‘Jaw dropping’: New Zealand offers lessons in tackling climate change, By Peter Hannam, Brisbane Times, 13 October 2018Scott Simpson, New Zealand’s National Party environment spokesman, stunned a trans-Tasman investment meeting last week by stating that climate action was “too important to be playing politics with”.
Or rather, it was the Australian delegates who were shocked, so used are they to the toxic debates in Canberra.
“It made my jaw drop, that’s for sure,” said Emma Herd, chief executive of the Investor Group on Climate Change.
That Mr Simpson hails from the centre-right opposition party roughly equivalent to our Liberal-National coalition only underscored the contrast between the nations.
New Zealand’s major parties, busy trying to thrash out a Zero Carbon Bill by year’s end, are dismayed by the absence of similar bipartisanship across the Tasman, James Shaw, climate change minister in the Labor-led government told Fairfax Media.
“We do tend to look at what’s going on in Australia politics, in particular in relation to climate policies, and we think, ‘We cannot afford to let this happen in New Zealand’,” Mr Shaw said. “It seems like a pretty strong lesson in what not to do.”……..
In government, the National Party signed up to the Paris climate accord and introduced an emissions trading scheme.
To remove the politics from the negotiations, all sides agreed to take advice on New Zealand’s targets from an independent climate commission. (Australia has a Climate Change Authority but all the original board members have been replaced since it was set up by the Gillard government and its role as an advocate for action has largely disappeared.)……
Mr Shaw (of the ruling Coalition ) said the Opposition could have exploited a potentially divisive policy – agriculture contributes half of New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions – but didn’t.
“They are playing an absolute straight bat,” he said. “There’s a genuine best effort to get a consensus outcome.”
New Zealanders, like Australians, have endured an increasing spate of extreme weather events, which the government attributes in part to climate change. These include a record hot year in 2016, droughts and a major forest fire last year.
“We’ve definitely had a lot more extreme rainfall events,” Nava Fedaeff, a climate scientist with the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA), said. These include damaging ex-tropical cyclones hitting the nation, with the average jumping from less than one a year to three over the last summer season.
Farmers, who have in the past objected fiercely to taxes on methane, appear more ready to accept the need to act. DairyNZ, for instance, has welcomed the prospect of emissions targets enshrined in legislation to give the sector “much needed certainty”.
Trish Rankin, a dairy farmer managing 440 cows for a Maori-owned co-operative near Hawera in the Taranaki region of the North Island, said climate action “needs to be apolitical – it needs to be able to last over time”.
Ms Rankin said New Zealand farmers realise their social licence depends on them being good custodians of the land, and the principle extends to curbing emissions. Open consultations with experts have also helped.
“If you know they are listening to you, you’re more likely to listen to them,” she said.
Steps already taken include the ban on new offshore oil and gas exploration, and in prospect are five-year interim emissions targets and a more ambitious emissions trading scheme……..
New Zealand’s climate minister, Mr Shaw, says farmers – unlike Australian coal companies – have options.
“People are still going to want to eat in 30 years’ time, so the question is what do you produce and how do you produce it – not whether or not you’re going to produce food,” he said.
Prof. Brook is probably, in my opinion, clearly very inadequate when he researches things such as nuclear industry. He claims academic privilege when he communicates his mere opinions related to a field he possesses no training or little training or qualifications in. He can’t have it both ways. The privilege which springs from his actual qualifications may give him status in other things on campus. Away from the lecture theatre though, his opinions of the nature of nuclear industry have zero academic weight….“I’m an academic and therefore I am right” does not wash with me
2003 saw Prof. Shimazaki speak at the first meeting of the government’s Disaster Management Council. This council formed government disaster policy. He urged the council to study the Jogan earthquake of 869 and warned the Japanese Trench could generate earthquakes anywhere along Japan’s Pacific coast.
since 2008 TEPCO management had been busy suppressing THE SAME CONCLUSION of grave risk of 15 metre tsunamis hitting the Fukushima coast, made by TEPCO’s own engineers using simulations and mathematics.
