Morrison government rushing to make Austraia’s environment laws even weaker: a recipe for extinctions
‘Recipe for extinction’: why Australia’s rush to change environment laws is sparking widespread concern
Critics argue shifting approval powers to the states without an independent regulator will fail to protect the environment, Guardian, Lisa Cox– 6 Sept 20
Anger over proposed changes to national environmental laws is escalating, with legal, health and conservation groups urging that they not pass the Senate, with some warning it would increase the extinction rate.
The government rammed its legislation to change Australia’s Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act through the lower house on Thursday night, prompting outrage from Labor, the Greens and crossbench.
WWF-Australia says the bill in its current reform is a “recipe for extinction” and lacks standards that would ensure strong protections for nature, as well as a commitment to an independent regulator to enforce the law.
“There is more than just wildlife at stake here,” Rachel Lowry, WWF-Australia’s chief conservation officer, says. “If approved, this bill will fail Australians at this critical moment in time because it fails to incentivise win-win solutions that stimulate our economy and protect the places and animals we love.
“Shifting approval powers to the states without an independent regulator to ensure enforcement would be the most damaging environmental decision to occur within Australia in recent decades.”
The government’s bill would amend Australia’s environmental laws, clearing the way for the transfer of development approval powers to state and territory governments.
The prime minister, Scott Morrison, and the environment minister, Sussan Ley, have argued the changes are necessary to aid Australia’s economic recovery from the Covid-19 pandemic.
The proposed changes passed the lower house on Thursday night after the government used its numbers to gag debate on the bill and amendments proposed by Labor and the crossbench.
No member of the government spoke on the bill, which still has to pass the Senate and will likely be debated during the October budget sittings.
Rachel Walmsley, the policy and law reform director at the Environmental Defenders Office, says the government is trying to avoid scrutiny.
She warns the bill has the potential to undermine the statutory review of the EPBC Act, chaired by the former competition watchdog head Graeme Samuel, which is not due to table its final report until the end of October.
The key finding of Samuel’s interim report was that Australia’s system of environmental protections had failed and the decline of wildlife and habitat was unsustainable.
“It was a fairly atrocious process that, moments before adjournment, they rammed it through,” Walmsley says.
“The gagging of the debate, the fact they prevented voting on amendments and the fact no government MP stood up to justify the policy – it prevented proper parliamentary scrutiny.”
The Climate and Health Alliance, which is a coalition of Australian health organisations, has called on the Senate to block the amendments.
“Australia’s natural environment is declining on every possible measure. We lead the world in animal extinctions,” says the alliance’s executive director, Fiona Armstrong. “There is no economy without a healthy environment.
“The government is trying to rush through amendments to our environmental protection laws that would weaken them in favour of expanding gas and fossil fuel projects that harm the environment and threaten human health.”
The Law Council of Australia has called for the bill to be put before a parliamentary committee for inquiry and not rushed through the Senate.
The government and One Nation have blocked several attempts by the Greens to have a parliamentary committee examine the bill.
International obligations
The Law Council says the government needs to make sure it retains oversight of matters of national environmental significance if it enters into bilateral approval agreements with state and territory governments.
The council says this is particularly important for ensuring Australia still meets its obligations under some 33 international treaties and protocols to which it is signatory, including for world heritage sites…….. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/sep/06/recipe-for-extinction-why-australias-rush-to-change-environment-laws-is-sparking-widespread-concern
Environment Law: Scott Morrison’s government shows its disdain for ZaliSteggall and the cross-benchers
Independent MPs furious as government rams environmental law changes through lower house, https://www.sbs.com.au/news/independent-mps-furious-as-government-rams-environmental-law-changes-through-lower-house 4 Sept 20 The Morrison government has been branded a “bully in action” for pushing its environment law changes through the lower house without following usual process.
Independent MPs are furious with the Morrison government for throwing due process out the window and ramming controversial environmental laws through the lower house.
Crossbench MP Zali Steggall flagged amendments to the bill but the government refused to allow them to be voted on.
Instead, the coalition used its numbers to shove the bill through the lower house on Thursday night.
Ms Steggall described the government as a “bully in action”.
“The PM and every coalition MP made a mockery of due process for legislation and bulldozed environmental and water protection,” she said.
“And they were laughing while doing it. This is how they represent you. If you care, contact your MP.”
The changes to the national environment protection laws pave the way for states to take over approvals.
The states would have to abide by a set of national environment standards, which have not been developed.
The changes are in response to an interim review conducted by former competition watchdog Graeme Samuel.
Professor Samuel also recommended installing an independent environmental umpire, but the government has rejected that.
Independent Tasmanian MP Andrew Wilkie says the changes will water down environment protection.
“(The bill) hands decision-making to state and territory governments who have shown time and time again to be conflicted and incapable of protecting the environment,” he said.
