discover how AUKUS and BRICS impact Australia’s independence and security.
Australia’s Role in Military and Financial Alliances: Navigating Risks and Sovereignty
Australias role in military alliances and position in global military and financial systems has sparked intense debate. With deeper ties to U.S.-led military alliances, Australia’s sovereignty, economic stability, and security face growing questions. This article explores how Australia’s military alliance through AUKUS and its financial alignment with Western powers affect its autonomy, and considers how aligning with emerging economies in BRICS could provide a more balanced and sovereign path forward.
Military and Economic Dependence Risks for Australia
The ‘Brisbane Line’ Redux: Australia’s Military Role in AUKUS
Australia’s military alignment with the United States and United Kingdom, through the AUKUS pact, has seen Australia take on significant strategic responsibilities. AUKUS strengthens Australia’s military capacity, but it also intensifies its role as a potential staging ground for future conflicts in the Indo-Pacific region.
This positioning is reminiscent of the historical ‘Brisbane Line’ in WWII, where parts of Northern Australia were seen as disposable in defence plans. Today, the U.S. divides Australia into three zones for strategic purposes:
- Zone 1: Northern Australia for U.S. force projection.
2. Zone 2: Central Australia as a logistics hub. - Zone 3: Southern Australia for industrial and munitions production.
Financial Commitments Under AUKUS and the “No-Refund Policy”
Australia has committed an estimated AUD $368 billion for submarines under AUKUS. However, a “no-refund” policy means that even if the U.S. fails to deliver submarines, Australia would still be financially responsible. This financial burden raises concerns about Australia’s economic autonomy and public spending priorities.
Economic and Security Concerns
This financial dependency extends beyond hardware, with Australia agreeing to resource and industry allocations that make it a ‘resource base’ for U.S. and UK strategic interests. The Pentagon’s plans for Australia risk positioning the country as a proxy in global conflicts, making Australia a likely target rather than a protected ally.
Former Ambassador John Lander recently warned that Australia’s close alignment with U.S. military strategy puts the nation at greater risk of becoming a target, especially with Australia’s defence capabilities primarily serving U.S. interests.
Heightened Dependency and Lack of Sovereignty
The Strategic Bullseye on Australia’s Back
Australia’s role within AUKUS places it at the frontline in any Indo-Pacific conflicts, particularly with China. U.S. forces in Northern Australia, including B52 bombers, along with expansion plans for nuclear submarines and airbases, indicate that Australia could be a primary target in regional conflicts. This heightened military presence is often viewed as an increase in security; however, without a formal U.S. commitment to defend Australia, it primarily serves U.S. strategic interests rather than Australian security.
Financial Control and Dependency on Western Systems
Australia’s financial dependency on Western institutions also impacts its sovereignty. The dominance of the U.S. dollar in global trade creates risks of financial sanctions, restrictions, and compliance pressures. If Australia were to engage with BRICS or pursue independent financial structures, it would need to challenge entrenched dependencies on the U.S. financial system.
The BRICS bloc’s development of a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) as a peer-to-peer settlement system offers a glimpse of potential independence from Western financial dominance, an area where Australia could consider involvement.
National Integrity at Stake
Australia’s alignment with AUKUS and its reliance on Western financial systems significantly impact its ability to act as a truly independent nation. By aligning its military strategy so closely with U.S. and UK interests, Australia risks becoming a subordinate player in global politics rather than an equal partner. This alignment has practical, cultural, and strategic repercussions that affect Australia’s sovereignty and national integrity in several ways:
1. Erosion of Independent Foreign Policy……………..
2. Economic Control Through Military Spending…………………
3. Public Discontent and Regional Divisions……………………………….
4. Risks to National Security……………………
5. Limited Diplomatic Flexibility………………….
6. Cultural Influence and National Identity……………………………….’
Reclaiming Sovereignty and National Integrity………………………
Paths Towards Sovereign Independence and Economic Stability
Re-Evaluating Australia’s Role in AUKUS
Australia can begin by reassessing its commitments within AUKUS. While Australias role in military alliances can strengthen defence capabilities, policies that prioritize Australia’s security over U.S. interests would better serve the nation.
Steps Australia could take to limit overreliance on the AUKUS alliance include:………………………………………………………………………..
Exploring Financial Independence through BRICS Collaboration…………………..
Pursuing an Independent Foreign Policy for Australia…………………….
Summary: Securing a Sovereign Future for Australia
Australia’s position as a key ally in AUKUS and a participant in U.S.-led financial systems has significant implications for its sovereignty. While these alliances provide certain benefits, they also pose risks to Australia’s autonomy and security. By reassessing Australias role in military alliances, exploring financial partnerships with BRICS, and developing a national interest-centred foreign policy, Australia can work towards greater sovereignty and stability.
Thought-Provoking Question
Do you think Australia’s strategic alliances serve its best interests, or do they put the nation at greater risk?
Call to Action……………………………….. more https://theaimn.com/australias-role-in-military-alliances-risks-to-sovereignty/
Secrecy ramping up as problems mount in the UK nuclear programme
The reliability issues in the Vanguard fleet, and extended patrols they have caused, are the most visible issues, but there are many more.
HMS Vanguard has rejoined the fleet after its extended seven year deep maintenance and refuelling, but appears not to have been sent out on patrol for many months after rejoining the fleet. We saw a failed missile test-firing earlier this year and the fire on HMS Victorious in 2022. The entire Astute-class fleet was unable to put to to sea for five months this year, and it’s possible that the problems that caused this may surface in the incoming Dreadnought fleet.
David Cullen NIS 12th Nov 2024
The UK’s nuclear weapons programme is at a critical stage with mounting problems, and secrecy is being increased when transparency and accountability are more vital than ever. Routine public disclosures of information are now months overdue, nearly a year in one case. At the same time, the increasingly draconian approach to secrecy from the Ministry of Defence (MOD) is limiting the information that they will disclose through Freedom of Information (FOI) requests, or in response to Parliamentary Questions.
The current level of public disclosure about the programme is lower than any time since at least the early 1990s. Without proper scrutiny there is no meaningful way for the public to understand what is happening, or for elected representatives to challenge it, and the likely result will be greater mismanagement, increased safety risks and a waste of huge sums of public funds.
At Nuclear Information Service (NIS) we prefer to focus on the content of our work, rather than drawing attention to ourselves and what we do, but these levels of secrecy are unprecedented during the 24 years we have been operating and we have decided to speak out. Whatever your position on nuclear weapons, the current information black hole is antithetical to good governance, and fundamentally unacceptable in a democracy.
Missing updates to Parliament
From 2011 to 2023, the MOD published an annual update to Parliament on the progress of its nuclear weapon upgrade programmes. The first of these was the ‘Initial Gate’ report on what is now known as the Dreadnought Programme, summarising the first few years of scoping work undertaken by the MOD and the plans for the new submarine class. From 2012 to 2021 these were routinely published shortly before Christmas (with the exception of 2015, when the Strategic Security and Defence Review published that November was deemed to have included enough information that there was no separate update).
The 2022 update was not published that year. NIS submitted an FOI request in January 2023 asking for a publication date and we were told in early February the update was “expected to be released in the coming weeks”. In response to a Parliamentary Question in late February from John Healy, who has since become Minister for Defence, the MOD said the update was “undergoing final clearance procedures”. No reason was given for the delay, despite this being explicitly asked by Healy and in a subsequent question submitted by Baroness Blower. The update was finally published on 8th March. The end of the update stated that the MOD planned “to next report progress to Parliament in late 2023”.
The 2023 update has not been published at all. NIS contacted the MOD in early December 2023 to ask what the planned publication date was and were told the annual update was “an enduring commitment by the MOD to Parliament…[but] there is no prescribed timeframe for its release” and the MOD was “unable to provide a date for its publication”. It is now early November 2024, nearly two years after the time period covered by the last update. In what sense can the MOD credibly describe these updates as annual?
Major Projects data not yet released
The other annual release of information about the progress of the MOD’s nuclear upgrades is the government’s Major Projects Data releases. These are coordinated by the Infrastructure and Projects Authority (IPA), a quasi-independent branch of government which sits under the Cabinet Office and is supposed to help ensure the government’s large projects are well managed and provide value for money. Projects are given a traffic-light colour rating, with many of the projects relating to the nuclear weapons programme being given ‘Amber’ or ‘Red’ rating, indicating respectively that they face serious problems, or appear unachievable.
Alongside the report published by the IPA which summarises the ratings for each programme and makes some general observations about programme management, data is published by each government department on their respective programmes. This includes predicted end dates, costs and a brief explanation of progress and/or problems. Since 2016 these have been published each July. Although the election this year may have interfered with the publication timetable, the data is typically assembled in March of each year, two months before the election was called. As it is now four months since the election, it is difficult to understand why the data has not been published.
Resistance to information disclosure
These missing information releases come at a time when the MOD is significantly more resistant to disclosing information to the public and parliamentarians than it has been in the past. In recent years key pieces of information have even been withheld in the MOD Major Projects releases. The 2022 release had redactions relating to the Astute, Dreadnought, Core Production Capability, Mensa, Pegasus and Teutates projects.
When NIS challenged these redactions we were told that that some were the consequence of an “anomaly” which caused them to be “withheld erroneously”. However, the planned end dates for the Astute and Dreadnought programmes were still withheld, as was the MOD narrative on the timetable for those two projects. The MOD took eight months to complete an internal review of this decision, instead of the maximum expected time of forty working days, and upheld the decision.