Expert fore warning of the 2011 Tsunami Ignored and Suppressed by Nuclear Authorities. Nuclear Exhaust 12 Oct 18
this post is in progress. Not finished.
I am again going to contrast the statements made by Barry Brook in regard to the tsunami defences at Fukushima Daiichi with the facts as presented by Mark Willacy. These facts are published in Willacy’s book, “Fukushima – Japan’s tsunami and the inside story of the nuclear meltdowns”, Willacy, M., Pan Macmillan, copyright 2013, Mark Willacy.
An interesting aspect of the work of Barry Brook is this: The views expressed by Barry are very frequently attributed by Barry to people who are, according to Barry, experts in nuclear industry. I have heard Barry’s public broadcasts in which Barry makes this attribution. I have not heard Barry give the names of his advisors and friends in the nuclear industry. However it is extremely likely Barry is correct in his attributions. Barry’s statements of opinions and claimed facts can reasonably be assumed to have been provided to Barry by unnamed – as far as I am aware – experts in the nuclear industry. The credibility of Barry statements ride therefore upon the credibility of the nuclear industry.
Of course it is no surprise to hear Barry Brook mirror the statements of nuclear experts from around the world in 2011. The narrative of the global nuclear industry as broadcast by the mass media and the narrative provided by Barry Brook were, as I recall, mutually re-affirming.
Here again is a selected, partial transcript of Barry Brook’s Australian ABC TV interview (please watch the complete interview at the youtube link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFs_-8DtZvo
“Prof. Brook: “I think they (events) show the vulnerability of any human infrastructure to the forces of nature. Especially when they are unleashed with such fury as they were with that massive earthquake, the largest one to hit Japan in recorded times, and a 10 metre tsunami. I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect any infrastructure along a coastline like that to survive an event like that. But what it does highlight is that decisions were made back in the ‘60s, when that nuclear power plant was planned and built, they did not anticipate the scale of the natural disaster that occurred here.”
Prof. Brook: “They predicted up to a 6.5 metres tsunami and protected against that. But of course, as events turned out, the tsunami was even bigger than that………
In a previous post I pointed out that Willacy had found that Dr.Yukinobu Okamura, the director of Japan’s Active Fault and Earthquake Research Centre, had, in 2007, found evidence in the geologic record that the Fukushima coast had been hit by massive tsunamis in its past. (Fukushima, page 26)
I also pointed out that in 2008 TEPCO engineers using simulations and calculations discovered that tsunamis as high as 15.7 metres were possible at the site of the Fukushima Daiichi power plant. (Fukushima, page 29)
This discovery by TEPCO engineers was suppressed by TEPCO management from the Japanese people and Japanese government until 7 March 2011, or 4 days before the 3/11 quake and tsunami disaster. (Fukushima, page 29) Continue reading →
Paul Richards‘ Nuclear Fuel Cycle Watch South Australia, 12 Oct 18“Of course none of this has any impact on plants built at coastal locations…” Robert Parker, speaking about release of nuclear reactor’s hot water into sea.
Dismissing this saying no impact is simply, false.
Nonetheless, that fact, is subjective to whether an individual or corporate group values the earth environment in saying: ‘there is no impact’.
Because it is a matter of record there are three major outcomes.
1. The temperature increase in the bodies of water can have serious adverse effects on aquatic life.
2. Warm water holds less oxygen than cold water, thus discharge from once-through cooling systems can create a “temperature squeeze” that elevates the metabolic rate for fish.
3. Additionally, suction pipes that are used to intake water can draw plankton, eggs and larvae into the plant’s machinery, while larger organisms can be trapped against the protective screens of the pipes.
Furthermore, before anyone comes back with a smart comment just be aware these nuclear reactor cooling systems run 24/7, 356 days per year.
Pushing out up to 3.745 gigalitres of water, taking excess heat out of the nuclear reactor system.
