End of Kakadu uranium era brings old threats, new challenges and new hope
4 May 16 The Australian Conservation Foundation and the Mineral Policy Institute have today welcomed further moves towards the end of the uranium industry in Kakadu and called for confirmation that no underground mining plans will be pursued ahead of Energy Resources of Australia’s (ERA) annual meeting in Darwin today.
Last week ERA confirmed it had finally formalised a A$100 million credit deal with parent company Rio Tinto to provide extra certainty and capacity around rehabilitation of the Ranger mine site. The credit deal, described by ERA as ‘prudent, appropriate and in the best interests of all shareholders,’ is predicated on no further uranium mining at Ranger.
“ERA no longer mines uranium and soon will no longer process uranium at the troubled Ranger site,” said ACF campaigner Dave Sweeney. “This annual meeting is a good time for the company to accept that the uranium production era is over and it is now time for clean-up and repair. ERA should now formally withdraw its Ranger 3 Deep (R3D) application for underground mining at Ranger and instead focus its full efforts on closure, exit and transition”.
All mining and mineral processing at Ranger is required to end by early January 2021 and ERA is obliged to ensure the comprehensive rehabilitation of the mine site and surrounds.
This rehabilitation is required to be of a very high standard – suitable for the former Ranger mine site to be formally included into the surrounding Kakadu World Heritage region. Environment groups will be inside the Darwin meeting and will ask questions of ERA about the future rehabilitation of the site.
“There are massive challenges facing ERA and Rio Tinto at Ranger and they will be long judged by their efforts in the coming years,” said Mineral Policy Institute legacy mines project coordinator Lauren Mellor.
“Ranger has had a troubled and contested history and there is a clear need to now do business differently and better. Many eyes across Australia and around the world are watching ERA and Rio Tinto and this rehabilitation work is a key test of the company’s credibility and responsibility”.
Environment groups will be continuing their efforts to ensure the highest standard rehabilitation and closure work at Ranger and to support the aspirations of the region’s Mirarr Traditional Owners in the transition to a vibrant post mining regional economy.
New legal case against Adani coal mine now underway
Activists launch fresh court challenge over Carmichael coalmine ‘Australian Conservation Foundation argues emissions from coal mined from Adani’s project
will put the Great Barrier Reef at risk by exacerbating climate change’ Michael Slezak | The Guardian Australia http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/03/activists-launch-fresh-court-challenge-over-carmichael-coalmine 3 May 16:
” … If successful, the case will have ramifications beyond the Carmichael mine or even the Great Barrier Reef. It could have implications for any fossil fuel development, and require the minister to consider the effect of the burned fuel on any world heritage area – like the forests in Tasmania, for example.
“This is the first case of its kind to be heard in Australia,” said O’Shanassy. “The court will be asked to examine a section of Australia’s national environment law that has never before been tested in court. If this case is successful it will strengthen climate change considerations and world heritage protection in Australian law.” The hearing at the federal court in Brisbane is expected to go for two days. Hunt and Adani will be represented.”
Adani Big Coal Case Could Make It Harder To Get Mines Approved ‘A landmark case that could “put a brake on Australia’s fossil fuel exports” kicked off this morning in the Federal Court, in a precedent-setting bid to invalidate Environment Minister Greg Hunt’s approval of the largest coal mine the nation would ever see’ Thom Mitchell | New Matilda https://newmatilda.com/2016/05/03/adani-case-coal-mines-approved/ 3 May 16:
” … Under the United Nations process, the country that burns fossil fuels is responsible for them. Who exported the fossil fuels is considered irrelevant. And that was why Hunt, and all governments to date, largely ignored the damage Australia’s fossil fuels exports do to our environment when making approval
decisions.
The Australian Conservation Foundation is trying to change that. They’re arguing that irrespective of where the coal is burnt, it will have a serious impact on the Reef, and that this impact will be felt irrespective of how the United Nations framework on climate change works. … “
More research needed into climate change – bushfire links
Senate inquiry told of need for more research into bushfire-climate change links May 3, 2016 BLAIR RICHARDS State Political Reporter Mercury CALLS for more research into the links between climate change and bushfires and for greater national firefighting capacity have emerged from a Senate inquiry into the Tasmanian Wilderness fires.
