Uncontrolled nuclear top gun Adi Paterson to spin to Kimba, Hawker and Quorn
Dr Adi Paterson is the man behind the nuclear push by secretive taxpayer-funded agency Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO).
Australians are not privy to information on how much ANSTO spends, particularly on this latest frenzy to convince rural South Australians that they have a moral duty to public health to host radioactive trash, – further encouraged by generous bribes.
Adi Paterson seems to have not only an open cheque to spend on this, but also carte blanche to do whatever he likes regarding nuclear decisions.
In 2016, he signed Australia up, all on his own, to the Framework Agreement for Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems, committing Australia to work towards the establishment of new nuclear reactors. The government was informed of this afterwards. A month later, a Senate Committee simply ratified Adi Paterson’s action. No Parliamentary discussion, no public discussion. How long will Australians let this man make nuclear decisions for us, and pull the wool over the eyes of poorly informed farmers?
6 August, 2018 ANSTO CEO, Dr Adi Paterson, is part of a delegation who are visiting the communities of Kimba, Hawker and Quorn on 6 and 7 August, for Community Information Sessions being led by the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science.
Three sites in South Australia, two in Kimba and one at Wallerberdina Station near Quorn and Hawker, are considering whether to host Australia’s National Radioactive Waste Management Facility.
The Community Information Sessions are an opportunity for those communities to ask any remaining questions ahead of a five-week community ballot that begins on 20 August.
Dr Paterson will join the CEO of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) Dr Carl-Magnus Larsson, and representatives from the Department.
“In particular, I will be focused on talking about the partnerships that are possible between nuclear organisations and their neighbouring communities.
Opinions on siting a nuclear waste dump at Kimba or Hawker, South Australia
https://cooberpedyregionaltimes.files.wordpress.com/2018/07/coober-pedy-regional-times-26-07-20181.pdf Resources Minister Matt Canavan announced ( THE AUSTRALIAN, 18/6/18) that on 20 August, there will be a ballot to gauge community support for a federal nuclear waste dump near one of the small towns of Kimba or Hawker, about 450km north of Adelaide. The vote will be confined to the residents in the immediate local area.“The decision will be made in the second half of this year” said Canavan ““We do not want this overlapping with a federal election”.
A Senate Inquiry will report on this on 14 August, possibly too late to make a difference. However, many people are taking this Inquiry very seriously, and have sent in 109 submissions, nearly all of which can be read at the Senate Committee’s website.
As I’ve been going through 98 published submissions to this Senate Inquiry on Selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia, I’ve been able to learn some of the reasons why people support or oppose the idea of the nuclear waste dump.
The division of opinion was clear in the answers to the 5 main Terms of Reference, asking whether the following aspects were satisfactory: – financial compensation for land, community support, indigenous support, Community Benefit Program, and confining consultation to the local community. Answers were consistently “Yes” in submissions supporting the plan, and “No” in those opposing it.
More interesting were the comments in the 6th Term of Reference – ” Any related matters”
The 40 supporting submissions. Almost every one of the supporting submissions came from local residents, several explaining that they have been very thoroughly informed by the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science, including tours of the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor. Four submissions spent time praising the Department of Industry Innovation and Science (DIIS) and Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO)
Their answers regarding “Any related matters” were strongly concerned with the local area and its future. Several were enthusiastic that the nuclear waste facility would ensure the survival of the town into the future. It would have no negative impact. It would be good for local business. It would be beneficial to Australia. Some complained of misleading information from anti nuclear activists. There was strong opposition to “outsiders” having a say in the decision. Kimba District Council needed detail on important financial benefits. Submissions from DIIS and ANSTO said that the facility was essential for nuclear medicine. Lobbyist Ben Heard said that it is needed for the expansion of the Lucas Heights nuclear centre.
The 58 opposing submissions come from a variety of organisations and individuals, and include residents of Eyre Peninsula. These were generally more comprehensive and wide-ranging. When it comes to “Any related matters”, they had a lot to say:
There were several comprehensive criticisms of the entire site selection process – no justification for the dump – why the assumption it has to be in South Australia? – the process is flawed. One was opposed to the process, not necessarily to the dump. One call to end the process. Concern on longterm negative effects.
Nuclear waste issues were discussed . Call for re-examination of waste plans- dangerous waste types – intermediate level wastes – probability of stranded nuclear wastes – Lucas Heights the most suitable site – this facility a prelude to commercial waste import?
