Will the Citizens’ jury be able to say NO to nuclear waste importing for South Australia?
Just how strictly controlled the process is becomes obvious when it emerges that the task of those 50, during two weekend meetings in June and July, will be to produce ‘a short independent guide to help every South Australian understand the recommendations raised’ by the report.
ABC news dubbed this whole process the Premier’s ‘public relations exercise’, and surely they’re not wrong.
The Premier is urging all South Australians to remain ‘open’ about the proposal. But are they, including the Citizens’ Jury, allowed to be open to refusal?
SA Premier coopts democracy for nuclear nefariousness http://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article.aspx?aeid=48345#.V0eKYTV97Gg Michele Madigan | 25 May 2016
I was trying to think what the invitation reminded me of. It took me a moment, but then I had it: the Project for the New American Century, the neo-conservative think tank and ‘educational’ organisation that went on to play a key role in shaping the foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration.
It’s a different time and different circumstances, but there was something about this invitation — a joint missive from the Premier of South Australia and the newDemocracy Foundation — that seemed to resonate with that ominous American institution; a sense that democratic ideas such as consultation and partnership were being co-opted for nefarious ends. In the address section of the envelope, in beautiful script, the partnership was emphasised: ‘An Invitation from the Premier and the newDemocracy Foundation’.
The gold and black lettered document was an invitation ‘to take part in the Citizens’ Jury of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission’s report’. This Citizens’ Jury will take place now that Royal Commissioner Kevin Scarce has handed down his final report, with the primary extraordinary recommendation that South Australia invite high-level radioactive waste from overseas. Continue reading
Xenophon wants nuclear waste referendum, but only AFTER a dump site is selected
Independent Senator Nick Xenophon might vote against company tax cuts, seeks referendum on nuclear waste dump, The Advertiser May 26, 2016 Political Reporter Peter Jean INDEPENDENT Senator Nick Xenophon wants a referendum to decide whether South Australia should be home to a nuclear waste dump……
After a South Australian Press Club election debate on Thursday, he told The Advertiser that a waste dump referendum should happen once a location was decided.
“The people of SA should have a direct say on it,” he said. If the state referendum passed, it is likely the federal Parliament would pass the legislation needed at that level…..http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/independent-senator-nick-xenophon-might-vote-against-company-tax-cuts-in-senate/news-story/0207bb0fe9c9fd5761d2ab8b474942
Federal Liberal and Labor support nuclear waste import: Xenophon suggests referendum
Xenophon calls for SA nuclear referendum http://www.9news.com.au/national/2016/05/26/15/09/sa-needs-nuclear-referendum-xenophon South Australia should hold a referendum on whether to host a high-level nuclear waste dump, independent senator Nick Xenophon says.The decision to host the dump would have far-reaching consequences, Senator Xenophon told an SA Press Club debate on Thursday.
“If we had a high-level dump it will be around for tens of thousands of years,” he said.
Premier Jay Weatherill has consistently rejected the idea of a referendum, saying the government will instead pursue “qualitative” consultation.
The government will receive feedback from two citizen juries and a bipartisan parliamentary committee.
A decision to host a high-level dump appears likely to be supported at a federal level regardless of who wins the July election.
Education Minister Simon Birmingham said the Turnbull government would change laws to facilitate a dump if the state government wanted to host one.
Labor Senator Penny Wong expressed misgivings about a nuclear dump but praised the state government’s public consultation.
“I share some of the concerns which have been raised in the community about this,” she told the debate.
“I think the process Jay and the government are going through and the way in which they’re approaching it is the right one. That process itself will yield the outcome. It will have community support or it won’t.”
The Greens remained strongly opposed to a nuclear dump, South Australian senator Sarah Hanson-Young said. http://www.9news.com.au/national/2016/05/26/15/09/sa-needs-nuclear-referendum-xenophon#lR58JolbQ0ZlvYfC.996/15/09/sa-needs-nuclear-referendum-xenophon#lR58JolbQ0ZlvYfC.99
Indigenous owners put Minister Frydenberg on the spot about nuclear waste dump
Indigenous owners appeal to Minister’s ‘human side’ to shelve proposed nuclear waste site, ABC News By Alex Mann, 27 May 16
Wallerberdina Station part-owner Grant Chapman did not consult the neighbouring Adnyamathahna community before nominating his land as a nuclear waste site. Opposition to the Federal Government’s proposed nuclear waste facility in the Flinders Ranges is heating up, with traditional owners travelling to meet with Federal Resources Minister Josh Frydenberg to demand the Government shelve its plans.