“The passage of the amendment through the House of Representatives was also a chilling demonstration of the government’s complete contempt for democracy.
“Most members of the house were prevented from speaking, and foreshadowed amendments were blocked without debate. The government acted again like an elected dictatorship.”
Environment Minister Sussan Ley was quick to defend the changes after outrage over the process.
“There will be more reforms to follow,” she said.
“We will develop strong Commonwealth-led national environmental standards which will underpin new bilateral agreements with state governments.”
The bill is likely to be referred to a Senate committee for scrutiny, pumping the brakes on its progress.
Labor and the Greens oppose the legislation.
Australian government, masks its anti-environment action under the cover of Covid-19
|
And it does all this while lambasting the states for omissions and inefficiencies. Nowhere does it suggest devolving more power to these already incompetent entities. Of course this royal commission is largely focused on natural disasters rather than broader issues of environmental management and climate change, but its findings are telling in their precision: “Current arrangements do not provide a clear mechanism to elevate these matters to national leaders.” Is it possible that our national leaders don’t want these or any other tricky environmental matters elevated to them? What other conclusion can be reached when the government is trying with such energy to push through “new” legislation that greatly reduces its role in environmental issues? This is fundamentally the same proposal that Tony Abbott put forward as prime minister. It was defeated then, but the thought is that it might scrape through now under the cloak of Covid. That is the hard-nosed judgment of the same climate deniers and coal lobbyists who have run the Coalition all these years. And Scott Morrison’s hands remain as black as any. Since there is a full review of current environmental legislation being conducted by Graeme Samuel, which is due to deliver a final report in the blink of an eye (ie October this year) what possible justification can be given for ramrodding legislation into the parliament now?
Samuel’s interim report recommends “national enforceable standards” as an essential part of keeping the states honest in these matters. How necessary that is when, as Ken Henry so powerfully pointed out, the states have a complete conflict of interest in their receipt of royalties from projects and the fact that they are often the proponents of them. But there is no mention of these national standards in the proposal or of referring relevant conflicts to the federal government. …… The Australian government is the signatory to all our international commitments that relate to climate and the environment of which there are many, ranging from The World Heritage Convention to the Bonn Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species and at least half a dozen others. The states are signatories to none. What is the logic in devolving power to the states at a time when these agreements and the obligations therein are becoming increasingly important? None?.. The root cause of all this ill-conceived thinking is a failure to understand what an economy is. In the government’s view it is an entity unto itself – it seems to operate independently of the world in which we live, until events wrench us back to it. According to this theory, the environment is somehow in conflict with the economy rather than the integral, vital essence of it. ……… https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/sep/04/under-the-cloak-of-covid-the-government-is-rushing-ill-considered-changes-to-australias-environment-laws |
|
Aussies call for tougher environment laws
ACF’s chief Kelly O’Shanassy has sent it to Prime Minister Scott Morrison and his Environment Minister Sussan Ley, who are in the midst of tweaking the national protection laws.
The changes are in response to an interim review of the laws, but rather than strengthening environmental standards the first move is to cut red tape.
ACF’s petition calls on the government to create a “new generation of national laws to protect nature and funding to restore ecosystems to bring our wildlife back from the brink”.
In his interim review, former competition watchdog Graeme Samuel found the current laws were ineffective and Australia’s environmental trajectory is unsustainable.
He recommended an independent environmental watchdog, which has been rejected by the government.
Instead the first changes set the stage for states to take over environmental approvals.
They will have to abide by a set of national environmental standards, which have not yet been developed…….
Labor and the Greens oppose the government’s changes, and want Ms Ley to wait until Professor Samuel’s final report is handed down next month before changing the laws. https://www.denipt.com.au/national/2020/09/03/1566977/aussies-call-for-tougher-environment-laws
Mirrar people at last have control of Jabiru, as Ranger uranium mining set to end operations
Traditional owners regain control of Jabiru as historic land rights law passes Senate Natasha Emeck, NT News, 3 Sept 20 HISTORIC land rights legislation that will allow the traditional owners of Jabiru to regain control of their township has passed through the Senate.
Amendments to Aboriginal land rights laws passed through the upper house of federal parliament pm Thursday, returning the ownership of Jabiru to the Mirarr people and allowing for a long-term township lease.
The mining town was built in 1982 to service the Ranger uranium mine, which will cease operation in January 2021, heralding a new era for the town and surrounding Kakadu National Park.
Senator Malarndirri McCarthy said today’s historic moment had been a “long time coming” for the Mirarr people, who had been campaigning for this for 20 years.
Senior Mirarr traditional owner and Kakadu resident Yvonne Margarula, pictured in Kakadu National Park.
Mirarr senior traditional owner Yvonne Margarula said her people were glad to see the legal changes finally happen.
