South Australia held to ransom with privatised electricity distribution
Dennis Matthews , 7 February, 2015 South Australia’s electricity consumers have been held to ransom ever since the Olsen Government privatised the monopoly electricity distribution arm of ETSA and Rob Lucas gave the new owners a guaranteed return on investment. Chief beneficiary of this folly is a billionaire Chinese businessman (The Advertiser, 2/2/15) who must be wishing the whole of Australia was as naive.
It’s time to do a Playford and nationalise monopoly essential services that are holding SA to ransom. Sure, the SA Government might try to do the same as a private owner but there is a big difference. The SA Government is answerable to the consumer every four years and, as shown by the defeat of the Olsen Government and two successive Queensland governments, the public will not stand for such ideologically-driven nonsense.
The sooner we buy back the monopoly electricity distribution system the sooner confidence will return to both public and private consumers.
Tony Abbott completely out of touch: China about to launch a national carbon market
Tony Abbott denies China’s carbon trading plan shows he is out of step, Guardian, ‘More and more countries are going down the direct action path,’ prime minister says of grants aimed at lowering emissions. Oliver Milman @olliemilman 6 FebruaryTony Abbott has denied that China’s plan to launch a national carbon trading market shows he is out of step internationally on climate change, claiming his Direct Action policy is getting “more and more support” in Australia and abroad.
On Wednesday a Chinese government official said a national carbon market was likely to be launched by the middle of next year, along with an emissions cap for six sectors: power generation, metallurgical, nonferrous metal, building materials, chemicals and aviation………Abbott dismissed the suggestion that China’s actions showed the Coalition decision to dump Australia’s carbon pricing scheme in favour of his Direct Action plan ran against the tide of international efforts to reduce emissions…….
China, by comparison, has launched seven regional carbon markets since 2013, with Qingdao, a city of 9 million people, planning to join the scheme. It’ i estimated the pilot carbon markets cover around a third of China’s overall emissions, although the lack of a unified national system has led to variations in each of the markets.
The plan to introduce a national scheme will unify these regional markets, subject to approval by Chinese state authorities. The national market would eclipse the EU’s emissions trading scheme, which is now the world’s largest.
In September China put its name to a list of 73 countries that signalled support for putting a price on carbon. This list includes Germany, France, Britain, South Africa and New Zealand. It also includes US states such as California and Massachusetts, as well as more than 1,000 businesses.
Australia, which was the first country in the world to repeal a carbon price, is now working out its position on emissions cuts beyond 2020. Crunch UN climate talks in Paris this year will set out a new global deal on lowering emissions, with the aim of avoiding more than 2C of warming compared with pre-industrial times.
Analysis conducted by the CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology states that Australia could warm by up to 5.1C by 2100 unless action is taken to curb emissions. This level of warming would have major ramifications for agriculture, human health owing to increased heatwaves, and coastal infrastructure owing to rising sea levels and extreme weather events.http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/06/tony-abbott-denies-chinas-carbon-trading-plan-shows-he-is-out-of-step
Australian Labor Party keen to fight Malcolm Turnbull, but not to save Renewable Energy Target?
Would Malcolm Turnbull save the renewable energy target? REneweconomy, By Giles 
Parkinson on 6 February 2015 “…………What is interesting to note is the response of Labor, who seem petrified by the prospect of Turnbull returning, and stomping over their middle ground. When in power, Labor lost sight of its policy development, and stopped selling its climate package, just so it could try to wedge Turnbull, the then Opposition leader. That worked out badly, for everyone except Tony Abbott and the climate deniers who put him in power.
Now, Labor has tried to wedge Turnbull again, even before he puts up his hand for Liberal Party leadership. This week, environment spokesman Mark Butler issued a press release labeling Turnbull a “fraud” on climate change, including a “best of” list of quotes highlighting Turnbull’s vocal gymnastics as he tried to marry his obvious disdain for Direct Action with his need to follow the party line.
“He might wear a nicer suit, but Malcolm Turnbull is as backwards as Tony Abbott when it comes to action on climate change,” Butler noted.
“This is despite Malcolm Turnbull declaring: ‘I will not lead a party that is not as committed to effective action on climate change as I am’.”
Yes, but getting agreement on the RET – and starting to tap into the $20 billion of investment that is in danger of disappearing overseas would be a good place to start. Labor had the opportunity to lock this issue away in 2012, but refused to take up the CCA’s recommendation that the next review be put off to 2016. http://reneweconomy.com.au/2015/malcolm-turnbull-save-renewable-energy-target-85370
New South Wales Greens propose using mining tax to fund renewables
NSW Greens would use mining tax to fund renewable energy http://www.northernstar.com.au/news/mining-tax-would-fund-renewable-energy/2535116/
The Greens’ latest policy involves taxing mining companies an extra $250 million a year and investing the money into renewable energy and recycling.
