Bob Brown: High Court decision ensures free speech against environmentally polluting companies, like Adani
High court proves we have free speech against environmental wreckers https://www.theguardian.com/environment/commentisfree/2017/oct/22/high-court-proves-we-have-free-speech-against-environmental-wreckers, Bob Brown
Adani and the loggers should watch out – we have a right to peaceful protest to protect our environment, The high court has drawn a line in the sand against laws which burden the right of Australians to peaceful protest.
The court made no judgement on Tasmanian premier Will Hodgman’s decision to flatten the Lapoinya state forest in northwest Tasmania against the wishes of the local community. But it struck down his Workplaces (Protection from Protesters) Act 2014 aimed at stopping people from protesting effectively against such forests being logged.
Lapoinya is a huddle of farms southwest of the Bass Strait city of Burnie. Its rolling hills have a patchwork of lush pastures, ploughed fields and copses of trees. At the heart of the district was the Lapoinya forest, a couple of hundred hectares of wildlife-filled rainforest, eucalypts and ferneries with the crystal-clear Maynes Creek, a key nursery for the world’s largest freshwater crayfish, running through it.
When Forestry Tasmania revealed plans for the forest to be clearfelled for the distant wood-processing factory owned by Malaysian logging company Ta Ann, the people of Lapoinya remained confident that common sense would prevail. They called on the state government to intervene and ran a colourful but respectful public campaign to prevent the logging.
Neither the premier nor his minister for forests visited or intervened. Instead, draconian anti-protest laws were enacted and by early 2016 the logging was imminent.
The locals prepared for a peaceful stand. If the public could see how beautiful the Lapoinya forest was then surely, even at this eleventh hour, the resulting political pressure would cause the government to back off.
The bulldozers and chainsaws arrived in January 2016, with a cavalcade of police.
While premier Hodgman assured Tasmanians his new laws were aimed at “radical” environmentalists and not “mums and dads”, the first two people arrested were a grandfather and a mother of two. That mother, also a neurosurgery nurse, was Jessica Hoyt. Her parents, Stewart and Barbara, have a farm adjoining the forest. In her teenage years Jessica, along with her siblings, had enjoyed riding along the forest’s bridle trail. The two were charged and faced first-offence fines of $10,000.
The next day, reeling from the destruction, Jessica took friends back into the doomed forest. She was arrested again while walking through the trees and ferns. This second arrest put her in danger of being jailed for four years.
A few days later, along with several others, I was also arrested after going back to Lapoinya to make video clips, intended for public distribution, about the sheer bloody-mindedness of the government’s operation. I was standing in an adjacent forest reserve. A bulldozer had backed off and the screech of the chainsaws and roaring thud of the trees coming down was close and confronting.
The incongruity of laws stifling such a reasonable protest against the destruction of the public commons, in a democracy with a long history of advancement through peaceful protest, was compelling. This was underscored when, after our arrests, I received a number of messages from experienced legal experts from around Australia suggesting the laws breached the constitution’s implied right to freedom of political expression.
Guided by Hobart solicitor Roland Browne and joined as co-plaintiff by Jessica, I engaged Melbourne barrister Ron Merkel QC to challenge the constitutional validity of the Hodgman laws in the high court. A public appeal by my foundation raised more than $100,000 to affray the costs, especially in case we lost.
On Wednesday the high court ruled that those laws do infringe the freedom to peaceful protest inherent in the Australian constitution.
“It is necessary to keep firmly in mind that the implied freedom is essential to the maintenance of the system of representative and responsible government for which the Constitution provides. The implied freedom protects the free expression of political opinion, including peaceful protest, which is indispensable to the exercise of political sovereignty,” they said. by the people of the commonwealth. It operates as a limit on the exercise of legislative power to impede that freedom of expression.”
The Hodgman government had breached the limit of legislative power. Tasmania already had the usual array of laws to prevent dangerous or damaging behaviour. It also had a Forest Management Act which, besides guaranteeing the public its time-honoured access to the forests, empowers the police to arrest people who interfere with logging operations. The draconian new laws were not necessary for that purpose. They were designed to stymie effective environmental protests, like that at Lapoinya, which could draw public support and be politically embarrassing. The high court found the laws out, noting the deterrent effect on peaceful protest of their provisions: “The combined effect … can bring the protest of an entire group of persons to a halt and its effect will extend over time. Protesters will be deterred from returning to areas around forest operations for days and even months. During this time the operations about which they seek to protest will continue but their voices will not be heard.” It is for premier Hodgman, a lawyer, to say; but just as he did not see the unconstitutionality of these laws, so I doubt he was their origin.