The FOI requests we submitted for our recent briefing on the US-UK Mutual Defence Agreement were treated similarly, although the delays were shorter. No information has been disclosed to us on the transfer of nuclear materials under the MDA between 2014 and 2024, and only three years of data on the transfer of non-nuclear components of nuclear weapons has been released, with the excuse that extracting the information would take too much time……………………………………………………………………………………….
This antipathy to disclosure is reflected in the recent changes to the government’s stance on official figures relating to its nuclear stockpile. These came in the 2021 Integrated Review, alongside the announcement of an increase to the UK’s warhead stockpile cap, breaking with a decades-long trend of reductions. Figures for the numbers of operational warheads that the UK owns, for deployed warheads, or deployed missiles are no longer published. These changes are a breach of commitments made by the UK and other nuclear-weapon states at the 2000 and 2010 Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) review conferences to increased transparency about their capabilities.
Foreclosed FOI avenues
The questionable role of the ICO, which is responsible for regulating FOI matters in the UK, is sadly not limited to the dubious interpretation of the rule on ‘similar’ requests. Our appeals to the ICO over the missing data from the 2022 Major Projects release and on the transfer of nuclear material under the MDA have both been recently rejected………………………………..
Under the FOI Act, we technically have the right to appeal to the Information Tribunal, but in this case there is no prospect of us being meaningfully able to exercise that right. In previous Information Tribunal cases, such the 2019 case over the government’s withholding of reports from its internal nuclear safety regulator, the MOD can refrain from making its key arguments in open court, and will instead make them in a closed session which we would not be able to attend.
If we wished to make a meaningful case at tribunal with any realistic hope of success, we would face the kafkaesque prospect of needing to employ a barrister who we could not even properly instruct, as we do not know what arguments are being made by the MOD. The position of the ICO suggests that most of the case would be heard in closed session and we would have little chance of winning. As rulings of the tribunal create FOI case law, it would actually be irresponsible for us to bring a case under these circumstances.
State of the programme
It is not hard to think of reasons why the MOD wishes to minimise information in the public domain about the weapons programme, considering what we do know about the state of the programme and its upgrade projects. The reliability issues in the Vanguard fleet, and extended patrols they have caused, are the most visible issues, but there are many more.
HMS Vanguard has rejoined the fleet after its extended seven year deep maintenance and refuelling, but appears not to have been sent out on patrol for many months after rejoining the fleet. We saw a failed missile test-firing earlier this year and the fire on HMS Victorious in 2022. The entire Astute-class fleet was unable to put to to sea for five months this year, and it’s possible that the problems that caused this may surface in the incoming Dreadnought fleet. It seems likely that US submarines had to help during the recent change in Vanguard patrols. There may be additional delays to the Dreadnought programme, particularly after the recent fire at Barrow, which would put additional strain on the Vanguard fleet.
There may be additional details of, or implications from, any of these problems, or undisclosed connections between them, which could prove highly embarrassing to the MOD. There may also be additional issues beyond those we currently know about or suspect.
From the responses that we have had to our FOI requests, it seems the MOD’s argument in favour of its recourse to secrecy is fairly consistent in general terms. It claims that disclosing any information relating to the UK’s nuclear programme could allow ‘adversary’ states, particularly Russia, to draw conclusions about the capabilities and vulnerabilities of the programme. The so-called ‘mosaic effect’, where multiple pieces of individually inconsequential information can be drawn together to form a wider picture, is frequently invoked. These conclusions could then be leveraged by Russia or others to disrupt the weapons programme and degrade the UK’s ability to keep one nuclear-armed submarine at sea at all times.
It is not possible to know to what extent this hypothetical risk would remain credible when subjected to detailed critique and analysis. We only know that the MOD has been able to successfully convince the ICO and Information Tribunal of its veracity in closed forums with no external scrutiny. However, it stands to reason that this convoluted scenario would appear more credible if the UK is already struggling to maintain patrols. To what extent are the vulnerabilities the MOD cites to justify its secrecy a function of its own mismanagement? It is not possible to say, but a clear inference can be drawn from the conspicuous absence of the 2023 Update to Parliament: the MOD has chosen to say nothing rather than provide a basic overview of how its upgrade programmes are progressing.
Is the spectre of Russian interference being used as an excuse to hide MOD mismanagement and emerging problems in the programme from the public? How close is the programme to being unable to field its nuclear armed-submarines safely? What is the MOD trying to hide? The public deserve answers to these questions, and there is no reason that they cannot be given in a form that poses no risk to the security of the UK and its population. At NIS we will continue to seek what information we can to highlight these issues, but regular detailed parliamentary scrutiny is long overdue.
Members of the public have the right under the FOI Act to be provided with information on request, and ministers are expected to be candid and transparent towards Parliament under the ministerial code. When the approach of the government is to frustrate that right and avoid those obligations, and the ICO does not challenge them, this is a serious threat to democratic oversight and accountability. We welcome the recent calls from the House of Lords following the changes to the Mutual Defence Agreement, but as the Public Accounts Committee stated earlier in the year, there is also gap in the parliamentary scrutiny of government nuclear spending. We believe the gap is actually much wider, and it is time for regular and detailed scrutiny by Parliament of the whole UK nuclear weapons programme. https://www.nuclearinfo.org/comment/2024/11/secrecy-ramping-up-as-problems-mount-in-the-uk-nuclear-programme/
Nuked: The Submarine Fiasco that Sank Australia’s Sovereignty, book by Murray Horton
Global Peace and Justice Aotearoa, 12 Nov 24, Reprinted from Covert Action Magazine
Andrew Fowler’s book Nuked: The Submarine Fiasco That Sank Australia’s Sovereignty (Melbourne University Press, 2024) was not written by a member of the peace movement. That is both a strength and a weakness. A strength, because Andrew Fowler is an award-winning investigative journalist, who has worked in mainstream Australian current affairs TV. So, it can’t be dismissed as “anti-American, anti-military” propaganda.
But it is a weakness because the author never questions the basic tenet of the book’s subject—why does Australia need any submarines at all, regardless of whether they are conventionally powered or nuclear powered. The book’s focus is a forensic analysis of who won the highly lucrative battle to supply Australia’s new subs—it was all set up to be France but then, after hidden, sub-surface maneuvering worthy of one of the book’s subjects, Australia and the U.S. torpedoed the French and did a deal among themselves.
This book is about AUKUS (Australia, UK, U.S.), the new kid on the “Indo-Pacific” block—although it should be pointed out that the UK is an awfully long way away from either the Indo or the Pacific. It is an attempt to build a new Western military alliance, initially between those three countries but with the prospect of other countries (including New Zealand) joining the ill-defined AUKUS Pillar Two at some unspecified time in the future. But let’s not get ahead of ourselves. The book is about the birth of AUKUS, which is all about submarines.
AUKUS
I’ve written about AUKUS previously in Covert ActionMagazine, so I refer you to that for the back story. In 2016 Australia signed a $A50 billion contract for France to build it 12 state of the art conventionally powered submarines for the Australian Navy. It was the largest defence contact in the history of both France and Australia. The right-wing Liberal Party was in Government in Australia, headed by Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
The book names names—the man who fronted the deception and betrayal of France was Scott Morrison, who replaced Turnbull as the Liberal Prime Minister in 2018, in an internal Party coup (a common occurrence in Australian politics). Behind the scenes, the key man was Andrew Shearer, “a vehemently pro-American China hawk” who went on to become Director-General of National Intelligence. Right up until just before AUKUS was announced in 2021, Morrison’s government continued to assure France that it was proceeding with the contract to buy French submarines.
Dumping France For the U.S.
Instead of 12 diesel-powered French subs, Australia signed up to have the U.S. and UK build eight nuclear-powered (but not nuclear-armed) subs for its Navy. The cost is astronomical—up to $A368 billion by 2055. Yes, that’s right—those eight subs will not be ready for more than 30 years. The first of them is unlikely to be ready until the 2040s so, to fill that gap, Australia will buy three existing U.S. subs from the early 2030s, at a cost of up to $A58b, with an option to buy two more. This is a staggering amount to spend on one military project from a country with a population of just under 27 million people.
“(AUKUS) was a clear victory for Washington, which had been concerned for some time that France had a different view on how to deal with the rise of China… There was barely a murmur of opposition from the media. Morrison had pulled off a major achievement of what U.S. public intellectual Noam Chomsky describes as the political art of ‘manufacturing consent’…”.
“How did it happen that the bulk of analysis and criticism of the submarine deal came from two former Prime Ministers, Paul Keating (Labor) and Malcolm Turnbull (Liberal) who, though on opposing sides of politics, were united in warning that the submarine deal stripped away Australia’s sovereignty……………………………..
Australia Expected To Fight Alongside U.S. In War With China
There is only the feeblest pretense that these nuclear submarines (still decades away from reality) will be used to defend Australia. Their role will be to patrol close to the Chinese coast, to hem in the Chinese Navy and, in the event of war, to attack China with cruise missiles. That’s the theory, anyway. The advantage of their being nuclear-powered is that they don’t have to return to port to refuel. U.S. hawks expect Australia to fight on its side in any war with China over Taiwan………………………………………………………………………………………..
Integration With U.S. Military
There is a lot more to the U.S.-Australia military relationship than some exorbitantly expensive nuclear submarines that may or may not ever materialise. There is the top-secret Central Intelligence Agency/National Security Agency Pine Gap spy base near Alice Springs, in central Australia, which is crucial to the global warfighting abilities of the U.S. There is the North West Cape facility on the westernmost point of mainland Australia, which the US Navy uses to communicate with its nuclear attack subs. There is Australia’s increasing involvement with the U.S. military and intelligence satellite programme, in preparation for war in space.