Traditional owner Regina McKenzie said she hoped travelling the more than 1,000 kilometres to Melbourne would appeal to the Minister’s “human side” and get him to change his mind.
“It’s always, every waste dump is near an Aboriginal community,” she told 7.30.
“Don’t you think that’s a bit confronting for us? When it happens to us all the time?”
Ms McKenzie is also a member of Viliwarina Yura, the corporation that was granted the land neighbouring the proposed waste site in 2000. Now she has teamed up with veteran anti-nuclear campaigner Dave Sweeney to take her message across the country.
Mr Sweeney told 7.30 that as the national anti-nuclear campaigner for the Australian Conservation Foundation, and with more than 20 years experience in nuclear issues, he would use his connections, contacts and ability to amplify the story.
“It just feels disturbingly familiar, and disturbingly like we’re replicating past mistakes,” he said.
Mr Frydenberg declined 7.30’s request for an interview but acknowledged in a statement that “legitimate issues have been raised about the Indigenous heritage in the broader area”. As a result, he said the Government would undertake a “comprehensive and independent heritage assessment and further consult with key stakeholders before any final decisions are made”.
But the traditional owners maintain that nowhere would be acceptable.
Local Indigenous owners not consulted
This is just the latest front in a battle around nuclear waste that has raged for decades…….http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-26/local-indigenous-owners-protest-hawker-nuclear-dump/7449124
Australian govt pressured UN to remove Australian topics from climate report
Australia scrubbed from UN climate change report after government intervention http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/27/australia-scrubbed-from-un-climate-change-report-after-government-intervention#comment-75076075
Exclusive: All mentions of Australia were removed from the final version of a Unesco report on climate change and world heritage sites after the Australian government objected on the grounds it could impact on tourism
Revealed: Guardian Australia has obtained the Unesco report Australia didn’t want the world to see. Read it now Guardian, Michael Slezak, 27 May 16
Every reference to Australia was scrubbed from the final version of a major UN report on climate change after the Australian government intervened, objecting that the information could harm tourism.
Guardian Australia can reveal the report “World Heritage and Tourism in a Changing Climate”, which Unesco jointly published with the United Nations environment program and the Union of Concerned Scientists on Friday, initially had a key chapter on the Great Barrier Reef, as well as small sections on Kakadu and the Tasmanian forests.
But when the Australian Department of Environment saw a draft of the report, it objected, and every mention of Australia was removed by Unesco. Will Steffen, one of the scientific reviewers of the axed section on the reef, said Australia’s move was reminiscent of “the old Soviet Union”.
No sections about any other country were removed from the report. The removals left Australia as the only inhabited continent on the planet with no mentions.
Explaining the decision to object to the report, a spokesperson for the environment department told Guardian Australia: “Recent experience in Australia had shown that negative commentary about the status of world heritage properties impacted on tourism.”
As a result of climate change combined with weather phenomena, the Great Barrier Reef is in the midst of the worst crisis in recorded history. Continue reading
We can ask every candidate about climate policy, and not vote for the polluters
Our democracy has been bought. To win on climate, we have to take it back, Guardian, 26 May 16 Christine Milne “…… In an era of partisanship, these vested interests are bipartisan in providing lucrative post-politics careers. Tony Abbott made this blatantly clear when he said recently he hoped the mining industry would demonstrate their gratitude to Ian Macfarlane in his years of retirement for his magnificent achievement in scrapping the mining tax.
APPEA, the voice of the oil and gas industry, has already appointed former Labor energy minister Martin Ferguson as chair of its advisory board. Interestingly, Ian Macfarlane introduced the generous frontier tax arrangements and royalty payments for oil exploration that Martin Ferguson extended such that BP will be able to claim 150% of drilling costs in the Great Australian Bight. That’s bipartisanship for you.
The fossil fuel industry currently donates millions of dollars to both major parties, and in return secures billions in tax breaks and subsidies – not to mention preferential treatment when applying for mining and gas lease and oil drilling approvals and favourable decisions under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act.
If donations aren’t enough, then hostile advertising is held over prime ministers as a threat. This tactic worked for them in destroying the mining tax and the carbon price and they are banking on it working again in 2016.