3.745 gigalitres = 3,785,411,784 litres per day of heated water is dumped into a coastal ecosystem.
MoU for Australian and Vietnamese nuclear organisations, WNN, 10 October 2018,The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) and the Vietnam Atomic Energy Agency (VAEA) have signed a Memorandum of Understanding to allow further collaboration between the two organisations. The agreement was signed during a visit to ANSTO by a delegation led by VAEA Director General Hoang Anh Tuan.
ANSTO CEO Adi Paterson said the MoU would give the organisations an opportunity to cooperate more closely on areas of mutual benefit. “ANSTO has worked with a variety of Vietnamese agencies for many years through multilateral fora such as the IAEA, the Regional Cooperative Agreement, and the Forum for Nuclear Cooperation in Asia”, he said.
Discussions were held on possible areas for cooperation including research reactor operation and utilisation, environmental monitoring of mining tails, and food provenance…………The visit, which has been facilitated by ANSTO’s International Affairs team, is part of the International Atomic Energy’s Technical Cooperation Programme. http://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/MoU-for-Australian-and-Vietnamese-nuclear-organisa
Earlier this week, Scott Morrison suggested there was no investment case for nuclear power in Australia.
But Australian Conservatives leader Cory Bernardi begs to differ and has confirmed he will lay out an investment case to pursue the power generation option next week.
“If Scott Morrison says he’s not afraid to use the nuclear word, I want to give him the economic case so that he can seize the mantle and stop this 20 year green moratorium on even contemplating nuclear power in this country,” Bernardi tells Luke Grant. “I will lay out an investment case that makes nuclear a compelling opportunity. It will detail not only the energy benefits of nuclear energy but the whole range of other spin-off benefits. It could relieve drought-affected areas, it could ensure greater crop production.”
“We can also detail a way, which is a little riskier in a political sense, that it could be built with no additional capital input from the government right now.”
Bernadi says the time for an elimination of the ban is now, with the blanket prohibition precluding Australia from capitalising on its uranium resource abundance and shutting us off from the economic advantages that would flow on.
“We’re crazy,” he says.
“There’s 30% of the world’s uranium resources in this country, something like 20% in South Australia alone. We could radically change Australia’s economic future. You can do it perfectly safely and to those who want to stop carbon dioxide emissions, you can cure that problem too.”
Grattan on Friday: Malcolm Turnbull is gone but son Alex keeps the climate faith, The Conversation, Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra, October 11, 2018 In a Thursday video for the Wentworth byelection, Malcolm Turnbull’s son Alex has denounced “extremists on the hard right” who, he says, have taken over the Liberal Party.
The younger Turnbull called on voters in his dad’s old seat to register a protest about the party’s direction, and deliver a message on climate change. “If you want to pull the Liberal party back from the brink, there is one clear signal you can send,” he said, urging people not to vote Liberal.
Apart from the leadership coup Turnbull, a Singapore-based investment manager, highlighted energy policy to make his point about the hard right’s “crazy agenda”.
“As an investor in energy, I’ve seen that in particular there’s no way coal can compete anymore. Renewables have gotten too cheap, firming costs are reasonable, and really there’s no trade off any more between lowering your power bills and reducing emissions. And yet still some would like to prosecute a culture war over this issue”.
Kerry Schott, head of the Energy Security Board, is coming from a rather different place but at the Australian Financial Review’s energy summit this week she delivered an equally blunt message about the politics of energy, describing “the general state of affairs right now as anarchy”. ……..
Business is more tuned into, and willing to talk about, the emissions challenge and climate change than the government is. For the government, going there takes it down the alley of internal ideological conflict.
When the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s report came this week, the Coalition was unimpressed by its call for the international community to phase out coal by mid-century in order to contain the temperature rise. After all, the government is still under internal pressure to underpin investment in new coal-fired power, if investors can be found.
Back in 2008, only one-third of farmers accepted the science of climate change. Our 2010-11 survey of 946 irrigators in the southern Murray-Darling Basin (published in 2013) found similar results: 32% accepted that climate change posed a risk to their region; half disagreed; and 18% did not know.