“They are essential to ensuring the vibrant post-mining future of Jabiru and the Kakadu region that Mirarr have been planning for,” she said.
“We look forward to welcoming visitors from all around the world to our beautiful country.”
Gundjeihmi Aboriginal Corporation, who represents the Mirarr traditional owners, have crafted a masterplan to turn Jabiru into an Indigenous-led tourism and services town.
“This bipartisan change to the legislation is an essential step to correct the historical exclusion of the town of Jabiru from Aboriginal ownership and allow Mirarr to take the legal control they need to enact their vision,” chief executive Justin O’Brien said.
Renewable energy can save the natural world – but if we’re not careful, it will also hurt it
Renewable energy can save the natural world – but if we’re not careful, it will also hurt it https://theconversation.com/renewable-energy-can-save-the-natural-world-but-if-were-not-careful-it-will-also-hurt-it-145166
September 2, 2020 Laura Sonter, Lecturer in Environmental Management, The University of Queensland, James Watson, Professor, The University of Queensland, Richard K Valenta, Director – WH Bryan Mining and Geology Research Centre – The Sustainable Minerals Institute, The University of Queensland
A vast transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy is crucial to slowing climate change. But building solar panels, wind turbines and other renewable energy infrastructure requires mining for materials. If not done responsibly, this may damage species and ecosystems.
In our research, published today, we mapped the world’s potential mining areas and assessed how they overlap with biodiversity conservation sites.
We found renewable energy production will exacerbate the threat mining poses to biodiversity – the world’s variety of animals and plants. It’s fair to assume that in some places, the extraction of renewables minerals may cause more damage to nature than the climate change it averts.
Australia is well placed to become a leader in mining of renewable energy materials and drive the push to a low-carbon world. But we must act now to protect our biodiversity from being harmed in the process.
Mining to prevent climate change
Currently, about 17% of current global energy consumption is achieved through renewable energy. To further reduce greenhouse gas emissions, this proportion must rapidly increase.
Building new renewable energy infrastructure will involve mining minerals and metals. Some of these include:
- lithium, graphite and cobalt (mostly used in battery storage)
- zinc and titanium (used mostly for wind and geothermal energy)
- copper, nickle and aluminium (used in a range of renewable energy technologies).
The World Bank estimates the production of such materials could increase by 500% by 2050. It says more than 3 billion tonnes of minerals and metals will be needed to build the wind, solar and geothermal power, and energy storage, needed to keep global warming below 2℃ this century.
However, mining can seriously damage species and places. It destroys natural habitat, and surrounding environments can be harmed by the construction of transport infrastructure such as roads and railways.
What we found
We mapped areas around the world potentially affected by mining. Our analysis involved 62,381 pre-operational, operational, and closed mines targeting 40 different materials.
We found mining may influence about 50 million km² of Earth’s land surface (or 37%, excluding Antarctica). Some 82% of these areas contain materials needed for renewable energy production. Of this, 12% overlaps with protected areas, 7% with “key biodiversity areas”, and 14% with remaining wilderness.
Our results suggest mining of renewable energy materials may increase in currently untouched and “biodiverse” places. These areas are considered critical to helping species overcome the challenges of climate change.
Threats here and abroad
Australia is well positioned to become a leading supplier of materials for renewable energy. We are also one of only 17 nations considered ecologically “megadiverse”.
Yet, many of the minerals needed for renewable energy exist in important conservation areas.
For example, Australia is rich in lithium and already accounts for half of world production. Hard-rock lithium mines operate in the Pilbara region of Western Australia.
This area has also been identified as a national biodiversity hotspot and is home to many native species. These include small marsupials such as the little red antechinus and the pebble-mound mouse, and reptiles including gecko and goanna species.
Australia is also ranked sixth in the world for deposits of rare earth elements, many of which are needed to produce magnets for wind turbines. We also have large resources of other renewables materials such as cobalt, manganese, tantalum, tungsten and zirconium.
It’s critical that mining doesn’t damage Australia’s already vulnerable biodiversity, and harm the natural places valued by Indigenous people and other communities.
In many cases, renewables minerals are found in countries where the resource sector is not strongly regulated, posing an even greater environmental threat. For example, the world’s second-largest untouched lithium reserve exists in Bolivia’s Salar de Uyuni salt pan. This naturally diverse area is mostly untouched by mining.
The renewables expansion will also require iron and steel. To date, mining for iron in Brazil has almost wiped out an entire plant community, and recent dam failures devastated the environment and communities.
We need proactive planning
Strong planning and conservation action is needed to avoid, manage and prevent the harm mining causes to the environment. However global conservation efforts are often naive to the threats posed by significant growth in renewable energies.
