Australia, and other countries – deaths from global heating are being underestimated
|
Experts Warn Climate Change Is Already Killing Way More People Than We Record, Science Alert ,CARLY CASSELLA, 25 MAY 2020
People around the world are already dying from the climate crisis,and yet all too often, official death records do not reflect the impact of these large-scale environmental catastrophes. According to a team of Australian health experts, heat is the most dominant risk posed by climate change in the country. If the world’s emissions remain the same, by 2080 Australian cities could see at least four times the number of deaths from increasing temperatures alone. “Climate change is a killer, but we don’t acknowledge it on death certificates,” says physician Arnagretta Hunter from the Australian National University. That’s a potentially serious oversight. In a newly-published correspondence, Hunter and four other public health experts estimate Australia’s mortality records have substantially underreported heat-related deaths – at least 50-fold. While death certificates in Australia do actually have a section for pre-existing conditions and other factors, external climate conditions are rarely taken into account. Between 2006 and 2017, the analysis found less than 0.1 percent of 1.7 million deaths were attributed directly or indirectly to excessive natural heat. But this new analysis suggests the nation’s heat-related mortality is around 2 percent. “We know the summer bushfires were a consequence of extraordinary heat and drought and people who died during the bushfires were not just those fighting fires – many Australians had early deaths due to smoke exposure,” says Hunter……. “Death certification needs to be modernised, indirect causes should be reported, with all death certification prompting for external factors contributing to death, and these death data must be coupled with large-scale environmental datasets so that impact assessments can be done.” …… Such action, they say, is imperative. Not only for Australia but many other countries in the world. The United Kingdom has documented some problems with accurately filling out death certificates, and cities in several parts of the world are on track for similar heat-related mortality rates as Australia. But there are some places that will need to do more than just update their current system. In the tropics, there’s little valid mortality data on the more than 2 billion people who live in this heat-vulnerable region. And that makes predicting what will happen to these communities in the future much trickier. “Climate change is the single greatest health threat that we face globally even after we recover from coronavirus,” says Hunter. “We are successfully tracking deaths from coronavirus, but we also need healthcare workers and systems to acknowledge the relationship between our health and our environment.” In an unpredictable world, if we want to know where we’re going, we have to know where we’ve been. Figuring out how many of us have already died from climate change will be key to that process. We can’t ignore it any longer. The correspondence was published in The Lancet Planetary Health. https://www.sciencealert.com/official-death-records-are-terrible-at-showing-how-many-people-are-dying-from-the-climate-crisis |
|
|
Australian government’s climate and post-Covid policy is a sop to the fossil fuel industries
Angus Taylor suggesting it is not government policy to achieve net zero emissions by 2050, and the government giving in-principle support to recommendations made by a panel headed by a former CEO of Origin Energy, Grant King, to allow the Australian Renewable Energy Agency and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation fund projects involving carbon capture and storage.
pushes for the same energy mixes that were being advocated a decade ago – more gas, the discredited carbon capture, as well as nuclear power.
The climate crisis looms as the Coalition fiddles with fossil fuels https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/may/24/the-climate-crisis-looms-as-the-coalition-fiddles-with-fossil-fuelsGreg Jericho The government is like a smoker switching to low-tar cigarettes. Its energy policy is just a sop
We may be dealing with a health crisis, but the climate change crisis has not gone away, nor become any less urgent. In fact, the opposite.
A few conservative commentators have suggested Covid-19 shows what a real crisis looks like compared with, in their opinion, the hyperventilating over climate change.
What bollocks.
Nasa estimates that last month was the hottest April on record and the first four months of this year are the second hottest start to a year.
The past seven months have all been 1C or higher than the 1951-1980 average (roughly around 1.3C above the pre-industrial average) – tied with the longest streak set from October 2015 to April 2016. But unlike in 2015 and 2016 the Bureau of Meteorology records we are currently not in El Niño.
That very much suggests the pace of warming is speeding up.
The linear trend of temperatures over the past 60 years suggests we will hit 2C above pre-industrial levels in 50 years; the trend of the past 20 years has it happening in around 30 years, but the trend of the past decade would see us hit that level in 2038 –just 18 years’ time.
And no, the virus has not bought us more time.
A study published this week in Nature Climate Change estimates the annual global drop in emissions due to virus shutdowns will be “comparable to the rates of decrease needed year-on-year over the next decades to limit climate change to a 1.5°C warming”.
That it took forcing people to stop their lives to achieve such cuts highlights just how big the job ahead of us is and how it cannot be done through individual action alone.
