Need for ‘consent laws’, as Australian mining companies trample on Aboriginal rights
“The Australian government needs to amend native title and land rights legislation to include a requirement for companies to gain free, prior and informed consent from traditional landowners before proceeding with projects, as well as mandatory human rights due diligence assessments.”
The report also recommends governments at all levels work to remove financial and other barriers to Indigenous people accessing the courts to ensure they can effectively challenge decisions that affect them.
Close the gap in consent laws for major resource projects: report. A new report highlights accountability shortfalls in major resource projects and calls for legislative reform to protect Indigenous people’s rights. https://www.rmit.edu.au/news/all-news/2021/mar/mining-first-nations Michael Quin, 21 Mar 21,
The First Peoples and Land Justice Issues in Australia report by researchers at RMIT University’s Business and Human Rights Centre (BHRIGHT), reveals the human rights impacts of companies operating on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander land.
BHRIGHT Director, Associate Professor Shelley Marshall, said the case studies revealed a pattern of companies failing to meet international business and human rights norms, as well as a lack of respect for the fundamental principle of obtaining free, prior and informed consent from landholders on projects impacting them.
“Our research reveals a legal framework and corporate behaviour that refuses to acknowledge lack of consent,” Marshall said.
“The fact that companies can operate within Australian law while failing to respect and uphold their international human rights obligations underlines the urgent need for legislative reform at state, territory, and federal levels.”
“These companies also need to step up and take their obligations under human rights frameworks much more seriously.” Continue reading
Minerals Council of Australia trying to influence European Commission, to push for fossil fuels and nuclear
|
The Minerals Council of Australia has weighed into a European commission climate policy debate, urging it to back fossil fuels with carbon capture use and storage (CCS) and nuclear power on a list of environmentally friendly developments.
In a written submission to the commission, the minerals council (MCA) said a proposed EU taxonomy for sustainable activities intended to shape investment under a European green deal was inconsistent in how it dealt with clean technologies because it favoured solar, wind and biofuels over nuclear and CCS. The mining lobby group said it was concerned this approach would have a flow-on effect on the types of energy investments backed by EU-based companies across the globe and “increase the cost of reducing CO2 emissions”. It called for an overhaul. InfluenceMap, a London-based thinktank that tracks corporate climate lobbying, said the MCA’s submission suggested it wanted to export its “negative approach to climate policy” by pushing for changes in other parts of the world that would allow continued use of coal and gas. The MCA submission argued there was “no valid basis” for treating CCS and nuclear differently given EU countries currently used coal, gas and nuclear……….. But InfluenceMap’s program manager, Rebecca Vaughan, said the MCA appeared concerned a science-led approach to dealing with the climate crisis would hurt the industries it represented. “While the MCA says it wants the EU to take a technology neutral position, its submission appears to advocate for the continued use of coal and gas with carbon capture utilisation and storage, which is clearly at odds with the commission’s science-based policy,” Vaughan said. The MCA has long been accused of hindering action to tackle the climate crisis in Australia, and campaigned aggressively against Labor’s two attempts to introduce a carbon pricing scheme. In recent years it has come under pressure to change its anti-climate stance from its biggest members, BHP and Rio Tinto. It followed the big mining companies facing repeated calls from their investors to abandon the MCA over its commitment to coal. It resulted in the MCA releasing a climate plan that said it was committed to the Paris agreement and reaching net zero emissions, but did not include a timeframe in which that target should be reached. The EU taxonomy is intended to help it meet a target of at least a 55% cut in its emissions below 1990 levels by 2030 on the way to net zero by 2050 by defining what activities are considered environmentally sustainable and warrant investment support. The commission said it expected the taxonomy would “create security for investors, protect private investors from greenwashing, help companies to plan the transition, mitigate market fragmentation and eventually help shift investments where they are most needed”.