Issues of dishonesty – lack of trust – dishonest process -hypocrisy of DIIS – biased committees biased and misleading information given – Conflicts of interest .
Aboriginal ssues well beyond the Term of Reference about this – strongly Aboriginal in depth on Aboriginal interaction – history of Aboriginal interaction.
Other issues discussed: – seismic danger – floods, groundwater – tourism -nuclear medicine not needing the dump – prediction of legal action – mental health issues – aim for a nuclear free world.
You can read more about these submissions, in the summaries at https://antinuclear.net/submissions-to-senate-inquiry-18–and also find links to each full submission.
Senate sites: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Economics/Wastemanagementfacility
DEPARTMENT FAILS TO DEFINE ‘BROAD COMMUNITY SUPPORT’ – AGAIN!
Senator Rex Patrick Fight To Stop Nuclear Waste Dump In Flinders Ranges SA,
Inquiry into the Site Selction Process of the Radioactive Waste Management Facility Canberra
DEPARTMENT FAILS TO DEFINE ‘BROAD COMMUNITY SUPPORT’ – AGAIN!
At today’s hearing into the Site Selection Process for the Radioactive Waste Management Facility, the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science were unable to explain what ‘broad community support’ is.
Instead, they’re going to leave that definition up to Minister Canavan who is on record saying he wants this issue done and dusted before the next federal election.
Noting the secrecy surronding all of this, the people in Kimba and Hawker are going to get to experience what it was like to vote in the Soviet Union -the State will tell you what’s best for you.
For a good ten minutes I tried to find out how the Minister will come to his decision, to no avail. Here’s a quick 50 second snapshot, but you can watch the full exchange here. https://www.facebook.com/groups/344452605899556/?multi_permalinks=791599437851535¬if_id=1533450785067354¬if_t=group_activity
Uranium, nuclear, reactor produced isotopes – unstable industries with poor future
Anne McMenamin Fight To Stop Nuclear Waste Dump In Flinders Ranges SA 5 Aug 18 Olympic Dam produces 90 times as much copper as uranium. Without the copper sales, the mine would not be viable. The amount of uranium produced has barely gone up over the last 10 years, and, across Australia, it’s actually gone down. Beverley is almost mined out. Four mile has recently come on line, but produced less last year than the year before. World-wide the industry is winding down.Australia should follow Canada- producing medical isotopes in cyclotron, not nuclear reactor
Steve Dale Nuclear Fuel Cycle Watch South Australia, 5 Aug 18 Is this what they call a strawman argument? Who wants to import isotopes? I don’t want Australia to import isotopes, I want Australia to make them here using Cyclotrons and other forms of accelerators. If you read the author’s twitter feed you will see he is strongly advocating for nuclear power reactors, which makes you wonder if he is looking at isotope production objectively.
Here are some things to think about –
– dissolving Uranium plates to extract the Moly is a process that produces a lot of waste with many steps in the process that have potential for failure or human error
– using Low enriched Uranium plates produces much more waste than High enriched Uranium plates (obviously neither is desirable)
– apparently there is a move away from Technetium99 because it is considered low resolution imaging, some predicting that it will not be used in 10 years because of the superior imaging of PET/cyclotron isotopes
– the isotopes generated in a cyclotron have a very short half life, so they can be kept for a few days and thrown in the general trash
So to summarise. Moly99/Technetium99 is on the way out, yet tax payers have funded a factory to build a factory that can only make Moly99/Te99 – unlike a cyclotron that can make all sorts of isotopes. And instead of building a facility to cater for our own supply, they have built a taxpayer funded factory to speculate on the world wide isotope market.
Canada is showing another way using cyclotrons-
“”The newer radionuclides that are used, the so-called PET imaging agents, give a much more high-resolution picture,” said Wilson. “We’re slowly moving toward more PET isotopes.” https://www.facebook.com/groups/1021186047913052/permalink/2053022201396093/?comment_id=2053155368049443
At long last, Australia could be getting a Treaty with First Nation people
Could Australia soon recognise sovereigns other than the Queen?