“Australia’s integration with the U.S. military was, of course, well underway before the AUKUS agreement. As already noted, Pine Gap and North West Cape are part of this. But there is also the basing of thousands of U.S. Marines in Darwin (northern coast), the stationing of nuclear-capable B-52s at Tindal (Australian Air Force base, northern Australia), and the stationing of U.S. military throughout the Australian Defence Force, including from the National Reconnaissance Office at the military headquarters in Canberra… Though Defence Minister Richard Marles has ruled out automatic support of the United States in any war over Taiwan, it is difficult to see how Australia won’t be involved. Pine Gap, Tindal, North West Cape and Perth (Western Australia’s biggest city) will all be integral to the battle.”
Change Of Government; No Change Of Foreign Policy
Scott Morrison’s Liberal government was voted out at the 2022 Australian election and was replaced by Anthony Albanese’s Labor Party. But Australia’s commitment to AUKUS remained unchanged………………………………………………………………………………
“Nuked” specifically attributes Labor’s fervent desire not to be seen as “anti-American” to the events of 1975, when the Central Intelligence Agency and its local collaborators, succeeded in getting Gough Whitlam’s Labor government overthrown in a bloodless coup. The U.S. covert state was particularly concerned about Whitlam’s revelations about its Pine Gap spy base and possible threats to close it. Jeremy Kuzmarov has recently written about this in CovertAction Magazine (15/11/23), so I refer you to that.
For half a century the Australian Labor Party has lived in fear of the same thing happening again, and has bent over backwards to prove its loyalty to the U.S.
………The consequences of the fear that drove the ALP leadership to embrace AUKUS with barely a second thought will haunt them for years to come. Just as Morrison was only too willing to trade Australian’s independence for the chance to win an election, so too was Labor. Now it is left to make work a deeply flawed scheme that, more than ever before, ties Australia’s future to whoever is in the White House.”
Jobs For The Boys
And what has happened to Scott Morrison, who retired from politics in 2024? “Along with Trump’s former CIA Director, Mike Pompeo, Morrison became a strategic adviser to U.S. asset management firm DYNE Maritime, which launched a $157 U.S. million fund to invest in technologies related to AUKUS. ………
“Morrison also became Vice-Chair of American Global Strategies (AGS), headed by former Trump National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien. AGS, stacked with former Pentagon, White House and State Department officials, boasts that it ‘assists clients as they navigate U.S. government processes,’ a useful addition to any company wanting to boost profits in the burgeoning area of military spending.”
New Zealand & AUKUS
…………………………………………………………………………… There are plenty of similarities between Australia and New Zealand but also significant differences. Whereas Australian governments of either party fall over themselves to loyally serve the U.S. empire, New Zealand has been nuclear free by law since the 1980s (and it was an Australian Labor government, on behalf of the U.S., which tried to pressure New Zealand to drop the policy. That pressure backfired).
……………………………………………………………….But there is a constant push to get New Zealand further entangled in the U.S. war machine, including Pillar Two of AUKUS (which has been, thus far, only identified as involving “advanced military technology”). New Zealand currently has a very pro-American Government, which is already a non-member “partner” of NATO and which is eager to serve the U.S……………………………………..
Not All New Zealand Politicians Lining Up To Grovel To Uncle Sam.
For a refreshing contrast, here’s an extract from a recent (2/10/24) press statement from Te Pāti Māori, the indigenous party, which has six Members of Parliament (out of 123). “Meanwhile the New Zealand Government is in talks with the United States about joining AUKUS to further support their war efforts. This represents the next phase of global colonisation, and it is being negotiated behind closed doors,” Co-Leader Rawiri Waititi said.
“The U.S. wants to use Aotearoa as a Pacific spy base. This could mean the end of our longstanding nuclear free policy to allow their war ships into our waters. AUKUS threatens our sovereignty as an independent nation, and the Mana Motuhake of every nation in the Pacific. It threatens to drag Aotearoa into World War 3,” said Waititi.
“The New Zealand government is putting everyone in Aotearoa at risk through their complicity. They must end all talks about joining AUKUS immediately. They must sanction Israel and cut ties with all countries who are committing and aiding war crimes,” said Co-Leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer………………………………. more https://gpja.org.nz/2024/11/12/nuked-the-submarine-fiasco-that-sank-australias-sovereignty-by-murray-horton/
TODAY. The International Atomic Energy Agency in full force with its lying propaganda, at COP 29, with at least 20 ‘Events”.
COP 29 will be a flop anyway – so I suppose that is some kind of twisted comfort – in that very few will trust the outcome of this hijacked UN Climate Summit
From IAEA website’s disgusting propaganda:
“ a rich programme of IAEA and partner events to showcase nuclear science and technology solutions for climate change “
“The IAEA is organizing a series of events on four thematic areas: energy, food, the ocean and water. “
“an informed debate on the tools and benefits offered by nuclear technology”
Hijacked by all the polluting industries, but the biggest liar of the lot is the IAEA – with their full knowledge that nuclear does nothing to fight climate change. And in fact – climate change effects will kill the nuclear industry,
World teeters on brink as Trump and cronies prepare to flood the zone with shit
By Giles ParkinsonNov 10, 2024, https://johnmenadue.com/world-teeters-on-brink-as-trump-and-cronies-prepare-to-flood-the-zone-with-shit/
Are you OK? It seems an important question as the unhinged and unrestrained president Donald Trump is swept back into power and the world contemplates the implications for the climate, for civil discourse, for women, for minorities, for society as a whole, and for our children and their children.
We have, of course, been here before. This time round, however, the guard rails have been removed: Trump will be back in the White House and in control of the Senate, the House of Representatives, the judiciary and, thanks to fellow and like minded billionaires who own it or fund it, mainstream and social media. Only the filibuster stands in his way.
It’s a kick in the guts to those who care about the future. The implications weigh heavy on anyone minded to consider them: Trump is a climate denier who describes the science as a hoax and his vow to wind back policies and frack, frack, frack, will – according to the best estimates – add around four billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent by 2030, when the opposite needs to happen.
That, of course, means that the small window to cap average global warming within the Paris climate target of 1.5°C is all but lost. But by how big a margin it will be missed will depend on the actions elsewhere in the world. That includes Australia but mostly it is China, whose role could get complicated with the threat of a tariff war.
Trump has been especially enabled by the likes of Tesla and Twitter/X boss Elon Musk, who used to say that his prime mission was to end the use of fossil fuels in the grid and transport with electric cars, storage and renewables.
Musk’s technology, the cars and the batteries in particular, have helped tip the balance towards a green energy transition. But he now appears more concerned by other ideological pursuits.
Bizarrely, Musk now dismisses the science – maybe if greenhouse emissions get close to 1,000 parts per million it might be hard to breathe, he has said. He is obsessed about getting to Mars, and is happy to enable and promote misogynists and conspiracy theorists on his social media platform. On earth, or at least in cyberspace and the Metaverse, Musk is, to borrow a phrase, flooding the zone with shit.
What does that mean for Australia?
The good news – and these things are comparative – is that at least in the short term, the green energy transition will continue apace.
While wind and solar stocks plunged in the US in anticipation of Trump’s fossil fuel fracking frenzy, and his planned dismantling of the Inflation Reduction Act, the program in Australia accelerates, as we report here, with added urgency.
Australia is getting close to the half way mark of kicking fossil fuels out of the grid, and replacing them with wind, solar and storage – essential for any significant emissions cuts in the broader economy.
Some argue that the tipping point – aided by new technology, falling prices, better engineering, and deep pocketed investors – has already arrived.
But that won’t stop others from trying to throw a spanner in the nacelle, as it were, and Australia’s conservative Coalition – emboldened by the chutzpah of the Trump campaign and the backing of the Murdoch and Musk media machines – will continue with its campaign of mischief and misinformation.
What the Coalition and Peter Dutton have learned is that if you do flood the zone with shit – it’s the Steve Bannon mantra – then a lot will stick, particularly when you find ways of making people fearful.
So expect to hear a lot about immigration, transgender, women, elites and any other group that can easily be demonised in a tweet or an Instagram post.
The federal Coalition’s pursuit and promotion of nuclear power as a solution for Australia is about as nonsensical and incoherent as anything that Trump has ever proposed, but as the New York Times’ Seth Abramson notes in a depressing analysis, many of the public are too frivolous, selfish, self-interested, ignorant, or petty to care.
And, I would add, they are also too fearful, too impressionable, and too vulnerable to the machinations of billionaires who want to be trillionaires, and their supporting cast of psychopaths, to care.
Which brings it back to those who do care. The world has seen the likes of Trump, Abbott, Morrison before. The work has fallen to others to get on with the job – be it sub-national governments, investors, and campaigners. There is a lot at stake.
In Australia, that means individuals, too. Which is a good thing. The grid has changed so much, thanks largely to the massive popularity of rooftop solar, that consumers and communities here are in a position not enjoyed by others in the world: They are poised, quite literally, to take the power into their own hands, if only they were allowed.
Their ability to do so will grow with the rollout of EVs, vehicle to grid technology, heat pumps, and software that allows and promotes demand management.
The biggest impediment appears to be the system itself, and entrenched interests. Voters in the US and Australia are being hurt by changing economic circumstances and inflation. Trump managed to con the US public by pretending that he wasn’t part of the system, or the problem.
His attack on established and respected institutions is echoed in Australia by Dutton and co, who appear more concerned about protecting the vested and often venal interests of legacy industry – many now crouching behind the veil of net zero by 2050 that they know they can use as an excuse rather than a target.