Cutting emissions without crippling the economy requires not everyone self-isolating, but changing industries and the very foundations of our economy.
We need to move away from oil, coal and gas to renewable energy.
And so it should be of great concern that the government is using the coronavirus as cover to push fossil fuels.
This week Adam Morton revealed that a manufacturing taskforce, headed by Dow Chemical executive and Saudi Aramco board member Andrew Liveris, is recommending to the National Covid-19 Coordination Commission (itself headed by the current deputy chairman of Strike Energy, Neville Power) that “the Morrison government make sweeping changes to ‘create the market’ for gas and build fossil fuel infrastructure that would operate for decades”.
It comes off the back of Angus Taylor suggesting it is not government policy to achieve net zero emissions by 2050, and the government giving in-principle support to recommendations made by a panel headed by a former CEO of Origin Energy, Grant King, to allow the Australian Renewable Energy Agency and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation fund projects involving carbon capture and storage.
Taylor also this week released a discussion paper for a “framework to accelerate low emissions technologies”. While suggesting renewables are vital, it essentially pushes for the same energy mixes that were being advocated a decade ago – more gas, the discredited carbon capture, as well as nuclear power.
It’s the wrong policy at precisely the wrong time.
As Morton has reported, organisations and governments around the world are advocating using economic stimulus measures to push towards a greener economy.
A report released this week by the Australian Conservation Foundation echoed the Grattan Institute’s recent “Start with steel: A practical plan to support carbon workers and cut emissions” report, arguing that we should see the virus as an opportunity to transform our economy and invest in renewable energy.
But no. It is clear the government remains wedded to a fossil-fuel based economy in which its climate change policy is merely a sop rather being designed to deal with a major crisis that is only becoming more urgent.
Leading doctors in Australia (over 180 of them) want Australia’s Australia’s Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) made stronger, not weaker
More than 180 doctors sign open letter calling for overhaul of ‘failing’ environmental laws, https://www.sbs.com.au/news/more-than-180-doctors-sign-open-letter-calling-for-overhaul-of-failing-environmental-laws 25 May 20, More than 180 health professionals have signed a letter warning the Commonwealth must strengthen Australia’s environmental laws to protect people’s health.
Doctors for the Environment Australia and the Climate and Health Alliance have sent an open letter to federal Environment Minister Sussan Ley as she undertakes a once-in-a-decade review of environmental protection laws.
Australia’s Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) was established more than 20 years ago at a time when the doctors say the effects of climate change and its links to human health were not widely considered to be related.
The review comes amid the COVID-19 pandemic and follows Australia’s catastrophic summer bushfires with the health professionals warning that failing to conserve the environment will expose Australians to further devastation and health risks.
“We must protect the natural environment in order to prevent further and potentially even more deadly pandemics,” the letter says.
“The degradation of Australia’s natural environment and loss of our unique biodiversity is in effect a dismantling of our life support systems.”
The doctors argue the laws have failed as Australia has the second-highest rate of biodiversity in the world and is recognised as a land clearing and deforestation hotspot.
“The EPBC Act has failed to achieve its objectives of protecting Australia’s environment and promoting ecologically sustainable development and biodiversity conservation,” the letter says.
The letter, also signed by former Australian of the Year Professor Fiona Stanley, calls for an “entirely new generation” of environmental laws that focus on the impacts on human health and which have greater protections in place for biodiversity.
Associate Professor Katherine Barraclough from Doctors for the Environment Australia argues clearing forests and wildlife habitat increases the risk of infectious diseases being transferred from wildlife to people.
“The COVID-19 pandemic and the summer’s fires serve as a wake-up call. We must recognise the interconnections between humans, animals and natural places,” she said in a statement.
Climate and Health Alliance founder Fiona Armstrong said the government listened to the science in its response to COVID-19 and should do the same in regards to the environment and climate change.
An interim report into the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act review is expected mid-year with the final report expected in October.
National Coordination COVID-19 Commission – a fossil fuel mates’ rort of staggering proportions.
 Coalition’s COVID-19 Commission: Another reason for a Federal ICAC Now! Independent Australia By Ross Jones | 25 May 2020 Just how much slush do you reckon is going to wash around the Coalition’s so-called National Coordination COVID-19 Commission?
