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
Burning country not only maintains its health but makes a statement that country is being cared for. The “biggest estate on earth” didn’t happen by chance, rather, through good fire management practises, the land was kept in good order, a bit like housekeeping.
It’s time to invest in Indigenous carbon farming on Aboriginal lands, Guardian, Rowan Foley. 16 Nov 16
Australian businesses can take action on climate change by supporting Indigenous carbon farming while contributing to sustainable development goals.
Here’s a touch of irony in the fact the Australian government has invested $200m in the international Green Climate Fund, a United Nations fund to assist developing countries in adapting to and mitigating the effects of climate change.
There is, however, no equivalent investment fund by the government, or corporate Australia, towards developing sustainable economies on Aboriginal lands through one of those mitigation practices, namely carbon farming.
Investment in a sustainable Aboriginal carbon industry would directly impact climate change, Indigenous poverty and the management of traditional lands and waters. These are all key parts of meeting Australia’s commitment to the sustainable development goals (SDGs), specifically SDG13 (climate action), as well as SDG8 (decent work and economic growth), SDG11 (sustainable cities and communities), SDG14 (life below water) and SDG15 (life on land). Continue reading →
November 18, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
aboriginal issues, AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, climate change - global warming |
Leave a comment
From Jay Weatherill’s Response to Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission Report
“I’m also excited about the many positive commercial opportunities that are on the table for South Australia in nuclear medicine around the SAHMRI cyclotron.”
This IS one positive outcome from this long drawn out process. ra ra http://nuclear.yoursay.sa.gov.au/news/get-to-know-nuclear-discover-discuss-decide-government-delivers-response-to-nuclear-fuel-cycle-royal-commission-report
November 16, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
health, South Australia, technology |
Leave a comment
Ben Heard has achieved Australian and global fame, in his pro nuclear lobbying, and especially in running the website Decarbonise SA. Purporting to be a climate action site, Decarbonise SA has in reality been dedicated to the nuclear industry.
Anyway, Heard is moving on now – to a new front – a supposedly environmental Bright New World, as Heard describes it:
a new environmental NGO born and based here in South Australia with a global outlook and ambition
We are a registered not-for-profit organisation, governed by an independent board, and pursuing tax-deductible gift-recipient status.
It’s all about environment, biodiversity, natural resources – and just one tiny mention of nuclear :
tired of the junk-science approach to nuclear that typifies the environmentalist mainstream.
But he does thank well known nuclear lobbyists Atomic Insights, and The Actinide Age for their help.
And he does mention thee goal of his new organisation:
Our immediate job is to bring forward a strong “Yes” message for proceeding to next steps in investigating a used fuel service in South Australia.
November 16, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, spinbuster |
Leave a comment
16 Nov 16 On Monday, Premier Jay Weatherill announced that the absence of bipartisanship and broad social consent meant that the Government is unable to further progress investigations into a high level international waste disposal facility for South Australia.
Yesterday, the Premier delivered the State Government’s full response to the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission, supporting 9 of 12 recommendations, a copy of the Government’s response is available here: nuclear.yoursay.sa.gov.au
November 16, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics, South Australia |
Leave a comment
Daniel Wills, State Political Editor, The Advertiser November 15, 2016 A THIRD of lower-house Liberal MPs have been ejected from Question Time and Premier Jay Weatherill has shielded four ministers from calls for them to personally back his plans for a nuclear referendum, as a toxic debate over the industry blew up in State Parliament.
Just 24 hours after Mr Weatherill pushed for a dateless referendum on SA approving a nuclear storage industry, he told Parliament the Government would not seek to change existing state legislation, which bans a dump being set up, or advocate any shift in federal laws…….
The Opposition sought to expose Labor divisions, including a union movement in public revolt, by calling on a string of ministers to publicly back Mr Weatherill’s nuclear plan.
Left faction ministers Susan Close and Leon Bignell, as well as the Right’s Stephen Mullighan, yesterday deferred Liberal questions on their personal views about nuclear to Mr Weatherill.
Independent Regional Development Minister Geoff Brock rose to his feet to give an answer to a Liberal question about plans for a nuclear dump, before Mr Weatherill stepped in to take it.
“There is a cabinet decision and all cabinet ministers support it,” Mr Weatherill said.
Opposition treasury spokesman Rob Lucas said Mr Weatherill had “taken the extraordinary step of gagging his ministers” and was desperate to “cover up the deep divisions in the Labor Party”.
Earlier, Speaker Michael Atkinson removed seven of the 21 Liberals in the Lower House, including Mr Marshall and other senior frontbenchers over rowdy interjections.
Mr Weatherill said the Liberals were divided over Mr Marshall’s rejection of the dump and being opportunistic by refusing to entertain further public debate on a potentially lucrative industry…. http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/liberal-mps-ejected-from-sa-parliament-during-debate-over-nuclear-waste-dump/news-story/552eb707f54fef48488b6cc0d4189d14
November 16, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics, South Australia |
Leave a comment
, Analysis — Daniel Wills, The Advertiser, 
, State Political Editor Daniel Wills, The Advertiser, 
Antinuclear 