Some protected areas around the world prevent mining, but more than 14% contain metal mines in or near their boundaries. Consequences for biodiversity may extend many kilometres from mining sites.
Meanwhile, other areas increasingly important for conservation are focused on the needs of biodiversity, and don’t consider the distribution of mineral resources and pressures to extract them. Conservation plans for these sites must involve strategies to manage the mining threat.
There is some good news. Our analyses suggest many required materials occur outside protected areas and other conservation priorities. The challenge now is to identify which species are most at risk from current and future mining development, and develop strong policies to avoid their loss.
Murray-Darling River system; mysterious loss of more than 2 trillion litres of water
The mystery of the Murray-Darling’s vanishing flows, ABC By national science, technology and environment reporter Michael Slezak, Mark Doman, Katia Shatoba, Penny Timms and Alex Palmer 3 Sep 2020
It might be the biggest whodunnit — or what-dunnit — in Australia.
More than 2 trillion litres of water — enough to fill Sydney Harbour four and a half times — has gone missing from our largest and most precious river system — the Murray-Darling Basin.
And it’s happened in what was already one of the driest periods the basin has seen.
According to an investigation by some of Australia’s top water scientists, shared exclusively with the ABC, 20 per cent of the water expected to flow down the rivers from 2012-2019 was simply not there. That’s despite almost $7 billion being spent to protect the health of the system’s rivers and ecosystems that rely on them.
Was it stolen? Was it lost? Has climate change made it go up in steam? Or was it simply never there in the first place?
There are clues scattered up and down the rivers but one simple message is clear in the scientists’ findings. For the first time, they provide evidence that the Murray-Darling Basin Plan — the most expensive environmental program in Australia’s history — is delivering much less water than was expected.
And the implications could be huge……. EXCELLENT INTERACTIVE GRAPHICS HERE
…..“It’s a huge discrepancy to be missing a fifth of the water that’s meant to be in the rivers,” said Jamie Pittock from the ANU. He’s an expert in water management and a co-author of the Wentworth Group’s report.
“It means that there are all sorts of things that Australians value that won’t be sustained … like more water for towns … the floodplains, growing grass for sheep and cattle, in terms of biodiversity being conserved, waterbirds, red gum forests and conserving our fish.”…………
there are clues. Lots of them. We’ve seen water go missing up and down the river with clear explanations before. And looking closely at the new report, many of those explanations are consistent with the new data.
Clue one: tampered meters and criminal prosecutions
One possible explanation for the shortfall is that some of the missing water has been stolen.
An investigation by Four Corners in 2017 put water theft in the spotlight — much of it around the Barwon-Darling catchment in the Northern Basin.
Irrigators there, according to official figures, use 3 per cent of all the water taken from the entire Murray-Darling Basin.
But on top of those official figures, there has been significantly more water taken in that area. The Murray-Darling Basin Authority itself estimated that in the Northern Basin, as little as 25 per cent of surface water take has been metered.
Some of the water that went unmetered was stolen.
Peter Harris, who was named in the 2017 Four Corners, was this year found guilty of water theft just upstream from those gauges at Brewarrina.
Anthony Barlow, another person named in the program, was found guilty and fined $190,000, for water theft just upstream again.
Since the Natural Resources Access Regulator (NRAR) was formed in NSW in 2018, 15 additional charges have been laid in these locations across the state for water theft and related actions, according to an NRAR spokeswoman.
Emma Carmody, a lawyer at the Environmental Defenders’ Office, said the criminal prosecutions do not represent how widespread water theft has been.
“I’d actually go so far as to say that this situation pre-2018 was catastrophically bad in those northern catchments in relation to compliance and enforcement,” Dr Carmody said………..
Clue two: shadow take
Travel further upstream along the Macquarie River towards Dubbo, and you land in the internationally protected wetlands of the Macquarie Marshes………
In a landscape so flat, structures like roads, engineered channels and small levee banks can divert staggering volumes of floodwater — potentially shepherding it across a farmer’s fields where it is left to soak into the ground, or even pumped into dams.
This water taken by irrigators and graziers from the floodplains — rather than from the rivers — has hardly ever been measured.
Using satellite imagery, flood paths appear guided by seemingly innocuous structures, or completely cut off by others.
Richard Kingsford is a river ecologist at the University of New South Wales who has studied the Macquarie Marshes and the impacts of floodplain harvesting.
He says water that spills over floodplains often drains back into rivers, and interrupting its flow can have big impacts, including contributing to the missing flows.
“There are very few places where we have an accurate estimate of how much water is being taken from the floodplain. And to me, this has been a yawning gap in the policy,” he said…………
Clue Three: The cash splash
If we head all the way to southern NSW, we see a completely different clue.
Billions have been spent subsidising “efficiency measures” to help farmers save water there.