It should be a warning to the other environmental wreckers.
We are in a world of gross, rapid and escalating environmental damage. Corporations profiting from exploiting non-renewable resources face growing public scrutiny and antipathy.
They cannot win the argument for wrecking ecosystems, so their alternative is to wreck environmentalists. Elsewhere in the world, scores of environmentalists are being killed each year by rampaging profiteers. But Australia is a peaceful democracy and the effective option is to lobby weak governments to clamp down on protests.
The high court’s decision does not directly affect laws in states or territories other than Tasmania. But it draws that line in the sand and will be a benchmark for more challenges if other governments pass laws to protect environmental destruction from peaceful public reaction. More widely, it bolsters that right for people standing up for any good cause.
There are growing calls for governments, already falling over themselves to grant concessions to the coral-killing Adani coalmine proposal in Queensland, to enact more draconian anti-protest laws than those already in place. The extreme right voices making those calls had better go read this judgment for democracy.
The Lapoinya forest was razed, but it has proved to be a pyrrhic victory for the destroyers. Out of the peaceful but heartfelt stand of the handful of people in Lapoinya has come a high court ruling upholding the right to peaceful protest for every Australian
Solar energy: from day one Australian business solar projects pay for themselves
Our Future | Business solar projects pay for themselves from day one http://www.examiner.com.au/story/4999405/business-solar-projects-pay-for-themselves-from-day-one/?cs=97,Nathan Henkes 22 Oct 17 Right now, you’re paying more money than you need to be for energy. Why? Because of the widely-held misconception that traditional energy is still cheaper than solar.
This misunderstanding is costing everyone – from individual shop owners to giant shopping centres – significant money through bloated electricity bills. The political argy bargy on energy has distracted from the fact that the price of solar has experienced a historic drop that even the smartest energy experts failed to predict.
The result? Today, virtually every business in regional Australia can save money with solar. It’s actually cheaper to borrow money and invest in a solar installation than it is to pay your current energy bills. In many instances, the business case for solar today is 50 to100 per cent stronger than it was just 12 months ago.
Typically, the return on investment is around three years and reputable commercial installers guarantee the system for five years – so there’s zero risk. Right now, you’re paying more money than you need to be for energy. Why? Because of the widely-held misconception that traditional energy is still cheaper than solar.
Survey shows that Turnbull, Frydenberg and Abbott’s electorates back 50% renewables target
Turnbull, Frydenberg and Abbott’s electorates back 50% renewables target
ReachTel poll finds majority in three Liberal-held seats support carbon pricing, and more ambitious renewable policy, Guardian, Katharine Murphy, 22 Oct 17 Voters in the electorates held by Malcolm Turnbull, Josh Frydenberg and Tony Abbott would be more likely to support the government’s new energy policy if it ensured Australia had at least 50% renewable energy by 2030, according to a new opinion poll.
Federal parliament is due to resume on Monday for a week which could see the high court deliver its much anticipated verdict on the citizenship cases, and also see Queenslanders heading to a state poll.
The debate over energy policy will also continue throughout the week.
The Turnbull government last week unveiled its national energy guarantee, a policy that will impose reliability and emissions reduction obligations on energy retailers from 2020 if the states agree to an overhaul of the national electricity market rules.
The number for Kooyong, the energy minister’s seat, was 60.5% (sample size 911) and Abbott’s seat of Warringah was 55.7% (879 residents).
The poll suggests voters are not buying the government’s message that the proposed guarantee will lead to lower power prices. Voters were more inclined to believe prices would go up than decrease.
Appearing on the ABC on Sunday, Frydenberg stopped short of guaranteeing prices would come downunder his new energy policy, but he said was “absolutely confident” power prices would fall.
Last week the government was claiming wholesale prices would likely decline by 20% to 25% a year between 2020 and 2030 and residential bills would go down “in the order of” $100 to $115 per year over the same period as a consequence of the policy change.
But the government has also requested more detailed modelling work to put to state governments at a forthcoming meeting of the Council of Australian Governments…….
Ben Oquist, the executive director of the Australia Institute, said the latest poll demonstrated the community wanted to get on with the transition from coal to renewables.