‘It’s the last ex-British colony to not ratify a treaty with its First Nations people,
but that may be changing.’
by Gabriella Marchant
29 Jul 2018
‘ … “Treaty is [an agreement] between two sovereigns and to be asking the government to at least
acknowledge that Aboriginal people … maintain their sovereignty [supreme authority],
I don’t think that’s too much to ask,” says Gunnai-Gunditjmara woman Lidia Thorpe,
a Greens member of parliament in Victoria state.
‘”You know there’s this tokenistic gesture all the time to blackfellas in this country.
If you want true reconciliation and true healing then let’s be real about it
and stop these tokenistic gestures.”
‘Indeed, a treaty was the only thing indigenous leaders from Australia’s Yolngu nation
brought up with Prince Charles on his most recent visit. …
What is a treaty?
‘A treaty – defined as an “international agreement concluded between two states”
in 1969’s Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties – would require the
government to legitimise Aboriginal nations as separate to the nation of Australia.
From there, they must negotiate decisions that affect them
as equals and on equal terms.
‘Associate Professor Dominic O’Sullivan, whose work centres on indigenous governance,
says unlike neighbouring New Zealand,
treaties were never a part of Australia’s settler history.
‘”Terra nullius was used to justify the British claim to sovereignty.
‘”Britain couldn’t identify an organised political or social order
among the indigenous population, and under international law,
these were required for a people to hold sovereignty,” O’Sullivan says.
‘”One could argue that it suited [the colony’s first Governor] Philip not to look too hard..” …
‘Obstacles remain, however, on a national level.
The current federal government has not addressed the call for
an Indigenous process similar to a treaty, makarrata, which after two years
of consultation was presented in an open letter, the Uluru Statement of the Heart.
‘”[Prime Minister] Turnbull’s government has been completely inactive in this space
and really quite offensive I think, particularly on the Uluru Statement,”
says Victorian Ged Kearney, whose opposition party supports Makaratta. … ‘
Read much much more of Gabriella Marchant‘s comprehensive, well-researched & in depth feature in Al Jazeera News:
www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/australia-recognise-sovereigns-queen-180711052948923.html
Aboriginal landowners not allowed to vote on planned nuclear waste dump
Traditional owners “locked out” of nuclear waste vote, InDaily, 3 Aug 18 Stephanie Richards The head of the Adnyamathanha Traditional Lands Association says the majority of Adnyamathanha people have been denied a vote on a proposed radioactive waste management facility near the town of Hawker in the Flinders Rangers.
Wallerberdina Station, located approximately 30km northwest of Hawker on Adnyamathanha country, has been shortlisted by the Federal Government for a facility that will permanently hold low-level nuclear waste and temporarily hold intermediate level waste.
It is one of three sites, the other two situated close to Kimba, that were shortlisted by the Federal Government to store nuclear waste.
The selection process is entering its final stages, with a postal ballot beginning on August 20 to measure community support for the three nominated sites.
But ATLA CEO Vince Coulthard said the voting guidelines were disrespectful to traditional owners, as the majority of Adnyamathanha people do not live close enough to the proposed Wallerberdina site to be eligible to vote.
The voting range includes residents of the Flinders Ranges Council and those who live within a 50km radius of the Wallerberdina site.
According to Coulthard, there are approximately 2500 Adnyamathanha people in total but only about 300 Adnyamathanha people who live in the voting range.
Coulthard said about 50 Adnyamathanha people who lived outside the voting range had expressed interest in voting, but when ATLA asked Federal Resources Minister Matt Canavan during a consultation trip to Hawker last week if those people could be granted a vote, Coulthard said Canavan told him that only those living in the prescribed voting range could participate.
“It’s a crazy situation,” Coulthard said.
“This is Adnyamathanha country and it is a very important place to the Adnyamathanha nation.
“People have strong connections to land. There’s a large amount of people, many who don’t live on the land but they go back on a regular basis to travel around the land.”
……… Coulthard said he was disappointed that Canavan had not consulted with all ATLA members during his consultation visit.
He said Adnyamathanha people had been “locked out” from the vote, despite holding native title rights over the land.
“Canavan is saying this will strengthen our culture, that this will be good for us, but what it is actually doing is punishing the environment.
“This is a place where we have gone to get bush tucker, where we have come as traditional owners for thousands of years.
They’ve shown us disrespect and this is very hurtful.”
The proposed site holds sacred meaning for Adnyamathanha people, as it is located close to the Hookina Waterhole and ancient burial sites.
…….. Last month, the Federal Government tripled the incentive package for the community that hosts the nuclear waste repository.
