Meetings with Minister Pellekaan and the DIIS, Anti-Nuclear Coalition of South Australia, 
January 2019
Report back from ANC members’ meetings with SA Minister for Energy and Resources, Dan van Holst Pellekaan, on Nov. 14, and with two bureaucrats from the DIIS (Department of Industry, Innovation & Science).
This second meeting was held in Adelaide at the Department of Industry, Innovation & Science (DIIS) offices on November 28. Ms Sam Shard the GM for the NRWMFT (National Radioactive Waste Management Taskforce) fielded all questions, and Wendy (no one heard her surname), Head of Policy, who only spoke once throughout the hour-long meeting. Requests for meetings with federal Minister Canavan (delegated to his department’s officials) and his SA counterpart, Minister Pellekaan, were made several months ago, and both only came about as a result of persistent efforts.
In this summary, the NRWMF (National Radioactive Waste Management Facility)=the dump.
Pellekaan Meeting: In his initial response to the ANC’s request to meet – first declined – Pellekaan outlined his government’s support for a national dump, “in one central, secure location” for LLW (low level waste) the justification being that such waste resulted from “life-saving medical procedures and research”. Notably, he omitted any reference to the planned ‘temporary’ storage of ILW (intermediate level waste).
(Last year on talkback radio, then, Premier Weatherill, similarly, omitted any mention of co-location of the very long-lived ILW at a national dump.)
Pellekaan and his leader’s support for a national dump (“one dump is better than many”) are predicated entirely on there being a willing host community. He wouldn’t, “refuse a dump to a community that gave its broad support”.
During the half-hour (only) meeting the emphasis from five ANC participants was on his omission to mention the co-location of the ILW (he did say that he had talked about it on radio). Also, on the significance of a radioactive dump for all South Australians, not only the two small communities targeted for a dump. On the latter point, Pellekaan argued that, if the wider community were to prevent a willing local community from hosting a dump it would disenfranchise local people(!) It was pointed out to him that it is South Australians, in general, who are being disenfranchised by the federal government’s strategy.
Regarding the ILW, Pellekaan was not overly concerned about the temporary storage, considering it would be just as safe at a rural SA location as at Lucas Heights, saying, “It has to be stored somewhere”.
Other questions and comments were about the classification of radioactive waste; the regulator’s (ARPANSA) licensing arrangements, about which he said that he was, “not across the detail”; the longevity of the ILW and the implications of the SA Nuclear Waste (Prohibition) Act.
He downplayed any special role he might have as either the responsible SA Minister or as the Member for Sturt, the electorate in which a national dump could well be located, emphasising that it would not be his decision, but a cabinet decision.
Regarding the South Australian legislation, he considers that at least, in part, it would have to be altered to allow the dump. This was not seen in any way as a hindrance because legislation can be enacted and repealed, if the parliament wishes.
In summary, Pellekaan follows faithfully the federal government’s arguments for the dump. His apparent lack of knowledge about High Level Waste (HLW) and Intermediate Level Waste (ILW); the length of time the ILW could remain stored above ground at the ‘interim’ site; the lack of any permanent plans for its disposal, or facilities and technical expertise for dealing with radioactive hazards at an interim dump is deeply troubling and unacceptable.
Note: Ally apologises for inaccurately stating in the prepared questions to put to Pellekaan that the ARPANSA licencing arrangement for the temporary storage of ILW at Lucas Heights is conditional on it being transferred to a permanent site. This is not the case. However, what it does say is, “The NRWMF will cater for the long-term above ground storage (approximately 100 years) of Intermediate Level Waste including the waste processed in France and the United Kingdom.”https://www.arpansa.gov.au/sites/g/files/net3086/f/legacy/pubs/comment/iws/IWSO-LA-WCP-WasteContingencyPlan_ Final_ARPANSA.pdf
Department of Industry Innovation and Science (DIIS) Meeting: Four people from ANC met with two departmental bureaucrats (see above) for an hour – not a minute more. Unfortunately, no full set of notes was taken. This report is based on notes taken by Mnem Giles, Colin Mitchell and Ally Fricker. Getting into the commonwealth offices in Franklin St was farcical with security having difficulty establishing who qualified as bone fide visitors, and negotiating with a boss up on the thirteenth floor to allow a fourth person to attend. Another five people remained on the street with placards and leaflets. A press release was sent out. The main entrance door was locked and only unlocked after we departed the building.