That can be done by upgrading old irrigation systems to deliver water directly to roots, or lining water channels, for example. Then about half of the water saved by the farmers gets handed to the government for the environment.
But according to some experts, the “inefficiencies” prior to the upgrades just meant some of the water used by irrigators flowed back into the rivers. The upgrades mean that “return flow” stops happening………..
In a report published in 2019, Professor Williams estimated that at least 280 billion litres of water per year might have been lost from the rivers — and are unaccounted for — due to this problem.
“That must be a major reason that we’re not getting the flow regimes that we need,” Professor Williams said.
The MDBA commissioned its own analysis of the issue and concluded the loss of return flows was reducing water in the rivers by 121 billion litres a year.……..
Clue Four: Climate change
There is one issue, however, that most experts do agree is a major reason for the missing water in the basin.
“The MDBA considers a changing climate to be the primary contributory factor,” said the MDBA’s Vicki Woodburn.
Since the basin plan was introduced, heat records across the area have been broken in four of the eight years. The last three years have been the hottest ever recorded in the basin.
According to the South Australian royal commission into the Murray-Darling basin plan, the MDBA “completely ignored climate change” when determining how much water needed to be saved.
If true, that means the overall target may have been set too low — that more water needs to be recovered from irrigation to save the river system.
But the same models used to set those targets have also been used to manage the rivers, and now to calculate how much water should be in the rivers. And by inadequately accounting for climate change, those models are likely over-predicting how much water is being recovered.
Climate change means more water is likely being lost between gauges, as it flows along — lost into the dry river beds and the hot air…………..
Clue five: The water was never there
In a twist worthy of any whodunnit, could it be that some of the missing water was simply never there in the first place?
According to the Wentworth Group, the government modelling used to predict how much water we should see in the river has some fundamental flaws which likely exaggerate the volumes.
For example, in 2018, the Murray-Darling Basin Authority found its modelling “has trouble predicting low flows”.
That meant that when water stopped flowing in the river, the model would still show water flowing — something that could have been particularly problematic over the past seven years when low flows were very common………….
What it all means
If there’s less water in the rivers than we ever planned for, what’s to be done about it?……………..
Professor Vertessy, who advises the MDBA, thinks this sort of shortfall could contribute to a rethink of the long-term water recovery targets. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-09-03/the-mystery-of-the-murray-darlings-vanishing-flows/12612166?nw=0
“We may have to — I think everyone would accept that these sustainable diversion limits aren’t quantities which you ossify for posterity,” he says.
“They’ve got to be adjusted to fit in with the new climate realities and the social preferences of the day.”
And the scientists say whatever the response to the findings, something has to give.
“The current basin plan tries to pretend that we can do everything with a smaller and smaller cake,” says Professor Pittock.
“What this really means is that society is going to have to make some hard choices. How much irrigated agriculture do we want as a society versus how much do we want to retain by way of wetlands and ecosystems [or] of sites of cultural value to Indigenous people?” https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-09-03/the-mystery-of-the-murray-darlings-vanishing-flows/12612166?nw=0
Repower WA with Renewables: 90% by 2030
|
Repower WA with Renewables: 90% by 2030, https://www.cleanstate.org.au/repower_wa Western Australia’s energy sector is one of the best places to start to create thousands of jobs and drive down emissions. With the best sun and wind resources in the world, it’s time to harness the economic benefits and renewable potential of our state. All Australia’s other states & territories are embracing the clean energy transition with renewable energy targets, and WA’s lack of such a plan is a failure to grasp an excellent opportunity.