The Senate’s environment and communications reference committee is examining the response to the fires that blazed through more than 20,000ha of the state’s Wilderness World Heritage Area in January and February.
The inquiry has received 24 submissions from stakeholders including scientific and conservation organisations, government agencies and individuals.
Some submissions called for more research into the impact of climate change on fire risk:…….
THE Australian Conservation Foundation said the fires should be a “wake-up call” for Australian governments to act on climate change.
However, the Tasmanian Government’s submission said the forecast outlook for the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area was classified as “normal”.
The Senate committee is due to report by May 30. http://www.themercury.com.au/news/politics/senate-inquiry-told-of-need-for-more-research-into-bushfireclimate-change-links/news-story/4ab57529e85c2a55a9ec82fbd64a2f0e
Liberal and Labor will downplay nuclear waste issues, until the election is safely over
Decision on low-level nuclear waste dump unlikely before year-end and without public support, April 30, 2016, The Advertiser, DANIEL WILLSPARIS, FRANCE, Sunday Mail (SA) A GO-AHEAD for a low-level nuclear waste dump for South Australia will not be granted before the end of the year – and will only proceed if there is public support, Premier Jay Weatherill says.
Speaking to the Sunday Mail during a visit to France to meet the designers of the future submarines, Mr Weatherill said the proposal could only be approved after the final Royal Commission report and the delivery of a State Government response to Parliament.
An array of state laws currently ban both low- and high- level waste facilities, as well as the use of nuclear energy and enrichment of mined uranium……..
“I think it’s a community debate that will begin in earnest after the next federal election,” he said.……http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/decision-on-lowlevel-nuclear-waste-dump-unlikely-before-yearend-and-without-public-support/news-story/4fb4790f8c5d433ddb509b60bec39cdc
The submarine boondoggle- over $2000 per each Australian
4. BUT WAIT THERE’S MORE So we spend $2,000 each. That just gets us the big lumps of steel. If you actually want to use them, you’re paying more. It could be another $2,000 to $4,000 per Australian….
OPTIONS The great thing about the way the acquisition will work is there should be the opportunity to cut back from 12 when the inevitable delays and cost blowouts happen. From here we can’t save the whole $2000 but maybe we can save some, for better uses.
Sub standard: why the $2,000 we are each spending on submarines will probably be a terrible waste http://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/design/sub-standard-why-the-2000-we-are-each-spending-on-submarines-will-probably-be-a-terrible-waste/news-story/6922de6f6a72657c669fdc1a1248916f APRIL 30, 2016, Jason Murphy news.com.au@jasemurphy AUSTRALIA is spending $50 billion to buy submarines. The biggest whack of money we’ve ever spent on a Defence project. It comes out at $2000 per person. And it’s probably a shocking idea. Continue reading
South Australia Aboriginal land again targeted, for probably unnecessary radioactive trash dump
The Flinders Ranges site was nominated by Grant Chapman but he has precious little connection to the land. Conversely, the land has been precious to Adnyamathanha Traditional Owners for millennia. The fact that the government is once again targeting a ‘remote’ Aboriginal site is beyond comprehension and creates a lot of frustration and hurt.
“Adnyamathanha Traditional Owners weren’t consulted about the nomination. Even Traditional Owners who live next to the proposed dump site at Yappala Station weren’t consulted. The proposed dump site is adjacent to the Yappala Indigenous Protected Area.
SA once again targeted for nuclear waste dump, http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=18200, Anica Niepraschk, 2 May 16
Last Friday the government announced its preferred site for a national radioactive waste dump, near Hawker in South Australia’s Flinders Ranges. The site was nominated by former Liberal Senator Grant Chapman, who holds a long-term lease over the Barndioota station, and his nomination has been endorsed by the Liberal government in Canberra.
The latest process to find a dump site follows 20 years of failed attempts trying to force a dump on Aboriginal communities in SA and later the Northern Territory. Continue reading
Liberal coalition plans nuclear submarine fleet so that we can fight China
Coalition plans nuclear-powered submarine fleet over long term. Fin Rev, by Aaron Patrick and Phillip Coorey, 1 MAY 16
Some of Australia’s new submarines could be nuclear-powered by the time they enter service, making them much more potent against the huge Chinese navy.
