Giles Parkinson gives Malcolm Turnbull 5 pieces of good advice
Sweep out the dead wood:………… This includes the likes of climate deniers such as Maurice Newman, Dick Warburton, David Murray and Tony Shepherd, and shake the Cabinet from the grim grasp of the Institute of Public Affairs and its policy wish-list.
Remove the threat to dismantle CEFC, ARENA and the CCA:…..
Find a new environment minister, or tell Greg 
Hunt to stop saying silly things: Greg Hunt likes to tell people how hard it was to push a progressive line in an Abbott government. Many people wondered how hard he tried. Hunt came up with some of the Abbott government’s worst whoppers on climate change, coal, and renewable energy. Turnbull cannot afford to have such rhetoric repeated under his leadership
Eight things Malcolm Turnbull should do on climate, renewables, REneweconomy By Giles Parkinson on 15 September 2015 Malcolm Turnbull’s dramatic replacement of Tony Abbott as prime minister of Australia has raised hopes of a change in direction for the Coalition government, particularly on climate change and renewable energy, and thereby the shape of its economic future……..
Paul Gilding, author and corporate advisor, describes a collective sigh of relief for those arguing for progressive climate and renewable energy policies.
“For climate advocates PM Turnbull is a “Nixon to China” moment,” Gilding said today. “We will never get on track as a country on this issue without genuine bipartisan support – and because of the way Rudd and Abbott made this a Left/Right issue, only the Liberal Party shifting can deliver the change we need.
“That’s why Turnbull’s arrival as PM is a game changer for Australia’s approach, but the impact will be medium to long term rather than sudden policy shifts. While Abbott had to say he supported action on climate policy, everyone knew he was faking it because the politics demanded he do so.
“Turnbull actually supports climate action and has long understood the economic implications of the transition required. And rather than being fearful of those implications he embraces them – seeing the inherent opportunity in a transition away from coal and towards a technology driven transformation of the energy system……..
What will Turnbull do? Over the next few days, weeks, months, we will find out. But here are eight things he could do right now: Continue reading
Uranium deal with India is bad for Australian business
Australia-India nuclear deal http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/2015/09/14/Reader-riposte-Australia-India-nuclear-deal.aspx
Besides its collateral damage to Australia’s security, commercial and diplomatic interests, the soon-to-be ratifiedAustralia-India nuclear cooperation agreement notably fails to meet its objectives.
The aim was to give a green light to Australian uranium exports to India. Two objectives were to be served, one commercial, the other diplomatic. A vast new market was to be opened for Australian uranium exporters and India was to be convinced Australia was a reliable partner, worthy of a closer relationship.
Instead, as has been exposed in the Joint Parliamentary Committee, the Australian side gave away so much in the course of the negotiations on safeguards against nuclear proliferation and left open such loopholes for Australian uranium to end up in bombs or otherwise help their manufacture, that this proposed treaty does not do what Australia’s 23 existing nuclear safeguards treaties do.
Unlike them, it does not give Australian exporters legally watertight guarantees that the trade will be subject to effective controls against misuse of the uranium in ways Australian companies neither want nor could afford. So many deficiencies in the proposed treaty have been exposed it amounts at best, not to a greenlight but to a blinking yellow one. Not ‘all is guaranteed safe’ but ‘proceed carefully at your own peril’. And JSCOT’s main recommendation is a red light: no uranium exports to be permitted for the foreseeable future.
How Australian companies will respond and what risks they will be prepared to take remains to be seen, but no responsible government would have placed them in this situation.
The Indian Government has every reason to feel it too has been dudded. Instead of a reliable supply, there is a big element of precariousness. As for a demonstration of the Australian Government’s trustworthiness as a close partner, the contrary impression is conveyed of a bumbling inability to manage our own end of the deal.
Australia’s history of trying to get nuclear weapons
In 1969, the government announced plans to construct a 500-megawatt nuclear reactor at Jervis Bay in New South Wales. The intention was clear — this reactor was to support a nuclear weapons program.
in 1972, the conservative Gorton government was swept from power and replaced. Gough Whitlam, a longtime advocate of arms control, wasted no time ratifying the NPT and abandoning the Jervis Bay reactor. In a heartbeat, the 40-year quest for Australian nuclear capability was over.