Repowering WA with renewable energy provides a once in a generation opportunity for infrastructure investment, jobs and value creation that will be a powerful driver for economic activity for decades to come. The proposalPowering WA’s Southwest electricity grid with renewable energy by 2030 is both affordable and achievable. The costs of building and delivering renewable energy solutions are reducing every year, and large scale wind and solar are already able to deliver cheaper electricity than coal and gas. Repowering WA can reduce energy bills for homes and businesses, and support significant growth in manufacturing, minerals processing and other energy-intensive industries that can employ more people here in WA. A report commissioned by Clean State has found the move to 90% renewable electricity on WA’s South West Interconnected System (SWIS) is technologically possible by 2030 and would create over 8600 jobs. The 90% Renewable Energy Roadmap created by expert group Sustainable Energy Now provides a transition blueprint for the SWIS – WA’s main electricity grid covering most of the population and spanning from Geraldton to Kalgoorlie. For this plan, new renewable energy generation capacity totalling 11.7 GW of will be required by 2030. Optimising the mix of technology to take into consideration electricity demand, weather, cost, technology and the design of the SWIS grid, the SEN model suggests that this should be made up of:
This investment would provide a significant number of jobs to build the infrastructure required. Each year, 800MW of new renewable energy capacity would need to be added, which is, roughly equivalent to the sum of the following:
There would also be additional investment and employment opportunities in providing energy storage and grid services to compliment this generation mix. Much of the rooftop solar can be delivered by private investment if WA’s electricity market is reformed to enable rooftop solar and battery systems to link into the grid productively. Increased battery storage would stabilise the network, and with 78,000 houses in WA coming off a 40c feed in-tariff this year, there is a prime opportunity to encourage these households to upgrade and battery. Besides the climate benefits and direct employment gains accompanying these investments and reforms, a timetable for the staged and managed closure of WA’s coal-fired power stations will avoid energy and business uncertainty, both for the state and for those currently working in the industry. Many credible studies have found that the SWIS, WA’s main grid, can transition to 100% Renewable sources by 2030. These include:
|
|
AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT ALLERGIC TO TRANSPARENCY AND A SENATE SHY IN ENFORCING IT
PARLIAMENT COVERS UP AUSTRALIA’S TRUE CARBON FOOTPRINT
Parliament Covers Up Australia’s True Carbon Footprint, ByTasmanian Times, August 31, 2020 The House Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy today tabled its report on Andrew Wilkie MP’s National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Amendment (Transparency in Carbon Emissions Accounting) Bill 2020 in Federal Parliament.
“Regrettably the Committee has voted to cover up Australia’s shameful role as one of the world’s biggest contributors to climate change,” Mr Wilkie said. “But the reasoning behind its recommendation for Parliament not to pass this Bill doesn’t stack up.”
Mr Wilkie’s Bill would require the Federal Government to include scope 3 emissions in reports of Australia’s carbon emissions, boosting transparency and accountability. Scope 3 emissions are the potential emissions contained in the gas and coal mined in Australia, which is then exported overseas. The Bill allows Australia to track its impact as one of the largest exporters of fossil fuels in the world, giving the public access to information about Australia’s role in very significantly contributing to global greenhouse gas emissions.
“Australia must have a clear picture of its contributions to global greenhouse gas emissions,” Mr Wilkie said. “This is essential as the world tries to limit warming to 1.5 degrees and halt catastrophic climate change. Keeping track of Australia’s scope 3 emissions is not double counting but gives a true picture of our responsibility for climate change around the globe.
The Committee can hardly argue that tracking scope 3 emissions is ‘too hard’ when the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources has not even conducted an assessment of compliance costs. For goodness sake, the Committee acknowledges that more than a quarter of ASX200 companies already voluntarily report their scope 3 emissions.
“Further, the fact that this kind of tracking is not required by the Paris Agreement is beside the point. The Australian Government should be open and transparent for the sake of the community, rather than claiming that Australia can do little to influence climate change. The truth is that when the carbon in fossil fuel exports is taken into account, Australia accounts for about 5 per cent of the global total for fossil fuels.”
The full House Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy report can be found here.
2. ANALYSIS OF THE BILL………… HTTPS://TASMANIANTIMES.COM/2020/08/PARLIAMENT-COVERS-UP-AUSTRALIAS-TRUE-CARBON-FOOTPRINT/
GreenPower seeks to revive interest, launches refreshed brand
|
GreenPower seeks to revive interest, launches refreshed brand, RenewEconomy
Michael Mazengarb1 September 2020 Australia’s only government-backed accreditation program for renewable electricity sales, GreenPower, has unveiled new branding as it seeks to inspire renewed interest from a growing number of business looking to cut their emissions.
The GreenPower program is a voluntary way for households and businesses to purchase renewable electricity through their retailer, with the government-backed program providing a process for verifying that purchases are actually helping to grow Australia’s wind and solar sectors and cut emissions. All power purchased through the GreenPower program is in addition to the federally mandated Renewable Energy Target, ensuring that customer purchases under the voluntary program help to grow Australia’s renewable energy supplies. Around 110,000 households and 17,500 businesses currently opt-in to purchasing renewable electricity through the GreenPower program, with almost 500 wind, solar, hydro and biomass projects accredited as GreenPower generators. In addition to a refreshed logo and brand identity, the GreenPower program has launched an updated website, with new functionality that it hopes will help electricity customers identify a suitable GreenPower product……….https://reneweconomy.com.au/greenpower-seeks-to-revive-interest-launches-refreshed-brand-75246/ |
|
|
Indecent haste in Australian government’s push for law making Napandee the nuclear waste dump. What’s going on?
New nuclear legislation set to provide toxic dumping ground in South Australia, Independent Australia, By Noel Wauchope |
UNDER THE PRESSURE of The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO), The Australian Government is in a hurry to get a new bill passed. It’s not really a new bill, it’s actually a new bit tacked on to an existing one. It’s called the National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020.