It seems to be working. Polls put the Coalition at a 52-48 per cent advantage, just six months out from the federal poll. At least in Australia there is strength in minor parties, and their role has never been as crucial as it is now. The world is is in desperate need of grown-ups. Australia cannot afford to follow the American path.
So, when the rest of us are able to pick ourselves up from the floor, and check with others that they are OK, then it might be time to set about convincing doubters that the push to zero emissions offers a safe and more prosperous future, and the chance to be part of a community rather than oppressed by a system.
Sadly, it’s not yet apparent that enough in the green energy industry have learned how to do that, or even that they know that they should.
Good luck, take care, and don’t give up. We won’t.
Climate, nuclear, news and more -this week
Some bits of good news –
World Children’s Day 2024 – Every year, World’s Children Day is celebrated on 20 November, marking the date that the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child was adopted. Jordan Recognized as First in the World to Eradicate Leprosy
TOP STORIES
Israeli Scholar Lays Out ‘True Brutality’ of Ethnic Cleansing Now Underway in Gaza.
The Evil Warmongering Zionist Won (No Not That One, The Other One).
From the archives: Trump has a strategic plan for the country: Gearing up for nuclear war.
Climate.
- Climate talks to open in shadow of Trump victory.
- This year ‘virtually certain’ to be hottest on record, finds EU space programme.
- How Trump’s second term could derail the clean energy transition.
- ‘A wrecking ball’: experts warn Trump’s win sets back global climate action. Trump planning to withdraw from Paris climate agreement.
- Von der Leyen’s Cop29 absence sends ‘fatal signal’, say watchers.
- ‘Two sides of the same coin’: governments stress links between climate and nature collapse.
Environment. The Guardian view on Trump’s planet-wrecking plans: the UK government’s resolve will be tested.
Noel’s notes. The International Atomic Energy Agency in full force with its lying propaganda, at COP 29, with at least 20 ‘Events”. The Trump period and the use of language.
***********************************
AUSTRALIA.
- Australia US Alliance: Is It Time to Rethink Our Loyalty? Airstrip One: How Albanese has integrated Australia into Trump’s military machine.
- What from Trump? | The West Report https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4GK0sY-cgc
- 10 reasons why Donald Trump can’t derail global climate action. Donald Trump can’t stop global climate action – If we stick together, it’s the US that will lose out.
- ‘No bigger rent-seeking parasite’ than nuclear industry, Matt Kean tells former Coalition colleagues in heated debate.
- Matt Kean says Australia must take ‘strong and decisive action’ on climate crisis despite Trump re-election.
- More Australian nuclear news at https://antinuclear.net/2024/11/07/australian-nuclear-news-4-11-november/
NUCLEAR ITEMS
| ATROCITIES. Israel Killed Over 50 Children in Jabalia in 48 Hours: UN. Report Details Israel’s Ethnic Cleansing Campaign in Beit Lahia, Northern Gaza. |
| CULTURE. Trump Puts An Appropriately Ugly Face On A Very Ugly Empire https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRThFwyddvk |
| ECONOMICS. Regulators deliver successive blows to Amazon and Meta’s nuclear power ambitions. Amazon’s nuclear datacenter dreams stall as watchdog rejects power deal.Talen-Amazon Nuclear Power Deal Hits Speed Bump – Why Constellation Stock Is Down More. This is why nuclear power stocks are falling |
EDUCATION. Nuclear lobby continues its infiltration of education. |
| EMPLOYMENT. Hinkley workers ‘unfair’ pay claim leads to action. Hinkley Point and Sizewell nuclear plant engineers go on strike. ALSO AT https://nuclear-news.net/2024/11/07/1-b-hinkley-point-and-sizewell-nuclear-plant-engineers-go-on-strike/ |
ENERGY. IEA: Countries not on course to double rate of energy efficiency improvement by 2030. Compelling Economics of Renewables Unmask Fossil Fuels and Nuclear.
Endangered Bees Halt Meta’s Nuclear-Powered AI Data Center Plans.
Minimal role for nuclear in UK government agency’s Clean Energy plan.
Clean Energy Community Mobilizes as Trump Rises, Supporters Embrace Project 2025.
ENVIRONMENT. Radioactive pollution from bomb plant sparks cancer fears. Radioactivity in Food and the Environment (RIFE) report UK published.
HEALTH. Radiation. Occupational exposure to radiation among health workers: Genome integrity and predictors of exposure.
LEGAL. The death of Karen Silkwood—and the plutonium economy. Three sentenced to death for role in Iranian nuclear scientist’s assassination .
| MEDIA. A massacre within a massacre: How journalists reporting on Gaza deaths are being targeted.The Government-Media-Academia Misinformation Machine and “Ukraine’s Victory”. |
| OPPOSITION to NUCLEAR . Seven Canadian environmental groups challenge the nuclear industry’s false claims ALSO AT https://nuclear-news.net/2024/11/07/1-b1-seven-canadian-environmental-groups-challenge-the-nuclear-industrys-false-claims/ |
POLITICS.
- Nuclear sector’s views on second Trump administration mixed as Rogan interview raises questions.
- What Netanyahu’s firing of Yoav Gallant means for Gaza, Israel’s regional war, and the US-Israel relationship.
- Big Promise From Trump: ‘I’m Going to Stop Wars’.
- UK budget outlines nuclear power plans (new nuclear not a high priority)
| POLITICS INTERNATIONAL and DIPLOMACY.Everybody Wants to Join BRICS.Can Trump 2.0 defuse the nuclear threat? These Washington heavyweights fear not.Iran says it rejects nuclear weapons, but will defend itself by all means. UN nuclear head to visit Iran for talks on country’s nuclear program as next Trump presidency looms.UK says it voted against UN nuclear war panel because consequences already known. Poodles and puppet masters – Mutual Defence Agreement puts USA in charge of UK military policy. |
| SAFETY. Can quake-prone Japan ever embrace nuclear energy again? When you combine AI and nuclear power, the results can be catastrophic . |
| SECRETS and LIES. COP 29 chief exec filmed promoting fossil fuel deals. |
| TECHNOLOGY. Japanese nuclear reactor that restarted 13 years after Fukushima disaster is shut down again. Micro-reactor developer optimistic about connecting South Wales project by 2027. |
| WASTES. Germany excludes over half of its territory in search for long-term nuclear waste storage. Robot Removes First Bit Of Fukushima’s Nuclear Fuel Debris – Just 880 Tons More To Go. Nuclear debris retrieved from Fukushima reactor weighs 0.7 gram. Tepco removes [a tiny sceric] of nuclear fuel debris from Fukushima disaster site. |
| WAR and CONFLICT. Israel’s attacks on Iran were an apocalyptic error by Netanyahu. Here’s why. Foreign Policy: NATO knows Ukraine is losing. Russia’s Swift March Forward in Ukraine’s East. Biden, Zelensky ponder face saving off ramp from failed US proxy war against Russia. |
| WEAPONS and WEAPONS SALES. US F-15 Fighter Jets Arrive in Middle East as Part of Buildup Aimed at Iran, US Bombers Arrive in Middle East as Part of New Deployment for Israel. F-35 components sent to Israel from Royal Air Force base. Iran says it can produce nuclear weapon if faced with existential threat. The Great American Nuclear Weapons Upgrade. US nuclear weapons could be sited in RAF Lakenheath in spring, CND protest hears. Fifty two nations call for global arms embargo on Israel. Depleted uranium: Is Israel using depleted uranium to bomb Lebanon? Biden Team Wants To Rush Weapons Shipments to Ukraine Before Trump Inauguration. With Trump back in White House, can Ukraine opt for nuclear deterrence? |
Airstrip One: How Albanese has integrated us into Trump’s military machine
Thanks to the Albanese government, the new Trump administration will find Australia a well-established launch pad for any conflict with China.
Bernard Keane, Nov 11, 2024, https://www.crikey.com.au/2024/11/11/anthony-albanese-australia-us-military-integration-donald-trump/
The next Trump administration will arrive in power to learn that Australia is far more deeply enmeshed in in the US military and intelligence apparatus than in 2020, partly thanks to an eager Albanese government subordinating Australian sovereignty to Washington.
AUKUS is a Biden-era initiative that advocates worry Trump may look askance at, given the pressure it will place on US nuclear submarine production — although the fact that America and the UK can walk away whenever they like, and that Australia is handing $5 billion to each for the privilege of participating, should mitigate Trump’s hostility. That AUKUS will effectively place Australia’s submarine fleet — if it ever arrives — under US control in the 2040s and 2050s may be appealing, but that’s far beyond Trump’s short-term mindset.
But the bigger story of Australian sovereignty under the Albanese government isn’t AUKUS but the steady integration of Australia’s military systems into America’s, and Australia’s transformation into a launch pad for the deployment of American power. The Albanese government has:
- Facilitated “regular and longer visits of US [nuclear submarines] from 2023 to Australia, with a focus on HMAS Stirling. These visits would help build Australia’s capacity in preparation for Submarine Rotational Force-West, an important milestone for the AUKUS Optimal Pathway that would commence as early as 2027”. Submarine Rotational Force-West is the permanent operation of one British and four US nuclear submarines from Perth.
- Allowed US intelligence officials to be embedded in the Defence Intelligence Organisation, a “significant step” toward what Defence Minister (and, as he always insists on being called, Deputy Prime Minister) Richard Marles hailed as “seamless” intelligence ties between the US and Australia.
- Established sharing of satellite imagery “and analysis capability” between Geoscience Australia and the US government.
Established rotation of State Department officials through the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade “in the areas of technical security, cyber security, and threat analysis”.- Upgraded Top End RAAF airfields to accommodate more US military aircraft, with more upgrades planned, in work hailed by Stars and Stripes as reflecting how “Australians are alarmed at Chinese efforts to gain influence among their South Pacific neighbours”.