One of the reasons French ship builder Direction des Constructions Navales Services, also known as DCNS, won the $50 billion contract was its ability to switch easily to a nuclear version of the submarines being designed for the Royal Australian Navy.
That is because the Australian diesel-powered Shortfin Barracuda will be a shorter, lighter version of a nuclear submarine already being manufactured by DCNS in Cherbourg on the English Channel.
Cabinet ministers and defence officials have already discussed the possibility of switching from diesel engines to nuclear power part-way through the construction contract, political, government and industry sources say.
The Coalition wants to keep the option open in case public opposition to nuclear power changes in the future. National polls taken from 2006 to 2009 found between 35 and 50 per cent of Australians supported introducing nuclear power, a study by the National Academies Forum showed.
DCNS, which is majority owned by the French government, is expected to start building the Australian submarines in Adelaide next decade. The last one might not be completed until 2050.
The other bidders for the contract, Germany’s Thyssenkrupp Marine Systems and Japan’s Kawasaki Heavy Industries and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, don’t make nuclear submarines………..
The government, which has been criticised for opting to build the submarines in Australia, said it was not considering switching to a nuclear-powered version………
Another drawback of nuclear reactors is that, unlike diesel motors, they can’t be turned off to make the submarine silent.
Australia’s submarines are unusual. They would be the only conventionally powered ones that used pump jets for propulsion rather than propellers, Stephan Fruehling, a defence expert at the Australian National University’s College of Asia and the Pacific, said.
The Coalition government quietly supports developing a nuclear industry in Australia and on Friday proposed storing radioactive waste on a remote South Australian cattle station.
It has encouraged the South Australian Labor government to push ahead with a debate over storing spent nuclear rods from overseas. Given the submarines will be built in Adelaide and South Australia has some of the largest uranium deposits in the world, the state could one day become the centre of an Australian nuclear industry. http://www.afr.com/business/manufacturing/coalition-plans-nuclearpowered-submarine-fleet-over-long-term-20160429-goieal
Australia’s uncertain politics mean that Renewable Energy Target is in doubt
Renewable energy target in doubt as $10b investment needed The Age, Angela Macdonald-Smith, Energy Reporter , 2 May 16,Fresh doubts have been raised about the country’s ability to meet the 2020 renewable energy target after a new analysis found that $10 billion of extra investment is needed in a market where lenders are wary because of changing regulations.
In research to be released on Monday, BIS Shrapnel has determined it is “highly doubtful” the 2020 target of 33,000 gigawatt-hours of renewable energy output can be achieved given the stalling of investment over the past few years that means a huge catch-up effort is required. It expects the goal may only be reached one or two years late.
Some 4850 megawatts of wind farms and solar power plants need to be installed to meet the deadline, with most expected to be built in NSW, Queensland and Victoria, the research firm found. It calculates that though $340 million of investment has been committed to new projects, another $10 billion is needed.
The findings come as the Clean Energy Council is calling for an increase and extension to the 2020 target as part of a package of measures proposed to end greenhouse emissions from the electricity sector by 2050, as required if climate change is to be limited to less than 2 degrees C.
In a document called Power Shift, also released on Monday, the council proposes measures to ensure the “orderly” closure of heavy-emitting coal plants, which chief executive Kane Thornton said were “more at home in the Eastern Bloc” than in Australia.
“As these plants phase out, Australia can take advantage of our world-class sun, wind, waves and bio-energy that will deliver the lowest-cost form of new electricity generation,” Mr Thornton said. The document says regulated emissions limits or emissions trading could be used to drive plant closures.
On the renewable energy target, which peaks at 2020 and then continues flat until 2030, the council is pushing for an extension of the system to 2035 to provide the certainty required for investment…….http://www.theage.com.au/business/energy/renewable-energy-target-in-doubt-as-10b-investment-needed-20160428-gohsyo.html
New submarines chosen as prelude to nuclear submarines
![]()
Business SA says Future Submarine fleet could include nuclear-powered versions once local atomic industry is established, Adelaide Now April 30, 2016 State political reporter Daniel Wills, Paris, France, Sunday Mail (SA) AUSTRALIA’S future submarine fleet could be transitioned to include a potent mix of both intelligence gathering diesel boats and rapid, fast-moving nuclear-powered vessels once the state develops a sophisticated atomic industry based around storage, Business SA says.