It is brutally evident that, much like birds in a Hitchcock movie, masses of spivs are preening their flight feathers, readying themselves for a terrifying assault on Australia’s fragile environment to line their own – and others’ – already luxurious nests. This is going to be a mates’ rort of staggering proportions. There are a lot of approaches Australia could take to emerge from the COVID-19 problem a better place. Certainly, Australia is awash with economic problems — high unemployment, battered production capabilities, smashed asset values and a looming surplus of exports are just the start. As you would expect, the Morrison Government eschewed any sensible approaches to these problems, like rebooting manufacturing to set the country up for efficient, long-term solutions, which would enable us to contribute to global attempts to slow climate change while boosting levels of meaningful employment. Instead, the Coalition wants to unleash the dogs of destruction, just to make sure no other generation of Australians has anywhere near the opportunity this lot of privileged elitists has enjoyed. Once fracked and drilled, that land – our children’s land – will be rendered useless. Destroyed. Why are they doing this? Money. Lots of it. Greed, bribes, backhanders and sly winks will ensure the brown paper bags – or Cayman Island cupboards – are nice and plump for all the abusers of our long-term well-being to jam their porky little mitts into. This is exactly why we need an empowered Federal ICAC and that is exactly the reason IA is proposing the formation of a new Australian political party to be named — Federal ICAC Now (FIN). A Federal ICAC won’t stop all the malfeasance but it could put a fair-sized dent in it. Also, it would be great to have a few senators in the House whose focus is on corruption detection and prevention. The next half-senate election, when the term of those elected in 2016 expires, can be held as early as 7 August 2021 but must be held by 30 June 2022. Before the election, and especially in the last months leading up to the big event a registered FIN party would have a presence alerting voters to the issues. At the election, the above-the-line party might just have a chance. A previous IA article floated the idea of FIN and asked readers if they would be willing to join such a party………. https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/coalitions-covid-19-commission-another-reason-for-a-federal-icac-now,13928 |
|
Napandee is geologically and geophysically unsuitable for Australia’s nuclear waste dump
This is an extract from Peter Remta – submission to Senate Committee on National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 [Provisions] Submission 65
“……….NAPANDEE
Napandee near Kimba in South Australia is the site chosen by the government for its national radioactive waste management facility which would be given legislative effect by the enactment of the Bill.
Unlike what was stated by the responsible minister Napandee is not a locality or community but simply the name of the farm part of which will be acquired by the government by purchase to host the facility. Again contrary to what the minister has said there is no community at Napandee supporting the government’s proposals other than the resident owners of the farm whose opinion must be discounted because of their financial interest.
SUITABILITY
The Napandee site is both geologically and geophysically unsuitable for hosting the facility.
This is confirmed by many experts locally and overseas who are surprised at thechoice of Napandee since it is a most inappropriate ground and soil mineral structure for the construction and the operations of the waste facility.
Because of the soil and ground conditions it would be extremely difficult to properly clean up the area in the event of any escape of waste and would probably leave the ground contaminated for many decades.
The main reasons for its unsuitability are that the Napandee site is on sands of unconsolidated sediments to a depth of some 30 metres in an area of known seismic volatility with several significant earthquakes having been recorded in the past fifty years.
LOCATION
Kimba (and this includes the Napandee farm which is located some 25 kms by road west of the Kimba township) is a prime agricultural area renowned for its cereal crop growing and livestock pastures and is a totally inappropriate and unsuitable location for the facility.
Again based on well regarded and authoritative expert opinion the establishment of the facility at Kimba will be greatly detrimental to its agricultural and farming industry from which the region may never recover.
The financial and economic loss within the agricultural industry for the Kimba region will be incapable of being replaced by any economic benefits claimed by the government to be gained from the waste facility.
The government has attempted to show that agriculture and nuclear waste management can coexist in a satisfactory manner as is the case with the Champagne district of France.
However that situation together with many others throughout Europe has completely changed with significant opposition – and even violent demonstrations – against the storage of nuclear material in their regional localities.
NATURE OF FACILITY
The facility to be constructed at Napandee is based on the model of the El Cabril waste repository in the Córdoba province of Spain.
However the first major difference between the two is that Napandee is in prime agricultural land with many neighbouring and well established farms while El Cabril is in relatively isolated foothills country and until some years ago was a uranium mine which immediately provided a remote and generally uninhabited environment and barrier for that waste facility.
The second is that El Cabril is a very large and highly technical installation with its attendant complexities and costs and consequently is not really an ideal reference example for a very scaled down version for Napandee.
In any case El Cabril despite being regarded as one of the best above ground repositories in the world has recently experienced some water problems which has led the Australian government to look for other possible models for the Napandee facility but no details of this have been publicly released.
In reality El Cabril was probably a bad model to choose for the government’s facility in the first place………..”