But how do they get away with it given the level of community concern about global warming? The concern that continues to grow in the wake of the terrifying fires, extreme droughts, and devastating storm surges people are living through.
How did the fossil fuel industry get away with all their subsidies intact in this year’s budget when hospitals and schools are defunded? This includes keeping their lucrative fuel tax rebate, which is worth $2bn a year while single parents and community legal centres are done over. Why didn’t Labor raise the roof about this and why didn’t they reject utterly the LNP’s billion dollar Arena cut?
Because it is not just the Liberal party that is captured by dirty money. Labor, Liberals and National parties have proven that they are utterly captured by this pervasive and polluting industry, that is rapidly condemning our planet to burn. And they are getting away with it because politicians on both sides of the aisle – with the exception the Greens – are unwilling to stand up to the big miners.
There is an unspoken bipartisan agreement supported by the mainstream media that the continuation of the coal, gas and oil industries is a given and will not be debated. The approval of Adani’s Carmichael mega coal mine still stands……
We can make a choice to stay lukewarm and lose any possibility of keeping warming below dangerous levels or we can ask every candidate for a yes or no answer and not vote for anyone who props up the big polluters and lets dangerous climate change runaway on their watch. It’s the only way to start reforming a broken system. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/26/our-democracy-has-been-bought-to-win-on-climate-we-have-to-take-it-back
Politicians selling out Australian ports to nuclear waste transport
Darwin at Center of Nuclear Waste Controversy The Maritime Executive, By MarEx 2016-05-23 The Maritime Union of Australia (MUA) has said it will fight any plans to allow the world’s spent nuclear fuel rods and radioactive waste to enter Australia through the Port of Darwin.
The MUA is outraged that Northern Territory Chief Minister Adam Giles has offered to accept the waste which would then be transported thousands of kilometers to South Australia.
“Mr Giles is happy to sell out Territorians so that Malcolm Turnbull can use them as a dirty rag for his own personal gain and to benefit his top end of town mates,” MUA Northern Territory branch secretary Thomas Mayor said.
“It’s like putting Homer Simpson in charge of nuclear waste and his big business “Mr Burns” mates are rubbing their hands together. All the while Chief Clancy, aka Natasha Griggs, is none the wiser.”…….
Turnbull has already sold out Australian shipping, says Mayor. “Not only will foreign flagged ships carry the hazardous cargo, but the port that they are taking it to will also be run by foreign interests.”
Mayor said there was no agreement with traditional land owners to use their land……http://www.maritime-executive.com/article/darwin-at-center-of-nuclear-waste-controversy
Australia – free of coal-fired electricity by 2030 – it can be done
How Australia can eliminate coal-fired electricity by 203 0 Canberra Times, May 26 2016 Andrew Blakers Australia has agreed to limit global temperature rise to “well below” 2 degrees Celsius. The replacement of fossil fuels with renewable energy sources will be much easier, quicker and cheaper than many people realise because the technologies required – solar photovoltaics (PV), wind power and pumped hydro energy storage (PHES) – are affordable and are already deployed on a large scale.
PV and wind energy are price competitive with new-build fossil and nuclear power in most parts of the world, and price reductions continue. PV and wind constitute all new electrical generation capacity installed in Australia, and half of new generation capacity installed each year worldwide, more than fossil, nuclear and hydro power combined.
PV and wind are being installed at 20 times the annual rate worldwide of all other non-hydro renewables combined. Other low emission energy technologies will require heroic technical breakthroughs and growth rates to catch up. Continue reading
Greg Hunt “didn’t know” his favoured climate report written by former Liberal candidate
Climate policy report hailed by Greg Hunt written by former Liberal candidate, , May 26, 2016 –Peter Hannam Environment Editor, The Sydney Morning Herald The lead author of a consultants’ report hailed by Environment Minister Greg Hunt as supporting the government’s climate policies is a current member of the Liberal Party and former candidate for the federal seat of Sydney, prompting questions about its independence.
Gordon Weiss is an associate of energy consultancy Energetics and was one of three authors of a report commissioned by the Environment Department exploring how Australia could meet its 2030 carbon emissions targets. The report did not disclose his affiliation.