The Federal Government is facing calls from across the strategic policy and business communities, as well as from an outspoken SA Senator, to strongly consider the nuclear option.
Premier Jay Weatherill visited DCNS’ Cherbourg shipyard last on Friday Adelaide time, just hours after SA was chosen as the likely site of a low-level nuclear waste dump and as former governor Kevin Scare puts the finishing touches on a Royal Commission due for release within days.
Business SA chief executive Nigel McBride, who joined the Cherbourg tour to observe the construction of a nuclear Barracuda sub that will become the template for Australia’s diesel fleet, said there was strong national defence reasons for having a mix of the two…..
Mr McBride told the Sunday Mail that building community confidence behind nuclear storage was crucial before the question of expanding the industry into defence capabilities.
“As we’ve gone around Europe and looked at their nuclear cycle, and take into account the likely final recommendations from the Royal Commission in regards to the storage of waste, we will as a nation and state soon come to a decision about if we participate or not,” he said…….
Mr McBride said storage was a “starting point” in a discussion about other applications.
The first future sub is set to hit the water in the early 2030s, about the time when Mr Scarce says the state could have a storage industry up and running if it moved to do so immediately……
“We walked around a facility today which had a significant nuclear threat, nobody even blinked. We walked around and took it for granted that it would be professionally contained,” Mr McBride said……
Senator Day said there was “no escaping” the strategic need for nuclear subs…….
“The winning DCNS bid links SA with a French nation with nuclear subs and nuclear power. This opens up great opportunities for SA to learn how to embrace all facets of the nuclear fuel cycle.”…….
Mr Thomson said diesel subs were valuable in “certain, specific circumstances”.
“But if you had to choose between 12 nuclear or 12 conventional subs, it’s a no-brainer. You’d have the nuclear subs every time…
Australian law currently bars the use of nuclear subs………http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/business-sa-says-future-submarine-fleet-could-include-nuclearpowered-versions-once-local-atomic-industry-is-established/news-story/9ae30cb1933a6119182944f6dbdcf09c
The Adnyamathanha people will not be bribed: they will fight the nuclear waste dump plan
Adnyamathanha to fight federal government’s nuclear dump planned Barndioota location.Transcontinental, Port Augusta,30 Apr 16 ADNYAMATHANHA traditional owners are vowing to fight the federal government’s plans to house a nuclear waste facility Wallerberdina Station near Barndioota in the Flinders Ranges.
The call comes as the site was shortlisted by the federal government as the possible location of Australia’s first facility of its kind on Friday morning
Adnyamathanha Traditional Owner Regina McKenzie, who lives at Yappala Station near the proposed dump site said the Adnyamathanha were not consulted about the nomination.
‘Even Traditional Owners who live next to the proposed dump site at Yappala Station weren’t consulted,” Ms McKenzie said.
“The proposed dump site is adjacent to the Yappala Indigenous Protected Area. On the land with the proposed dump site, we have been working for many years to register heritage sites with the SA government.”
Ms McKenzie said the Arngurla Yarta (spiritual land) holds special significance to her people and the proposed dump site features countless thousands of Aboriginal artifacts.
“Our ancestors are buried there,” Ms McKenzie said.
“The nominated site is a significant women’s site. Throughout the area are registered cultural heritage sites and places of huge importance to our people.”
“We call on the federal government to withdraw the nomination of the site and to show more respect in future. We call on all South Australians − all Australians − to support us in our struggle.
“Adnyamathanha Traditional Owners and Viliwarinha Yura Aboriginal Corporation will fight the proposal for a nuclear waste dump on our land for as long as it takes to stop it.”
Member for Grey MP Rowan Ramsey said the Hawker community would benefit if Barndioota became the site of the low and intermediate nuclear waste repository.
“The open mindedness of the Hawker community on this issue is to be admired and I am very pleased a community in my electorate stands to benefit substantially from this investment. …….
