Victorian fracking ban legislation to be in introduced, ABC News By Stephanie Anderson, 22 Nov 16 The Victorian Government will introduce legislation today to permanently ban fracking following what the Premier described as “one of the most amazing community campaigns” in Australian history.
Fracking is used to extract so-called unconventional gases such as coal seam, tight and shale gas by pumping high-pressure water and chemicals into rock, fracturing it to release trapped gases.
There has been fears the chemicals could contaminate groundwater supplies and threaten agricultural industries.
The Victorian Government held a parliamentary inquiry into unconventional gas industries and announced earlier this year it would bring in a permanent ban.
Premier Daniel Andrews said there was a strong community campaign against fracking and unconventional gas.
“This is a triumph of one of the most amazing community campaigns that our state and indeed our nation has ever seen,” Mr Andrews said.
“Local communities have put an elegant and articulate argument, and we have responded to that.”
Fracking occurs in all other states except the Northern Territory, with the most by far in Queensland.
Government to pay compensation to licence holders…… http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-22/fracking-permanently-banned-in-victoria/8045264
November 23, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics, Victoria |
Leave a comment
Opposition growing to SA nuclear plan https://www.eurekastreet.
com.au/article.aspx?aeid=50250#.WDIQoNJ97Gg Michele Madigan | 16 November 2016
‘We are not a dump is SA, we want to keep it beautiful’ — Umoona Community. ‘We’ve got to think about the country’ — Ceduna. The last 30 days have seen some big developments in the ongoing attempts of SA Premier Weatherill’s plan to import high-level and intermediate level radioactive waste into South Australia.
On Sunday 6 November came the surprising decision of the Premier-initiated Citizens Jury. By the end of their six day deliberations, the 350 second round jurists showed a decided shift in opinion. Their 50 page report, presented to a somewhat discomfited Premier, had a strong two thirds majority declaring the international nuclear dump was not to go ahead ‘under any circumstances’.
Contrary to expectations, my own included, the jury, realising the bias of the royal commission and other government initiated forums, had insisted on their own choice of counter experts. Continue reading →
November 20, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Nuclear Citizens Jury, NUCLEAR ROYAL COMMISSION 2016, wastes |
1 Comment
A poll* commissioned by the Sunday Mail reveals that only one-third of South Australians support Premier Jay Weatherill’s plan for a high-level nuclear waste dump in SA and that public support has fallen by 14 percent in the space of just two months.
Respondents were asked to pick which nuclear facilities SA should build and they were invited to choose as many options as they liked. Of the 3702 respondents, only 35% supported an international nuclear waste repository in SA.
Dr Jim Green, national nuclear campaigner with Friends of the Earth, said: “The Sunday Mail poll finds that just one-third of South Australians support Jay Weatherill’s plan to turn SA into the world’s high-level nuclear waste dump. The results are consistent with the findings of the Citizens’ Jury. One-third of the Jury members gave conditional support to the proposal while two-thirds concluded that SA should not pursue a high-level nuclear waste dump under any circumstances.”
“A September 2016 poll** commissioned by The Advertiser found 49 percent support for the nuclear dump. Thus public support has fallen sharply from 49 percent to 35 percent in the space of just two months. If support continues to fall at that rate, Jay Weatherill may be the only South Australian supporting a nuclear dump by the time of the next state election. Even Business SA chief Nigel McBride acknowledges that the dump plan is ‘dead’ yet the Premier keeps trying to revive it.
“A majority of South Australians and a majority of SA political parties oppose Weatherill’s waste dump. South Australians opposed to the nuclear dump will be spoilt for choice at the next state election with the Liberal Party, the Nick Xenophon Team and the Greens all strongly opposed to the plan.
“The Sunday Mail survey also found that only 39.8 percent of South Australians support the establishment of a national nuclear waste dump in SA. The Premier should abandon his efforts to turn around public opposition to an international high-level nuclear waste dump in SA. He should instead defend SA against Canberra’s plan to impose a national nuclear waste dump in the Flinders Ranges and support Adnyamathanha Traditional Owners who are fighting the plan,” Dr Green concluded.