The final version of the EU’s sustainable finance rules was due in January but a decision was delayed until April after 10 countries objected to the initial proposal because they wanted gas to be deemed a sustainable energy source. Nuclear energy plays a significant role in some EU countries but has been found to be in decline in the developed world, and to be more expensive and less efficient at reducing emissions than renewable energy……….. Nuclear energy remains banned in Australia. Some Coalition MPs and industry leaders want the prohibition lifted. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/mar/21/australias-miners-urge-europe-to-define-nuclear-power-and-fossil-fuels-with-carbon-capture-as-sustainable |
|
Australian Senate vote on Kimba nuclear dump delayed till mid-May, but dump opponents will be fighting on
Resources Minister Keith Pitt on radio today – same old same old Bluff and Bribery about Kimba nuclear dump plan
BHP, Rio Tinto given carte blanche to export uranium to global hotspots
Risky Business: BHP, Rio Tinto given carte blanche to export uranium to global hotspots https://www.michaelwest.com.au/bhp-rio-tinto-given-carte-blanche-to-export-uranium-to-global-hotspots/by David Noonan | Mar 17, 2021 It has been 10 years since the Fukushima nuclear disaster that was fuelled by Australian uranium but neither the mining industry nor the nation’s leaders have heeded any of the lessons, instead continuing to export uranium to countries with inadequate regulation and nations beset by corruption. David Noonan and Dr Jim Green report. The Fukushima nuclear disaster, fuelled by Australian uranium mined by multinationals BHP and Rio Tinto, was entirely avoidable, as numerous reports have found. Yet neither company has taken any responsibility for the catastrophic impacts on Japanese society that resulted from the use of their uranium in a poorly regulated industry. With numerous warning signs of impending disaster at Fukushima, the mining giants and our leaders could have played an important role by making uranium exports conditional on improved management of nuclear plants and tighter regulation. Yet the uranium companies get tetchy at any suggestion of culpability, with the Australian Uranium Association describing it as “opportunism in the midst of human tragedy” and “utter nonsense”. Uranium accounts for less than 0.3 per cent of Australia’s export revenue and less than 0.1 per cent of all jobs in Australia. One wonders why an industry that delivers so little is given carte blanche by the government to do as it pleases. Australia ignored scandal after scandalWhile the mining companies won’t acknowledge that Australian uranium was used in the Fukushima reactors, the Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office confirmed Australian nuclear material was at the Fukushima Daiichi site and in at least five of the six reactors. Moreover, the mining companies can’t claim ignorance. Australia’s uranium industry did nothing as the Japanese nuclear companies lurched from scandal to scandal; accident to accident. The uranium industry did nothing in 2002 when it was revealed that TEPCO had systematically and routinely falsified safety data and breached safety regulations for 25 years or more. The uranium industry did nothing in 2007 when more than 300 incidents of ‘malpractice’ at Japan’s nuclear plants were revealed – 104 of them at nuclear power plants. It did nothing even as the ability of Japan’s nuclear plants to withstand earthquakes and tsunamis came under growing criticism from industry insiders and independent experts. And the uranium industry did nothing about the multiple conflicts of interest plaguing Japanese nuclear regulators. Exporting to countries with inadequate regulationInadequate regulation was a root cause of the Fukushima disaster yet Australia has uranium supply agreements with numerous countries with demonstrably inadequate nuclear regulation, including China, India, Russia, the United States, Japan, South Korea, and Ukraine. Likewise, Australian uranium companies and the government turn a blind eye to nuclear corruption scandals in countries with which it has agreements to supply uranium: South Korea, India, Russia and Ukraine among others. Indeed, Australia has signed up to expand its uranium trade to sell into insecure regions. In 2011 ‒ the same year as the Fukushima disaster ‒ the Australian government agreed to allow uranium exports to India. This despite inadequate nuclear regulation in India, and despite India’s ongoing expansion of its nuclear weaponry and delivery capabilities. A uranium supply agreement with the United Arab Emirates was concluded in 2013 despite the obvious risks of selling uranium into a politically and militarily volatile region where nuclear facilities have repeatedly been targeted by adversaries intent on stopping covert nuclear weapons programs. A uranium supply agreement with Ukraine was concluded in 2016 despite a host of safety and security concerns, and the inability of the International Atomic Energy Agency to carry out safeguards inspections in regions annexed by Russia. However, it is obvious that Australia will take action when it wants to. In 2014, Australia banned uranium sales to Russia, with then prime minister Tony Abbott stating: “Australia has no intention of selling uranium to a country which is so obviously in breach of international law as Russia currently is.” Australia’s uranium supply agreement with China, concluded in 2006, has not been reviewed despite abundant evidence of inadequate nuclear safety standards, inadequate regulation, lack of transparency, repression of whistleblowers, world’s worst insurance and liability arrangements, security risks, and widespread corruption. Civil society and NGO’s are campaigning to wind back Australia’s atomic exposures in the uranium trade with emphasis on uranium sales to China. China’s human rights abuses and a range of strategic insecurity issues warrant a cessation of uranium sales. China’s ongoing human rights abuses in Tibet and mass detention and forced labour against Uyghurs in Xinjiang are severe breaches of international humanitarian law and UN Treaties.` China is obviously in breach of international law on numerous counts. Uranium sales to Russia were suspended because of breaches of international law and the same standard should be applied to China. Scant regard for nuclear risksChina has exported nuclear weapons know-how to Pakistan, targets Australia in cyber-attacks, and is causing regional insecurity on the India border, in Hong Kong and Taiwan, and in the Pacific. BHP’s Olympic Dam is the only company still selling Australian uranium into China. There is a case for the ‘Big Australian’ to forego uranium sales overall and an onus to end sales to China. Australia supplies uranium with scant regard for nuclear safety risks. Likewise, proliferation risks are given short shrift. Australia has uranium export agreements with all of the ‘declared’ nuclear weapons states – the US, UK, China, France, Russia – although not one of them takes seriously its obligation under the Non-Proliferation Treaty to pursue disarmament in good faith. Australia claims to be working to discourage countries from producing fissile (explosive) material for nuclear bombs, but nonetheless exports uranium to countries blocking progress on the proposed Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty and refusing to sign or ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. And Australia gives Japan open-ended permission to separate and stockpile plutonium although that stockpiling fans regional proliferation risks and tensions in North-East Asia. Despite liberal export policies, Australian uranium sales are in long-term decline and now represent only 8.9 per cent of world uranium usage. With the Ranger mine shut down and no longer processing ore for uranium exports, there are only two operating uranium mines in Australia: BHP’s Olympic Dam copper-uranium mine and the smaller General Atomics’ Beverley Four Mile operation ‒ both in South Australia. |
|
Time for Australia to clean up uranium mining damage, and end this toxic industry
It’s time to clean up not start up! https://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=21352 On this 10th anniversary of the Fukushima nuclear disaster, it is time to learn one simple lesson; radioactive risk is more constant than a politician’s promise. It is time to move beyond the risk of opening a uranium mine to safely rehabilitating existing exploration and trial mine sites. If we fail to act and allow small unproven company assurances to take the place of evidence, then we are both failing those affected by Fukushima and increasing the odds of fuelling a future one.