The amendment does two important things: it selects a definite place in South Australia, a farmer’s property called Napandee, as a radioactive waste dump and it removes the possibility of a judicial review of that selection.
The proposed dump is an “interim” radioactive waste facility.
It would consist of two parts:
- Temporary above-ground storage for what is known as low-level waste (LLW). LLW is a general term for a range of objects that are radioactively contaminated, but not considered to be highly radioactive nor toxic for thousands of years.
- A “temporary” above-ground storage for intermediate-level waste (ILW). ILW is a term for a mix of wastes that contains some very long-lived highly toxic radioactive matter, that does require isolation for thousands of years. While this amount would be smaller in volume, it would be far more significant. 95 per cent of this radioactive content would be spent nuclear fuel rods from ANSTO’s nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights, Sydney.
At present, these highly radioactive wastes are stored in giant canisters at Lucas Heights, where there is ample space for further canisters and experienced and skilled staff to monitor them and provide security.
ANSTO has plans to expand its operation and CEO Dr Adi Paterson’s dream of a world-leading business in exporting radionuclides for medicine and industry. Meanwhile, international nuclear security obligations demand that Australia develop a plan for the permanent disposal of nuclear wastes.
Unfortunately, this Napandee plan does nothing towards meeting these obligations. ……….
There is no plan whatsoever for the permanent disposal of this highly radioactive trash.
There’s a vague story that these wastes will later be moved from Napandee to a permanent disposal — anything from 40 to 300 years. They are most likely to suffer the fate of other such facilities in the USA and other countries and become stranded wastes…….
There was a heavy emphasis on “medical” wastes. But the reality is that the vast majority of wastes from nuclear medicine are very short-lived radioisotopes, that have no need to be transported thousands of miles and are routinely disposed of close to places such as hospitals where they are used.
A ballot was held in the area, of ratepayers only, on whether or not to support the project. Some residents close to the property were excluded, as were the Native Title holders, the Barngarla Aboriginal community. The vote result, from 824 voters, was 452 “yes”. The Barngarla held their own vote — 80 Barngarla voted, with the unanimous result of “no”.
The whole issue of the transport of the nuclear wastes and their “temporary” dumping does concern also the region, the state of South Australia and the nation. The decision should not be made solely by 452 ratepayers in one small rural area………
Non-ratepayers did not get a look-in. In this modern, almost Trumpian paradigm, outsiders such as economists, environmentalists, medical experts, sociologists and independent radiation experts are seen as “the elites” that can’t be trusted. Unfortunately, independent overseas experts on nuclear waste management have been excluded, too. Apart from the problems raised for the town and region of Kimba itself, there are serious questions about the appropriateness of the planned system, the area environmentally and geologically……..
Of course, this plan is confined to nuclear wastes produced in Australia. For now.
The plan is obviously helpful to ANSTO. They can pass this uncomfortable buck of 10,000 year-lasting radioactive wastes on to a distant South Australian rural community. It will then be managed and funded by whom? The South Australian and Australian tax-payers.
This will take the pressure of ANSTO, make it look as if they’re doing something about their radioactive trash and avoid any Lucas Heights, or rather Barden Ridge fuss, as they expand their operations. (The residential area previously part of Lucas Heights was renamed Barden Ridge to increase the real estate value of the area, as it would no longer be instantly associated with the nuclear reactor.)
It’s not so helpful to South Australia, or to Australia. The best solution is to leave those nuclear reactor wastes safely stored at Lucas Heights for the time being and to develop a national discussion and plan for what to do with those wastes for permanent disposal. Under this present, rather rushed scheme, Resources Minister Keith Pitt, Dr Paterson and the whole crew of the NRWMF will be dead and gone, long before the stranded wastes at Napandee will be properly dealt with.
A solution for the common good is what’s needed, not just a solution that suits ANSTO. ANSTO is a statutory body — a case of the tail wagging the dog, perhaps?
The National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 has been passed by the House of Representatives. It will be debated in the Senate later this year.
Meanwhile the Senate Economics Legislation Committee is holding an Inquiry into this bill…….
it gets interesting. Suddenly, a public hearing becomes private. The topic for this new secrecy was the discussion of some documents from the NRWMFT that had been requested by the Committee and received only a very short time before the hearing. The documents were heavily redacted. They relate to the process by which the Napandee site was selected. How spontaneous was the farmer’s offer of his land? What roles did the NRWMFT, ANSTO and the Industry Department, play in instigating this offer?
So many questions surround this plan:
- Is the new amendment being pushed because Minister Keith Pitt fears the opposition of Aboriginals, or indeed of the public in general?
- The exclusion of the Barngarla from the decision — how does this square with Indigenous rights?
- Why did the Government not provide any independent advice to the Kimba community?
- Why are the South Australian and Australian public excluded from decision-making?