The Government had promised to spend more than $10 million in the district where the facility is built, but under new incentives announced by Canavan, the Government increased funding to $31 million.
……. The Government has previously indicated it wants to choose a preferred site before the end of this year. https://indaily.com.au/news/2018/08/03/traditional-owners-locked-out-of-nuclear-waste-vote/
Aboriginal landowners Wangan and Jagalingou take land rights fight to the UN
3 August 2018 wanganjagalingou.com.au/wj-council-takes-land-rights-fight-to-u-n/
‘Traditional Owners take land rights fight to U.N.
to head off threat of native title extinguishment for Adani
‘Authorised representatives of the Wangan and Jagalingou Traditional Owners Council,
Adrian Burragubba and Murrawah Johnson, have submitted a request to the
United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD)
for urgent action under the early warning and urgent action procedure.
‘The request to the CERD is in relation to Australia’s violations of the
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination,
for the Committee’s consideration during its upcoming 96th session in Geneva.
The complaint raises six violations of Australia’s international obligations under the Convention..
(Link to the CERD submission wanganjagalingou.com.au/request-for-urgent-action-by-wangan-and-jagalingou-people-to-cerd-31-july-2018/ )
‘The complaint was also sent to the Queensland Premier and Ministers in the Queensland Government,
as well as the Foreign Affairs Minister and Federal Attorney General.
‘Adrian Burragubba, Wangan and Jagalingou (W&J) Traditional Owners’ Council spokespersonand cultural leader said,
our ancestral homelands, waters, and sacred sites by Adani’s
massive Carmichael Coal Mine and Rail Project. Continue reading
Australian govt names Whyalla, Port Pirie, South Australian Ports to impose nuclear waste shipments
Federal gov. names SA Ports to impose nuclear waste shipments Nuclear Brief (1st August 2018) by David Noonan, Independent Environment Campaigner
Amidst rising controversy, the Federal Industry Department (DIIS) has named proposed Ports in SA that may have to take shipments of irradiated nuclear fuel wastes to go on to a Federal dump site.
DIIS reports (p.179) two intended shipments of reprocessed nuclear fuel wastes into SA within the first 2 years of operations of a proposed National Radioactive Waste Management Facility (NRWMF).
A shipment of nuclear waste is due from Sellafield in UK and a shipment out of Port Kembla is planned from the ANSTO Lucas Heights reactor of nuclear waste received from France in 2015.
After years of secrecy over intended nuclear waste shipments to an SA Port, DIIS has now named Whyalla, Port Pirie, a new Eyre Peninsula commodities port (if built) and even Port Lincoln, as potential nuclear waste ports, in three “Site Characterisation, Technical Reports” released in July.
However, all of these ill-considered plans for nuclear waste ports face an array of serious obstacles
These targeted port communities are denied a say in Minister Canavan’s pending decision on siting a Federal dump in SA, they haven’t been consulted on use of their ports, and are excluded from ‘votes’ in the Hawker & Kimba districts over Aug-Sept on whether or not to locate a NRWMF in those areas.
The Federal gov. is in continued breach of advice of the Nuclear Safety Committee (NSC) to the nuclear regulator ARPANSA (Nov 2016) on the NRWMF, on transparency in decisions, and for:
“The ongoing requirement to clearly and effectively engage all stakeholders, including those along transport routes.” With the NSC stating that: “Such engagement is essential…”
Proposed indefinite above ground storage of nuclear fuel wastes compromises safety, is illegal in SA, and must not be allowed now. ARPANSA states these wastes require isolation for 10 000 years.
This was recognised by the previous SA State Liberal gov. that prohibited the import, transport, storage and disposal of nuclear fuel wastes under the Nuclear Waste Storage (Prohibition) Act 2000.
“The Objects of this Act are to protect the health, safety and welfare of the people of South Australia and to protect the environment in which they live by prohibiting the establishment of certain nuclear waste storage facilities in this State.”
The new SA State Liberal gov. under the leadership of Premier Marshall has a key responsibility to protect the public interest and to uphold the law in our State. These are fundamentally State issues.
The Howard Federal gov. targeted SA for nuclear dumping over 1998 – 2004 but had to abandon that “National Store Project” & associated shipping and transport of nuclear waste across SA.