Mr Frydenberg stressed the federal government’s decision was not final. http://www.transcontinental.com.au/story/3879196/adnyamathanha-to-fight-nuclear-dump-plan/
Nuclear inquiry needed for waste dump sites
29 Apr 2016 The Australian Greens have called for an independent, deliberative inquiry into long-term stewardship options for spent nuclear fuel, drawing widely on international experience in light of today’s announcement to use Wallerberdina Station near Barndioota in South Australia’s Flinders Ranges as a proposed dump sitefor WA Scott Ludlam said this should start with the question, what is the safest way to isolate long-lived wastes from people and the environment for tens of thousands of years, rather than where should we dump it?
“Existing spent fuel and reprocessing wastes should be properly containerised in 60-year licenced castors, effectively big bomb-proof lead and steel containers, and remain at Lucas Heights under active care and maintenance,” he said.
The Government must also come clean about what kinds of waste they intend to dump.
“While the Government emphasises that this debate is about low-level medical wastes (gloves and discarded diagnostic equipment), the real debate is about where the spent nuclear fuel from the Lucas Heights research reactor ends up,” he said.
Mr Ludlam said today’s announcement was only happening because community action led by Aboriginal leaders managed to defeat the proposal to dump nuclear waste at Muckaty Station in the Northern Territory.
“Unless the Government wants a repeat of that disaster, it needs to listen to local voices now. Minister Josh Freydenberg and his predecessor Ian MacFarlane said they would not proceed without consent. That consent is clearly missing: the community is saying no, and this must be respected,” he said.
“What we needed was a genuinely deliberative investigation into how to isolate this waste for tens of thousands of years; instead we got this attempt to cut corners and dump it off on an unsuspecting community.”
The Greens have committed to support local Aboriginal people who recently led a tour of the region for Australian Greens representatives.
The Greens also call for: Continue reading
Ocean temperatures on Tasmania’s East Coast are among the fastest-rising in the world
OCEAN temperatures on Tasmania’s East Coast are now among the most rapidly warming in the world, with oyster, salmon, rock lobster and abalone industries feeling the impact.
http://www.themercury.com.au/news/tasmania/ocean-temperatures-on-tasmanias-east-coast-are-among-the-fastestrising-in-the-world/news-story/70e83dcbe51376aa439a53cd2d8d32f7
‘Perilous’: Bureau of Meteorology boss Rob Vertessy exits with climate warning
Australia faces a “perilous” water security future from climate change even as the Turnbull government eyes budget cuts to water programs and CSIRO halves climate investment, Rob Vertessy, the outgoing head of the Bureau of Meteorology, says.
Reservoirs in the Murray-Darling basin are now close to their lowest levels since the Millennium Drought and Tasmania is also facing “serious” issues”, Dr Vertessy told Fairfax Media on Friday, his final day as the bureau’s chief.
Were those French submarines chosen so that t they could later be NUCLEAR submarines?
Why did we agree to pay too much for French submarines? THE AUSTRALIAN
APRIL 29, 2016 Robert Gottliebsen,Business Spectator columnist Melbourne The evidence now mounting shows that the submarine tender is one of the most irregular ever conducted in Australia. Defence officials in the US, Japan and Germany are shocked at what is now being revealed.
Within 24 hours of the tender being announced, both sides are saying different thingsso, as anyone experienced with tenders knows, that means the deal has every prospect of becoming a disaster. (The good, the bad and the ugly of the submarine tender process, Apr 29)
There is mounting evidence that the French do not want to build the first two submarines in Australia. They need to make the first two submarines back home.
In Paris, they were shocked that Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull was so definitivein his statement that all 12 submarines would be built in Australia.
To understand how this bizarre situation developed and the implications that stem from it, we need to go back to the defence white paper which estimated the cost of the 12 submarines at $50bn (we learned later that this is an inflation-adjusted figure).
At the time, the Japanese were mystified because they knew their tender was less than half that and the German “all local” tender was even lower — probably under $20bn…….
Why would you need 4,000 French workers — three times the number of Australian workers required for the German bid — when 12 submarines are to be built in Australia?
The other strange aspect of the submarine tender is that the submarines are not going to be delivered until 2033 or 2034. The Germans were offering to have submarines available around 2028.
But maybe there was something about doing the deal with the French that has not been disclosed. Perhaps a group of defence officials believe longer term that Australia needs nuclear submarines because of their greater range. Given its 15 years before the first submarine arrives, everyone would have forgotten what Malcolm Turnbull said this week. Indeed, he will have retired.