Peter Remta: Misleading and inaccurate information provided by authorities on National Radioactive Waste Management
Peter Remta – submission to Senate Committee on National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 [Provisions] Submission 65
“………. EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM The explanatory memorandum accompanying the Bill simply repeats many of the
inaccurate and misleading comments and information provided by the Department of Industry Innovation and Science and ANSTO to the communities of the initially accepted sites in South Australia since the beginning of the nomination process under the existing legislation.
………I must stress that the serious and unacceptable manner in which quite inaccurate information has been disseminated on behalf of the government on such an important issue both now and during the nomination and selection process has only caused more concern and community dissension and I suggest will lead to a greater general apprehension of starting a nuclear industry in Australia
Explanatory memorandum assertions :
1. While the concept of a single and purpose-built nuclear waste facility is a desired objective as outlined at the start of the explanatory memorandum it will be difficult to achieve as is now proposed.
To begin with it is wrong to say that this facility will support nuclear science and technology since it fails to meet the safety prescriptions for a facility of that nature.
It is also wrong to link the provision of nuclear medicine to the proposed storage and disposal of waste at the facility as the various entities generating waste from medical and research activities will continue relying on their own disposal methods and will not necessarily use a government run business for that purpose.
2. Most importantly it is a totally false and misleading proposition to suggest that the failure to establish the facility as proposed by the government will somehow lead to a reduction in nuclear medical services and treatment and the government should quickly correct that serious misconception since this has been a rather distressing concern for the community at Kimba and generally. It is therefore disingenuous to give that impression that this will be a central
facility for all nuclear waste in Australia.
3. While existing waste is held in numerous locations around the country there is no legal or other requirement that this waste would be disposed of at the facility and it is therefore disingenuous to give the impression that this will
be a central facility for all waste in Australia.
4. The reference to meeting with the international obligations under the Joint Convention4 ignores the safety code requirements promulgated some 12 years later under which it would be very difficult to establish the proposed
facility.
5. The suggestion of acquiring additional land for such things as all weather road access is only another example of the intrinsically unsuitable nature of the chosen site and the lack of planning and the necessary technical knowledge for construction of the facility.
6. The process of identifying a suitable location being a 40 year effort again shows the inability of the government or simply ignores that the current process in a proper manner only began after 2012 under the existing legislation.
7. To suggest proper and successful consultations with community members is a test of normal intelligence having regard to the strong and spirited opposition to the facility from the outset by the community generally and the fact that a concerned Aboriginal group has litigated its opposition to an appeal to the Federal Court5 and may now resort to a referral to the United Nations Human Rights Council.
8. The financial aspects of the government’s proposals lack frankness and justification when it has been claimed variously that the amount so far spent in selecting the site is $55 million or $85 million over the past five years but with a constant refusal to provide any details as to how that money has been spent or applied.
Surely there should be proper public disclosure of this quantum of expenditure when compared to the usual outcry where there is only a fraction of that amount involved if there is no reasonable explanation given. Moreover this should be gauged against the persistent refusal of the government to pay for an independent assessment and scrutiny of its
proposals by the members of the Kimba community who oppose the facility.
9. The statement as to compatibility with human rights is again with respect rather nonsensical when the government was incapable of holding a proper and valid ballot (albeit through the District Council of Kimba) which totally ignored the inclusion of an opposing argument contrary to the recognised and applicable principles of human rights. That ballot and the previous one as well as some claimed community surveys failed to meet the principles of informed consent which places a high standard of compliance on both the government and the District Council.
This becomes even worse by excluding the Aboriginal peoples from the ballotIf the government were genuine then it should hold another ballot with a more appropriate and wider base for voting and with the prior provision of all pertinent
information including the arguments or case against the facility. This goes back to providing a proper assessment and scrutiny of the government’s proposals by the opposing members of the Kimba community which has never been
the case.
Regrettably the compatibility statement is more prescriptive in its content instead of actually dealing with the facts of the situation and circumstances that occurred and which have been presented in the statement in a most favourable light for the government. when under the most basic of constitutional and democratic rights they
should have been included in that process…………
Sections on NAPANDEE FINANCIAL ASPECTS INFORMATION, BALLOTS, and INFORMED CONSENT LEGAL ACTIONS MANAGEMENT of FACILITY INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT [these will be published here separately, later]
…. CONCLUDING COMMENTS aand RECOMMENDATIONS Continue reading
Dianne Ashton on Government untrustworthiness – the rushed, unethical decision on nuclear waste site
Dianne Ashton to Senate Committee on INQUIRY INTO NATIONAL RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT
FACILITY Submission No 63
Herewith is my submission and reasons for opposing the establishment of a National Radioactive
Waste Management Facility in South Australia.