These numbers have consistently trailed behind the wider public, a clear majority of whom have consistently accepted the science. More Australians in 2018 accepted the reality of climate change than at almost any time, with 76% accepting climate change is occurring, 11% not believing in it and 13% being unsure.
Our latest preliminary research results have also revealed evidence of this change. We surveyed 1,000 irrigators in 2015-16 in the southern Murray-Darling Basin, and found attitudes have shifted significantly since the 2010 survey.
Is Australia’s ruling Liberal-National coalition even more in danger from the extreme right-wing than we thought? This all-male crowd likes violence – fighting (The Lads Society), racism, anti-semitism, and of course – coal and nuclear power.
The ABC has uncovered a covert plot by Australia’s alt-right movement to join major political parties and influence their policy agendas from within.
Haircuts and hatred
Inside Australia’s alt-right movement. Who are its members and what does their manifesto reveal about their political ambitions?
Background Briefing has witnessed members of the NSW Young Nationals in Sydney attending a secret men’s-only fight club set up by some of the country’s most prominent alt-right nationalists.
The program has also gained access to a private Facebook group in which these same people discuss their manifesto, which includes plans to shake up mainstream politics.
The group is called The New Guard and its followers are self-described fascists
At least three NSW Young Nationals — including Clifford Jennings, who sits on the executive of the party’s youth wing — are, or recently have been, members.
On Facebook and elsewhere online, more NSW Young Nationals are sharing alt-right talking points, racist in-jokes containing coded references to Hitler, and theories of a global Jewish conspiracy.
In response to these revelations, one member of the party has been asked to resign, while two others have been sent show-cause notices.
The first sign of an alt-right push within the NSW Young Nationals came during a dramatic state conference in May. Continue reading →
ABC by environment, science and technology reporter Michael Slezak 13 Oct 18, Australia would need to shut 12 of its coal power stations by 2030 in order to do what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says is necessary to avoid catastrophic effects of climate change.
Key points:
The IPCC said coal-generated power needed to drop by 78 per cent of 2010 levels
The Parliamentary Library ran the numbers and, in Australia, that means 12 stations have to close
The Government says coal will “continue to play a vital role in our energy mix, now and into the future”
The implication comes from simple arithmetic, produced by the Parliamentary Library, and would require nine power stations closing before the end of their scheduled life.
But another figure went unreported: the IPCC also said to get to zero by 2050, we need to get to 78 per cent below 2010 levels within 12 years.
At the request of the Greens, the Parliamentary Library crunched the numbers for what that meant in Australia, assuming that reduction was shared equally among each country. Continue reading →
Jobs not sustainable JIM GREEN Friends of the Earth Australia, Eyre Peninsula Tribune, 10 Oct 18
The federal government claims that 45 jobs will be created at its proposed national radioactive waste facility in Kimba or the Flinders Ranges.
The government further claims that its jobs estimate has been “tested” against comparable overseas facilities.
But such comparisons prove that the government’s jobs estimate is grossly inflated. The CSA radioactive waste facility in France processes 73 cubic metres (m3) per employee per year. The El Cabril radioactive waste facility in Spain processes 10 cubic metres (m3) per employee per year.
Yet the Australian government estimates productivity of just 1 m3 per employee per year. The government evidently has a dim view of the productivity of Australian workers, or, more likely, its jobs estimate is grossly inflated.
If we assume that Australia matched the lowest of the figures given above ‒ 10 m3 per employee per year at El Cabril in Spain ‒ then the staff at an Australian facility would be processing waste for just one month each year.
The government might be willing to pay 45 staff to do nothing for 11 months each year, but it’s not a sustainable situation. The Department of Finance wouldn’t tolerate it. Staffing would be dramatically culled.