The report drew criticism from groups such as The Climate Institute for its findings, in particular that Australia could achieve the Abbott-Turnbull government’s goal of cutting 2005-level emissions 26-28 per cent “under the current policy framework”…….
New South Wales lags behind in renewable energy use
NSW last in class on Climate Council report card for renewable energy use
South Australia and the Australian Capital Territory take the green podium for their efforts and policies pushing renewable energy targets, Guardian, Michael Slezak, 26 May 16. New South Wales is the worst Australian state at driving renewable energy, and South Australia and the ACT lead the pack, a report produced by the Climate Council has found.
The results came just weeks after South Australia closed its last coal power station, and the ACT announced a target to source 100% of its energy from renewable sources by 2020.
The report examined state and territory percentages of renewable electricity, the amount of large-scale renewable capacity per capita and the policy settings driving renewables.
NSW was bottom of the class in every category except rooftop solar. But it beat only Tasmania, which receives less solar radiation than any state or territory.
The territories had no comparable data for the percentage of their electricity that came from renewables, so they were scored separately. But the ACT was singled out as a leader for its 100% renewable energy target, which it will achieve using reverse auctions for large-scale renewable energy.
In the middle of the pack were Queensland, Western Australia and Victoria, although Queensland recently overtook South Australia with rooftop solar, now at 29.6% of households.
NSW and Victoria were the only states to have decreased the percentage of their electricity sourced from renewables. Between 2013 and 2014, NSW’s share of renewable energy dropped from 7% to 6% and Victoria’s from 12% to 10%. The Northern Territory was highlighted as lagging, along with NSW, with no specific renewable energy targets or policies and a low uptake of rooftop solar……http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/25/nsw-last-in-class-on-climate-council-report-card-for-renewable-energy-use
Campaign to scrap SA nuclear waste dump plans goes national
Campaign to scrap SA nuclear waste dump plans goes national Stephanie Corsetti reported this story on May 25, 2016 MP3 DOWNLOAD http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2016/s4468848.htm
The group of Adnyamathanha women are from the Flinders Ranges say it’ll be the first time they’ve made their case directly to the Minister, Josh Frydenberg.
As Stephanie Corsetti reports.
Traditional owner Vivianne McKenzie addressed a town hall meeting in the Melbourne suburb of Northcote last night.
VIVIANNE MCKENZIE: This is what you call the genocide once again of Aboriginal people.
On the land, we are only a minority group in this country. They tell us we’re only three per cent, but I’ll tell you what, by the time we finish this campaign to stop this waste dump, we’ll be at 300 per cent in this country.
(Sound of applause)
STEPHANIE CORSETTI: The Federal Government is looking for what it calls a “willing community” to host a national radioactive waste management facility.
Now the McKenzie’s have travelled across the border to Victoria to send their message to the Federal Government.
VIVIANNE MCKENZIE: This is mental and emotional abuse, on the minds of adults, on children, you see the generational abuse on Aboriginal people.
STEPHANIE CORSETTI: Vivianne’s sister is Regina McKenzie.
REGINA MCKENZIE: If we were to go to a Catholic church or the Vatican and ask them to move or say we want to move the Vatican five miles over and put a waste dump there, that’s the same thing.
It’s our belief system.
STEPHANIE CORSETTI: Last month, the Federal Government said it would accept new nominations for the nuclear waste site after narrowing down the list to the South Australian site near Yappala Station.
The Federal Resources Minister Josh Frydenberg has agreed to meet the McKenzies on Thursday in his Melbourne electorate of Kooyong.
Dr Jim Green from Friends of the Earth is calling for a national campaign against the nuclear plans.
JIM GREEN: There’s unanimous opposition from traditional owners, it’s an extraordinarily beautiful part of the iconic Flinders Ranges, and I really wonder why it was chosen in the first place. And I’m sure they were aware of the possibility that it’s not going to go ahead, and that’s why they’ve opened up nominations from other land holders from around Australia.
STEPHANIE CORSETTI: Dave Sweeney from the Australian Conservation Foundation agrees.
DAVE SWEENEY: It’s a test of our maturity to have a debate about a difficult policy issue, and it’s also a test of how we view and relate with the First Nations people of Australia.
STEPHANIE CORSETTI: The Federal Government says it hasn’t made a final decision and consultation with the Indigenous community is an integral part of the process.
Minister Frydenberg says a heritage assessment will be done with the traditional owners to ensure the area is protected.