“The key to effective energy and climate policy is as much about the ambition as the design of any scheme and these results show voters back a more ambitious program of emissions reduction,” he said.
Oquist said there was concern that the scheme would only deliver a renewable energy penetration of between 28-36%, which is less than what the chief scientist Alan Finkel modelled would happen without any government policy intervention.
He said the proposed emissions reduction target for electricity, which is 26% on 2005 levels by 2030, “is inadequate and will shift the burden to other sectors like agriculture”……https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/oct/22/turnbull-frydenberg-and-abbotts-electorates-back-50-renewables-target
Victoria’s Renewable Energy Target now becomes law
Victoria Renewable Energy Target written into law, without support of LNP, REneweconomy, By Sophie Vorrath on 23 October 2017 Victoria has become the first state in Australia to have its renewable energy target written into law, after the Labor Andrews government’s Renewable Energy (Jobs & Investment) Bill was passed by Parliament on Friday.
State energy minister Lily D’Ambrosio said on Friday the governments’ VRET of 25 per cent renewable energy by 2020, and 40 per cent by 2025, had passed the Legislative Council with 20 votes to 18, and despite not winning a single vote from the opposition Coalition party.
The “historic” vote comes amid growing confusion and concern about what the federal Coaltion’s National Energy Guarantee means for Australia’s energy sector, and particularly for the renewable energy industry, with no national renewable energy target in place beyond 2020, and the suggestion development could go backwards under the new plan, resulting in just 28-36 per cent renewables by 2030.
The state governments, in particular, have reacted with frustration to the NEG, which – as Giles Parkinson pointed out here on Friday – is a decision by the Turnbull government to essentially rely on the same state-based renewables targets it has so often derided as reckless.
All of Australia’s Labor states and territories have their own renewable energy targets, each of them more ambitious than the federal government’s goal of 20 per cent by 2020.
Queensland and the Northern Territory are aiming for 50 per cent by 2030; South Australia is already there but looking to add more; while the ACT has already signed contracts with wind and solar farms to take it to 100 per cent renewables by 2020.
Victoria’s own target, now legislated, is expected to cut the average cost of power for households by around $30 a year; $2,500 a year for medium businesses and $140,000 a year for large companies. It is also forecast to drive a 16 per cent reduction in the state’s electricity sector emissions by 2034-35, and create up to 11,000 jobs.
Despite these projected benefits, the state targets have been used regularly by the federal government as scapegoats for rising electricity prices and the closure of ageing coal plants – an irony that is not lost on the states, particularly considering the federal Coalition needs their approval for the NEG to be put into place, because it requires significant changes to the National Electricity Market rules…….http://reneweconomy.com.au/victoria-renewable-energy-target-written-law-without-support-lnp-31448/
Costly removal of uranium from water supplies
Tamworth Regional Council uranium removal $50,000 more than initial estimate, Northern daily Leader, Jacob McArthur , 22 Oct 17
THE budget for the clean-up of uranium contamination in Bendemeer has blown out by $50,000, with a council report pointing to the lack of available information on removing the chemical from water supplies for the jump.
Elevated levels of uranium were detected in underground drinking water supplies for Kootingal and Bendemeer in October last year.
According to a report to be considered by councillors, the initial estimate of $165,000 to install a uranium removal system at the Airlie Rd bore, didn’t cover all of the costs for the clean-up.…….
Tests revealed the bore had been contaminated since 2015.
Moonbi-Kootingal has been on reticulated town water supplies since September last year, when it was discovered bores supplying water to the villages had elevated levels of uranium. http://www.northerndailyleader.com.au/story/5002668/50000-uranium-clean-up-blow-out/
ANSTO calls High Level Nuclear Waste – “Intermediate Level” – fooling the public
Steve Dale Nuclear Fuel Cycle Watch South Australia https://www.facebook.com/groups/1021186047913052/ 21 Oct 17 Lest we forget. The ore we dig up from Roxby has a radioactivity of about 80 Becquerels per gram. The vitrified waste we received back from France has a radioactivity over one Billion Becquerels per gram (one GigaBq/gr). France considers this High Level Waste – but our political system has allowed this to be defined as “Intermediate” – incompetence? corrupt? I will let you decide. (image from http://inventaire.andra.fr/…/2006_summar…/files/docs/all.pdf)
Business South Australia – a strident pro nuclear lobbyist -ruled to not be a ‘charity’
Business SA loses legal fight to prove it is a charity for tax purposes http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/business/business-sa-loses-legal-fight-to-prove-it-is-a-charity-for-tax-purposes/news-story/0ca7426794b7a85ad13ae7fd4bb006ac, Andrew Hough, The Advertiser, August 31, 2017 THE role of the state’s peak business lobby group has been called into question after a judge ruled its “dominant purpose” was not to advance trade and commerce in South Australia.