| By Kerrie-Ann Garlick – , 12 March 2021 |
|
The Bluff and the Bribing continue as Minister Keith Pitt spruiks on radio about Kimb nuclear waste dump plan
New South Wales Energy Minister ”excited about the opportunities” for nuclear power
Energy minister backs nuclear option , Daily Telegraph, 14 Mar 21,
NSW’s energy minister has said the state is “excited about the opportunities” being afforded by nuclear power as he denied climate policies were leading to the closure of coal-powered plants…… (subscribers only)
Refuting Senator Matt Canavan’s inaccurate hype about small nuclear reactors
|
Canavan Keeping The Nuclear SMR Vaporware Dream Alive , Solar Quotes ,March 12, 2021 by Michael Bloch ”…… Senator Matt Canavan: ”Keep Nuclear Energy On The Table” It’s probably been a disappointing week for pro-coal Senator Matt Canavan with the news Yallourn Power Station will retire in mid-2028 instead of 2032. But as well as a passion for coal, Senator Canavan is a nuclear power supporter.In an interview with Sky News yesterday, Senator Canavan commented:
A year ago he referred to renewables as the “dole bludgers” of energy, using the same logic. With regard to the Fukushima incident, he stated: “The latest nuclear technology is much safer; more self-contained. Small modular reactors are effectively the size of shipping containers that are much more suited to our country and size and don’t have the same safety issues.” He also managed to squeeze in a mention about instances of fatalities associated with installing solar panels on rooftops just for good measure. But back to the small modular reactors (SMRs). Where are these SMRs he speaks of? The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2020 released in September last year states:
|
|
Australian uranium fuelled Fukushima
The Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission ‒ established by the Japanese Parliament ‒ concluded in its 2012 report that the accident was “a profoundly man-made disaster that could and should have been foreseen and prevented” if not for “a multitude of errors and wilful negligence that left the Fukushima plant unprepared for the events of March 11”.
The accident was the result of “collusion between the government, the regulators and TEPCO”, the commission found.
Mining
But overseas suppliers who turned a blind eye to unacceptable nuclear risks in Japan have largely escaped scrutiny or blame. Australia’s uranium industry is a case in point.
Yuki Tanaka from the Hiroshima Peace Institute noted: “Japan is not the sole nation responsible for the current nuclear disaster. From the manufacture of the reactors by GE to provision of uranium by Canada, Australia and others, many nations are implicated.”
There is no dispute that Australian uranium was used in the Fukushima reactors. The mining companies won’t acknowledge that fact — instead they hide behind claims of “commercial confidentiality” and “security”.
But the Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office acknowledged in October 2011 that: “We can confirm that Australian obligated nuclear material was at the Fukushima Daiichi site and in each of the reactors — maybe five out of six, or it could have been all of them”.
BHP and Rio Tinto, two of the world’s largest mining companies, supplied Australian uranium to TEPCO and that uranium was used to fuel Fukushima.
Tsunamis
The mining companies have failed to take any responsibility for the catastrophic impacts on Japanese society that resulted from the use of their uranium in a poorly managed, poorly regulated industry.
Moreover, the mining companies can’t claim ignorance. The warning signs were clear. Australia’s uranium industry did nothing as TEPCO and other Japanese nuclear companies lurched from scandal to scandal and accident to accident.
The uranium industry did nothing in 2002 when it was revealed that TEPCO had systematically and routinely falsified safety data and breached safety regulations for 25 years or more.
The uranium industry did nothing in 2007 when over 300 incidents of ‘malpractice’ at Japan’s nuclear plants were revealed – 104 of them at nuclear power plants.
It did nothing even as the ability of Japan’s nuclear plants to withstand earthquakes and tsunamis came under growing criticism from industry insiders and independent experts.
Vicious cycle
And the uranium industry did nothing about the multiple conflicts of interest plaguing Japanese nuclear regulators.
Mirarr senior Traditional Owner Yvonne Margarula ‒ on whose land in the Northern Territory Rio Tinto’s Ranger mine operated ‒ said she was “deeply saddened” that uranium from Ranger was exported to Japanese nuclear companies including TEPCO.
No such humility from the uranium companies. They get tetchy at any suggestion of culpability, with the Australian Uranium Association describing it as “opportunism in the midst of human tragedy” and “utter nonsense”.
Yet, Australia could have played a role in breaking the vicious cycle of mismanagement in Japan’s nuclear industry by making uranium exports conditional on improved management of nuclear plants and tighter regulation.