Mnem presented Sam Chard with a submission to the Senate Standing Committee from WILPF as requested by Ruth Russell. It was explained who WILPF is.
NOTE: Sam Chard’s comments are not always direct quotes. They are highlighted in red to make it clearer when it is her comments.
Sam Chard was the only person who responded to our questions. We established very quickly that we had not come to hear the government’s PR; that we were quite familiar with it. Head of Policy Wendy … commented only once saying that a permanent national dump for the intermediate waste would require two decades to plan.
The questions and comments attached were largely followed. We emphasised our request for the DIIS to hold a public meeting in Adelaide to inform politicians, media and public (who remain very confused) about the full plans for the national dump.
Response: The state is aware of the details and all the information is on-line.
It was also stressed that a national radioactive waste dump is an issue of national significance, not only an issue for locally targeted communities. (There is little likelihood that an Adelaide meeting would occur without follow up with a formal letter from the ANC and persistent demands to DIIS, the Minister and other relevant agencies.)
Chard agreed that a national dump was an issue of national significance because 1 in 2 people in Australia need nuclear medicine.
Other Issues Raised: 1. The lack of transparency at the Barndioota Consultative Committee meeting held at Quorn on the previous day (Nov 27) NO observers were allowed to attend, even after several had signed the usual request to sign confidentiality statements!
Response: This is entirely at the Chairman’s discretion and to allow free and frank discussion. The reason for the cancellation of the Kimba meeting (due on Nov 28) was because of it being “harvest time”, not because of the Barngarla legal challenge, as people inside the committee meeting at Quorn were told.
- Disposal of DoD (Department of Defence) waste.
Response: it is not wanted at Woomera for “operational reasons”, which would be classified. Re the quantity and location of DoD waste, the document, Australian Radioactive Waste Framework April 2018, was distributed to everyone, and referred to throughout the meeting, but this document fails to give any detail about what activities created the waste in the first place. Chard took on notice further questions relating to DOD waste stored at Woomera.
- Illegality of a national dump in SA: Response – Once land is acquired by the commonwealth, the federal Act (2012) would override the SA Act prohibiting a nuclear dump. Note this differs from Pellekaan’s response.
- Still after decades of planning, there remains no full inventory of waste intended for a national dump.
Response: A new ARPANSA document is now available which discusses the possible acceptance criteria for a national dump, but no further information, apart from the Framework document available (at the meeting). The first phase of acceptance criteria is available on the web.
- DIIS document titled,National Radioactive Waste Management Facility. Lucas Heights Sydney 2017 says, about long-term disposal of waste at Lucas Heights, “ . . .it’s not allowed. ANSTO’s Lucas Heights campus is only licenced . . . to store waste on a temporary basis, and on the condition that a plan is developed by the end of the decade for final disposal pathway for its waste.” (Our emphasis) It was pointed out that this was unambiguous. Response: There was no elaboration. ARPANSA document,Information to Stakeholders (May 2017) notes that temporary storage of ILW at a national dump ‘could be in excess of 100 years.’
Response: this is not correct. We responded in which case, ARPANSA should be corrected. Response: 100 years refers to the LLW only. ILW would only remain at an interim location for a couple of decades, or up to 30 years, or up to 40 years – 40 years is, conveniently, the approximate lifetime of the TN81 steel containers in which the reprocessed spent fuel is packaged.
- What facilities would be available at a temporary dump for re-packaging the TN81 containers?
Response: Waste entering the dump would be checked, but there are no plans for re-packaging facilities. The waste would not be there for long enough to require them. There are also, as yet, no facilities at Woomera for re-packaging any of the CSIRO waste currently stored there that might require
- These would need to be established.