Having been a part of the Barndioota Consultative Committee for the four years it was operational,
prior to a decision being made by the Government as to the proposed site of a Facility, I questioned
the trustworthiness of the Federal Department (DIIS at the time), the lack of ethics when it came to
Consultation and the reason why South Australia was chosen for a proposed NRWF when, clearly
South Australians are patently against having nuclear waste stored in the state.
South Australians voted against a High Level Nuclear Waste Facility being built in South Australia.
Unfortunately had DIIS been patient until that decision was made, they would have realised that
their hope of the long term Intermediate Level Nuclear Waste (ILW) in a High Level Facility in South
Australia was nothing more than a pipe dream. Unfortunately this decision by South Australians, left
DIIS in the unenviable position of looking for a temporary place to store this highly dangerous waste.
To store ILW temporarily above ground for up to 100 years or more, is not a good decision, which is
now what is intended at the proposed NRWMF.
ll that withstanding, the whole process which was undertaken by DIIS to find the proposed site for
a NRWMF in Australia was flawed in so many ways. If DIIS had actually undertaken the process with
World’s best practice in mind, the outcome may have been very different.
A NRWMF would have been chosen, but only after deep consultation with the neighbours, standing
council and community members of the area. The consultative process would have been a two way
process, information being given from all sides of the situation and then discussed. If there were
divisive issues the aim would have been to build greater connections and understand between
community members, because the notion of “divide and conquer” does not belong in community
engagement. This is not what happened, trust was not built, divide and conquer abounded and
information was the only means forward according to DIIS. Also continuity of engagement would
have been important instead of around 25 staff members leaving the team during the process.
Surveys would be been well thought out and extensively conducted instead of hurried and rushed
with flawed results. DIIS did not do enough to fully engage the community and work with them in an
ethical manner to bring the process to an amenable conclusion. This created mistrust of DIIS and
their process.
If the proposed site at Kimba goes ahead without full scrutiny of the process which put it there, it
will be a sad day for any future proposed facilities, as a wonderful opportunity to all work
collaboratively will have gone missing and will continue to be absent, until there is a new approach
to the process.
Covid 19 is paving the way for change in Australia for the better. The government is called to be
acting on behalf of the people (taxpayers) not on behalf of itself. Let’s hope we can all wake up
before it is too late.
Nick Pastalatzis questions the government’s boast about jobs at the planned nuclear waste dump
Nick Pastalatzis : Submission to Senate Committee Inquiry into National Radioactive Management Amendment Bill 2020. Submission no. 64 [ this is a summary of the hand-written submission]The Amendment specifies a particular location – Napandee for a repository for long lived Intermediate wastes, The Amendmet and the existing Act, both are flawed and should be rejected. Shamefully the Federal Government excluded the Barngarla people from the ballot about the site. The Barngarla’s own ballot resulted in 100% opposition to the plan. The process and decision are inconsistent with the UN Declaration of Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Australian Law on radioactive waste to be changed in order to prevent any judicial review!
Declaration and Legislation of Selected SiteAt the time the Minister announced that the Napandee site had been identified, we were surprised and
confused that this decision was not declared as per the requirements of the Act. It is now clear that the reason
for this is the Ministers decision to amend the Act to specify the selected site. This is extremely concerning to us,
as it is our understanding that the decision to directly legislate the selected site will effectively remove the
opportunity for any judicial review of the site selection, and there appears to be no other justification to do so.
submissions were received in total, and that, in total, 94.5 of these opposed the siting of the facility in Kimba.
These appear to have been all but ignored in the Minister, in favour of multiple survey results from the same
focus group living or operating businesses based within the District Council.
the members of the Kimba, Eyre Peninsula and SA community who are opposed to the siting of the National
Radioactive Waste Management Facility on Farming land in South Australia.
Government has undertaken to site the National Radioactive Waste Facility in Kimba and we would like to thank
the Committee for their time and efforts in undertaking this inquiry.
particularly for those who do not support the siting of the facility in the Kimba district. We have had no goal or
prize in sight, only the onerous task of proving our opposition.
fuelled by the actions of the Department in their quest to establish support for the facility. There are many
examples of how this is process has been unfair and wrong, and we appreciate the opportunity to put forward
some important facts from our perspective.