Even a strong public statement of concern would have been heard by the Japanese utilities – unless it was understood to be rhetoric for public consumption – and it would have registered in the Japanese media.
Safety
But the uranium industry denied culpability and instead stuck its head in the sand. Since the industry is in denial about its role in fuelling the Fukushima disaster, there is no reason to believe that it will behave more responsibly in future.
Successive Australian governments did nothing about the unacceptable standards in Japan’s nuclear industry. Julia Gillard ‒ Australia’s Prime Minister at the time of the Fukushima disaster ‒ said the disaster “doesn’t have any impact on my thinking about uranium exports”.
Signification elements of Japan’s corrupt ‘nuclear village’ ‒ comprising industry, regulators, politicians and government agencies ‒ were back in control just a few years after the Fukushima disaster. Regulation remains problematic.
Add to that ageing reactors, and companies facing serious economic stress and intense competition, and there’s every reason for ongoing concern about nuclear safety in Japan.
Professor Yoshioka Hitoshi is a Kyushu University academic who served on the government’s 2011-12 Investigation Committee on the Accident at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Stations.
Regulation
They said in October 2015: “Unfortunately, the new regulatory regime is … inadequate to ensure the safety of Japan’s nuclear power facilities. The first problem is that the new safety standards on which the screening and inspection of facilities are to be based are simply too lax.
“While it is true that the new rules are based on international standards, the international standards themselves are predicated on the status quo.
“They have been set so as to be attainable by most of the reactors already in operation. In essence, the NRA made sure that all Japan’s existing reactors would be able to meet the new standards with the help of affordable piecemeal modifications ‒ back-fitting, in other words.”
In the aftermath of the Fukushima disaster, UN secretary general Ban Ki Moon called for an independent cost-benefit inquiry into uranium trade. The Australian government failed to act.
Inadequate regulation was a root cause of the Fukushima disaster yet Australia has uranium supply agreements with numerous countries with demonstrably inadequate nuclear regulation, including China, India, Russia, the United States, Japan, South Korea, and Ukraine.
Overthrow
Likewise, Australian uranium companies and the government turn a blind eye to nuclear corruption scandals in countries with uranium supply agreements: South Korea, India, Russia and Ukraine among others.
Indeed, Australia has signed up to expand its uranium trade to sell into insecure regions.
In 2011 ‒ the same year as the Fukushima disaster ‒ the Australian government agreed to allow uranium exports to India.
This despite inadequate nuclear regulation in India, and despite India’s ongoing expansion of its nuclear weaponry and delivery capabilities.
A uranium supply agreement with the United Arab Emirates was concluded in 2013 despite the obvious risks of selling uranium into a politically and militarily volatile region where nuclear facilities have repeatedly been targeted by adversaries intent on stopping covert nuclear weapons programs. Australia was planning uranium sales to the Shah of Iran months before his overthrow in 1979.
Forced labour
A uranium supply agreement with Ukraine was concluded in 2016 despite a host of safety and security concerns, and the inability of the International Atomic Energy Agency to carry out safeguards inspections in regions annexed by Russia.
In 2014, Australia banned uranium sales to Russia, with then prime minister Tony Abbott stating: “Australia has no intention of selling uranium to a country which is so obviously in breach of international law as Russia currently is.”
Australia’s uranium supply agreement with China, concluded in 2006, has not been reviewed despite abundant evidence of inadequate nuclear safety standards, inadequate regulation, lack of transparency, repression of whistleblowers, world’s worst insurance and liability arrangements, security risks, and widespread corruption.
Civil society and NGO’s are campaigning to wind back Australia’s atomic exposures in the uranium trade with emphasis on uranium sales to China.
China’s human rights abuses and a range of strategic insecurity issues warrant a cessation of uranium sales. China’s ongoing human rights abuses in Tibet and mass detention and forced labour against Uyghurs in Xinjiang are severe breaches of international humanitarian law and UN Treaties.