The “Renew Regional NSW Fund” would supply $1 billion over four years for energy and water saving projects, waste management, small-scale renewable energy, and agriculture research.
Mr Buckingham alongside local Greens candidates Adam Guise and Tamara Smith were called on to explain why the coal industry would be needed to bankroll the fund. “We don’t want to base our economy on fossil fuels but what we want to do is make sure that as we make a transition out of coal, that the state benefits,” Mr Buckingham explained.
“The state is getting very, very little; the vast majority of profits go overseas, and we want to see those returned to the whole state, not just the mining regions.”
The mining industry contributes about $1 billion a year to the NSW economy, more than 90% from coal.
The Greens would raise this to about $1.25 billion by lifting royalties on the coal industry by 2%, and 1% on all other minerals.
Mr Buckingham said it was about creating an “alternative economic model” so the state’s economy wouldn’t be shocked when coal inevitably ends, also adding the royalty plunder might hasten its decline.
Residential solar PV is on a good wicket, but in Australia large scale renewables need the RET
How power companies, not the carbon tax, kept your electricity prices high
The tax arrangements keeping electricity prices high. This story starts with a tax and the fact that power companies have been allowed to invoice you for it, even though they do not necessarily pay it. It is a story, largely untold, about why power prices are still high despite the axing of the carbon tax – certainly much higher than they were five years ago.
National Party would stop Turnbull from action on Climate Change
Nationals would rein Turnbull’s progressive instincts THE AUSTRALIAN FEBRUARY 06, 2015 Sid Maher National Affairs Editor, Canberra NATIONALS MPs will demand a written guarantee from Malcolm Turnbull that he will not pursue an emissions trading scheme, gay marriage or backtrack on asylum-seeker policy if he topples Tony Abbott to become prime minister.
As Liberal leadership tensions continued, Nationals leader Warren Truss declared yesterday that the Coalition agreement was a pact between the Prime Minister and himself, and a change of leader would require a new agreement.
As Nationals MPs met for the first time this year, in Wodonga in northern Victoria, it emerged that Mr Truss would face backbench pressure to require the moderate Mr Turnbull to provide written assurances on key policies as part of any new agreement if he won the Liberal leadership……..
Some Nationals MPs have privately indicated they would have trouble working with Mr Turnbull, the Communications Minister, if he regained the leadership…..tp://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/nationals-would-rein-turnbulls-progressive-instincts/story-fn59niix-1227209730141
Tasmanian government dumps its proposal to stifle free speech
Explainer: Why the Tasmanian Government abandoned defamation law changes, ABC News 5 Feb 15 By Michael Atkin Tasmania was pushing to become the first state in the country to allow companies to sue people for defamation but recently dumped the proposal, breaking an election promise. Attorney-General Vanessa Goodwin admitted there was zero appetite from other states for the move.
It was the second blow to the Government’s plans to crackdown on forest protesters, a push much heralded in last year’s election campaign.
In the Government’s sights were groups like Markets For Change, Bob Brown Foundation and activists like Miranda Gibson who sat in a tree for a record 457 days……….
the move prompted widespread criticism from lawyers, environmentalists, civil libertarians. Even Australian businesswoman Janet Holmes a Court joined the campaign against the move.
Backlash beyond Tasmanian borders
Peter Bartlett, a partner at Minter Ellison Lawyer, defends some of the country’s top media organisations in court. He said breaking away from Australia’s uniform defamation laws was a retrograde step that could have turned Tasmania into the defamation capital of the country.
“We have a uniform defamation act, it took us nearly 30 years to get the states and territories and the Commonwealth to get a like mind … and they were able to agree to uniformity which meant that one of terms [was] corporations were not allowed to sue,” Mr Bartlett said.
“State and territory borders are largely irrelevant to the media so they would need to self censor because of the risk of a corporation suing them in Tasmania.”
Crikey’s business editor Paddy Manning was sued by the big end of town and he was concerned that if Tasmania proceeded it would happen more often. “It’s already quite difficult to write tough [and] investigative stories about big business in Australia,” he said.
“I think it’s undemocratic. It’s an attack on free speech and it’s not the way we do things in this country.