Almost certainly, a future government would revert to the plan pursued by previous governments: keeping the waste facility closed most of the time, and opening it occasionally for waste disposal and storage. https://www.eyretribune.com.au/story/5693747/letters-to-the-editor/
UN group responds to Scott Morrison’s statement that Australia won’t be ‘throwing money’ into fund, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/10/poor-countries-urge-australia-to-honour-green-climate-fund-commitments, Graham Readfearn, An official United Nations grouping of 47 of the world’s poorest countries has urged Australia to “honour its international commitments” after the prime minister, Scott Morrison, said the country would not be “throwing money” into a key international climate change fund.Australia has previously pledged $200m to the Green Climate Fund (GCF), set up through the UN’s climate convention to help developing countries adapt to the impacts of climate change and cut their own greenhouse gas emissions.
One international climate expert said that geopolitically it was “mildly insane” that Australia was backing out of the GCF.
In a statement to Guardian Australia, Ethiopian Gebru Jember Endalew, the chair of the Least Developed Countries (LDC) Group, said: “Funding from wealthy nations such as Australia is key to enabling an effective global response.
“LDCs and other developing countries have made ambitious plans, but these plans cannot be implemented without sufficient tools and resources being mobilised. The Green Climate Fund plays an integral role in delivering these funds and continues to be underresourced.”
The LDC Group represents 47 countries at UN climate negotiations and says its members are “specially vulnerable to climate change but have done the least to cause the problem”. African nations dominate the LDC group, alongside Pacific and East Asian countries Timor-Leste, Kiribati, Vanuatu and Tuvalu. Continue reading →
Dave Sharma says Liberals ‘doing enough’ on climate after Hewson attack
The Wentworth candidate rejects former leader’s view that party’s policy on emissions is inadequate, Guardian, Anne Davies, @annefdavies 10 Oct 2018 The Liberal candidate for Wentworth, Dave Sharma, said his party is “doing enough” and has “a good record” on climate change, after a blistering attack from former leader John Hewson, who said the party deserved a “drubbing” over its inaction on the issue…….Hewson has accused the Liberals of putting their heads in the sand on the issue and kicking the issue down the road for future generations.
The former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull dropped plans for a national energy guarantee that would have imposed emissions reduction targets and then was dumped by his own party, which was deeply divided over his plan……
the economy has been growing and so too have overall emissions.
Australia is on a trajectory that will see it miss its Paris climate targets – a reduction of 26% to 28% based on 2005 levels – according to figures from the consultants, NDEVR Environmental, for the year up to the end of June 2018.
The NDVER figures showed Australia’s emissions were again the highest on record when unreliable data from the land use and forestry sectors was excluded. This was the third consecutive year for record-breaking emissions.
Despite this, Frydenberg claimed that the nation is on track to meet its Paris commitments – even without the Neg, which he had supported. He also lauded the Coalition’s record on investment in renewables…….
news.com.au , 10 Oct 18, IT WAS Australia’s big hope for cutting your electricity bills and ending the climate wars but today it’s been confirmed that’s not going to happen. EVERYONE has been crying out for the major parties to agree on an energy policy for Australia but it’s becoming clear this is probably not going to happen.
At an energy forum being held in Sydney today, new Federal Energy Minister Angus Taylor dismissed suggestions a bipartisan agreement was the way forward and pointed to the huge difference in the policies of the major parties.
“I don’t know how we’re going to get bipartisanship given we have a 26 per cent emissions reduction target … and the other side has 45 per cent,” Mr Taylor told the AFR Energy Forum 2018.
Australia’s energy policy is in tatters after the National Energy Guarantee was abandoned by the Coalition after Malcolm Turnbull lost the prime ministership.
Now even Labor’s shadow minister for climate change and energy Mark Butler has acknowledged defeat. Speaking after Mr Taylor, he said the idea of developing a bipartisan “market mechanism” to address climate and energy policy would not happen.
“We need to recognise that the solution we’ve been banking on now for a number of years … has been snatched away,” he told the forum.
“They (the Coalition) have walked away from the table because they’ve said they can’t countenance any agreement with Labor over climate and energy policy.”