Business South Australia – still a strident voice for the nuclear lobby
Nuclear fight isn’t over, vows Business SA, Business SA has vowed to continue the nuclear waste dump fight after the next election, with boss Nigel McBride slamming the state’s politicians for killing off the debate because of populist politics,In Daily, Tom Richardson, 19 October 17 .
The recommendation received majority support, with Labor, Liberal and Greens MPs backing it and the Australian Conservatives MLC dissenting.
Greens MLC Mark Parnell went further, pushing to reinstate laws that would prevent any Government consulting publicly on the merits of a nuclear waste storage.
But McBride today hit out at the political consensus, warning it set a dangerous precedent of shutting down mature debate on complex issues…….
He said the state had already spent at least $14 million of taxpayers’ money on the Royal Commission – let alone subsequent community consultations………
he reserved particular scorn for Weatherill’s bid to hasten the decision process through a series of citizens’ juries…….
McBride was among those who spoke at the jury sessions, and described the jurors as “intelligent, thoughtful, questioning, decent members of the public”……..
Despite being a long-time advocate for exploring nuclear waste storage in SA, McBride was among the first proponents to declare the plan “dead” after the state Liberals last year withdrew bipartisan support……..https://indaily.com.au/news/local/2017/10/19/nuclear-fight-isnt-vows-business-sa/
Coal not likely to benefit from Turnbull’s new energy plan
But here’s the real kicker: all currently available information suggests that the “reliability obligation” will all but explicitly rule out coal.
The Energy Security Board’s letter to the government says the reliability obligation will require retailers to buy a minimum amount of “flexible dispatchable capacity”. But most coal power plants are very inflexible – unable to turn on or off quickly
Why Turnbull’s new energy plan may not be so good for coal – explainer, Guardian, Michael Slezak, 21 Oct 17
There is very little reason to think that coal will benefit from the reliability guarantee in the government’s national policy, The prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, has no doubt been selling his new national energy guarantee to many of his colleagues by arguing it will be good for coal power.
Green groups are protesting the policy on the same basis, calling it a “dirty energy target”.
Even Origin Energy has told its shareholders that the Neg means it might need to keep the largest coal-fired power station in Australia open for longer.
The basic idea is that alongside the “emissions guarantee” there will a “reliability guarantee”. Retailers will be forced to buy power that has a relatively low emissions profile, but also buy enough “reliable power” so that they can keep the lights on.
And almost everyone is assuming that reliability guarantee will subsidise coal (as well as gas and and other dispatchable generators).
But looking at the information available – with the very big caveat that there is not much information available – there is very little reason to think that coal will benefit from the reliability guarantee.
There are two big reasons to be sceptical.
First, coal is just not particularly reliable. In fact, the security of the entire grid is designed around the possibility of a large coal generator dropping out unexpectedly – which they regularly do.
Second, all indications are that the reliability guarantee will just be regulation of the existing capacity market, where retailers pay dispatchable generators to be on standby in case they need them. And coal very rarely is able to sell those contracts.
Coal is just not that reliable
Collusion between politicians and scientists on dangers of nuclear radiation
The 1985 Royal Commission report into British Nuclear Tests in Australia discussed many of these issues, but never in relation to the proximity and timing of the 1956 Olympic Games. Sixty years later, are we seeing the same denial of known hazards six years after the reactor explosion at Fukushima?
Australia’s nuclear testing before the 1956 Olympics in Melbourne should be a red flag for Fukushima in 2020, https://theconversation.com/australias-nuclear-testing-before-the-1956-olympics-in-melbourne-should-be-a-red-flag-for-fukushima-in-2020-85787, The Conversation, Part time tutor in Medical Education, University of Dundee, 20 Oct 17, The scheduling of Tokyo 2020 Olympic events at Fukushima is being seen as a public relations exercise to dampen fears over continuing radioactivity from the reactor explosion that followed the massive earthquake six years ago.