Weapons
China proliferated nuclear weapons know-how to Pakistan, targets Australia in cyber-attacks, and is causing regional insecurity on the India border, in Hong Kong and Taiwan, and in the Pacific.
BHP’s Olympic Dam is the only company still selling Australian uranium into China. There is a case for the ‘Big Australian’ to forego uranium sales overall and an onus to end sales to China.
A federal Parliamentary Inquiry in Australia is investigating forced labour in China and the options for Australia to respond. A case is before this inquiry to disqualify China from supply of Australian uranium sales – see submission 02 on human rights abuses and submission 02.1 on security risks.
Australia supplies uranium with scant regard for nuclear safety risks. Likewise, proliferation risks are given short shrift.
Australia has uranium export agreements with all of the ‘declared’ nuclear weapons states – the US, UK, China, France, Russia – although not one of them takes seriously its obligation under the Non-Proliferation Treaty to pursue disarmament in good faith.
Carte blanche
Australia claims to be working to discourage countries from producing fissile – explosive – material for nuclear bombs, but nonetheless exports uranium to countries blocking progress on the proposed Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty.
And Australia gives Japan open-ended permission to separate and stockpile plutonium although that stockpiling fans regional proliferation risks and tensions in North-East Asia.
Despite liberal export policies, Australian uranium sales are in long-term decline and now represent only 8.9 percent of world uranium usage.
With the Ranger mine shut down and no longer processing ore for uranium exports, there are only two operating uranium mines in Australia: BHP’s Olympic Dam copper-uranium mine and the smaller General Atomics’ Beverley Four Mile operation ‒ both in South Australia.
Uranium accounts for less than 0.3 percent of Australia’s export revenue and less than 0.1 percent of all jobs in Australia.
One wonders why an industry that delivers so little is given carte blanche by the government to do as it pleases.
These Authors
Dr Jim Green is the national nuclear campaigner with Friends of the Earth Australia. David Noonan is an independent environment campaigner. For further information on BHP’s Olympic Dam mine click here.
Australia must learn the lessons of Fukushima
Australia must learn the lessons of Fukushima https://www.acf.org.au/we_must_learn_the_lessons_of_fukushima– Dave Sweeney, Australian Conservation Foundation’s nuclear free campaign, 11 March 21,
Ten years ago, the world held its breath, crossed its fingers and learnt a new word.
Fukushima went from being the name of a provincial Japanese city to global shorthand for a costly, contaminating and continuing nuclear disaster.
Fukushima means ‘fortunate island’ but the region’s luck melted down along with its reactors on March 11, 2011.
The Great Eastern earthquake and tsunami which rocked then inundated much of Japan’s eastern seaboard also swamped the defences of the Fukushima nuclear complex run by TEPCO, the Tokyo Electric Power Corporation.
Against a backdrop of wailing sirens and crackling Geiger counters we witnessed mass evacuations, hundreds of billions of dollars in economic loss and radioactive contamination of the air, soil and ocean that continues today.
Japanese and international nuclear authorities have confirmed it will take at least three more decades to stabilise radioactive and waste issues at the site.
The most pressing of these is how to manage a large volume of contaminated water that is stored is hundreds of vast steel tanks and is growing daily.
The preferred company plan – to dump this untreated contaminated water directly into the Pacific – is generating growing concern among Japanese coastal communities, not to mention outrage in Korea and the wider region.
In August 2012, a year after the initial disaster, I joined a delegation of international environmental monitors and public health experts to visit the Fukushima region.
We saw and spoke with ordinary people whose lives had been extraordinarily disrupted.
We drove through countryside and towns that had been emptied of people and hope.
We met with elderly evacuees in temporary housing who understood that they would never return home.
The words of Hasegawa Kenichi, a Fukushima dairy farmer who lost his herd and his livelihood, remain in my head. ‘It is important to make sure that what is happening in Fukushima is not forgotten.’