ELEANOR HALL: Stephanie Corsetti reporting.
Business South Australia’s Nigel McBride touts nuclear waste importing plan
Homer Simpson and nuclear politics as France shows the way for SA, Fin Rev 23 May 16 by Simon Evans Nigel McBride, the chief executive of Business SA, the organisation that oversees the interests of more than 46,000 businesses in South Australia, has just returned from Finland and France, where he researched the nuclear waste industry.
He is convinced there would be no detrimental impact to the image of prime wine regions such as the Barossa Valley, McLaren Vale, Clare Valley and the Coonawarra from having an underground storage facility elsewhere in the state.
“We’re not going to have any overt signs anywhere,” Mr McBride told reporters in Adelaide on Monday………
Mitchell Taylor, the managing director of Taylors Wines, which has operations in the Clare Valley, Adelaide Hills, McLaren Vale and the Coonawarra, said the most sensible thing would be to locate any future nuclear waste storage facility in arid lands hundreds of kilometres away from agricultural land.
“You wouldn’t put it close to agricultural land,” he said…….
From an overseas marketing viewpoint, Mr Taylor said he didn’t think it would have any impact on the image of South Australian wines and premium food, provided the two were kept separate.
“You’ve got to get politics out of it,” he said.
Mr McBride said the regulatory model in Finland was a good benchmark, and there had been too much simplistic criticism of a nuclear industry based on what he termed “The Simpson’s model” taken from the popular cartoon series where a hapless Homer Simpson works at the Springfield nuclear power plant.
A final report by royal commissioner Kevin Scarce in early May recommended the state set up a nuclear waste storage facility to generate $100 billion in profits over the project’s forecast 120-year life, with Mr Weatherill saying he would make a decision by the end of the year after an extensive community consultation process, on whether to proceed. http://www.afr.com/it-pro/homer-simpson-and-nuclear-politics-as-france-shows-the-way-for-sa-20160522-gp1851
More worrying aspects of the Nuclear Royal Commission’s Final Recommendations
There is no existing market to ascertain the price that a customer may be willing to pay for the permanent disposal of used fuel.(CH 5 p 93)
The Commission is very vague on the nature of the public- private partnership that will pay for the capital costs of AS 41$billion (Ch 5 p.100)
The revenue would be paid on delivery of wastes to a South Australian port. That will be after the 20 – 30 years it will take to construct the facility, plus 10 years after the project begins operation.-
“a pre-commitment before project commencement would provide added assurance that capital costs are fully covered before construction began” (But after a commitment 40 years before, a foreign nuclear company could have gone bankrupt” (Ch 5 p. 100 -102) Finland.http://yoursay.sa.gov.au/system/NFCRC_Final_Report_Web.pdf
Worrying financial aspects of the Nuclear Royal Commission Final Recommendations.
It looks as if the customers for the nuclear waste import business could be dodgy Asian and Middle Easter ones, with unstable politics. The Commission does not name any countries as potential customers, but DOES RULE OUT countries that will NOT be – i.e. United States, France, the United Kingdom and Canada, and countries which have national laws that prohibit their export of waste, such as Sweden and Finland.http://yoursay.sa.gov.au/system/NFCRC_Final_Report_Web.pdf CH 5 p.93.
Dr Andrew Allison assesses the FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS of South Australia’s Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission
Andrew Allison 23 May 16 Here is my assessment of “NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE ROYAL COMMISSION – FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS Copied from Pg. 169 of the Commission’s final report, and republished here for the purpose of discussion.
Based on the findings set out in this report, the Commission recommends that the South Australian Government:
1. pursue the simplification of state and federal mining approval requirements for radioactive ores, to deliver a single assessment and approvals process
AA: The devil is in the detail for this one. The word “simplification” could be code for reducing environmental standards, or allowing corporations to avoid the consequences of their actions. I am suspicious.
2. further enhance the integration and public availability of pre-competitive geophysical data in South Australia
AA: It depends who owns the data. If a corporation has collected the data then it is part of the intellectual property of that corporation. It is difficult to see how they could be forced to share it, by a state government. If the data were collected by the state government then one would have to ask why she state government is investing in prospecting for nuclear materials. This is in an era where state governments supposedly cannot operate water utilities, banks, gas companies, public transport etc etc…. Why are they breaking their own laws to prospect for nuclear materials?