- Established facilities for “prepositioning of initial US Army equipment and materiel in Australia at Albury-Wodonga”.
- Continued the Morrison government’s support for the expansion of the Pine Gap surveillance facility, while it is being used, inter alia, to provide intelligence to the Israeli Defence Forces in their genocidal campaign against Palestinians.
- US Marine rotations through Darwin have also been used as “a hub in a lengthy kill web that could protect the region, should Australia face outside threats. ‘Every single day Darwin is becoming more of a hub for us, not just in Australia but through the island chain,’” one American officer says.
In one recent exercise, “Marines set up a bare bones air base on the York Peninsula, Queensland, Australia complete with a fires unit armed with anti-ship missiles and a sensing unit to run air defense … Marines also used their own and Australian aircraft, including C-130s, C-17s and Ospreys to establish an Expeditionary Advanced Base that set up an Osprey maintenance base to extend the aircrafts operations during military exercises. ‘These are real posture gains being made there that will be useful for us in conflict.’”
This demonstrates the validity of Paul Keating’s description of Australia under Albanese as becoming “a continental extension of American power akin to that which it enjoys in Hawaii, Alaska and more limitedly in places like Guam … the national administrator of what would be broadly viewed in Asia as a US protectorate”.
The difference now is that from January, this “continental extension” will be under the control not of a traditional centrist Democrat, but an unstable populist with a deep hostility to China and a stated determination to weaken the country he believes caused the COVID pandemic, as well as an outright hostility to international law and desire to unshackle Israel from any limitations on its mass slaughter of Palestinians. In the event Trump’s proposed trade war with China significantly increases military tensions, Australia will be Airstrip One for the deployment of American power.
How a Secluded 1984 Conference Forged Israel’s Unprecedented Influence Over US Media
Buoyed by its success, the operation soon expanded to include school and university students worldwide, training them to act as vigorous advocates for Israel in classrooms and on campuses. Graduates of these Israeli-funded programs frequently enter influential fields, including journalism, where they continue to promote Hasbara narratives and defend Israel’s actions. The impact on Western media coverage of Palestine has been profound.
Mint Press News, November 11, 2024
As Israel’s October 1 invasion of Lebanon unfolds, the media’s complicity in shaping public perception raises urgent questions, particularly when viewed through the lens of a controversial 1984 conference where influential advertising and media figures gathered to refine Israel’s narrative strategies. This conference laid the groundwork for a sophisticated propaganda campaign—Hasbara—that sought to sanitize Israel’s actions and cast its military operations in a favorable light. Today, as Western journalists whitewash, distort, and conceal Israel’s the realities of Israel’s deadly campaign of violence, the enduring legacy of this meeting becomes alarmingly clear, revealing how narratives crafted decades ago continue to shape the coverage of a conflict that claims countless lives.
…………………………………………………………………………… The mainstream media’s systematic use of distancing and evasive language, omission and other duplicitous chicanery to downplay or outright justify Israel’s murder of innocent civilians while simultaneously dehumanizing their victims and delegitimizing Palestinian resistance against brutal, illegal IDF occupation is as unconscionable as it is well-documented. Amazingly though, ‘twasn’t ever thus. Once upon a time, mainstream news networks exposed Israel’s war crimes without qualification, and anchors and pundits openly condemned these actions on live TV to audiences of millions.
The story of how Western media was transformed into Israel’s doting, servile propaganda appendage is not only a fascinating and sordid hidden chronicle. It is a deeply educational lesson in how imperial power can easily subordinate supposed arbiters of truth to its will. Comprehending how we got to this point equips us with the tools to assess, identify, and deconstruct lies large and small – and effectively challenge and counter not only Israel’s falsehoods but the entire settler colonial endeavor.
‘Neighborhood Bully’
On June 6, 1982, Israel invaded Lebanon. The effort was ostensibly intended to drive Palestinian Liberation Organization freedom fighters away from their positions on Israel’s northern border. But, as the IDF savagely pushed ever-deeper into the country, including Beirut, it became clear that ethnic cleansing, massacres, and land theft were – as in Palestine – the true goal. Throughout the Lebanese capital, news crews from major networks and reporters from the West’s biggest newspapers were waiting.
Israel’s rapacious bloodlust and casual contempt for Arab lives had hitherto been, by and large, successfully concealed from the outside world. Suddenly, though, scenes of deliberate IDF airstrikes on residential housing blocks, Tel Aviv’s trigger-happy soldiers running amok in Beirut’s streets, and hospitals overflowing with civilians suffering from grave injuries, including chemical burns due to Israel’s use of phosphorus shells, were broadcast the world over, to nigh-universal outcry. As veteran NBC news anchor John Chancellor contemporarily explained to Western viewers:
What in the world is going on? Israel’s security problem, on its border, is 50 miles to the south. What’s an Israeli army doing here in Beirut? The answer is we are now dealing with an imperial Israel, which is solving its problems in someone else’s country, world opinion be damned.”
Global shock and repulsion at Israel’s conduct would only ratchet during the IDF’s resultant illegal military occupation of swaths of Lebanon. …………………………………………………………..
To say the least, Israel had an international PR disaster of historic proportions on its blood-soaked hands…………………………………………………..
So it was that in the summer of 1984, the American Jewish Congress – a major Zionist lobby organization – convened a conference in Jerusalem, Israel’s Public Image: Problems and Remedies. It was chaired by U.S. advertising supremo Carl Spielgovel, who a decade earlier provided pro bono advice to the Israeli government on strategies for publicly communicating why Tel Aviv refused to adhere to the terms of the Henry Kissinger-brokered 1973 Sinai Accords. Spielgovel later recalled:
It occurred to me then that the Israelis were doing a good job at training their military people, and they were doing a relatively good job at training their diplomatic corps. But they weren’t spending any time training information officers, people who could present Israel’s case to embassies and TV anchormen around the world. Over the years, I made this a personal cause celebre.”
The 1984 Jerusalem conference offered Spielgovel and a welter of Western advertising and public relations executives, media specialists, editors, journalists, and leaders of major Zionist advocacy groups an opportunity to achieve that malign objective. Together, they hammered out a dedicated strategy for ensuring the “crisis” caused by news reporting on the invasion of Lebanon two years earlier would never be repeated. Their antidote? Ceaseless, methodical, and wide-ranging “Hasbara” – Hebrew for propaganda – for “changing people’s minds [and] making them think differently.”
‘Big Scoop’
The AJC subsequently published records of the conference. They offer extraordinarily candid insight into how multiple Hasbara strategies, which have been in perpetual operation ever since were birthed. …………………………………………………………
There was extensive discussion of how to present “unpalatable policies” to Western populations…….. ” The necessity of training the Jewish diaspora in countering criticism of Israel was considered paramount.
………………….. media framing on Israel’s actions needed to be determined in advance…………………
It was also suggested that on an individual and organizational level, Zionist activists serve as a rapid reaction force, deluging news outlets with complaints en masse should their coverage of Israel be at all critical. One attendee boasted of their personal success in this regard:
“One day CBS News Radio reported that an American soldier had been hurt by stepping on an Israeli cluster bomb at the Beirut airport. I called CBS to point out that no one had established the bomb was an Israeli one. One hour later CBS reported that an American soldier had stepped on a bomb; this time the report omitted any reference to Israel.”
‘Frequent Violations’
Another significant recommendation came from Carl Spielgovel: creating a “training program” to bring carefully selected Israeli information specialists into U.S. advertising, PR agencies, and major news outlets. The initiative aimed to equip them with industry insights, ensure Hasbara efforts were maximized, and establish close relationships between Israeli officials and the organizations to which they were assigned.
These “specialists” would operate under the guidance of a U.S.-Israeli council described as “wise persons who can project different scenarios and how to cope with them” on complex issues like “annexation and Jerusalem.”
……………………………………………………………….. Since then, a dedicated Hasbara program aimed at cultivating skilled Zionist advocates in the U.S. has operated continuously.
Buoyed by its success, the operation soon expanded to include school and university students worldwide, training them to act as vigorous advocates for Israel in classrooms and on campuses. Graduates of these Israeli-funded programs frequently enter influential fields, including journalism, where they continue to promote Hasbara narratives and defend Israel’s actions. The impact on Western media coverage of Palestine has been profound.
To a significant degree, the portrayal of Tel Aviv as “the gallant little underdog democracy fighting for survival against all the odds” has been firmly reestablished. Despite the ongoing crisis in Gaza, mainstream outlets seldom provide context for Palestinian resistance to Israel’s policies of annexation, occupation, and military actions. Coverage nearly always frames Israel’s actions as “self-defense” against “terrorist” threats, with Western journalists keenly aware of potential repercussions for diverging from this narrative.
The rapid reaction force proposed at the 1984 AJC conference remains highly active. An extensive network of Hasbara-trained individuals and Israel lobby organizations is always on standby, ready to pressure and intimidate news outlets if coverage diverges from favorable framing or casts Israel in a critical light. As a senior BBC producer once confided to veteran media critic Greg Philo:
“We wait in fear for the telephone call from the Israelis. The only issue we face then is how high up it’s come from them. Has it come from a monitoring group? Has it come from the Israeli embassy? And how high has it gone up our organization? Has it reached the editor or director general? I have had journalists on the phone to me before a major news report, asking which words can I use – ‘is it alright I say this’?”
An October exposé by Al Jazeera, citing testimony from BBC and CNN whistleblowers, detailed “pro-Israel bias in coverage, systematic double standards, and frequent violations of journalistic principles” at both networks.