To build a nuclear submarine in Australia requires a change in the legislation, and a nuclear industry, which we don’t have, although the climate is changing and South Australia looks set to become a nuclear hub.
When the tender was first announced, I noted that there might be a nuclear agenda but at that stage I had no idea of the tendering mess (Australia’s defence options open up, April 27).
If it’s a nuclear submarine that Australia wanted, then it would have only been fair the other tenderers know about it and be given an opportunity to include a nuclear option. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/opinion/robert-gottliebsen/why-did-we-agree-to-pay-too-much-for-french-submarines/news-story/9ed179b276d13922c15d767873c6dea2
Adnyamathanha Traditional Owners will fight nuclear waste dump plan
29 Apr 16, The federal government has announced that the Flinders Ranges has been selected as the preferred site for a national nuclear waste dump. The land was nominated by former Liberal Party Senator Grant Chapman and his nomination has been endorsed by the Liberal government in Canberra.
Adnyamathanha Traditional Owner Regina McKenzie, who lives at Yappala Station near the proposed dump site and is a member of Viliwarinha Yura Aboriginal Corporation, said:
“Adnyamathanha Traditional Owners weren’t consulted about the nomination. Even Traditional Owners who live next to the proposed dump site at Yappala Station weren’t consulted. The proposed dump site is adjacent to the Yappala Indigenous Protected Area. On the land with the proposed dump site, we have been working for many years to register heritage sites with the SA government. The area is Adnyamathanha land. It is Arngurla Yarta (spiritual land). The proposed dump site has countless thousands of Aboriginal artifacts. Our ancestors are buried there. The nominated site is a significant women’s site. Throughout the area are registered cultural heritage sites and places of huge importance to our people.
“There are frequent yarta ngurra-ngurrandha (earthquakes and tremors). At least half a dozen times each year, we see and feel the ground move. It is flood land. The water comes from the hills and floods the plains, including the proposed dump site. Sometimes there are massive floods, the last one in 2006.
“We don’t want a nuclear waste dump here on our country and worry that if the waste comes here it will harm our environment and muda (our lore, our creation). We call on the federal government to withdraw the nomination of the site and to show more respect in future. We call on all South Australians − all Australians − to support us in our struggle. Adnyamathanha Traditional Owners and Viliwarinha Yura Aboriginal Corporation will fight the proposal for a nuclear waste dump on our land for as long as it takes to stop it.
“Last year I was awarded the SA Premier’s Natural Resource Management Award in the category of ‘Aboriginal Leadership − Female’ for working to protect land that is now being threatened with a nuclear waste dump. But Premier Jay Weatherill has been silent since the announcement of six short-listed dump sites last year. Now the Flinders Ranges has been chosen as the preferred site and Mr Weatherill must speak up. The Premier can either support us or he can support the federal government’s attack on us by maintaining his silence. He can’t sit on the fence.”
Adnyamathanha Traditional Owner Enice Marsh said:
“Vulnerable communities are suffering from lack of vision from our government and industry ‘leaders’ and should not be the government’s target for toxic waste dumps. This predatory behaviour is unethical and is an abuse of human rights. An Indigenous Protected Area is a Federal Government initiative, but it seems that in the case of Yappala this means nothing to the government. We ask you to honour this commitment to protect, not pollute and damage our land. This facility will cause immeasurable damage to the whole area which is covered with thousands of artefacts, home to people, animals, birds and reptiles. The building of this facility will cause widespread damage. It will scar the area and break the spiritual song-lines like never before in the 60000+ years of human occupation. We don’t want this waste in our country, it’s too toxic and long lived.”
Adnyamathanha Traditional Owner Jillian Marsh said:
“The First Nations people of Australia have been bullied and pushed around, forcibly removed from their families and their country, denied access and the right to care for their own land for over 200 years. Our health and wellbeing compares with third world countries, our people crowd the jails. Nobody wants toxic waste in their back yard, this is true the world over. We stand in solidarity with people across this country and across the globe who want sustainable futures for communities, we will not be moved. We challenge Minister Josh Frydenberg on his claim that this waste is just “gloves, goggles and test tubes” – the intermediate-level waste is much more toxic so why not talk about it? What about the damage to the area that construction of this site will cause? You can’t compensate the loss of people’s ancient culture with a few dollars.”