3. undertake further geophysical surveys in priority areas, where mineral prospectivity is high and available data is limited
AA: This is a matter for the corporations, subject to regulatory approval.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/…/story-e6frg6n6…
AA: Readers may remember that Marathon resources breached environmental guidelines in The Flinders Ranges in 2012. We cannot allow this. I don’t see why the resources of the state should be spent prospecting on behalf of mining companies.
4. commit to increased, long-term and counter-cyclical investment in programs such as the Plan for Accelerating Exploration (PACE) to encourage and support industry investment in the exploration of greenfield locations
AA: Once again, this is a purely commercial matter. I don’t see why the state government should be investing money in this. There are much more efficient ways of carrying out counter-cyclical Keynesian investment, than exploring for nuclear materials. We could invest in schools, and hospitals and public transport infrastructure, for example.
5. ensure the full costs of decommissioning and remediation with respect to radioactive ore mining projects are secured in advance from miners through associated guarantees
AA: This seems to be very sensible to me. I ask the question: aren’t we already doing this? See the reference to marathon resources, above.
6. remove at the state level, and pursue removal of at the federal level, existing prohibitions on the licensing of further processing activities, to enable commercial development of multilateral facilities as part of nuclear fuel leasing arrangements
AA: In my view, the existing laws are in place to protect public safety and no good case has been made to overturn them. There is currently a glut of Uranium on the world market. The prices are low. To increase the supply of Uranium at this time would only depress the price further and affect the viability of existing producers.
7. promote and actively support commercialisation strategies for the increased and more efficient use of the cyclotron at the South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute (SAHMRI)
AA: The limited and controlled use of nuclear technology in medicine has been shown to be beneficial. I don’t see any logic in expanding the program, unless there is a demonstrated need that is currently not being met in South Australia.
AA: The use of cyclotrons should be carefully regulated, since they can be used to enrich fuel, leading to weapons proliferation:
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Iraq/Calutron.html
8. pursue removal at the federal level of existing prohibitions on nuclear power generation to allow it to contribute to a low-carbon electricity system, if required
AA: It is very doubtful that nuclear energy is “low carbon”, if one considers the entire fuel cycle.
9. promote and collaborate on the development of a comprehensive national energy policy that enables all technologies, including nuclear, to contribute to a reliable, low-carbon electricity network at the lowest possible system cost
AA: Of course, a centralized government energy policy that was oriented towards the needs of the people would be sensible. Unfortunately state governments were in a rush to privatize their energy assets (or to lease out monopolies on a long-term basis) so the control of the system has been relinquished to corporations, for the time being. The Royal Commission has admitted that there is no commercial basis for nuclear power, in Australia, for the foreseeable future.
10. collaborate with the Australian Government to commission expert monitoring and reporting on the commercialisation of new nuclear reactor designs that may offer economic value for nuclear power generation
AA: I will believe in “Generation IV” nuclear power stations when I see one actually operating. In the mean time, we do have to consider the opportunity cost associated with investing Australia’s limited research dollars on a technology that Australia does not even use, and will not use for the foreseeable future.
11. pursue the opportunity to establish used nuclear fuel and intermediate level waste storage and disposal facilities in South Australia consistent with the process and principles outlined in Chapter 10 of this report
AA: I am very curious to know why the Royal Commission is in such a hurry for South Australia to commit to a facility that may not even work, and will not actually hold any nuclear waste for over eighty years. I think that it would be much more prudent for South Australia to watch technological developments elsewhere in the world before committing to such a great an irreversible development as a nuclear waste dump. We should note that no country has yet completely solved the nuclear waste storage problem, not even the former nuclear superpowers, the USA and Russia.
12. remove the legislative constraint in section 13 of the Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000 that would preclude an orderly, detailed and thorough analysis and discussion of the opportunity to establish such facilities in South Australia.”
AA: I argue that this legislation serves an important public safety purpose. A convincing case has not yet been made to remove this important piece of safety legislation. The “economic” analysis of the Royal commission is mostly based on the opinion of one consultant, in the Jacobs report. The assumptions that were made in this report are very generous to the pro-dump case.
1 This month.
Australians deserve the truth
about
AUKUS – https://aukuspublicinquiry.com/
Australians deserve the truth
about AUKUS
PETITION – To: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the Australian Labor Government
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 