Australia’s Failed Bid for the Bomb, War Is Boring, Chris Walsh, 15 Sept 15 Canberra was captivated by atomic weapons in the 1950s — then ruined its chances of ever getting them
At 9:00 in the morning on Oct. 3, 1952, a 25-kiloton nuclear explosion vaporized the retired British frigate HMS Plym off Australia’s remote western coast. The Operation Hurricane detonation in the Monte Bello Islands was a seminal moment for Britain and marked its return to the club of great powers.
But for Australia, these tests and others served a murkier purpose – as important and deliberate steps toward Australia’s own acquisition of nuclear weapons.
AUDIO: Aboriginal Freedom Summit 2 pushes for Treaty
AUDIO Freedom Summit 2 pushes for Treaty http://caama.com.au/freedom-summit-2-pushes-for-treaty 14/09/2015 Organisers of the three day Freedom Summit held in Alice Springs say they will continue to push Government towards how treaties can be made with Aboriginal and Islander communities across the country.
Grass root Aboriginal leaders including South Australian Narungga Elder Tauto Sansbury came together in Central Australia to discuss and address a range of issues and government policies that continue impact on his people.
Don’t forget the damage from UV radiation, even on cool days
The damages of UV radiation are a daily risk even when you can’t feel the heat of the sun, News Local, Sydney September 12, 2015 IT seems logical to assume that the red hot sunburn we get comes from standing under the hot sun we feel, but it is not quite correct.. Sun damage is a reality that Australians face every day of the year, regardless of how hot the temperature is or how cloudy the sky…….
associate Professor Pablo Fernández-Peñas, who sees the detrimental effects of too much sun exposure.
“We can’t feel UV light and the heat sensation is not related to the amount of UV light,” he said.
“In winter, as days are cooler, people tend to stay longer outdoors.” A 2014 Australian study, “The influence of age and gender in knowledge, behaviours and attitudes towards sun protection”, found the use of sunscreen dropped to between 24 and 49 per cent outside summer.
“When you are just walking from your house to the car or dropping the kids to school, that sun exposure accumulates in the future,” Prof Fernández-Peñas said.
“Australia has the highest mortality of skin cancer in the world.”……..HEALTH EFFECTS OF UV RADIATION
■ Sunburn: can cause permanent and irreversible skin damage that can lay the groundwork for skin cancer
■ Eye damage: photoconjunctivitis, also known as snow blindness or welders flash, and skin cancer of the conjunctiva and skin surrounding the eye
■ Premature ageing: such as skin wrinkling, sagging, blotchiness and roughness …….http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/newslocal/city-east/why-sunscreen-should-be-a-daily-habit/story-fngr8h22-1227522871234
Global investment bank UBS approves Labor’s proposed 50 per cent renewable energy target
Australia’s Energiewende: UBS on why 50% renewable target is good, REneweconomy, By Giles Parkinson on 14 September 2015 Global investment bank UBS has conducted the first in-depth analysis of Labor’s proposed 50 per cent renewable energy target for Australia by 2030, concluding that it will require around $80 billion in investment, but much of this would need to be spent anyway.
In various scenarios outlined in the report, UBS says that up to 20GW of wind energy will need to be built by 2030, and 26GW of solar (both rooftop and large-scale), along with around $10 billion in grid costs. Around $4.8 billion is expected to be spent on battery storage by networks, and nearly $3 billion by households.
But it says this much of this will come from private investment, mostly from listed companies. And much of it needs to be factored in because it would be spent anyway to replace ageing coal and gas plants. And, UBS notes, all polls point to the popularity of renewable energy.
“A big part of the above cost will be incurred in one way or another as most of the thermal fleet in Australia is old and will need replacing.”
The intervention of UBS comes at a critical time, with the Canning by-election ……….
UBS says that the current target aims for around 7GW of wind and 6GW of solar, but it is not working anyway, because the policy certainty is not there – an issue we explore in this story, If wind energy is this cheap, why aren’t wind farms being built?………
Indeed, UBS suggests that a reverse auction process might be the best way to meet a Labor 50 per cent target – the same system adopted with great success in the ACT, and now by Germany and Texas and elsewhere (South Africa, UAE and Brazil also come to mind).