- Co-location of LLW and ILW in other countries:
Response – There are models overseas for this. Where is it occurring? Response – Would take on notice. It was pointed out that the LLW and ILW stored permanently at Aube, France was not the equivalent of the co-location planned in SA because French classification of ILW is not the same as Australia’s, and definitely does not include reprocessed spent fuel. Response – Don’t know the specifics of Frances’ arrangements.
- Storage of ILW at Lucas Heights: Response -It’s in a dedicated facility. It is only there on a temporary basis; it’s quite safe there. Storage at a national dump would be the same as at Lucas Heights.
- Difference between French and Australian classification of the returned reprocessed spent fuel:
Response – The French have now changed their reference to HLW and brought the classification into line with Australia’s requirements. France now agrees with Australian authorities.
- Future availability of reprocessing facilities in France and any alternative arrangements: Response – Would take on notice.
- Commercial in confidence re the business case for the expansion of medical radioisotope production at Lucas Heights: Response – the expansion is for the export business (therefore commercial?)
- Classification of spent fuel: Response –Spent fuel from a nuclear power reactor is HLW, but from a research reactor it is ILW – there is a significant difference between ILW and HLW. A request to explain the difference was taken on notice.
- Permanent disposal of ILW, no site, no plans and no technology on the horizon: Response: That entity not yet defined.
- Permanent disposal of waste, ‘too dangerous’ to leave at Lucas Heights: ALP Shadow Minister for Energy and Resources, Kim Carr, spoke to Susan Craig and said that this was the reason why waste had to be removed to another interim site. Response: DIIS could not comment on this.
Formal minutes taken by DIIS staff were requested and an undertaking to forward them to ANC was made. Mnem followed this up and was told the minutes were being ‘cleaned up’. Mnem said we would prefer them as they were recorded. As with minutes from the Minister Pellekaan meeting, we are still waiting . . .
Thanks to Mnem for persisting with the arrangements for this meeting with DIIS, and the people who waited outside, and to Kate who distributed many leaflets.
January 21, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Federal nuclear waste dump, South Australia |
Leave a comment
‘It’s like hell here’: Australia bakes as record temperatures nudge 50C , Fears rise for homeless and vulnerable people as communities brace for another week of relentless hot weather , Guardian, Naaman Zhou, @naamanzhou, Sun 20 Jan 2019
It was 48.9C last Tuesday in
Port Augusta, South Australia, an old harbour city that now harvests solar power. Michelle Coles, the owner of the local cinema, took off her shoes at night to test the concrete before letting the dogs out. “People tend to stay at home,” she said. “They don’t walk around when it’s like this.”It’s easy to see why: in the middle of the day it takes seconds to blister a dog’s paw or child’s foot. In Mildura, in northern Victoria, last week gardeners burned their hands when they picked up their tools, which had been left in the sun at 46C.
Fish were dying in the rivers.
Almost every day last week a new heat record was broken in Australia. They spread out, unrelenting, across the country, with records broken for all kinds of reasons – as if the statistics were finding an infinite series of ways to say that it was hot.
The community of Noona – population 14 – reached the highest minimum ever recorded overnight in Australia – 35.9C was the coldest it got, at 7am on Friday. It was 45C by noon.
A record fell on Tuesday in Meekatharra in Western Australia – the highest minimum there ever recorded (33C). Another fell on Wednesday, 2,000 miles away, in Albury, New South Wales – their hottest day (45.6C).
It was 45C or higher for four consecutive days in Broken Hill – another record – and more than 40C for the same time period in Canberra, the nation’s capital. Nine records fell across NSW on Wednesday alone. Back in Port Augusta, Tuesday was the highest temperature since records began in 1962………..
In South Australia, they declared a “code red” across Adelaide, the state capital. Homelessness services were working overtime and the Red Cross started calling round a list of 750 people who were deemed especially vulnerable
At the Australian Open in Melbourne, only the sea breeze kept the temperature below 40C. At Adelaide’s Tour Down Under, a bike race, it was 41C.