Were it not for the persistent investigations by outlets like MintPress News, The Grayzone, and Electronic Intifada, unfounded allegations promoted by Israel since the outset of the Gaza conflict—such as claims of Hamas committing mass rape or beheading infants—might never have been thoroughly debunked and might still shape the “context” for Israel’s actions against Palestinians. Meanwhile, countless concerned citizens have actively challenged Western narratives on the conflict in real-time across social media, a groundswell of critique that may be fueling pushback within some mainstream newsrooms. ……………………………………. https://www.mintpressnews.com/1984-hasbara-conference-israel-influence-us-media/288534/
Australia US Alliance: Is It Time to Rethink Our Loyalty?
November 10, 2024, by: The AIM Network, By Denis Hay
Australia US alliance has costs. Learn how this impacts Australians and how reallocated funds could benefit citizens.
Introduction
Australia and the United States have been strategic allies for over seventy years. This Australia US alliance, often celebrated with the phrase “old allies and true friends,” is rooted in shared history and mutual defence agreements like the ANZUS Treaty.
However, many Australians are now questioning if the costs of this alliance—both in terms of military and economic impact—outweigh the benefits. This article explores the consequences of Australia’s allegiance to the U.S., the human costs of U.S. interventions, and how Australia’s financial resources might better serve its citizens’ social well-being.
1. The Costly Legacy of the Australia-U.S. Alliance
– Historical Overview: Australia US alliance began formally with the ANZUS Treaty in 1951. Through wars in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, Australia has stood beside the U.S., incurring both financial costs and human losses.
– Casualty Estimates: The human toll of this alliance is staggering. The wars led by the U.S. have resulted in estimated casualties of over 200,000 American troops, 60,000 Australian troops, and millions of civilians globally. For instance, the Iraq War alone caused around 500,000 civilian deaths and displaced over 3 million people.
– The Refugee Crisis: The consequence of U.S.-led wars has been a refugee crisis affecting countless lives. Countries like Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan have seen millions of citizens fleeing war zones, often with little support from Western nations. Australia’s involvement in these wars contributes to a moral responsibility for the refugee influx, yet the country struggles to support displaced persons adequately.
2. The Social Cost of Alliance-Bound Military Spending
– Military Expenditures at the Cost of Social Welfare: Australia’s defence budget has increased significantly, with estimates of $48.7 billion given in 2023. Much of this spending is tied to keeping military readiness to support the U.S. in conflicts. These funds could otherwise enhance healthcare, education, and housing for Australians.
Military funding without public transparency.
– Impact on Public Services: Redirecting even a part of the defence budget could fund initiatives like universal healthcare, improved mental health services, and housing for the homeless. For example, just 10% of the current defence budget could support building 10,000 public housing units annually or fund a significant expansion of mental health services for underserved communities.
– Consequences of Refugee and Displacement Crises: Australia’s participation in U.S.-led interventions indirectly contributes to refugee crises that strain social services and humanitarian aid. Public sentiment on immigration has also been affected, often creating divisive views within Australian society about who should be supported and who is viewed as a “burden.”
3. A Call for a More Independent and Socially Conscious Foreign Policy
Australia’s alliance with the United States has provided strategic support over the decades, yet many argue that it is time for Australia to pursue a foreign policy that is more reflective of its own interests, values, and the well-being of its citizens.
Despite growing public interest in a more independent, socially conscious approach, Australian governments have hesitated to diverge significantly from U.S.-aligned policies. This reluctance may stem from multiple factors:
1. Fear of Political and Economic Repercussions:
– Australian policymakers often cite strategic security concerns as a reason for adhering closely to U.S. foreign policy, fearing that any independence might jeopardize Australia’s access to American intelligence, technology, and defence resources.
– Economically, a close alliance with the U.S. bolsters trade relations and provides access to powerful American markets. For some politicians, the potential economic fallout of alienating a significant trading and security partner outweighs the call for a more independent stance.
2. Lack of Political Courage and Vision:
– Some critics argue that the Australian government lacks the courage to challenge established norms or take bold steps toward an independent foreign policy. This lack of vision may stem from a longstanding alignment with U.S. interests that has become entrenched in Australia’s political and diplomatic culture.
– Breaking away from such a powerful ally requires a willingness to redefine national priorities, a path that requires courage, strategic foresight, and often a willingness to face criticism from powerful interest groups invested in maintaining the alliance.
3. Disconnect from Public Opinion:
– Surveys show that Australians increasingly favour a more balanced, socially conscious approach to foreign policy, especially as they see the domestic impact of military spending and U.S.-influenced policies. However, successive Australian governments have often ignored this sentiment, raising questions about whether the government genuinely prioritizes the public’s voice in its decisions…………………………..
4. Influence of External Powers and Lobbying:
– Australian foreign policy decisions are also influenced by lobbying from powerful industries, including defence contractors and political think tanks with ties to the U.S. These entities often push for policies that favour a strong alliance with the U.S., as it aligns with their economic and strategic interests.
– The cumulative effect of these influences can stymie efforts for a more independent policy path, effectively sidelining the public’s desire for a foreign policy that prioritizes social well-being and peaceful diplomacy.
In summary, Australia’s reluctance to adopt a more independent, socially conscious foreign policy is a combination of economic dependency, political caution, and a systemic disconnect from the will of the people.
For Australia to shift toward a foreign policy that truly serves its citizens, it would require not only a realignment of political priorities but also a renewed commitment to placing the public’s interests and values at the heart of its foreign relations.
1. The Historical Basis of Australia-U.S. Relations and Its Human Cost……………………………………………….
2. Australia’s Position on U.S. Leaders and Policies
– Unquestioned Loyalty: Australian leaders often affirm support for U.S. presidents and foreign policies without critical evaluation. This approach reflects a hesitancy to challenge U.S. decisions even when they conflict with Australia’s best interests.
– Impact on Australian Sovereignty: The uncritical acceptance of Australia US alliance policies can undermine Australia’s autonomy. For example, Australia’s alignment with U.S. policies on China has strained trade relationships, affecting vital economic sectors like agriculture, tourism, and education. The result is a compromise of national interests to support a symbolic “alliance.”
3. U.S. Military Interventions, Global Casualties, and the Refugee Crisis
– Scope of U.S.-Led Wars: The U.S. has been involved in conflicts worldwide, from the Middle East to Latin America and beyond, often resulting in widespread devastation. These conflicts have had lasting impacts, including millions of civilian deaths and widespread destruction.
– The Refugee Crisis and Australia’s Responsibility: Australia’s support for U.S. interventions creates a moral obligation to help refugees from war-torn countries. However, current refugee policies fall short, leaving many displaced people without adequate support or protection. Accepting more refugees from conflict zones would reflect Australia’s commitment to international human rights and fulfill part of its alliance-driven responsibility.
4. Australia’s Role as a Supporting Partner and Its Consequences
– Participation in Conflicts and Reputational Impact: Australia’s involvement in U.S. wars affects its international reputation, often casting the country as a secondary player rather than an independent, neutral voice in global politics. This alignment can make Australia appear complicit in conflicts driven by U.S. interests, compromising its image as a peaceful nation.
– Economic and Social Impact on Australians: By aligning with U.S. defence priorities, Australia diverts significant public money to defence spending, reducing resources for vital services. Citizens bear the costs through reduced access to affordable healthcare, housing shortages, and an underfunded education system. The pressure to conform to U.S. policies, especially in the Indo-Pacific, risks escalating regional tensions that could directly affect Australians.
5. The Opportunity Cost: How Reallocating Military Spending Could Benefit Australians……………………………………………………………..
Rethinking Australia’s Foreign Policy Approach for the Future
As global dynamics shift, Australia faces a critical juncture in deciding how to position itself on the world stage. A key element of this decision lies in its relationship with China, a rapidly growing economic and political power in the Indo-Pacific region.
While the Australia US alliance has historically shaped much of Australia’s foreign policy, the rise of China presents an opportunity for Australia to pursue a balanced, independent approach that prioritizes regional stability and mutual benefit.
1. China’s Role as Australia’s Major Trading Partner:……………………………………….
2. Promoting Regional Stability and Security:
– As a dominant power in the Indo-Pacific, China’s influence on regional security is substantial. Building a constructive, diplomatic relationship with China could position Australia as a mediator and stabilizer within the region, promoting dialogue over conflict.
– With rising tensions between the U.S. and China, Australia has a unique opportunity to champion a foreign policy that values peace, cooperation, and shared interests, rather than one that escalates division. This approach would reduce the risk of Australia being drawn into potential conflicts that do not serve its national interests.
3. Economic and Diplomatic Benefits of Non-Alignment:………………………….
4. Preparing for a Multipolar World:
– The global power landscape is shifting from U.S.-led dominance to a multipolar world where countries like China, India, and emerging economies play a larger role. For Australia, recognizing and adapting to this reality is crucial for staying relevant and resilient in the international arena…………………………….
Conclusion
Australia US alliance has served strategic purposes in the past, but as global dynamics shift, it’s vital to reassess whether the benefits of this alliance outweigh the costs. The loss of lives, the displacement of millions, and the diversion of public money from critical social services highlight the urgent need for a foreign policy that prioritizes Australia’s long-term interests and humanitarian values.
By adopting a more independent stance, Australia could enhance the social well-being of its citizens and contribute to a more peaceful, stable global community. https://theaimn.com/australia-us-alliance-is-it-time-to-rethink-our-loyalty/
Nuclear waste management could add billions to electricity supply costs
Jennifer Dudley-Nicholson, Nov 8, 2024 https://reneweconomy.com.au/nuclear-waste-management-could-add-billions-to-electricity-supply-costs/
Handling and storing nuclear waste could add significant costs to Australia’s future energy bills, an inquiry has heard, with Canada set to spend $26 billion to safely store depleted fuel from its reactors.