The finding by former Minister Matthew Canavan that broad community consent for this facility exists in Kimba,
a basis on which this Bill rests, is tenuous at best. The path that the Federal Government took to making this
finding has been a long road of propaganda, manipulation and promises, and is now completely lacking
justification at its conclusion for the decision made.
Small Modular Nuclear Reactors included in Morrison govt’s energy plan?
New nuclear technologies to be examined in planning Australia’s energy mix, The government is looking at incorporating ‘emerging nuclear
Small modular reactors ‘have potential’, investment roadmap discussion paper says, Guardian, Katharine Murphy Political editor @murpharoo, Thu 21 May 2020
The Morrison government has flagged examining “emerging nuclear technologies” as part of Australia’s energy mix in the future in a new discussion paper kicking off the process of developing its much-vaunted technology investment roadmap.
Facing sustained pressure to adopt a 2050 target of net zero emissions, pressure it is continuing to resist, the government plans instead to develop the roadmap as the cornerstone of the Coalition’s mid-century emissions reduction strategy.
The new framework will identify the government’s investment priorities in emissions-reducing technologies for 2022, 2030 and 2050, although the paper makes clear the government will only countenance “incentivising voluntary emissions reductions on a broad scale” – not schemes that penalise polluters.
The discussion paper to be released on Thursday floats a range of potential technologies for future deployment, including small modular nuclear reactors. It says emerging nuclear technologies “have potential but require R&D and identified deployment pathways”.
While clearly flagging that prospect, the paper also notes that engineering, cost and environmental challenges, “alongside social acceptability of nuclear power in Australia, will be key determinants of any future As well as championing the prospects for hydrogen, the paper also flags the importance of negative emission technologies, including carbon capture and storage, as well as soil carbon and tree planting.
This week the government has signalled its intention to use the existing $2.5bn emissions reduction fund to support CCS projects – a move championed by Australia’s oil and gas industries. The new paper says the geo-sequestration of carbon dioxide “represents a significant opportunity for abatement in export gas” – nominating the Gorgon project as a case in point. Growth in emissions in Australia is largely driven by fugitive emissions from the booming LNG export sector.
The paper does acknowledge that solar and wind – renewable technologies – are now “projected to be cheaper than new thermal generation over all time horizons to 2050”. But it adds a caveat, contending that “the cost of firming is still a major issue, and will require much more work”……. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/may/21/new-nuclear-technologies-to-be-examined-in-planning-australias-energy-mix
Minerals Council of Australia keen to keep Australia’s environmental law the same, (or make it even worse)
May 19, 2020 The fossil fuel lobby, led by the Minerals Council of Australia, seem pretty happy with the current system of environment laws. In a submission to a review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act, it “broadly” supports the existing laws and does not want them replaced.True, the group says the laws impose unnecessary burdens on industry that hinder post-pandemic economic recovery. It wants delays and duplication in environmental regulation reduced to provide consistency and certainty.
But for the fossil fuel industry to broadly back the current regime of environmental protection is remarkable. It suggests deep problems with the current laws, which have allowed decision-making driven by politics, rather than independent science.
So let’s look at the resources industry’s stance on environment laws, and what it tells us.
Cut duplication
The Minerals Council’s submission calls for “eliminating or reducing duplication” of federal and state laws.
The fossil fuel lobby has long railed against environmental law – the EPBC Act in particular – disparaging it as “green tape” that it claims slows projects unnecessarily and costs the industry money.
On this, the federal government and the mining industry are singing from the same songbook. Announcing the review of the laws last year, the government flagged changes that it claimed would speed up approvals and reduce costs to industry.
Previous governments have tried to reduce duplication of environmental laws. In 2013 the Abbott government proposed a “one-stop shop” in which it claimed projects would be considered under a single environmental assessment and approval process, rather than scrutinised separately by state and federal authorities.
That proposal hit many political and other hurdles and was never enacted. But it appears to remain on the federal government’s policy agenda.
It’s true the federal EPBC Act often duplicates state approvals for mining and other activities. But it still provides a safety net that in theory allows the federal government to stop damaging projects approved by state governments.
The Commonwealth rarely uses this power, but has done so in the past. In the most famous example, the Labor party led by Bob Hawke won the federal election in 1983 and stopped the Tasmanian Liberal government led by Robin Gray building a major hydroelectric dam on the Gordon River below its junction with the Franklin River.
The High Court’s decision in that dispute laid the foundation for the EPBC Act, which was enacted in 1999.