It brings to mind the British atomic bomb tests in Australia that continued until a month before the opening of the 1956 Olympic Games in Melbourne – despite the known dangers of fallout travelling from the testing site at Maralinga to cities in the east. And it reminds us of the collusion between scientists and politicians – British and Australian – to cover up the flawed decision-making that led to continued testing until the eve of the Games.
Australia’s prime minister Robert Menzies agreed to atomic testing in December 1949. Ten months earlier, Melbourne had secured the 1956 Olympics even though the equestrian events would have to be held in Stockholm because of Australia’s strict horse quarantine regimes.
The equestrians were well out of it. Large areas of grazing land – and therefore the food supplies of major cities such as Melbourne – were covered with a light layer of radiation fallout from the six atomic bombs detonated by Britain during the six months prior to the November 1956 opening of the Games. Four of these were conducted in the eight weeks running up to the big event, 1,000 miles due west of Melbourne at Maralinga.
Bombs and games
In the 25 years I have been researching the British atomic tests in Australia, I have found only two mentions of the proximity of the Games to the atomic tests. Not even the Royal Commission into the tests in 1985 addressed the known hazards of radioactive fallout for the athletes and spectators or those who lived in the wide corridor of the radioactive plumes travelling east. Continue reading
Turnbull lies – calling coal a “dispatchable”power source
The new policy redefines coal as dispatchable, despite it having the opposite technological characteristics.
This is not an entirely new approach. Before the government 
decided to abandon the proposed Clean Energy Target it put a lot of effort into redefining coal as “clean”.
The government’s energy policy hinges on some tricky wordplay about coal’s role https://theconversation.com/the-governments-energy-policy-hinges-on-some-tricky-wordplay-about-coals-role-85843?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=twitterbutton, The Conversation, The most important thing to understand about the federal government’s new National Energy Guarantee is that it is designed not to produce a sustainable and reliable electricity supply system for the future, but to meet purely political objectives for the current term of parliament.
Those political objectives are: to provide a point of policy difference with the Labor Party; to meet the demands of the government’s backbench to provide support for coal-fired electricity; and to be seen to be acting to hold power prices down.
Meeting these objectives solves Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s immediate political problems. But it comes at the cost of producing a policy that can only produce further confusion and delay.
The government’s central problem is that, as well as being polluting, coal-fired power is not well suited to the problem of increasingly high peaks in power demand, combined with slow growth in total demand.
Coal-fired power plants are expensive to start up and shut down, and are therefore best suited to meeting “baseload demand” – that is, the base level of electricity demand that never goes away. Until recently, this characteristic of coal was pushed by the government as the main reason we needed to maintain coal-fired power.
The opposite of baseload power is “dispatchable” power, which can be turned on and off as needed.
Classic sources of dispatchable power include hydroelectricity and gas, while recent technological advances mean that large-scale battery storageis now also a feasible option. Continue reading
Queensland government to take over agricultural land for Adani coal mine rail line
Government resume land for Adani
A FARM group – partly backed by the Tim Flannery-led Climate Council – has hit out over the State Government resumption of agricultural land for the Adani rail line.
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/palaszczuk-government-resume-emerald-farmland-for-adani-rail-link/n
Townsville and Rockhampton councils could pay at least $31 million for Adani coalmine airstrip
Queensland councils to pay at least $31m for Adani coalmine airstrip
Townsville and Rockhampton councils may pay millions more if company’s bid to sew up deal with traditional owners fails, Guardian, Joshua Robertson, 20 Oct 17, Two local councils are paying $31m to build an airstrip for Adani’s Queenslandcoalmine – and could fork out millions more if the energy giant’s bid to sew up a deal with traditional owners hits a stumbling block.
Townsville and Rockhampton councils last week announced they would spend $15.5m each on the airport – hundreds of kilometres away – in a deal to secure Adani’s guarantee of 2,200 construction jobs for their residents.
And Townsville has agreed to pay up to $18.5m if the airport is shifted to a second location outside Wangan and Jagalingou land, where Adani’s right to build Australia’s largest coalmine is tied up in a drawn-out legal battle with a traditional owners group.
Rockhampton, which originally put up $20m for the airport in a bid to gain Adani’s guarantee, may also invest up to $18.5m but this has not been made clear.
Despite the Carmichael mine having broad support in both communities, there is some backlash to ratepayers providing infrastructure for a transnational corporation.
Councillors from both cities voted in favour of paying for the airport for Adani’s workforce in closed discussions of confidential reports, recorded in minutes that did not mention the company……….