As pro-nuclear politicians and industry associations seek to distract from their inaction on meaningful efforts to address climate change by once more banging the drum for domestic nuclear power, we need to remember these words – and the deep reality that lies behind them.
Especially in Australia.
In October 2011 the head of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s nuclear bureau formally confirmed that Australian uranium was routinely sold to the corner-cutting TEPCO and was fuelling the Fukushima complex at the time of the disaster.
Australian radioactive rocks are the source of Fukushima’s fallout.
As home to around 35% of the world’s uranium reserves, Australia has been a significant player in the global nuclear trade.
But, aptly enough, Australia’s uranium sector was hard hit by the market fallout from Fukushima.
In the last 10 years the global commodity price has flatlined, projects have been shelved, abandoned or placed in perpetual ‘care and maintenance’.
Australia’s longest operating uranium mine, the Ranger project in Kakadu, closed forever in January this year.
This brought an end to the controversial Kakadu mining chapter and has left mine owner Rio Tinto with a billion dollar clean up challenge that is attracting scrutiny from across Australia and around the world.
Australia’s uranium sector has long been constrained by political uncertainty, an absence of social license and strong First Nations and wider community resistance.
The industry’s prevailing business model seems to be to get the paperwork in order, cultivate friends in Canberra and wait in hope for better times.
But those times are unlikely to ever arrive.
The sector never really made sense and now it doesn’t even make dollars. The years since Fukushima have seen a dramatic decline in the popularity of nuclear power and a global surge in renewable energy projects and production.
Australia’s uranium sector is high risk and low return.
It leaves polluted mine sites at home and drives nuclear risk and insecurity abroad.
And it fuelled Fukushima – a profound environmental, economic and human disaster that continues to negatively impact lives in Japan and far beyond.
On this tenth anniversary it is time to honour Kenichi-san’s plea that the world not forget Fukushima.
We need a credible and independent review of the real costs and consequences of Australia’s uranium trade.
It is well past time for Australian politicians of all stripes to accept that we are in a period of irreversible transformation and that our shared energy future is renewable, not radioactive.
Read A joint statement from the Australian Conservation Foundation and the Electrical Trades Union.
Time that Australia looks beyond uranium mining, and towards rehabilitation of the environment
K-A, Nuclear Free Community Campaigner, 11 Mar 21, On the 10th anniversary of the Australian uranium-fuelled Fukushima nuclear disaster, it is time for a rethink on uranium Australia wide and for WA to look beyond mining towards rehabilitation.
WA’s four proposed uranium mines and the 85 exploration sites have been unable to develop into and all pose serious environmental, economic and public health risks. Some of the companies involved no longer exist, others are hanging on by a thread.
With a stagnant uranium price and a global nuclear power industry that is struggling to maintain the status quo, we should be looking to clean up Barnett’s failed attempt to establish uranium mines in WA and close that chapter in our history book.
Fukushima, ten years after the devastating Tsunami and subsequent multiple reactor meltdowns at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant is still one of the most radioactive places on earth. It remains a profound human, economic and environmental tragedy that was fuelled by Australian uranium.
In Parliament in 2012 Dr Robert Floyd, Director General, Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation confirmed that Australian uranium was in each of the reactors at the time of the meltdown. Following the disaster, the UN Secretary-General urged every uranium-producing country to hold “an in-depth assessment of the net cost impact of the impacts of mining fissionable material on local communities and ecosystems.”
Kimba nuclear dump project is a futile exercise that will be rejected by the International Atomic Energy Agency
Peter Remta, 4 Mar 21
For the past three years I have had to accept the disingenuous and ignorant comments by the federal government including the responsible ministers which quite frankly are at times personally offensive
I have been particularly disappointed by the comments of the present responsible minister Keith Pitt who from shortly after his appointment publicly stated that the whole Napandee community was highly accepting and in favour of the government’s nuclear waste facility in its locality when Napandee is no more than a farm with a population of the owner and his wife who are selling part of the property to the government for the facility.