“Misinformation is actually in the eye of the beholder and business does not need another law reform in its favour that’s going to lead to open slather on journalists just because Tasmania wants to shut down its forestry debate.” http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-05/why-tasmania-backed-down-on-defamation-law-changes/6072170
Queensland voters show that environment matters to Australians
Politicians need to realise that it was never just the economy, stupid. The environment matters to Australians, and they’re prepared to make it known at the ballot box.
It’s the environment, stupid! http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2015/02/05/comment-its-environment-stupid In the fallout of the Queensland election, one thing is clear: Australians don’t just care about their hip pocket. Paul Sinclair In the 1992 US election, Bill Clinton’s Chief Strategist James Carville coined the phrase “it’s the economy, stupid”. The phrase morphed into a form of conventional wisdom; the idea that the economy is the only thing really matters to voters.
But in 2015, this conventional wisdom is myopic. Just as the economy wasn’t the only thing that mattered to voters in 1992, last week’s Queensland election suggests that in 2015, voters are still thinking about wider than simply their hip pocket.
And in this era where all our leading scientific bodies including NASA and Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology are warning us of the tangible and atmosphere altering impacts of climate change – the environment is looming larger than Federal politicians seem able or willing to acknowledge. Continue reading
Friends of the Earth Adelaide: Submission on TOR of ROYAL COMMISSION INTO THE NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
SUBMISSION ON THE TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE ROYAL COMMISSION INTO THE NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
To the Attorney-General Department submissions@agd.sa.gov.au
Friends of the Earth Adelaide urge you to consider the following Terms of Reference to be included for the Royal Commission into nuclear energy.
The Royal Commission will be undermined if it does not include the following Terms of Reference:
1. Balanced and fair representation in the Royal Commission
(a) provision must be made for qualified anti-nuclear people on the royal commission, so all evidence is public; including
(b) funding for anti-nuclear people to make their case (since the industry will be spending lots of money presenting their side).
2. Environmental impacts of uranium mining in South Australia The terms of reference should explicitly look at:
(a) long term worker health and safety (why are no lifelong records of exposure kept);
(b) Roxby’s record of tailings dam collapses/breaches;
(c) damage to underground aquifers and the loss of biodiversity;
(d) net economic subsidy of mining and exploration, as opposed to actual income for the state (rather than big mining companies).
3. Enrichment The Terms of Reference should include any requests from industry for subsidies industry to build and operate any enrichment facilities, as well as power and water requirements, worker health, transport safety and security, and waste management.
4. Nuclear waste The Royal Commission must look widely at nuclear waste management in South Australia, including uranium tailings. The Commission should examine proposals to host international nuclear waste and status of the waste industry globally.
5. Nuclear waste dump
(a) the commission should examine the full cost of maintaining and guarding a waste-dump for 30, 50, 100, 1000 years or more, factoring in real world cost experience of testing potential waste dump sites; (b) South Australia’s legacy contaminated nuclear sites include Maralinga, the Port Pirie Uranium Treatment Complex, and Radium Hill. There are unresolved concerns over the status of these sites in relation to public health and environmental impacts, and the Royal Commission provides an opportunity to finally resolve these issues.
6. Nuclear Power The economic analysis should:
(a) compare cost of nuclear energy to renewable energy, in terms of real world, not theoretical estimates; (b) proper analysis of cost of building a power plant, including the cost of water, electricity etc, versus the returns to the state and taxpayers (not the big companies);
(c) potential cost of an accident during transport or storage, and cost of cleanup;
(d) the record of the global nuclear industry’s optimistic predictions and its failure to live up to those predictions (in relation to issues such us global demand, global capacity, construction costs, facility start-up dates, technological difficulty, and safety);
(e) the reasons for the nuclear industry’s failure to live up to its predictions and the likelihood that that pattern will be repeated in Australia.
7. Climate Change solutions and Renewable Energy The Terms of Reference should include
(a) an analysis of alternative energy sources to address the challenge of climate change, including the potential for growth in renewables and other low carbon technologies; (
b) compare nuclear reprocessing/power generation ( including insurance!) to solar thermal plants; to large solar PV arrays; to building windfarms; to adding storage to the grid;
(c) consider probability of major floods/droughts from climate change displacing assumptions of dry, geological stability, and
(d) the developmental status and economic viability of proposed technologies (in light of past failures to accurately estimate costs and delivery times).