Rockhampton councillors met on 26 September for a confidential discussion about “economic development opportunities” and an update from council’s general manager of “regional development and aviation”.
The minutes make no mention of Adani but note a confidential report contained information “for which a public discussion would be likely to prejudice the interests of the local government or someone else, or enable a person to gain a financial advantage”.
Councillors unanimously voted for their chief executive to “execute the terms sheets as discussed at the meeting” but did not put a figure on the cost to ratepayers.
Neither the Townsville mayor, Jenny Hill, nor the Rockhampton mayor, Margaret Strelow, responded to a request for comment. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/oct/20/adani-coalmine-queensland-councils-to-pay-at-least-31m-for-airstrip
Turnbull’s National Energy Guarantee works against battery energy storage
Battery storage proponents despondent about future under National Energy Guarantee, http://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2017-10-19/concern-energy-policy-will-stymie-growth-in-battery-storage/9061948, ABC Rural, By Babs McHugh, Some in the fledgling tech-metals mining and processing industry are dismayed that the Federal Government’s new energy policy does not appear to support renewable energy storage such as batteries.
Australian Vanadium chief executive Vincent Algar said the National Energy Guarantee (NEG) unfairly pitted the batteries and renewable energy storage sector against fossil fuel electricity producers such as oil and gas.
“With coal and gas considered a dispatchable energy source under the NEG, what incentive will there be to source dispatchable energy from a battery?” he said.
Dispatchable power can be turned on and off and used immediately as needed.
The NEG will mandate that energy retailers need to buy a certain amount of energy from dispatchable sources, which include coal, gas, and pumped hydroelectricity storage.
Lower cost makes coal and gas more attractive
Mr Algar, whose company will mine and process vanadium, as well as promote vanadium battery technology, believes pure economics dictates that energy retailers will go to the much cheaper coal and gas producers.
“If a company is building a renewable energy project, what incentive will there be for them to put that dispatchable energy in the form of a battery?” he said.
“On top of that is the removal of subsidies for renewable energy, and no clean energy target, so it further reduces any incentives.
Mr Algar is also concerned the NEG will bring to a halt the research and development of advanced renewable energy and battery technologies.
“Australia has the runs on the board. It has invented things like the flow battery [which uses vanadium], and they’re doing brilliant work in eastern states that will improve the efficiency of solar panels, for example,” he said.
“These are developments that will generate jobs and make us a net exporter of renewable technology, but this policy could really put a dampener on that.”
Does Western Australia need its own renewables target?
National Energy Plan: Does WA need its own renewables target?, ABC, By Nicolas Perpitch, 19 Oct 17 The Federal Government’s flagship new energy plan was signed off by the Coalition partyroom this week with great fanfare — but there’s growing uncertainty about what it means for WA.
The McGowan Government has not yet received a briefing on the national energy guarantee (NEG) policy, which is designed to operate through the National Energy Market.
WA is not a part of this market.
The new policy will see the Clean Energy Target and subsidies for renewables cut in 2020, and Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull says there will be an opportunity to import the principles of the new system into the WA market.
While the general consensus — including from Energy Minister Ben Wyatt — is that there will be no immediate impact on WA, some in the state’s energy sector are concerned.
Solar ‘may still need boost’
Solar panel distributor and managing director of BayWA Renewable Energy Durmus Yildiz said the Government had not considered whether the fledgling solar industry was able to compete with other providers………
Energy Minister Ben Wyatt has already flagged the possibility of WA following other states and setting its own renewable energy target (RET) once the Clean Energy Target is cut.
Sustainability Energy Now WA chairman Ian Porter said such a move would provide certainty to the market.
“It provides an indication to investors that their policies are favourable to ‘x’ amount of generation being put into the system via renewables,” Mr Porter said. “It provides certainty. Investors want certainty. People know then the target is set and they can bid for it.”
Murdoch University Engineering and Information Technology School lecturer Tania Urmee said it would replace lost federal incentives.
“The cost of renewable energy technology is going down, so if the states have their own policy and their own trigger for renewable energy, that will be really good,” Dr Urmee said.
“And I think that keeps (investment) going.”…….http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-19/energy-reform-explainer-how-will-it-affect-wa/9065974
1 This month
PETITION – To: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the Australian Labor Government
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
19 May – Webinar- Webinar: No Nuclear Weapons in Australia
Start: 2026-05-19 18:00:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
End: 2026-05-19 19:30:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
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 