On Monday last week the hottest spot in New South Wales was Menindee, a river town that feeds the country’s largest water system, the Murray-Darling basin. It was 45C. It climbed to 47C on Wednesday, and by Thursday the fish were gasping.
Australia’s native Murray cod can live for decades under normal conditions, growing all the while. The oldest are a metre long, with heavy white bellies that have to be held with both hands. Last week, hundreds died, choked of oxygen due to an algal bloom that fed and grew in the heat, and collapsed when temperatures dipped.
Blue-green algae flourishes in hot, slow-moving water. Then, when temperatures inevitably drop, the algae dies and becomes a food source for bacteria, who multiply and starve the river of oxygen. The fish rise to the surface.
The mass fish death has reignited a debate over water management in the region, where cotton farmers upstream have been accused of taking more water than they should.
The heat is not the root cause, the locals stress. But the five punishing days settling over the river have not made it better. Last Thursday the cod were up near the surface and struggling. On Friday, it was 45C again. In Menindee, the locals believe the fish kill will happen again, with temperatures in the 40s expected to continue into this week. The water will be running hot……….https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jan/19/australia-swelters-as-relentless-hot-weather-smashes-records
January 21, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, climate change - global warming |
Leave a comment
Northern Basin Aboriginal Nations, 21 Jan 19 MDBA Water management: “Don’t leave Dracula in charge of the Blood bank”
KEY POINTS
- Support for a Royal Commission
- Representation at the decision making table of MDBA
- Acknowledge Legal Rights of First Nations as determined in Mabo (2)
- Explain why different standards are set for First Nations’ Organisations
- Demand Criminal Prosecutions be an integral part of Royal Commission findings
Northern Basin Aboriginal Nations (NBAN) Deputy Chair, Ghillar Michael Anderson and NBAN Director Cheryl Buchanan announce NBAN’s support for Sarah Hanson-Young’s call for a Royal Commission into the mismanagement and over extraction of the waters of the Murray Darling Basin. [The Guardian, 16 January 2019]
NBAN has now learnt that the disaster that we are experiencing in the Murray/Darling Basin is a perfect electric dry storm of massive fish kills and drying riverbeds.
It is NOT caused just by the drought but is also a culmination of man-made mismanagement; corruption at the highest levels; and major development without scientific evidence-based planning in the formative years of the MDBA.
NBAN has great difficulty in understanding why the so-called experts water planners would attempt to normalise our current circumstances. First Nations now demand urgent answers and to be included in all future top-level water planning within the Murray Darling Basin……..
NBAN is critical of the fact that NSW Water planners admit that from 2012 to 2018 they did nothing to properly prepare for evidence-based planning in relation to water management in the northern basin, and that their assessments in terms of quantities of water are based on hypothetical values and assumptions. Now there is a mad rush to review water planning on the basis of A, B and C water licencing in the Barwon/Darling and there is a suggestion to amalgamate these water licences into two or one licence. NBAN’s problem with this is that there are too many vested interests in the process calling for this to happen. Water planning from NBAN’s point of view needs to be reviewed so as to plan on the basis of what real volumes of water are in each valley catchment. With all the science and technology we have in today’s society there is no excuse for hypotheticals and assumptions.
From NBAN’s perspective these admissions clearly demonstrate that there are failures by the Water Ministers responsible for due diligence in their portfolios and departments.
Playing the blame game and shirking responsibility will not help our dying rivers. Clearly, corporate water users, irrigators and mining companies are driving the agenda. For example, the Broken Hill pipeline is for the mining interests rather than the community. Then we need to take into account the Proposed Uranium Mining near Menindee.
The Board of the MDBA is made up of members who have vested interests. A clear example of this is the Chairman, Brian Andrews, (former Speaker of the House of Representatives under PM John Howard) who is an orchardist dependant on irrigation waters from the Murray River in South Australia.
NBAN further expresses deep concern for the integrity of politicians and MDBA authority members. Clearly, there is an inference in recent media reporting that what is currently going on in the MDBA is a major defrauding of the public purse, which can never be condoned. This is in tandem with water theft by irrigators who were never investigated and escape prosecution for their criminal acts. As the Sydney Morning Heraldreported on 8 March 2018:……….