The cost and time to build nuclear power plants in Australia also remained a mystery, two academics told the Nuclear Power Generation inquiry on Thursday, including the demands of small modular reactors proposed for two states.
The testimony comes on the third hearing of the nuclear energy inquiry, created in October after federal Liberal leader Peter Dutton announced plans to establish nuclear power plants in seven Australian locations after the next election.
But the details of an Australian switch from a renewable energy future to one powered by nuclear plants remain unclear, with the inquiry set to probe financial, technical, legal and environmental impacts of a change.
York University environmental studies Professor Mark Winfield told MPs the Canadian experience had been a troubling and expensive one, with its seven nuclear plants now reduced to four in operation.
Canada also faced a bill of $26 billion to handle, move and safely store wasted nuclear fuel, he said, of which the country had three million bundles and produced between 85,000 and 90,000 each year.
The bundles, he said, were about the size of a small log.
“It’s physically hot when it comes to the reactor, it’s also highly radioactive when it comes out of the reactor, the swimming pools are supposed to be for the first 50 years or so, while it cools down a bit,” Prof Winfield told the committee.
“The nuclear waste management organisations planning assumption then is that long-term management or disposal would need to occur on a time frame of a million years.”
Questions also remained about the price of new-build nuclear plants, the inquiry heard, and Princeton University senior research scientist Dr Chris Greig said naming a price for small modular reactors was a tricky challenge.
Small modular reactors have been tipped for sites in South Australia and West Australia under the coalition’s proposal, with 2035 as a potential start date.
“The people who are ordering them right now, Dow being one of them and Google and Microsoft and OpenAI and Meta, they don’t know what the cost is going to be yet,” he said.
“They have targets but, frankly, none of us have any confidence in those targets.”
The time it would take to build small reactors was also challenging to estimate, he said, with the most optimistic estimates seeing plants operating in the early 2030s…………………………………………………..
The nuclear power inquiry is expected to issue recommendations by April next year.
‘Loophole’ in Victoria’s uranium ban allows mine to ship element to US
ABC News, By Emile Pavlich and Else Kenned, 8 Nov 24
In short:
Uranium mining is banned in Victoria, but a mine in the state’s west will be able to ship a rare earths concentrate to the US to be processed into commercial quantities of uranium.
The plan has sparked farmer protests, and Friends of the Earth is calling on the Victorian government to block the exports.
What’s next?
The mine is due to start producing and shipping the concentrate in 2026.
A mine in western Victoria is set to produce a commercial quantity of uranium for the first time in Victoria’s history, despite a state ban on uranium mining.
Astron Corporation’s Donald Rare Earth and Minerals Sands Project, about 75 kilometres north of Horsham, was approved by the Victorian government in 2008.
This year, the company received a $183-million funding injection from US uranium giant Energy Fuels, which it said would allow it to start production in 2026.
The company will produce a rare earths concentrate, which will be shipped to the US and refined by Energy Fuels in Utah to produce rare earths and uranium.
The uranium will be sold to US nuclear power plants to generate electricity, according to a memorandum of understanding signed between the two companies last year.
Friends of the Earth national anti-nuclear campaigner Jim Green said there was a “loophole” in Victorian legislation that allowed companies to mine uranium as a by-product of mining other minerals.
Dr Green said that created a “range of issues” around legality, economics and logistics.
“I’m really quite shocked by this proposal, I didn’t see it coming,” he said. “It is a concern and it could certainly lead to other similar proposals.”………………………………….
Nuclear industry banned since 1983
There are three operating uranium mines in Australia, according to Geoscience Australia.
None are in Victoria, where the activity has been banned since nuclear prohibition legislation was introduced in 1983.
Victoria banned uranium mining to “protect the health, welfare and safety of the people” and limit “deterioration of the environment” caused by radioactive substances and nuclear activities, according to the nuclear activities act.
A parliamentary inquiry report examining Victoria’s nuclear prohibition laws, tabled in 2020, found that groups or individuals who proposed changing the government policy did not present sufficient arguments to convince the committee.
“Any advantages are speculative in nature, and do not outweigh the identified and proven risks,” the report found.
If it goes ahead, Astron Corporation’s plan to sell rare earth concentrate to Energy Fuels for processing into uranium and other minerals would be the first example of an Australian rare earths mine producing a commercial quantity of uranium.
The ABC understands Australia’s two existing rare earths mines, Lynas Corporation’s Mount Weld Project and Northern Minerals’ Browns Range project, both in Western Australia, do not produce uranium.
But as the world looks to transition away from fossil fuels, more companies may take up the search, with company Australian Rare Earth announcing in September it would explore for uranium in South Australia.
Changing the fabric of a rural community
The Wimmera region of western Victoria is known as the state’s wheat belt due to its large production of grains and pulses, producing more than 800,000 tonnes on average per year.
In total, 428 square kilometres of land is under Astron Corporation’s mining license and the first phase of the mine, planned to start construction in 2025, covers 28 square kilometres. ……………………………………………………………………………..
………….Regulation concerns
Anti-nuclear campaigner Dr Green said he had concerns about the regulation of the nuclear industry.
“I’ve got safeguards and weapons proliferation concerns,” he said…………………
Dr Green said he also had serious concerns about the White Mesa Mill site in Utah where the uranium would be processed.
“It’s got a long history of controversy, it’s the subject of regular protests from the Ute Mountain Tribe — the local Indigenous people,” he said.
“They have had non-compliance notices from state and federal regulators [and] problems with underground pollution of aquifers.”
The Ute Mountain Ute Tribe and the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and Prevention in the United States are undertaking a study about the health impacts of this site, with results expected next year……….. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-11-08/victoria-uranium-mining-ban-loophole-mineral-sands/104473328
Matt Kean says Australia must take ‘strong and decisive action’ on climate crisis despite Trump re-election
Chair of Climate Change Authority says ‘climate change waits for no one’ as pressure mounts on Coalition to dump net zero commitment.
Karen Middleton and Adam Morton, Thu 7 Nov 2024
The chair of the Climate Change Authority, Matt Kean, has declared Australia must take “strong and decisive action” to address the climate crisis despite Donald Trump’s return to the White House, arguing the world needs cheap renewable energy and the country can provide it.
Kean, a former News South Wales Liberal treasurer and energy minister, told Guardian Australia there were “enormous opportunities and benefits” in taking action to cut greenhouse gas emissions, no matter who was US president.
“We don’t know exactly what Trump will do, but climate change waits for no one and will spare no one and no country. That’s why we will continue to need to act – to take strong and decisive action to address this great challenge of our times,” he said.
“The world still needs cheap renewable energy, and the products that come with that, and Australia is in a very strong position to meet the world’s needs, and in doing so create huge jobs and prosperity for our country that we’ve never seen before
Kean said past evidence, including in Trump’s first term as president, showed states, territories and the private sector would continue to act. “I have no doubt that will continue to be the case,” he said
Anthony Albanese also recommitted to the government’s existing policies …………………………….
Initial advice from the authority found a 65-75% cut below 2005 levels would be “ambitious, but could be achievable”.
The government is not keen to reactivate the climate debate in Australia because the effects of climate change continue to generate anxiety in the community and Albanese is pushing a message of optimism about the future…………..
“But doing so because we see it as necessary if you are to be credible in achieving net zero whilst protecting Australia’s industrial base in the future
The Climate Council chief executive, Amanda McKenzie, emphasised the need for Australia to stay the course on the clean energy transition.
“During his first presidency, Trump tried to withdraw the US from climate diplomacy, but state and local governments powered ahead,” McKenzie said in a statement. “Countries and US states know the Trump playbook – and they’re determined to keep driving climate action forward……………. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/nov/07/australia-liberal-national-coalition-net-zero-2050-commitment-donald-trump-us-election?utm_term=Autofeed&CMP=soc_568&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1730983193
Donald Trump can’t stop global climate action. If we stick together, it’s the US that will lose out
In Australia we’re on the frontline of climate impacts and damages. The Great Barrier Reef has suffered enormous damage with increasingly frequent bleaching. Forests in Western Australia have experienced browning and dieback at an unprecedented scale due to extended drought and heat.
The Australian government, especially given its intention to host COP31, must play a strong diplomatic role to help ensure the fallout from the second Trump presidency is limited, and that international domestic action everywhere else continues to move ahead.
Bill Hare, Guardian 7th Nov 2024, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/nov/07/donald-trump-cant-stop-global-climate-action-if-we-stick-together-its-the-us-that-will-lose-out
How damaging this presidency is to the planet depends very much on how other countries react. There’s no time to waste
Donald Trump’s re-election to the White House is a major setback for climate action but ultimately it’s the US that could end up losing out, as the rest of the world will move forward without it.
The US is the world’s biggest economy and its second biggest emitter. Positive US engagement on climate has been crucial to landmark leaps forward, like getting the Paris agreement over the line, and just last year committing to transitioning away from fossil fuels.
The US missing in action in the latter half of this critical decade for climate action is nobody’s idea of a good outcome.
President-elect Trump has promised to leave the Paris agreement and reports have emerged that he could be thinking of pulling out of the underlying United Nations framework treaty on climate change. But we’ve been here before and the truth is that a second Trump presidency can’t stop climate action, just like his denial of human-induced climate change won’t spare the US from its impacts.
The energy transition is now well under way. The economics of renewable technologies are so attractive that they have become an energy juggernaut. Since the Paris agreement was signed in 2015, global investment in clean energy has increased by 60%.