* www.surveymonkey.net/results/SM-FV2558KN/
November 20, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Opposition to nuclear, South Australia, wastes |
Leave a comment
On radio this week, Scarce denied his commission had “cooked” the numbers. There was nothing wrong with contracting pro-nuke lobbyists to do the work…….
there will be more consultation. There is also a parliamentary inquiry into the issue, due to report on November 29, which sources suggest is likely to split three-all, with Labor and Family First on one side and the Greens and Liberals on the other.
And further analysis of the royal commission’s economic calculations, received by the state parliament this week, is highly critical
SA’s citizen jury defies royal commission, SA’s citizen jury, which rejected the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission’s pro-storage stance, reveals the democratic tension when governments open decision-making to the people while seeking a predetermined outcome. Saturday Paper 19 Nov 16 MIKE SECCOMBE
Rear Admiral Kevin Scarce, AC, CSC, RANR, calmly damned the torpedoes when he went on Adelaide radio on Tuesday morning. He wasn’t sunk yet, he insisted.
The available evidence, however, suggested he was taking a lot of water. Over more than a year the former navy man and South Australian governor had steered his royal commission into the nuclear fuel cycle towards a radioactive future. Now, six months after the release of his report recommending the state become a repository for nuclear waste, it had been badly holed.
A citizens’ jury of 350 randomly selected people had looked into the findings, had heard evidence from witnesses selected for them and from their own selected witnesses and had come down by a margin of about two-to-one against any plan to store high-level nuclear waste in the state. This was a surprise to many, including some opponents of the plan who already had put a deal of work into formulating elaborate conspiracy theories and disseminating the message that the citizens’ jury was designed as a stitch-up.
If it was – and we’ll come back to the claims – then it was very badly stitched. The jury’s opposition was absolute.
“Under no circumstances should South Australia pursue opportunity to store and dispose of nuclear waste from other countries for reasons of consent, economic, trust and safety,” the report said. Continue reading →
November 20, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Nuclear Citizens Jury |
Leave a comment
On climate change policy, neither time nor Trump are on Turnbull’s side, Guardian
Lenore Taylor, 20 Nov 16
Australia cannot hail the Paris accord as a turning point and simultaneously rejoice in a great long-term economic future for coal
“……Abbott declared Trump’s election would “put climate change into a better perspective” and diminish the “moral panic” about global warming. Presumably the better perspective is one where we don’t do very much about it, and the “morality” not worth panicking about is the idea that we should not leave our children a world experiencing dangerous and irreversible change.
……… the man Turnbull has now appointed as resources minister, the Liberal National party senator Matt Canavan.
From the moment he took up the portfolio, Canavan has talked up the “uncertainties” of climate science.
And soon after Trump’s election, Canavan was hailing it as a budgetary boon for Australia, in part because coal mining would be able to continue unconstrained.
“Donald Trump is good for fossil fuels, good for steel and good for Australia,” he told the Australian.“President-elect Trump was very clear in his support for the coal mining sector, whereas President Obama had taken steps to restrict expansion of the coal industry,’’ he said.
“The newly elected president has said he’ll rescind those regulations and that’s having an effect on world markets.”
But at exactly the same time, Turnbull was announcing that Australia would go ahead and ratify the Paris agreement, despite some of his own backbenchers declaring that Trump’s victory had rendered the deal “cactus”.
The Paris pact, Turnbull declared, was “a watershed and a turning point”.
Problem is, it’s only a turning point and a watershed if nations do what they promised – that is, constrain global warming to “well below 2C”, which requires them not only to meet the greenhouse emissions reductions already pledged but also to increase them over time to actually meet that aim.
And that requires the phasing out, over time, of coal.
The latest world energy outlook from the conservative International Energy Agency shows that under the scenario necessary to meet the existing Paris targets (still not enough to limit warming to 2C), fossil fuels decline from 67% of the energy mix to 24%, and 16% of that 24% is carbon capture and storage, the viability of which remains uncertain.
A Climate Analytics report has found that developed countries will have to stop burning coal for electricity by 2030, China by 2040 and the rest of the world by mid-century in order to meet commitments made in Paris.