Also there was the warning of water theft by irrigators in the northern basin by a former MDBA staffer Maryanne Slattery, who now works for the Australia Institute, testified to this effect at the South Australian Royal Commission, based on satellite imagery tracking the fate of environmental water flows. This experimental project called Data Cube was rudely interrupted and shut down by MDBA, because Ms Slattery was exposing the theft of environmental water by illegal diversion. It was also reported MDBA staff were denied by the MDBA Board the right to give evidence to the Royal Commission and Minister Littleproud refused to co-operate with the Commissioner, Brett Walker QC,
The greens Senator, Sarah Hanson-Young, is correct to call for a Commonwealth Government Royal Commission into the water management and expenditure of public funds in the MDB. The question that is on everybody’s lips right now is: What have they done with the $13B. Clearly, cotton growers and irrigators are getting money for nothing and continue to live on their lands drawing on other Commonwealth funds under Works and measures programs through ‘Toolkit’ measures for water efficiency.
NBAN is seriously concerned about what was reported in the Sydney Morning Herald on 9 March 2018 in . In this article it was reported that:Cry me a river: Mismanagement and corruption have left the Darling dry.
Surely, what Barnaby Joyce has done is criminal. When the Indigenous Land Corporation (ILC) bought Yulara village, the Commonwealth financial regulators questioned why the ILC acquired the village resort for $60M above market price. To this end the Commonwealth government chastised the ILC and lowered the market price to its correct value, thereby denying the right ILC to sell their interest at the price they paid for it, which denied them millions of dollars.
This demonstrates that there continues to be two standards: one for First Nations Peoples and one for non-First Nations Peoples. What makes this worse is the fact that sitting politicians are involved in a major profiteering scam on a scale never seen before in this country.
Clearly having people like the Minister David Littleproud being given the portfolio of Agriculture and Water and coming from the same location where Barnaby Joyce first gained his start in Politics at the Commonwealth level does raise serious concerns about the integrity of portfolio allocations in the Commonwealth government. People like Barnaby Joyce and David Littleproud can be accused of not disclosing their full interest in farming and irrigation. There is much to be desired in these appointments as Barnaby Joyce and Littleproud are sitting members of the national party. They are elected to look after the interests of their constituents and in the case of the appointment of Barnaby Joyce and Littleproud to the Water portfolio is likened to the appointment of Dracula being appointed to be in charge of the Blood Bank.
This demonstrates that there continues to be two standards: one for First Nations Peoples and one for non-First Nations Peoples. What makes this worse is the fact that sitting politicians are involved in a major profiteering scam on a scale never seen before in this country.
Clearly having people like the Minister David Littleproud being given the portfolio of Agriculture and Water and coming from the same location where Barnaby Joyce first gained his start in Politics at the Commonwealth level does raise serious concerns about the integrity of portfolio allocations in the Commonwealth government. People like Barnaby Joyce and David Littleproud can be accused of not disclosing their full interest in farming and irrigation. There is much to be desired in these appointments as Barnaby Joyce and Littleproud are sitting members of the national party. They are elected to look after the interests of their constituents and in the case of the appointment of Barnaby Joyce and Littleproud to the Water portfolio is likened to the appointment of Dracula being appointed to be in charge of the Blood Bank.
On the 16th, the NBAN Delegation then met Dr Lindsay White, Director Northern Basin Section, Lindsay White is also responsible for Wetlands, Policy and Northern Water Use Branch Commonwealth Environmental Water Office, and Hilary Johnson, Director, Southern Basin Section, Southern Water Use, Aquatic Science and Community Engagement Branch Commonwealth Environmental Water Office.
NBAN advised the CEWO that within the river systems we have sacred waterholes where our creative water spirits live. These culturally significant water spirits are dependent on regular flows. For First nations Peoples these flows are what we call cultural flows. Without the modern development pre-Christmas rainfalls would have replenished these waterholes and they would have sufficient water to take them through the current drought or until a new rain event within the northern regions. But, with modern development and mis-management these water holes are under serious threat and our Native Fish will lose their refuges. Past river recordings prior to development demonstrate that this is the case with these waterholes. It is important to understand that these Waterholes are critical fish refuges and serve to protect species diversity and are responsible for repopulating rivers in recovery after flooding.