“Renewable energy suppliers and financiers want revenue certainty,” UBS analyst David Leitch writes.
“Thermal suppliers want to be able to plan their future with confidence. We think capacity auctions meet both of these goals.”
How would this work?
Leitch says legislation could set a quantity of renewable capacity to be added to each year. For instance, a 50 per cent by 2030 target requires around 70TWh of new renewables to be delivered over the 13 years from 2018 to 2030. That’s around 5TWh per year…………http://reneweconomy.com.au/2015/australias-energiewende-ubs-on-why-50-renewable-target-is-good-76557
Australia’s Turnbull Liberal government – new style, same content
Eight years ago, I started this website because I felt it necessary, in order to help get rid of Australia’s worst Prime Minster ever – John Howard. Little did I know that before long, Howard would be followed by an even worse Prime Minister than he, in Tony Abbott..
John Howard wanted to take Australia back to the complacent, comfortable, unimaginative 1950s. Still, John Howard brought in gun reform law, that prevented Australia going down the crazy American path of gun terrors. Howard must have saved many lives, in bringing about that law, and he deserves credit.
Tony Abbott aimed to reject every modern trend. For the purposes of this website, Abbott’s denial of climate change, and his support for nuclear power, were reason enough to want to get rid of him as PM.
But in addition to that, PM Abbott was like a punch drunk boxer, wanting to keep on fighting, not just personally, but in promoting militarism -ever ready to take Australia into any war, even ahead of USA asking us to tag along. Abbott – clever, cunning? But not really intelligent.
Thank goodness, new Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull is intelligent, does understand climate change, does want to take Australia into the 21st Century, not back to the 18th. In a way – I wish him well.
BUT – Turnbull is still leading a Liberal-National Coalition government. Let’s not forget who’s backing them, and where they get their funding.
Graph below show the history of mining donations to Liberal and Labor parties:
Malcolm Turnbull would be no better than Abbott on Climate Change
originally published 9 Feb 2015
Coalition needs a heart transplant, not a facelift, The Age, Waleed Aly. 6 Feb 15 The public has been focused on policy and that’s precisely why the Coalition’s in trouble. “…..the government’s in trouble precisely because we have been focussing on policy.
That was true for Labor, whose collapse in public support occurred the moment Kevin Rudd decided he no longer thought climate change mattered that much, and it is perhaps even truer for Abbott…..”http://www.smh.com.au/comment/coalition-needs-a-heart-transplant-not-a-facelift-20150205-136hjx.html
Here’s how Mark Kenny & James Massola saw it, writing in The Age 5 February 15 – “Amid feverish speculation over the leadership, unconfirmed reports also claimed Mr Turnbull had moved to assuage fears in the conservative wing of the party that his return to the leadership would see a reprise of the carbon tax or an emissions trading scheme.
It was claimed Mr Turnbull had promised, in a secret deal, that there would be no such reprise if elected”
Turnbull in climate change shift, West Australian, Andrew Probyn Federal Political Editor February 5, 2015, Malcolm Turnbull would make no change to the Government’s climate change policy in a major concession designed to extinguish lingering doubts about a return to him as Liberal leader….. https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/26199682/turnbull-in-climate-change-shift/
Malcolm Turnbull’s pro nuclear, pro coal, anti renewables policies
Malcolm Turnbull may have a better public profile than Tony Abbott but he is no hero and certainly doesn’t deserve support from outside the Liberal Party…….He fought the price on carbon and towed the party line beyond belief!# He supports coal seam gas mining, uranium mining, coal mining and doesn’t give a rats about Abbott Point or Mega factory ships in our waters or the pollution of our waters in so very 
many ways!
# He doesn’t support renewable energy or renewable industry!…….Just because once upon a time he supported an emissions trading scheme (dumped that idea when Labor actually introduced one thanks to the Greens)
and just because he’s for equal marriage rights and wears a leather jacket does not mean he deserves our support!