In reality Napandee is better referred to as Kimba as the actual generic location
Regrettably from then on Pitt has continued with his ill informed and deceptive comments including his endorsement of the senior government officials who have also provided wrong and misleading information for the community
It is quite clear that the Kimba proposal will not get the necessary legislative approval even though Pitt has put implementing bill on the Senate order of business list on several occasions but never brought it on for a vote knowing full well that it would be defeated to the government’s embarrassment
While there are numerous technical and justifiable objections to the government’s proposals perhaps the most important is that the Kimba facility will not get the necessary licences for its construction and operations
It is considered at an international level that the Australian government and the regulatory entity of ARPANSA have fallen down badly on the licensing and other requirements in that regard and hence the International Atomic Energy Agency will demand a peer review by an external group which will take the whole process out of the government’s hands and lead to a swift rejection of the licence applications
No strong and effective relations and connections with leading experts in the field of nuclear waste are available to the government for its waste disposal plans
What is more the general view internationally is that Australia is lacking in any realistic expertise in nuclear engineering covering the storage and disposal of waste despite being so proficient in the mining of uranium and other radioactive materials
The Kimba proposal is a futile and purely politically driven exercise
Australia dodged a bullet in not getting nuclear power – Ian Lowe.
An obvious conclusion flows from the Fox Report’s 1976 comment about a lack of objectivity. We are not objective observers of the world: we all see reality through the lenses of our values and our experience. We all have a tendency to see what we would like to see…….
The probability that any person will be favourably disposed to the idea of nuclear power can be predicted from their values and from their view of the sort of future they would like to see. Fellows of the Academy of Technology and Engineering tend to favour a high-tech future, while conservationists are much more likely to favour small-scale local supply systems.
This is a reminder that the future is not somewhere we are going, but something we are creating. From my perspective, nuclear power now looks like an intractable problem we were just lucky to avoid. Most developed nations have nuclear power stations with mountains of accumulated waste, for which there is no effective permanent solution. The urgent task of moving to clean energy supply, mostly from solar and wind, is made more difficult when resources have been sunk into the nuclear power industry. I believe we dodged a bullet.
Griffith Review,by Ian Lowe, March 21, ON MY DESK there sits a well-thumbed copy of the 1976 Fox Report, the first report of the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry. I grew up in New South Wales, where most electricity came from coal-fired power stations, but miners were often killed or injured and the air pollution from burning coal was obvious. So as a young scientist I was attracted to the idea of replacing our dirty and dangerous coal-fired electricity with nuclear power.
Transnational Memory and the Fukushima Disaster: Memories of Japan in Australian Anti-nuclear Activism
Transnational Memory and the Fukushima Disaster: Memories of Japan in Australian Anti-nuclear Activism https://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/index.php/portal/article/view/7094
Alexander Brown https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3582-9658, Jan 28, 2021
Abstract
This paper argues for the importance of transnational memories in framing Australian anti-nuclear activism after the Fukushima disaster. Japan looms large in the transnational nuclear imaginary.
Commemorating Hiroshima as the site of the first wartime use of nuclear weapons has been a long-standing practice in the Australian anti-nuclear movement and the day has been linked to a variety of issues including weapons and uranium mining.
As Australia began exporting uranium to Japan in the 1970s, Australia-Japan relations took on a new meaning for the Indigenous Traditional Owners from whose land uranium was extracted.
After Fukushima, these complex transnational memories formed the basis for an orientation towards Japan by Indigenous land rights activists and for the anti-nuclear movement as a whole.
This paper argues that despite tenuous organizational links between the two countries, transnational memories drove Australian anti-nuclear activists to seek connections with Japan after the Fukushima disaster. The mobilisation of these collective memories helps us to understand how transnational social movements evolve and how they construct globalisation from below in the Asia-Pacific region.fic region.