- Why is this Senate Committee public hearing to be held in secret?
- Why is this all happening in such a hurry? https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/new-nuclear-legislation-set-to-provide-toxic-dumping-ground-in-south-australia,14256
The travesty of justice that is the UK extradition hearing about Julian Assange
|
August 30, 2020 by craig The travesty that is Julian Assange’s extradition hearing resumes fully on 7 September at the Old Bailey. I shall be abandoning my own legal team and going down to London to cover it again in full, for an expected three weeks. How this is going to work at the Old Bailey, I do not know. Covid restrictions presumably mean that the numbers in the public gallery will be tiny. As of now, there is no arrangement for Julian’s friends and family in place. It looks like 4am queuing is in prospect.
By 7 September it will be six months since I applied to resume my membership of the National Union of Journalists. I STILL have not the slightest idea who objected, or what the grounds were for objection. I have not heard from the NUJ for months. A senior official of an international journalists’ organisation has told us that he inquired, and learnt that the NUJ national executive has considered my application and set up a sub-committee to report. But if so, why is this secret, why have I not been informed, and why am I not allowed to know what the objection is? I find this all very sinister. At this stage it is not paranoid to wonder whose hand is behind this. The practical effect of this is that without NUJ membership I cannot access a Press card, and avail myself of whatever media arrangements are in place for the Assange hearing (just as I was kept out of most of the Salmond trial). I have now reached the stage where I would like to take legal action against the NUJ, but the finances are beyond me. I am not going to ask you to donate because we are going to need all our resources for the contempt case against me, which the Crown drags out. I shall be writing next week about my own case and that hearing earlier this week. I would just note now that the “virtual hearing” is entirely unsatisfactory and unfair on defendants. There was at least one occasion when my QC agreed with a suggestion of the judge when I would have instructed them not to had I been, as I should normally have been, seated near them in court and able to instruct. Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with the every article, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate. |
|
Australian government seeks to regurgitate Tony Abbott’s anti environment laws
|
‘Taking an eraser’ to Australia’s wildlife: ad blitz planned to fight environment law
Coalition accused of ‘breach of faith’ as it seeks to introduce almost exact replica of failed Abbott government legislation, Guardian, Lisa Cox, Sat 29 Aug 2020 Conservation groups will launch an advertising campaign aimed at building support for stronger national environment laws in response to what they say is a “breach of faith” by the Morrison government. Groups including Birdlife Australia, WWF and the Australian Conservation Foundation will begin a “Before it’s gone” campaign on Sunday with radio, print, TV and billboard advertisements featuring high-profile species including the koala and greater glider. It follows the Morrison government this week introducing legislation to hand greater powers to the states that included no measures to ensure maintained or strengthened protection for threatened species or ecosystems. Continue reading |
South Australian MP Peter Treloar says “Kimba nuclear waste dump is a federal issue”, but he’s fine with it anyway
Kimba nuclear waste site OK with Member for Flinders ahead of proposed new electoral boundaries, ABC, ABC Eyre Peninsula, By Evelyn Leckie and Gary-Jon Lysaght 28 Aug 20
With proposed electoral boundaries changing for the Eyre Peninsula, local MP Peter Treloar is poised to take on a community that remains divided on hosting the country’s nuclear waste.
Key points:
- Proposed electoral boundaries may lead to Kimba falling within the state seat of Flinders
- Peter Treloar is poised to take on Kimba’s nuclear waste storage issues
- The Kimba community remains divided on the region’s nuclear waste site
The Member for Flinders, whose electorate is slated to include Kimba after the redistribution, said although the nuclear waste dump was ultimately a federal issue, he had no problem with its proposed location.
“The Kimba community have decided themselves that they’re prepared to be accepting of that, so this process is playing out in the federal jurisdiction,” Mr Treloar said………
Earlier this year a cross-party parliamentary committee found “significant risk” that local Indigenous groups were not consulted about the nuclear dump to a standard required under international law. ……
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-08-27/flinders-member-weighs-in-on-nuclear-waste-in-kimba/12603022
1 This month
Chernobyl: The Lost Tapes – A good documentary on Chernobyl on SBS available On Demand for the next 3 weeks– https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/tv-program/chernobyl-the-lost-tapes/2352741955560
15 April – Zoom –Nuclear Power is Not the Solution
Apr 15, 2026 01:00 AM in Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney
Join the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) on Tuesday, April 14th for a timely webinar exploring the risks associated with nuclear power and challenging the myth that it offers a simple, safe, carbon-free solution to the climate crisis
21 April Webinar: No Nuclear Weapons in Australia
Start: 2026-04-21 18:00:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
End: 2026-04-21 19:30:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
Event Type: Virtual
A virtual link will be communicated before the event.
Host Contact Info: australia@icanw.org
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 