Where did the Malcolm Turnbull propaganda come from? He’s very marginally better than Abbott because he presents well but then again, so does the big bad wolf in Little red Riding Hood! http://lisa-green-owen.blogspot.com.au/
Malcolm Turnbull is keen on renewable energy. Would he save the Renewable Energy Target?
originally published in February 2015
Renewables is a different matter. Turnbull is known to be a supporter – as are most Nationals. Turnbull understands that the world is on the cusp of an energy revolution, and that new technologies will not send the economy back to the dark ages. Judging by his response to his Tesla test drive – he thinks it could be rather fun, and exciting.
Supporting a robust renewable energy target, either unchanged from its current level of 41,000GWh, or with minor changes, or delays, as recommended by the Climate Change Authority, would help Turnbull recapture the centre of the policy debate
Would Malcolm Turnbull save the renewable energy target? REneweconomy, By Giles Parkinson on 6 February 2015 As the Coalition government’s energy and environment ministers and their Labor counterparts sit down to resume discussions over the renewable energy target, one question that should overhang the negotiations is this: “What would Malcolm do?”
Tony Abbott’s position is clear: He established a panel of climate deniers and fossil fuel supporters to argue that the RET should be removed completely or slashed by more than half. The latter remains its negotiating position.
But talk of a leadership spill offers the real possibility that Malcolm Turnbull could be the new prime minister as early as next week. As veteran Canberra political writer Michelle Grattan writes, Abbott will either go now, or soon. His leadership is terminal.
What we can assume is that when this happens Turnbull would sweep away the cabal of climate deniers that have installed themselves in and around the PM’s office and dominated the government’s policy making.
This would include Abbott’s main business advisor, Maurice Newman, who was at it again on Friday, writing in The Australian that 2014 was NOT the hottest year on record, and that NASA, NOAA, the World Meteorological Organisation, the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, Japan’s Meteorological Agency, and the UK Met Office were all wrong for thinking so. Why? Because he had read as much on an obscure though notorious climate denier website favoured by the Mad Right.
So, one suspects we can count on Turnbull to sweep a broom through the likes of Newman, Dick Warburton, Tony Shepherd and David Murray – all climate deniers in charge of advising the government on key policy areas.
What Turnbull won’t do is reverse Abbott’s dumping of the carbon price. The Guardian’s Lenore Taylor gives a good explanation of why here. While Turnbull has been a fierce critic of Direct Action, he also believes it can be adapted into a baseline and credit scheme of the type he has long favoured. In effect, it will be a trading scheme without the word tax. Continue reading
#NuclearCommissionSAust – a preliminary analysis of submissions
Companies and individuals who sent in submissions (as published so far at http://nuclearrc.sa.gov.au/submissions/?search=Submissions)
- they bundle people’s submissions together under whatever heading (i.e Issues Paper number) they feel like.
- If separate submissions were sent in, as I did – sending 4 separate, they don’t necessarily all appear, or if they do appear, not under the heading they were intended for.
- While companeis and agencies like ANSTO are listed alphabetically, individuals are listed under their first name, not surname – alphabetically. (makes it hard to find e.g if you looked for Dr Diesendorf)
- It is difficult to work out how many individuals and organisations actually sent in submissions, as many people have put in several. My list below is just of those who sent in submissions, whether they sent in just one submission or several, I have counted each only once.
- Anti -nuclear total 75
- Pro nuclear total 66
- Pro nuclear – something to gain – business, career,and
- Anti nuclear – for the public good
Nuke power too expensive, too inflexible: energy expert
14 Sept 15 Leading energy expert Dr Mark Diesendorf will be in Adelaide today to give evidence before the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission.
“Nuclear power is simply not a practical option for South Australia. It’s hugely expensive compared to the alternatives and its inflexibility, like coal, makes it a poor partner for your state’s high proportion of renewable energy,” said Dr Diesendorf.
“My research shows that South Australia has a real opportunity to get to 100% renewable energy generation before any nuclear power plant could ever be built here,” he said.
The Conservation Council of SA commissioned Dr Diesendorf from the University of NSW to research whether SA could reach 100% renewable energy generation by 20301. His team found that it was feasible and affordable.