In 2009 Peter Garrett, Labor’s then-federal environment minister, refused the Queensland Labor government’s proposed Traveston Crossing Dam on the Mary River under the EPBC Act due to an unacceptable impact on threatened species.
The Conversation put these arguments to the Minerals Council of Australia, and CEO Tania Constable said:
The MCA’s submission states that Australia’s world-leading minerals sector is committed to the protection of our unique environment, including upholding leading practice environmental protection based on sound science and robust risk-based approaches.
Reforms to the operation of the EPBC Act are needed to address unnecessary duplication and complexity, providing greater certainty for businesses and the community while achieving sound environmental outcomes.
But don’t change the current system much
Generally, the Minerals Council and other resources groups aren’t lobbying for the current system to be changed too much.
The groups support the federal environment minister retaining the role of decision maker under the law. This isn’t surprising, given a succession of ministers has, for the past 20 years, given almost unwavering approval to resource projects.
For example, in 2019 the then-minister Melissa Price approved the Adani coal mine’s groundwater management plan, despite major shortcomings and gaps in knowledge and data about its impacts.
Independent scientific advice against the mine over the last ten years was sidelined in the minister’s final decision.
Countless more examples demonstrate how the current system works in the favour of mining interests – even when the industry itself claims otherwise.
The Minerals Council submission refers to an unnamed “Queensland open-cut coal expansion project” to argue against excessive duplication of federal and state processes around water use.
I believe this is a reference to the New Acland Coal Mine Stage 3 expansion project. I have acted since 2016 as a barrister for a local landholder group in litigation against that project.
When approached by The Conversation, the Minerals Council did not confirm it was referring to the New Acland project. Tania Constable said:
The case studies were submitted from a range of companies, and are representative of the regulatory inefficiency and uncertainty which deters investment and increases costs while greatly limiting job opportunities and economic benefits for regional communities from mining.
The New Acland mine expansion is on prime agricultural land on the Darling Downs, Queensland’s southern food bowl. Nearby farmers strongly opposed the project over fears of damage to groundwater, the creation of noise and dust, and climate change impacts.
But the Minerals Council fails to mention that since 2016, the mine has been building a massive new pit covering 150 hectares.
When mining of this pit began, the mine’s expansion was still being assessed under state and federal laws. Half of the pit was subsequently approved under the EPBC Act in 2017.
But the Queensland environment department never stopped the work, despite the Land Court of Queensland in 2018 alerting it to the powers it had to act.
Based on my own research using satellite imagery and comparing the publicly available application documents, mining of West Pit started while Stage 3 of the mine was still being assessed under the EPBC Act. And after approval was given, mining was conducted outside the approved footprint.
Despite these apparent breaches, the federal environment department has taken no enforcement action.
The Conversation contacted New Hope Group, the company that owns New Acland mine, for comment, and they refuted this assertion. Chief Operating Officer Andrew Boyd said:
New Hope Group strongly deny any allegations that New Hope Coal has in any way acted unlawfully.
New Acland Coal had and still has all necessary approvals relating to the development of the pit Dr McGrath refers to. It is also not correct to say that the Land Court alerted the Department of its powers to act with regards to this pit.
The Department is obviously aware of its enforcement powers and was aware of the development of the pit well before 2018. Further, the Land Court in 2018 rejected Dr McGrath’s arguments and accepted New Acland Coal’s position that any issues relating to the lawfulness of the pit were not within the jurisdiction of the Land Court on the rehearing in 2018.
Accordingly, the lawfulness of the pit was irrelevant to the 2018 Land Court hearing.
Dr McGrath also fails to mention that his client had originally accepted in the original Land Court hearing (2015-2017) that the development of the pit was lawful only to completely change its position in the 2018.
State and federal environmental laws work in favour of the fossil fuel industry in other ways. “Regulatory capture” occurs when government regulators essentially stop enforcing the law against industries they are supposed to regulate.
This can occur for many reasons, including agency survival and to avoid confrontation with powerful political groups such as farmers or the mining sector.
In one apparent example of this, the federal environment department decided in 2019 not to recommend two critically endangered Murray-Darling wetlands for protection under the EPBC Act because the minister was unlikely to support the listings following a campaign against them by the National Irrigators Council.
Holes in our green safety net
Recent ecological disasters are proof our laws are failing us catastrophically. And they make the mining industry’s calls to speed-up project approvals particularly audacious.
We need look only to repeated, mass coral bleaching as the Great Barrier Reef collapses in front of us, or a catastrophic summer of bushfires.