To underline the obvious, we really cannot simultaneously hail the Paris agreement as a turning point and rejoice in a glorious long-term economic future for the coal industry. Except that is exactly what the Turnbull government is doing…….https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/nov/19/on-climate-change-policy-neither-time-nor-trump-are-on-turnbulls-side
November 20, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, climate change - global warming |
Leave a comment
As doctors, we are worried about climate change, The Age, Marianne Cannon and Joseph Ting, 20 Nov 16
We are already treating the symptoms. Doctors, standing alongside nurses and other health professionals, are on the frontline in treating people with injuries and disease from severe weather events – such as droughts, bushfires and heatwaves – plus water borne illness… the list goes on.
Worse is coming and that’s why for the past 20 years, the health and medical community has tried to raise public awareness of this issue. Unfortunately, the clearly documented and growing health effects aren’t often spoken about in Australia. In part, this is due to scarce funding, a hostile political environment and the formidable size and scope of the “modelling exercise” required to begin to describe what will happen if pollution continues at current rates.
However, whilst climate change and health research in Australia is limited we only need to look to our recent history as a portent of things to come. Continue reading →
November 20, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, climate change - global warming |
Leave a comment
Nuclear waste debate re-emerges in Australia. Moulis Legal 17.11.16
“…….A long history of talk but with little “legal” support
South Australia’s proposal to encourage the world to export its high-level nuclear waste to Australia is in stark contrast to the previous positions of both the Federal and South Australian Governments. Moreover, significant reform to State laws and to existing Federal practice would be required to facilitate the proposal, none of which has been formulated.
In 1998, the responsible Federal Minister condemned a recommendation by nuclear waste management consortium Pangea Resources for a repository for international high-level nuclear waste in the Western Australian outback. He reiterated Australia’s long-standing bipartisan opposition to such a development:
…no high level radioactive waste facility is planned for Australia and the government has absolutely no intention of accepting the radioactive waste of other countries. The policy is clear and absolute and will not be changed. We will not be accepting radioactive waste from other countries.1
Continue reading →
November 19, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, NUCLEAR ROYAL COMMISSION 2016, reference, wastes |
Leave a comment
November 18, 2016 JAY Weatherill’s plan for an international waste dump exposes South Australian taxpayers to unacceptable financial risks while they wait at least 40 years before knowing whether the project will proceed. Advice to State Parliament shows it will cost taxpayers $600 million to continue the consultation and select a site. Even then, there will be no guarantee of South Australia eventually securing the project.Only this week, Parliament received further information raising serious doubts about the economic case for a dump, including that cost assumptions the government has relied upon are ‘optimistic’ and ‘appear based on a set of ‘most favourable’ assumptions’, while there are some issues which have not been fully explored which could have ‘significant serious potential to adversely impact the project and its commercial outcomes’.
The Premier established a Citizens’ Jury in the hope of getting a ‘yes’ vote. But the jury voted by a two-thirds majority not to pursue his proposal “under any circumstances”. So the Premier has come up with an expensive referendum to get the answer he wants.
But even if a referendum supports his plan, Mr Weatherill will put Aboriginal people in the position of being able to veto it.
While I respect the rights of Aboriginal people to decide what happens on their land, the Premier has clearly not thought through what he now proposes.
Even if his referendum did succeed, he has imposed a further condition likely to ultimately defeat it.
For the past two years, the Liberals have participated actively in parliamentary committees, we have carefully considered the Royal Commission report and the outcomes of community consultation.
As well as my visit to Finland, my Shadow Treasurer, Rob Lucas, has also visited Europe and the United States to look at the financial and economic issues associated with high level waste management. These investigations have increased our concern about the costs and exposure of South Australian taxpayers.
The Premier said a long time ago that by the end of 2016 we should be in a position to decide what to do.
The Liberals are united in our decision but the Weatherill Labor Government is not…….
There are far more important, immediate and realistic opportunities to pursue than this one.
It is the role of government to unite its community around achievable goals, not divide people over something that is not supported, not affordable and not achievable. Steven Marshall is Leader of the State Opposition. http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/opinion/steven-marshall-the-liberals-are-united-in-our-decision-to-oppose-a-nuclear-waste-industry-but-the-weatherill-labor-government-is-not/news-story/fe4a1b67d47ef22d1bdbc8468a56576b
November 19, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics, South Australia, wastes |
Leave a comment
New expert report on dump causes major problems for Weatherill http://www.roblucas.com.au/Media-Releases/ID/933/New-expert-report-on-dump-causes-major-problems-for-Weatherill 16 November 2016
Shadow Treasurer Rob Lucas said today a new expert study into the nuclear waste dump will cause major problems for Mr Weatherill as it raises significant concerns and questions about the financial assumptions of the project.