“Australia’s National Electricity Market could be operated reliably on 100% commercially available renewable energy technologies”, Dr Diesendorf said. “Such an ecologically sustainable, renewable energy system would be affordable and could create thousands of new jobs in manufacturing and installation.”
Distinguished economist Professor Ross Garnaut told the Royal Commission last week that nuclear power is unlikely to become economically viable in South Australia as the state’s “exceptional” renewable energy sources become cheaper.
Conservation SA chief Craig Wilkins said “As each day passes, the gap between the cost of renewables and the cost of nuclear power grows. Renewables are getting cheaper, while the cost of nuclear power – already massive – rises ever higher.
“Just last week, French nuclear giant Areva conceded that the cost estimate for a new reactor at Flamanville has reached a staggering $16.8 billion – three times the initial estimate.”2
“When we’re already a world leader in renewable power. nuclear power simply doesn’t make sense for our state,” he said.
1www.conservationsa.org.au/images/100_Renewables_for_SA_Report_-_Dr_Mark_Diesendorf_-_web_version.pdf
2 www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Flamanville-EPR-timetable-and-costs-revised-0309154.html
Media Contacts: Dr Mark Diesendorf, University of NSW: 0402 940 892 Craig Wilkins, Conservation SA: 0417 879 439
Joint Standing Committee on Treaties (JSCOT) shows big hurdles in selling uranium to India
Miles to go: exporting uranium to India http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=17665, By M V Ramana – 11 September 2015 Plans to export uranium from Australia to India may have hit their most significant hurdle so far in the form of Report 151 of the federal Parliament’s influential Joint Standing Committee on Treaties (JSCOT). After much deliberation and expert testimony, the Committee has put forward a number of recommendations that India has to abide by before Australian uranium is sold to India. The history of India’s nuclear programme and the country’s stand in various diplomatic fora suggest that there is little chance of India agreeing to these conditions.
The first three recommendations laid out in the JSCOT report are particularly important. The first and second recommendations pertain to India acceding to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and negotiating a fissile material cut-off treaty as well as a nuclear arms limitation treaty for the Indian subcontinent region. The third recommendation is focused on the safety and efficacy of the safeguards and standards of nuclear facilities in India arguing that a series of key checks and balances must be put into practice and proven to work before any uranium sales. If taken seriously, these recommendations will make it all but impossible for the Australian government to sell any uranium to India. Continue reading
Tony Abbott un-moved by Pacific islands plight with rising seas
Tony Abbott faces down Pacific island nations’ calls for tougher action on climate change
ABC Radio AM By Eric Tlozek in Port Moresby, 11 Sept 15 Prime Minister Tony Abbott has held his Government’s line on climate change despite pleas from low-lying Pacific island nations for a stronger stance on emissions and temperature rises.
Both Mr Abbott and New Zealand prime minister John Key refused to go further than their existing commitments on global warming at the Pacific Islands Forum in Port Moresby.
Some Pacific island leaders say they are disappointed in the leaders for putting economic growth ahead of the survival of communities in small Pacific nations.
“Australia and New Zealand have made no additional commitments when it comes to climate change,” Mr Abbott told reporters after the meeting last night……….
Where now for Australia’s Climate Change Authority?
Ignored by the government, shrunk by resignations – where now for Australia’s Climate Change Authority?, https://theconversation.com/ignored-by-the-government-shrunk-by-resignations-where-now-for-australias-climate-change-authority-47366 The Conversation, Clive Hamilton
Professor of Public Ethics, Centre For Applied Philosophy & Public Ethics (CAPPE) at Charles Sturt University September 11, 2015 Bernie Fraser’s resignation as chairman of Australia’s Climate Change Authority has left many wondering what is left of it and what its future might be.
Established three years ago as part of the climate change package negotiated by the previous parliament’s Multi-Party Climate Change Committee, the Authority was formed to serve as the principal source of climate policy advice to the federal government, particularly on the issue of emissions targets. Championed by the then Greens deputy leader Christine Milne, it was modelled closely on Britain’s Committee on Climate Change.
The Authority is legislated to have nine part-time members, including the Chief Scientist ex officio. When the Abbott government was elected two years ago it expressed its intention to abolish the Authority along with the rest of the Labor government’s climate policy architecture. Continue reading
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 