This Federal dump plan poses reputational risks and material impacts to the Kimba & Eyre Peninsula agricultural region, to the iconic Flinders Ranges tourism region, and now to targeted Ports in SA.
Nuclear waste can pose serious Accident & Security Risks and Impacts:
“In the event of a major nuclear accident, adverse impacts on the tourism, agriculture and property sectors could potentially be profound.”
SA Nuclear Royal Commission: Tentative Findings, Risks and Challenges, Impacts on other Sectors (Feb 2016, p.28)
Key questions on safety & security in nuclear fuel waste transport and storage remain unanswered (see D Noonan submission to Senate Inquiry, p.10). Nuclear fuel wastes must not be allowed into SA
The UK Nuclear Free Local Authorities “Briefing: Nuclear security concerns – how secure is the UK civil nuclear sector?” (NFLA, May 2016) highlights key security threats including the risks from potential malicious attack on a nuclear waste transport or on a nuclear waste storage site.
NFLA (p.8) cites the views of nuclear engineer Dr John Large on safety as at the heart of its concerns:
“Movement of nuclear materials is inherently risky both in terms of severe accident and terrorist attack. Not all accident scenarios and accident severities can be foreseen; it is only possible to maintain a limited security cordon around the flask and its consignment; … terrorists are able to seek out and exploit vulnerabilities in the transport arrangements and localities on the route; and emergency planning is difficult to maintain over the entire route.”
NFLA Recommendations (p.15) call for real discussion on the aftermath of a nuclear security incident given the major emergency response issues that arise. SA is unprepared for any such consequences.
Any use of SA Ports for nuclear waste poses significant logistical & other constraints:
The DIIS “Site Characterisation, Technical Report – Wallerberdina” for a proposed Federal nuclear dump site near Hawker, Section 4.1 Transport (p.174-186), at “Proximity to Ports” (p.177) states:
“There is potential to have waste shipped from Port Kembla, NSW to key port locations such as Whyalla and Port Pirie. From here waste would either be shipped via road or rail to the site.”
Hundreds of Police were required for security at July nuclear waste shipment out of Port Kembla.
Use of Port Pirie to road would lock down the National Highway to Port Augusta with 130 tonne Nuclear Canisters on over dimension & over-mass special vehicles. To rail would require waste transfer onto national gauge alongside Port Pirie and a second transfer on to State gauge in Port Augusta, with rehabilitation of the disused Cotabena Railway (p.177 & 186), to go on to the Flinders.
Use of the Port of Whyalla to road would require upgrade of Yorkeys Crossing to bypass the Port Augusta Bridge and to try “to avoid occurrences of complete shutdown” (p.181) in Port Augusta.
The Iron Triangle cities of Whyalla, Port Augusta and Port Pirie are now openly targeted for nuclear fuel waste transport and should have a right to refuse these untenable Federal gov. nuclear plans.
Influential Port Lincoln may be able to defend itself: other Port communities shouldn’t have to do so.
The Marshall gov must protect all SA regional communities and reject a Federal nuclear dump in SA
Senator Matt Canavan wants a nuclear waste site chosen by November.
Proposed nuclear waste facility has South Australian towns divided as locals prepare for ballot, ABC West Coast SA By Samantha Jonscher and Gary-Jon Lysaght, 3 Aug 18,
Paul Richards refutes nuclear lobbyist Robert Parker
Paul Richards Nuclear Fuel Cycle Watch South Australia comments on nuclear lobbyist Robert Parker , quoting Parker’s statement ‘...we do want the legislation changed so that nuclear energy can be assessed fairly on its economic, environmental and technical merits.’
The logic is flawed.
The experiment to prove it works has already been running continuously with both fission and fusion reactors since the 1950s.
Yet, there still is no metrics proving nuclear energy is competitive.
Furthermore;
* we live on the driest continent on earth, with
* least amount of potable water,
* have an abundance of sun and
* wind, as natural resources.
Then there is the fact the last nuclear reactor built in the US took;
* more than 43 years to be built,
* over 21 years to construct,
* over 5 years to commission,
* and was built on one of the largest freshwater rivers in the US.
Building reactors as a response to AGW, with subsequent climate change, requires;
* a much faster response than the history of reactor builds proves is realistically feasible.
The reality is, both solar PV and wind turbines are rapidly developed, relatively easily deployed, and systemically recycled safely.