The report by international nuclear experts Nuclear Economics Consulting Group was released today by the Joint Parliamentary Committee and makes it clear that the claimed revenue of $257 billion and costs of $145 billion by the Weatherill Government cannot be relied upon.
“This report is a severe embarrassment for Mr Weatherill as it makes it clear the Weatherill Government leaks to the media on the weekend were selective, deceptive and an attempt to grossly mislead the public,” said Mr Lucas.
The report notes:
- That ‘under some Project approaches” South Australian taxpayers might have to spend even more than $600 million and still decide not to proceed with the dump.
- The Jacobs report doesn’t even consider the costs of some important issues which “have significant serious potential to adversely impact the Project and its commercial outcomes.”
- Assumptions about price are “overly optimistic” and if that is the case “project profitability is seriously at risk”.
- The 25% cost contingency for delays and blowouts is likely to be a significant underestimate.
- The assumption the Project would capture 50% of the available market had “little support or justification”.
Almost every page of this expert report lists further questions and concerns about the critical assumptions underpinning the projections.
“Whilst the report finds that the project could be profitable ‘under certain assumptions’ it then raises serious questions about most of those assumptions. It also concluded that ‘informed decision making will require a more extensive assessment that includes what was explicitly excluded in the Jacobs report.’
“It is now clear that weekend claims by the Weatherill Government that this report had ‘verified’ the Royal Commission’s figures and “backed Commission findings of $257 billion in revenue are a grotesque distortion of the report.
“In fact, this report ‘blows a hole’ in Mr Weatherill’s vision of a nuclear waste dump future for South Australia and backs Liberal concerns about the financial assumptions of the Project.”
November 19, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
NUCLEAR ROYAL COMMISSION 2016, politics, South Australia |
Leave a comment
Under the new law, export to countries outside the EU will be allowed but only under strict and binding conditions.
The third country must have a final deep geological repository in operation when the waste is shipped.
At present, such deep geological repositories do not exist anywhere in the world nor is a repository in construction outside of the EU.
Europe Adopts Long-Term Nuclear Waste Storage Law http://ens-newswire.com/2011/07/19/europe-adopts-long-term-nuclear-waste-storage-law/ BRUSSELS, Belgium, July 19, 2011 For the first time, the European Union has committed itself to the final disposal of its nuclear waste. Heads of government today adopted the radioactive waste and spent fuel management directive, “in order to avoid imposing undue burdens on future generations.”…..
The directive will enter into force at the latest in September of this year. Member States will have two years to transpose its provisions into their national laws.
By 2015, governments must submit their first national programs to the European Commission, the EU’s executive branch, which will examine them and can require changes……
Some 7,000 cubic meters of high-level nuclear waste are produced across the EU each year. Most Member States store spent fuel and other highly radioactive wastes in above-ground storage facilities that need continuous maintenance and oversight and are at risk of accidents, such as airplane crashes, fires or earthquakes. Hungary and Bulgaria currently ship nuclear waste to Russia.
In its most controversial provision, the new law allows export of nuclear waste to countries outside the EU. In its initial proposal, the Commission had advocated a complete export ban.
On June 23, 2011, the European Parliament in its plenary session voted in favor of a complete export ban as proposed by the Commission. In a close vote, MEPs backed a ban on exports of nuclear waste to non-EU countries, with 311 votes in favor, 328 against and seven abstentions.
However, the European Council today approved a version of the directive that allows export. Continue reading →
November 19, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, NUCLEAR ROYAL COMMISSION 2016, wastes |
Leave a comment
Mr Weatherill’s dramatic move on Monday to continue pursuing the nuclear industry despite the public condemnation of the union movement and opposition from a citizens’ jury he established has set off a round of headshaking within the party.
Mr Weatherill has proved his critics wrong at almost every step throughout his career. Many doubted a leader of the Left could ever take over a party run by the Right.
Almost as many wrote him off ahead of the last election, saying there was almost no way the Liberals could lose. But recent polls have shown a slide in his personal support, and Labor’s vote, in the past year.