The Delegation sought clarification of the role of the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holders. What shocked the delegation was the limitation of the CEWO, because the First Nation held the view that CEWO were responsible for not just managing environmental water flows, but also were responsible for the actual purchasing of any water requirements. Instead we were advised that the purchasing responsibilities lay with the Minister and the Department of Agriculture. Under the Current circumstances much of the responsibilities associated with managing environmental water needs lay at the feet of the Ministers responsible.
The NBAN delegation now demand that First Nations People’s must be at the table in all future water and environmental planning at all levels of government.
In calling for the royal Commission, NBAN demand that criminal prosecution be part of the terms of reference to hold those responsible, accountable, and to bring transparency into the murky process that has persisted to this day.
NBAN Sources: nationalunitygovernment.org/content/mdba-water-management-dont-leave-dracula-charge-blood-bank
pdf: nationalunitygovernment.org/pdf/2019/NBAN-Media-Release-17-January-2019.pdf
January 21, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
aboriginal issues, AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, environment |
Leave a comment
Roads melt as temperatures break records across NSW, SMH, By Jenny Noyes, 17 January 2019 As temperature records continue to be broken across NSW, residents from Sydney to Menindee are warned the heatwave melting the state is yet to hit its peak, and in some parts is forecast to continue into next week without respite.
On Wednesday and Thursday, new maximum temperature records were set at 27 sites across NSW and the ACT, while some of the hottest overnight temperatures on record worsened the impact of the ongoing hot spell.
The conditions were so extreme that the bitumen on the Oxley Highway near Wauchope, just west of Port Macquarie, began melting about midday.
Walcha Council is using water from a nearby river to cool the pavement.
“Roads and Maritime Services acknowledge water is a scarce resource at this time, however it is required to ensure the safety of motorists and keep the road open,” a spokeswoman said in a statement.
Meanwhile, the NSW Rural Fire Service was battling more than 50 fires across the state – 20 of them are uncontained.
Deputy Commissioner Rob Rogers said 61 new fires were ignited on Wednesday alone, 31 of them started by lightning.
“We’re still trying to capture some of these fires and get them contained,” he told 2GB radio.
Total fire bans were in place across much of central NSW, stretching from the Victorian border up to Queensland……….
January 19, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
climate change - global warming, New South Wales |
Leave a comment
Can a growing city cut carbon emissions to zero? https://www.canberratimes.com.au/politics/act/can-a-growing-city-cut-carbon-emissions-to-zero-20190118-p50s9m.html,By Penny Sackett, Frank Jotzo & Will Steffen, 19 January 2019 How can Canberrans keep cutting their greenhouse-gas emissions as their city grows quickly and spreads out? And how will the ACT benefit from going low-carbon? Having adopted stringent emissions targets for 2025 onwards, these questions are becoming front of mind for the ACT government.
The new targets include net zero emissions on or before 2045, with interim targets of 50 to 60 per cent emissions reduction by 2025; 65 to 75 per cent by 2030; and 90 to 95 per cent by 2040, all compared to the ACT’s emissions in 1990. The 2020 target, which has been in place for several years, is a 40 per cent reduction.
Meeting an emissions trajectory like this would mean the ACT does its fair share to cut greenhouse-gas emissions in line with the Paris agreement of holding global warming below 2 degrees. The ACT would help lead the way in Australia by respecting the boundaries set by its “carbon budget”, and demonstrating how to make deep reductions in an urban economy.
The idea behind setting a clear trajectory to zero emissions is that business, government and the ACT community can invest in modern, low-emissions technology with confidence about the overall goal, knowing that policy will support the shift. Climate action is part of creating a healthier, better-connected, more resilient and prosperous city. Positive change can occur in nearly every aspect of life in Canberra.