Nearly US$2tn a year is now invested in clean energy projects, almost double that spent on new oil, gas and coal supply. Before the pandemic, this ratio was closer to 1:1. The US added 560 gigawatts of renewable capacity in 2023. That’s about six times the size of Australia’s entire electricity capacity, added in just one year.
Domestically, Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act has set wheels in motion for climate investment that will be hard, and politically unpopular, to undo. Famously, no Republicans voted for the legislation but red states have been the main beneficiaries of the money, projects and jobs it has created. House Republicans have even pushed back against their peers to protect some of the act’s clean energy tax credits.
Climate impacts are accelerating in pace and scale that is untenable to ignore. Hurricanes Helene and Milton, supercharged by climate change, are expected to cost more than US$50bn. Fires in California, heatwaves in the sunbelt states, and flooding in the US South are wreaking huge damage on Americans. Last year a poll showed a majority of them feel that climate change is already causing serious effects.
None of this stops the day Trump re-enters the White House.
Internationally, we’ve been in this position before. In 2001 George W Bush quit the 1997 Kyoto deal. Last time Trump was in power, he left the Paris agreement, albeit for a short time. I don’t want to downplay the impacts of Trump, or the Project 2025 agenda to which he has been linked, but climate action didn’t stop then and it will not stop now.
Other players, notably China, are increasingly moving into a leadership position on the issue, because of the strategic policy and economic interests it advances. The European Union is moving ahead with its green economic development agenda despite a rightward shift in the balance of power across the EU27 – with action on the climate emergency driving the economic development needed for this region of 350 million people.
The US, if Trump does enact the changes he has campaigned on, will find itself falling behind on new technologies and markets.
How damaging the second Trump presidency is to climate action depends very much on how other countries react. If many follow Trump in either rolling back – or slowing down – their action, the damage will be severe, long-lasting and difficult to overcome.
On the other hand, if countries stick together and, as they should, deepen their commitments aligning with the Paris agreement’s 1.5C limit, the damage will be significant but not severe.
In Australia we’re on the frontline of climate impacts and damages. The Great Barrier Reef has suffered enormous damage with increasingly frequent bleaching. Forests in Western Australia have experienced browning and dieback at an unprecedented scale due to extended drought and heat.
We know that the climate crisis and its impacts on our neighbours is one of our most serious security threats – although it’s not one that our government wants to particularly talk about.
The Australian government, especially given its intention to host COP31, must play a strong diplomatic role to help ensure the fallout from the second Trump presidency is limited, and that international domestic action everywhere else continues to move ahead.
This requires leadership. The government must step up and work with other like-minded countries to bring together a coalition prepared to move forward on climate. And it needs to move forward itself.
There is no time to waste on this. COP29 starts in Baku in a few days and real leadership will be needed urgently to maintain the momentum needed to get agreement on the difficult issues that need to be solved to maintain action globally.
Bill Hare, a physicist and climate scientist, is the chief executive of Climate Analytics
TODAY . COP 29 global climate summit – already a dead duck.
In the midst of all the brouhaha about the election of a deranged narcissist to be in charge of America, we must remember what is really the biggest danger to our Earth – climate change – global heating
The 29th Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP29), will take place from November 11 to 22 in 2024 at Baku Stadium, Azerbaijan, from 11 to 22 November 2024.
There will be good people there, and I’m not rubbishing their work.
Still, at the top level, corporate greed will be running the show.
FIRST. to start with, the host, Azerbaijan- is a massive exporter of oil and gas, – global fossil fuel lobbyists will be welcome there and money will be splurged on an attractive greenwash of the dirtiest industries
SECOND. As if having the fossil fuel industries in control was not bad enough, we have their close mate, the nuclear industry, jumping on the bandwagon, with its lucrative claims about “solving” the climate crisis .
THIRD. Politics international. Ursula von der Leyen, the big cheese of the European Commission, will not be attending. Nor will France’s Emmanuel Macron, the current US president, Joe Biden, and the Brazilian president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, . The leaders of China, South Africa, Japan and Australia are expected to miss the talks as well. This sends a clear message that climate change is not a concern for top world leaders
THIRD. American politics now. I’m not a fan of Joe Biden, but the Biden administration deserves credit . The U.S. Inflation Reduction Act has been successful in promoting truly clean energy (even though it does contain sops to the nuclear industry). Many Americans have now become painfully aware of the extreme effects of global heating, and the USA’s clean energy success will be hard for the climate deniers to unravel. But still, in January, Trump’s climate denial administration will take over, and this fact does cast a damper on COP29.
We know that there are millions of people who are dedicated to the cause of a clean world, and of stopping global heating. We are up against the globally amoral corporateaucracy .
10 reasons why Donald Trump can’t derail global climate action
Wesley Morgan & Ben Newell, Nov 8, 2024, https://reneweconomy.com.au/10-reasons-why-donald-trump-cant-derail-global-climate-action/
If you care about saving Earth from catastrophe, you might be feeling a little down about the re-election of Donald Trump as United States president. Undeniably, his return to the White House is a real setback for climate action.
Trump is a climate change denier who has promised to increase fossil fuel production and withdraw the US from the Paris climate deal, among other worrying pledges.
But beyond Trump and his circle, there remains deep concern about climate change, especially among younger people. Support for climate policy remains high in the US and around the world. And studies based on data from 60,000 people in more than 60 countries suggest individuals’ concern about climate change is widely underestimated.
So now is a good time to remember that efforts to tackle the climate crisis – both in Australia and globally – are much bigger than one man. Here are ten reasons to remain hopeful.
1. The global clean energy transition can’t be halted
The global shift to clean energy is accelerating, and Trump can’t stop it. Investment in clean energy has overtaken fossil fuels, and will be nearly double investment in coal, oil and gas in 2024. This is a historic mega-trend and will continue with or without American leadership.
2. Clean energy momentum is likely to continue in the US
Much of the Biden-era spending on clean energy industries went to Republican states and Congressional districts. New factories for batteries and electric vehicles will still go ahead under the Trump administration. After all, entrepreneur Elon Musk – who is expected to join the Trump administration – makes electric vehicles.
Some of Trump’s financial backers are receiving subsidies for clean energy manufacturing and 18 Republican Congress members have gone on record to oppose cuts to clean energy tax credits.
3. The US still wants to beat China
There is bipartisan concern in Washington about the US losing a technological edge to Beijing. China currently dominates global production of electric vehicles, batteries, wind turbines and solar panels. So internal pressure in the US to counter China’s manufacturing might will continue.
4. The federal government is not everything in the US
When Trump was last in power, he withdrew the US from some climate commitments, such as the Paris Agreement. But many state and local governments powered ahead with climate policy, and that will happen this time around, too. For example, California – the world’s fifth largest economy – plans to eliminate its greenhouse gas footprint by 2045. Even Texas, a Republican heartland, is leading a shift toward wind and solar power.
5. The US climate movement will be more energised than ever
During Trump’s first presidency, the US climate movement developed policy proposals for a “Green New Deal”. Many of these proposals were later implemented by the Biden administration. Initial reactions to Trump’s re-election suggest we can expect similar policy advocacy this time around.
6. Global climate cooperation is bigger than Trump
If Trump makes good on his promise to leave the Paris Agreement (again), he will only be leaving the room where the world’s future is being shaped. The US has walked away from global climate agreements before – for example, refusing to join the Kyoto Protocol in 2001. But other nations rallied for global action, and will do so again.
7. The rules-based global order will remain
When a nation walks away from rules that have been agreed after decades of negotiation, responsible countries must work together to bolster global cooperation. This applies to trade and security – and climate is no different.
As our Foreign Minister Penny Wong recently explained, Australia, as a middle power on the world stage, wants:
a world where disputes are resolved by engagement, negotiation and by reference to rules [and] norms […] We don’t want a world in which disputes are resolved by power alone.
8. Australian diplomacy matters
Australia is seeking to co-host the United Nations climate talks with Pacific island countries in 2026, and is emerging as the favourite. Hosting the conference, known as COP31, would be a chance for Australia to help broker a new era of international climate action, even if the US opts out under Trump.
Hosting the talks would also help cement Australia’s place in the Pacific and assist our Pacific neighbours to deal with the climate threat.
9. Australia’s clean energy shift is accelerating
About 40% of Australia’s main national electricity grid is powered by renewables and this is set to rise to 80% by 2030. Some states are surging ahead – for example, South Australia is aiming for 100% renewables by 2027.
Australians love clean energy at home, too. One in three households have rooftop solar installed, making us a world-leader in the technology’s uptake. Trump’s occupation of the Oval Office cannot stop this momentum.
10. Trump cannot change the science of climate change
The science is clear – burning coal, oil and gas fuels climate change and increases the risk of disasters that are harming communities right now. In Australia, we need look no further than the Black Summer bushfires in 2019-20 and unprecedented Lismore floods in 2022.
And the damage is happening across the globe. In October, twin hurricanes in the US – made stronger by the warming ocean – left a damage bill of more than US$100 billion. And hundreds of people died when a year’s worth of rain fell in one day in Spain last month.
On gloomy days – like, say, the election of a climate denier to the White House – it might feel humanity won’t rise to Earth’s biggest existential challenge. But there are many reasons for hope. The vast majority of us support policies to tackle climate change, and in many cases, the momentum is virtually unstoppable.
Wesley Morgan, Research Associate, Institute for Climate Risk and Response, UNSW Sydney and Ben Newell, Professor of Cognitive Psychology and Director of the UNSW Institute for Climate Risk and Response, UNSW Sydney
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 