Monday’s distant referendum pledge, publicly branded by SA Unions secretary Joe Szakacs as a “crazy or brave” move from a “tone deaf” leader, has led mutterings to become louder.
Should Mr Weatherill continue to dig his heels in, some are discussing contingency plans. While he looks safe as leader, there is a strong push to roll the nuclear policy.
One plan includes gathering the numbers to call on a special state convention to formally change the party’s platform so it includes a collective repudiation of the nuclear storage industry.
Left sources are confident the faction, including MPs and ministers, would bind against Mr Weatherill on the convention floor.
November 18, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics, South Australia |
Leave a comment
Poor ranking for Australia in climate action index released at Morocco talks http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2016/11/16/poor-ranking-australia-climate-action-index-released-morocco-talksAn international ranking of government actions on climate change has put Australia fifth last out of 58 countries. 16 NOV 2016
Australia’s climate change policies continue to be ranked as very poor in an international comparison of 58 countries.
The latest climate change performance index ranks Australia fifth last – the same rank as last year – in a list of nations responsible for 90 per cent of the world’s carbon emissions.
We’re ahead of Korea, Kazakhstan, Japan and Saudi Arabia but well behind France, Sweden and the UK which topped the index.
The report, released at United Nations climate change talks in Morocco, says Australia improved in the areas of renewable energy and cutting emissions but did worse in energy efficiency. Experts reviewing policies pointed to a wide gap between Australia’s national and state level plans for tackling climate change.
“While the former were rather unambitious and uninspired; the latter managed to some extent to take independent action,” the report states.
Australian Conservation Foundation says the report shows the world is watching as Australia’s carbon pollution rises.
“The government spruiks its climate credentials but Australia remains a laggard on cutting climate pollution,” chief executive Kelly O’Shanassy said.
While the government’s ratification of the Paris agreement was welcome, Ms O’Shanassy said Australia couldn’t meet its commitments under that deal unless it systematically closed coal-fired power plants and replaced them with renewable power.
November 18, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, climate change - global warming, politics international |
Leave a comment
Premier Jay Weatherill’s dazzling announcement of a referendum on the issue today comes without a date, question for the people to rule on or even support to pass enabling legislation.
There will not be a referendum vote at or before the next state election. A weird coalition of Liberals, the Greens and independent Nick Xenophon will see to that.
There is no clear path for rebuilding political consensus needed for the proposal to advance an inch or ever be accepted.
And even within his own party, Mr Weatherill has trouble. The union movement has peeled away and the idea of a referendum could even fail to win support if tested in Labor Caucus.
Mr Weatherill has staked a lot on the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission. …….
While there will be no referendum, nuclear will definitely be on the ballot.
November 18, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics, South Australia |
Leave a comment
Let’s move on.
Perhaps the Premier will now see that this is a non-starter. He could save face, claiming the government was prepared to tackle hard issues in the interest of the State. Unfortunately he seems determined to press ahead. But please, whatever the political outcome, can we stop undermining the honest hard work of the jurors by claiming they were ‘biased’. The jury reached a democratic decision despite attempts to manufacture consent for a cautious ‘go ahead. Was this was solely evidence-based or influenced by lack of trust in the government’s capacity to manage the project and the way the facilitation team managed the jury process? My sense it was a bit of both; but based on evidence and the experience, not just emotion and opinion. Let’s now move on and consider how we might invest the money that would have been needed for this nuclear waste project in creating sustainable jobs in South Australia – manufacturing and installing the technologies needed for low carbon energy future.
One small voice from inside the recent SA Nuclear Citizen’s Jury http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=18669
By Tony Webb , 18 November 2016 Two thirds of the recent South Australian Citizen’s Jury  opposed the idea that South Australia could import, store and dispose of around a third of the world’s highly radioactive Nuclear wastes. Nuclear advocates have responded by suggesting bias in the jury. I’d like to share some of what happened inside the jury based on first hand experience rather than ill-informed opinions from outsiders.
Bias in the jury selection process?
First the claim the jury was ‘biased’. Simply untrue. I was one of 25,000 people randomly selected via Austria Post listings who received an invitation to participate and was one of around 1200 who expressed interest. I was not chosen for the first 50 person jury in June but was one of the 350 selected to participate in the second jury in October.