As one of Australia’s richest communities, we should find it easier than elsewhere to invest in the necessary change. And taking a lead in climate-friendly modernisation helps attract highly skilled people to Canberra, which is what is needed for continued economic success in the ACT. Canberra has a national, and growing international, reputation for innovation in the low-carbon economy, and ACT energy and climate policy programs have already attracted global renewable-energy companies.
The targeted reductions are steep, but they can be achieved if government, businesses and the community all make a sustained effort.
The ACT is on track to have 100 per cent of its electricity sourced from renewables by about 2020. This will make possible the targeted 40 per cent reduction in emissions (as they are accounted in the ACT). Carbon-free power supply gives us emission-free options for other sectors, notably transport – electric cars and buses, as well as light rail – and the use of electricity instead of gas for heating, cooking and in industry. This is critical because transport and natural gas use account for the lion’s share of Canberra’s direct emissions outside of electricity generation, at about 65 per cent and 20 per cent respectively.
The vision is clear: a transport system where public transport, as well as biking and walking, play a bigger role; where almost all cars, buses and trucks run on electricity or hydrogen; and where almost no gas is used. Quite aside from climate change, this means even cleaner air in Canberra and much less noise. The shift to higher-density living and the rapid progress with electric cars will help make it possible. Electric bicycles are already an alternative.
The first step is to stop investment that locks in carbon use into the future. We need electric cars and buses rather than petrol and diesel, and electric heating systems, not gas. Extra investment to improve energy efficiency in houses, apartments and public buildings is needed, too.
In all of this, the ACT government can and should lead by example. And climate policy must go hand-in-hand with social policy, ensuring that the shift to a truly clean city does not put some groups at a disadvantage. That means a keen eye on energy costs and the needs of commuters in the suburbs, and increased engagement by all of us during the transition.
Penny Sackett, an honorary professor at the ANU, is a former Australian chief scientist; Frank Jotzo is a professor at the ANU’s Crawford school of public policy; and Will Steffen, an emeritus professor at the ANU, is on the Climate Council of Australia. The authors are on the ACT Climate Change Council, an independent statutory body that advises the ACT government on emissions targets. This is the first of several articles exploring how Canberra can transition to carbon neutrality.
January 18, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
ACT, climate change - global warming |
Leave a comment
Adani cleared of wrong doing by Federal Government over bores but Qld investigation continues, ABC News By Josh Robertson , 18 Jan 19, Adani remains under investigation by the Queensland Government for alleged illegal works on its Carmichael mine site, despite federal authorities ruling out any wrongdoing.
State officials have confirmed the ongoing probe into whether the company breached its environmental authority by sinking six dewatering bores last year.
The ABC revealed in September the department had launched an investigation into whether Adani sunk the groundwater bores in breach of its approval under the state Environmental Protection Act. …….
Queensland Greens senator Larissa Waters said she had reviewed documents relating to the Federal Environment Department’s inquiries and “unfortunately it seems that there wasn’t a thorough investigation”.
Ms Waters is a former lawyer at Queensland’s Environmental Defenders Office (EDO), which has provided the State Government evidence of the alleged breach, including drone footage of the bores.
State Government investigation still underway
A spokesman for the Queensland Department of Environment and Science (DES) said the Government was aware of the Commonwealth findings.
“DES is undertaking a more comprehensive investigation under separate state legislation, and has made several information requests to Adani, and has also carried out site inspections,” he said.
“If non-compliances are identified during the course of the investigation, DES can move to enforcement action.”
Adani still needs approval for its groundwater dependent ecosystem management plan to carry out mining operations.
Last month, the ABC revealed the Queensland Environment Department was examining evidenceincluding specifications of groundwater bores registered by Adani on a government website.
Queensland’s EDO and a university groundwater expert argued the bores construction, materials and depth are consistent with dewatering bore standards but incompatible with groundwater monitoring…….. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-01-17/adani-cleared-of-wrong-doing-by-federal-government-over-bores/10724086
January 18, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
climate change - global warming, Queensland |
Leave a comment
Antinuclear 