Furthermore, there is over a decade of independent auditors metrics proving solar PV and wind turbines make cheaper electricity.
Cheaper electricity, integrated with a plethora of energy storage systems, able to distribute electricity seamlessly across geopolitical borders using current electrical design engineering systems.
____________
^ As of December 1, 2017, the average age of U.S. commercial reactors was about 37 years, and they still prove to be unviable economically. https://www.facebook.com/groups/1021186047913052/
Minister Matt Canavan is a real dill: doesn’t know what he’s talking about re nuclear wastes
Steve Dale Fight To Stop Nuclear Waste Dump In Flinders Ranges , 2 August 18, SA Canavan was also on ABC radio 891 Make sure you continue to listen to Victor Gostin. I have to re-listen but Canavan claims that the Vitrified Waste returning from France is “Low level”!
Here is Canavan talking about the Vitrified waste that returns from France
“when it comes back here the radioactivity of that material is not materially higher than the low level waste it does have a longer half life though, it will take thousands of years for that radioactivity to disappear… ” http://www.abc.net.au/…/prog…/mornings/mornings/1003697
Brett Burnard Stokes calling out just one of the lies involved in this massive bribery and deception operation led by Con Job Canavan.
In Queensland where Canavan comes from, they make nuclear medicines without making waste … and Con Job Canavan pretends that does not happen … Con Job Canavan says the waste is an essential byproduct from production of nuclear medicines.
Petition to South Australian Premier to block nuclear waste dump
State government urged to block nuclear facility https://www.transcontinental.com.au/story/5562602/petition-pushes-for-nuclear-block/, Marco Balsamo 2 August 18 A petition calling on the state government to block the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility has attracted over 10,000 signatures.
The Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) submitted the petition to state Member for Stuart Dan van Holst Pellekaan at a recent meeting.
The act was established to “protect the health, safety and welfare” of South Australians by prohibiting nuclear waste storage facilities in the state.
ACF Nuclear Free Campaigner Dave Sweeney urged Premier Steven Marshall to “stand up, honour and represent the state” by opposing the national facility.
“We wanted the South Australian government to know that there’s strong support and an expectation that they will respect and reflect about the existing Waste Prohibition Act,” Mr Sweeney said.
Wallerberdina Station near Hawker is one of three nominated sites for the national facility, with the other two both based in Kimba.
The selection process is coming to the pointy end, with a postal ballot commencing on August 20 to measure the community support for the three nominated sites.
Representatives from ACF, Conservation Council SA and the Adnyamathanha community attended the meeting with Mr van Holst Pellekaan.
Mr Sweeney described the sit-down as “constructive and respectful”, giving the groups an opportunity to present their concerns to the MP.
“This is being presented by the federal government as if it’s a local economic development issue, but it is Australia’s first ever purpose-built national radioactive waste dump,” he said.
“What it would receive is materials, some of which needs to be isolated and managed for 10,000 years. It is a national responsibility that has long-lasting implications that need a national approach, so we conveyed that to Dan and he understood that.
“We also conveyed our concerns about the process, how divisive it has been and how much stress it has caused on communities.”
Mr van Holst Pellekaan said he has spoken with federal Minister for Resources and Northern Australia Matt Canavan about local concerns regarding the facility.
“As a local MP, I believe it is important to meet with many people with a wide range of views on this topic and have been doing exactly that,” he said.
“I’ve had regular contact with federal Minister Canavan, have shared the opinions of our local people with him and will continue to do so.”
Mr van Holst Pellekaan confirmed the petition has been passed on to the Premier as promised at the meeting.
The punishing effect on Australia’s environment by rapid population boom
Environment the biggest loser as Australia’s population hits 25 million https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/environment-the-biggest-loser-as-australias-population-hits-25-million,11748 Michael Bayliss
Australia’s population growth has several disadvantages, one of the main ones being environmentalimpact, writes Michael Bayliss.
AUSTRALIA IS ON THE CUSP of a major demographic milestone. Our population will reach 25 million by mid-August this year.
We were never expected to reach this “milestone” so soon. In 1999, then Minister for Immigration Philip Ruddock said that there was no need for a population policy as the nation was on course to reach 23 million “by the middle of next century”. Not only have we surpassed 23 million, but we are now heading to reach 40 million by 2050.
The consequences of rapid population growth are many. Housing security, job security, traffic congestion and infrastructure are all concerns increasingly felt by many Australians feeling the pressures of growth. It has been reported that population has become a primary political issue among voters this year.