Was I biased? I freely admit to being an active critic of the nuclear industry for over 40 years. I’ve worked on public and worker-education over risks from radiation exposures in the UK USA Canada and here. Not always popular with anti-nuclear advocates, I’ve also argued that the world needs to find a long term solution to the problem of nuclear wastes. I’d prefer this be done by international agreement as a global-citizen responsibility. I’m sceptical it can be done responsibly as a commercial venture or as a solution to South Australia’s economic woes.
Were others in the jury similarly inclined or approaching it from a predetermined position? Definitely not. The evidence from jurors’ early postings on the ‘Basecamp’ discussion board, and questions in the jury sessions indicated that most if not all approached the task of reviewing the evidence with an open mind; facing up to the challenge of producing reasoned advice to government on whether, and if so under what conditions, to pursue the opportunity outlined in the report of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission. Further evidence of open minds was seen when, at the end of the second weekend, we formed an ‘opinion line’ on our thinking a that stage in the process. A continuous line across the room showed, while some had firmed up their opinion at both ends, most were still undecided.
|
November 18, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Nuclear Citizens Jury |
Leave a comment
17 Nov 16, BHP Billiton’s AGM | Thursday 17th November at 11 am | Brisbane Convention & Exhibition Centre
At th BHP Billiton Limited AGM in Brisbane this Thursday, dissident shareholders will challenge the company’s board over its response to the Samarco tailings dam disaster. The AGM is being held twelve months on from the disastrous collapse of the Fundão mining waste (‘tailings’) dam at the Samarco iron ore mine in Minas Gerais, Brazil, which is 50-50 owned by BHP Billiton and Brazilian mining giant Vale.
“The dam break led to the destruction of all forms of life in the region. Mud covered everything, resulting in 20 deaths and unmeasurable environmental destruction. We have seen whole communities destroyed by BHP Billiton and Vale’s operations. They have lost everything, without receiving any real compensation. Instead of reparations for the victims, what is becoming evident is the blatant corporate capture of our government by transnational companies”, said Rodrigo de Castro Amédée Péret, of the Churches and Mining Network in Latin America who attended the BHP Billiton London AGM.
The collapsed waste dam killed twenty people [1], left 700 people homeless and polluted hundreds of kilometres of the Rio Doce river valley. Following the 5 November, 2015 disaster, MAB (People Affected by Dams), a coalition of local communities impacted by Brazil’s thousands of dam projects, made four key demands of Samarco and parent companies BHP Billiton and Vale [2].
Natalie Lowrey, of Australia’s Mineral Policy Institute, said, “BHP Billiton and its associates at Samarco are ignoring those most affected – the people whose lives and livelihoods have been devastated by last year’s tailings dam collapse. The demands being made by MAB, the social movement of people affected by dams, should be accepted. People want meaningful participation in decision-making about the clean-up and compensation, and for everyone who has been affected to be recognised – the companies shouldn’t be picking and choosing who gets help.”
Representatives of communities impacted by the broken dam disaster reiterated these demands at BHP Billiton’s London AGM on 20 October 2016 [3][4]. They were unsatisfied with the company’s responses. A panel of inquiry was set up to assess the cause of the waste dam collapse without attributing blame, they released a report in August 2016 [5].
Richard Harkinson, of London Mining Network, said, “BHP Billiton appears to be leading on international lobbying for the industry’s ‘learning lessons’ without regulatory change. The panel’s report [6] questioned the efficacy of changes in waste dam design and the sequence of its modifications, and poor management particularly throughout 2011-12, whereby the bases for failure were established through failure and compounded through avoiding good practice.”
On the day of the company’s London AGM, the Brazilian prosecutor’s office charged 26 people for their alleged roles in the disaster, 21 for qualified homicide. This included BHP Billiton and Vale executives on the Samarco board, including a minority who have now left [7]. London Mining Network and the Mineral Policy Institute welcomed this development as a step towards justice [8].
Notes Continue reading →
November 18, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, environment, politics international |
Leave a comment
, Analysis — Daniel Wills, The Advertiser, 
, State Political Editor Daniel Wills, The Advertiser, 
Antinuclear 