Read more: Environment laws have failed to tackle the extinction emergency. Here’s the proof
Both tragedies are driven by climate change, caused by burning fossil fuels. It’s clear Australia should be looking to fix the glaring holes in our green safety net, not widen them.
National Radioactive Waste Management Facility (BRWMF) under scrutiny – fact checking
Kazzi Jai shared a link. No Nuclear Waste Dump Anywhere in South Australia May 19
“Did you know? ANSTO only manages about 45% of the low level radioactive waste in Australia. Australia’s radioactive waste is stored in over 100 locations such as science facilities, hospitals and universities. The NRWMF will enable Australia’s radioactive waste to be consolidated into a single, purpose-built facility.”
No references, no figures – NADA for this assertion!
Sooooooo….who IS being “economical” with the truth …when you have this statement, which was quoted from a hardcopy report by the DIIS published April 2018? ……..“States and territories are responsible for managing a range of radioactive waste holdings, accounting for about one per cent of total radioactive waste holdings in Australia.”??????????????????? (Page 7 in link below)
And there is a nifty little table WHICH SPELLS OUT EXACTLY HOW MUCH LOW AND INTERMEDIATE LEVEL WASTE IS FOUND AROUND AUSTRALIA INCLUDING ANSTO! (Page 4 for those interested in the link below!)
Do not have ANY idea how NRWMF got 45% even from the table given by DIIS in the hardcopy report!
Another case of “1 in 2” ACCORDING TO ANSTO becoming suddenly “2 in 3” ACCORDING TO NRWMF ????
NRWMF MUST BE CONSISTENT IN THEIR REPORTING…AND MORE IMPORTANTLY REFERENCE IT!
Two places, Lucas Heights + Woomera, = 90%+ of Commonwealth holdings PLUS Dept of Defence has maybe another 3%… so 3 of the ‘100+ sites’ have 93+% of the proposed volume.
PS the NRWMF has blocked me from posting scientific facts & commentary on their FB page….
If you want I can pm you the original details of Fisherman’s Bend AND St Mary’s waste ….and in that document it clearly states that only 200 of the 9726 drums from Fisherman’s Bend were radioactive as deemed by the Road Transport Act. But because of public concern – in Melbourne, Victoria and the wider Australian community – it was ALL classified as Radioactive! THAT is why..surprise, surprise…after the “temporary” two/three year storage promise which became 25 years, it is “suddenly” found that a LOT of the drums are not radioactive! That’s because they never were!! But they do contain asbestos…
The Mt Mary Defense Base is different….but is only 10 cubic metres in volume
Rose Costelloe submission – Kimba traditional Aboriginal area not suitable for nuclear waste dump
due diligence means our government and you as our elected representatives of different communities, including Aboriginal communities, that exist here and which elected you to your positions, need to carefully consider the least possible risk in creating a nuclear waste dump within Australia.
Rose Costelloe National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 [Provisions] Submission 78 I am writing to vigorously oppose the creation of a nuclear waste dump at the site you are considering in South Australia.
My first reason for opposing it is that the plan is to situate the dump on land traditionally owned by the
Barngala Aboriginal people who also oppose this plan.
I would say here, if you are serious about creating a nuclear waste dump in our country, you must plan to situate
it in the middle of one of the largest cities in Australia: Melbourne or Sydney. In that way you will ensure that
the utmost safety precautions are implemented at the outset. They will be then be closely monitored and
maintained with all due diligence forever.
It is very clear to me that we are fallible human beings – and I am one of them. We are not very good at caring
for dangerous substances in our midst or at anticipating what lies ahead of what appear to be clever plans made
without consideration of future risks. The demise of the Fukushima nuclear power plant in the face of a tsunami
is the most spectacular of these recent failings. Five Mile Island and Chernobyl are dreadful catastrophes
involving nuclear material from the not too distant past.
I will not dwell here on the life expectancy of nuclear matter including waste. There are more eloquent and
learned submissions covering these hard cold facts Continue reading
Regina McKenzie comments on Felicity Wright’s submission about the National Radioactive WAste Dump
Regina McKenzie It not only aged me, but I have a horrible sickness due to the horrible stress and the personal attacks , this will stay with me, might even be the cause to blow my candle out, I watch Kimba with a sad heart, knowing all the heartache and the tremendous weight on the people’s back , Felicity Flowerdew that’s a strong letter from a strong woman, who I am proud to say is my friend https://www.facebook.com/groups/1314655315214929/4288145791199185/?comment_id=4290354100978354¬if_id=1589981324123690¬if_t=group_comment
Leaked plan for huge gas subsidies
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/235274195556
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 