Another casualty of population growth is Australia’s natural environment. If we agree it is impossible to have a healthy economy on a dead planet, then we should be paying more attention to the impacts of growth in our national backyard.
Australia’s population ballooned quicker than any other developed country on the planet from 1990 to 2017, during which time we have grown by 50%. At the same time, Australia is leading the developed world in terms of rapid land clearance. This is no coincidence.
Australia’s leading ecologists agree growth is a major driver of species loss and degradation of habitats in our country. Successive State of the Environment Reports (at both national and state level) have recorded ongoing deterioration of all environmental indicators; increasing population density, urbanisation and settlement patterns have all been cited as leading causes of this deterioration.
The koala and emu, both Australian icons, are fast becoming the poster animals of the victims of urban sprawl and the clearance of native habitat. It is no coincidence that their habitats overlap with the areas of most rapid urban expansion, for example the peri-urban areas around Sydney and Brisbane. It is anticipated that the continual urban expansion in NSW and Queensland will result in a crash of wild koala populations within several decades. We won’t solve this problem by putting solar panels on the new housing estates or hybrid cars on our roads. Endless urban growth corridors will wreck native habitats, regardless of how “green” these new developments are — and most new suburbs are anything but green.
If the impact on other species is not a strong enough motivator for change, perhaps we should consider the impacts of growth for future generations. Take Melbourne, Australia’s fastest growing capital city, for example. Continued urban sprawl will reduce the city’s food bowl capacitysignificantly — from 40% now to around 18% by 2050.
Last year, our emissions grew by 1.5%, whilst the population grew by almost the same amount. The figures speak for themselves. If we grow by the size of a new Canberra every year, our emissions will go up regardless of how innovative we are or how many plastic bags we no longer use.
This highlights the many difficulties for rapidly growing nations such as Australia to meet their responsibilities under the Paris Agreement. For example, to meet the agreement, Australia will need to reduce national emissions by 30% over the next three decades. Adding an extra 50% to our population over the period will make this monumental task even more difficult to achieve and likely to mask any gains achieved in fuel and energy efficiency over the same period.
The “creeping normalcy” of both densification (more apartment blocks) and urban sprawl are easy to overlook against our busy pace of life. At 1.5% per annum, population increase can appear gradual against the rapid rate of change in our world. But the changes over a decade leave a tangible and permanent legacy on our landscape. The remaining strands of forest and open space on the urban fringe will be swallowed by housing estates while productive farmland is converted into roads and concrete. The hasty planning and development that accompanies rapid population growth locks future generations into high carbon living.
t is often asked as to what is Australia’s optimum population size. Whilst this can be difficult to quantify, most of us can agree that Australia cannot grow at 1.5% per annum indefinitely — the laws of physics do not allow for exponential growth on a finite space.
The idea that Australia is a continent of empty plains and that we can solve the problem by moving inland does hold up to scrutiny. Australia is the world’s second driest continent and our only major river system, the Murray-Darling basin, has a fraction of the water flow compared with other major river systems, such as the Mississippi. We are also one of the least fertile continents on earth, with only 6% of our land area arable, mostly around our capital cities and on the coast. It is these very areas that are being encroached on by urban development. It is not viable to densify much of Australia and to suggest so makes almost as much sense as developing Antarctica.
It is critical that as a nation we can move beyond the assumption that we need to keep growing for growth’s sake. It is necessary that we reduce and level off our carbon emissions, the rate in which we destroy our ecosystem and native habitats and the rate in which we concrete over our food bowls. This requires a transition to a post-growth economy, where our per capita consumption andour population remain stable. Only then can any improvements to technology and efficiency have any lasting impact.
In South Australia pro nuclear people have been seeded into positions of power
Regina McKenzie Fight To Stop Nuclear Waste Dump In Flinders Ranges SA, 2 Aug 18
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
20 May – Webinar – The dangerous world of AUKUS, US, military occupation and suppression of dissent
National Webinar, 20th May, 2026, 6.30pm AEST. Confronting laws restricting/suppressing protest speech and action
Speakers: Former Sen. Rex Patrick, Lawyer Nick Hanna ,Arthur Rorris ,Jorgen Doyle, Sen David Shoebbridge,
Facilitator Kelley Tranter.
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 