Mr Butler noted the two parties got close in 2016 with the emissions intensity scheme, then again in 2017 with the clean energy target and most recently with the NEG this year, but each time the policies were taken off the table largely due to revolt within the Coalition party room led by Tony Abbott, despite the policies having broad support among state and territory governments as well as the business community.
“Now we confront a position … where investors are left with no rules to guide their investment decisions once the renewable energy target starts to taper off in coming months.”
As Australia heads towards its next federal election — likely to be held next year — Mr Butler noted there were warnings electricity prices would rise if the NEG was not passed and the futures market was already predicting hikes next year.
But he acknowledged there was no quick fix and said getting the unit price of electricity would be difficult. He said Labor would focus on policies to reduce consumption as a way of lowering bills. It has already announced plans to help businesses with tax write-offs for capital upgrades and software to make them more energy efficient.
He said Australia’s energy efficiency and productivity was already lower than average compared to some other OECD countries and China, which haven’t enjoyed low prices in the past like Australia has.
“The pathway for really substantial reductions to energy bills for business and households, I think, lie more in an aggressive approach to energy efficiency and productivity,” Mr Butler said.
When it comes to the Coalition’s approach, Mr Taylor said Prime Minister Scott Morrison had given him one KPI (Key Performance Indicator) and that was to lower power prices while keeping the lights on………
Opposition Leader Bill Shorten says a lack of policy is preventing Australia from becoming a renewable energy superpower, but admits coal will be part of the mix for the foreseeable future.
“What we need to do is create investment certainty, write out what the rules are so we can get more renewable energy,” he told reporters in Melbourne on Wednesday.
Renewable energy “is getting cheaper and I want to make it more accessible to small business and consumers.”
PRIME Minister Scott Morrison says he is willing to do “whatever it takes” to bring down power bills, and would consider going nuclear if he was convinced it made economic sense.
Mr Morrison has opened a new flank in the energy battle by saying he was open-minded about nuclear, a move South Australia’s former Labor premier Jay Weatherill also once entertained.
Mr Morrison told 2GB radio in Sydney he would overturn a legal ban on building nuclear reactors in Australia if he believed it would put downward pressure on power prices.
Mr Morrison said he would do “whatever it takes” to make electricity cheaper, and have no issues allowing nuclear reactors to be built if it would make lower household bills.
But he warned the investment case to build a nuclear reactor did not “stack up”.
SA’s Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission, called by Mr Weatherill and completed in 2016, was arguably the most comprehensive examination of the matter undertaken in Australia.
Its strongest recommendation was to pursue construction of a high-level dump for international waste, but the commission also suggested national bans on nuclear be loosened.
Prime Minister Scott Morrison said he would overturn the ban on building nuclear reactors if he believed it would bring down power prices. File image.
It concluded that nuclear power did not make sense in SA because of the state’s relatively low energy demand, and starting from scratch meant a delay until at least 2030 to build a facility.
“This allows 14 years for establishing regulatory systems and expertise, undertaking a detailed assessment of the nuclear supply chain before pre-licensing activities, licensing, project development and construction for a large plant,” the report stated.
“This is an ambitious time frame, but the commission considers it reasonable if there were an imperative.”
It said the economic case for a nuclear plant would strengthen if governments put in place aggressive policies to cut carbon emissions in a bid to stave off catastrophic climate change.
“The potential viability of a nuclear power plant in SA improved under more stringent carbon policies, but remained unviable even under the strong carbon price scenario,” the report found. Former prime minister Tony Abbott last month called for an end to the nuclear ban.
The push to revive the nuclear debate comes after Mr Morrison declared dead the national energy guarantee policy of his predecessor.
Opposition energy spokesman Mark Butler has held out the prospect of Labor reviving the policy in government after industry consultation.
Opposition Leader Bill Shorten said: “At the same time as the site of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster transforms into a massive solar farm, Morrison thinks it’s time to take Australia nuclear. You’ve got to be kidding”.
Antinuclear 