8. Negative impact on other export industries The terms of reference should include a thorough analysis of the opportunity costs of a further embrace of the nuclear cycle, including the impact on our clean and green food and wine reputation, and the tourism and international student markets, particularly if South Australia were to host an international repository for high-level nuclear waste
9. Insurance, financial risk, public liabilities and subsidies; The terms of reference should include:
(a) A comprehensive examination of the potential liability of the SA Government in the case of an incident or accident;
(b) tax-payer subsidies required to support each proposed role in nuclear energy (in light of past failures to accurately estimate costs and delivery times);
(c) risks of transport of radioactive materials, both within Australia and on the high seas.
10. Proliferation of nuclear weapons The terms of reference should address the nuclear proliferation and global and regional security implications of Australian involvement in nuclear fuel cycle activities. Progress in halting proliferation, spread of nuclear technology, terrorist attacks etc should be reviewed.
11. International Geopolitical response The terms of reference should also include likely foreign government reactions to each proposed role in the nuclear energy cycle.
12. Public participation Friends of the Earth Adelaide call upon the royal commission to canvass public attitude to each proposed role in nuclear energy, nationally, regionally, and locally and to ensure an appropriate public participation process is undertaken before any decisions are finalised.
Have climate denialism and the anti renewable energy campaign taken fatal blows in Australian politics?
It will never be clear how much the issue of renewable energy and household solar played in the Queensland election. But with some 400,000 households with rooftop solar, and one-third of these without state-based subsidies, even a moderate impact would have been enough to tip the balance.
But it should not be forgotten that Abbott was installed as leader of the Liberal Party for the sole purpose of rejecting the carbon price, and rolling back environmental and renewable energy policies.
Policy was reduced to those three word slogans and these continued even in government. Australia has embarrassed itself on the national stage, from Abbott’s performance at CHOGM, and then at the G20, to Australia’s no show at Warsaw, its sending of a climate denier chaperone to Lima, and the thumbing of its nose to the global renewable energy industry
Is this the last hurrah for the Far Right in Australia? REneweconomy, By Giles Parkinson on 2 February 2015 The stranglehold of the Far Right over conservative politics in Australia is being broken. The comprehensive repudiation of Campbell Newman tells us that rejecting climate science, trashing renewable energy, and treating the electorate like mugs has no future. Abbott, though, is not listening. Cue Malcolm Turnbull, entering centre stage.
If the Queensland election tells us anything about politics in Australia it is that the stranglehold of the Far Right over the conservative arena in Australia is being broken. Emphatically so.
What we will see at the federal level in coming days, weeks or months – or however long Prime Minister Tony Abbott holds on to his job – may well signal the last hurrah of the Far Right in Australia. Continue reading
By the end of 2015, Broken Hill’s huge solar energy plant will be completed
Broken Hill solar plant on track to complete at end of 2015, change of community engagement approach ABC News By Gavin Coote The company developing the $200 million Broken Hill solar plant says the project is on track to be complete at the end of this year.
The 140 hectare development will be the second largest in Australia, trailing the sister project in Nyngan, and began construction last October.
AGL project manager Adam Mackett said it was set to employ 150 people in the peak phase of construction, and currently 60 per cent of the employees were local……http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-03/broken-hill-solar-plant-on-track-for-completion-by-end-of-2015/6064714
Australian Parliament should scrutinise the unsatisfactory deal on selling uranium to India
India nuclear deal needs serious parliamentary scrutiny, The Interpreter, John Tileman,
Ostensibly about selling uranium to India, the key intent of the treaty is to remove Australia’s implied slight of not according India the same status as a nuclear cooperation partner that we have already accorded the five nuclear weapon states recognised under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
………JSCOT’s scheduling: it has put aside two hours to hear from four non-government witnesses on 9 February, and 45 minutes to hear government witnesses on 11 February.
……………………. we need a policy discussion that builds on the excellent analyses of the safeguards and legal issues raised in the submissions to JSCOT, especially those of the former head of the Australian Safeguards and Non-proliferation Office, John Carlson, and the ANU arms control expert Kalman Robertson.
A starting point would be for JSCOT to understand how Australian agencies came to the conclusion that there is no risk that providing uranium to India will enhance India’s nuclear weapons arsenal. The National Interest Statement does not make that case.
JSCOT could also seek clarification that the public and confidential provisions of the treaty are or will be consistent with those negotiated by our major partners in the uranium trade. The Government presumably has legal advice that the treaty is compatible with existing obligations. But can it assure industry that challenges will not arise?……….
the questions for JSCOT are numerous: just what priority will be given to this dialogue? What resources will be devoted to it? At what level will it be conducted? When is the next round scheduled? How will outcomes be reported? http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/2015/02/03/India-nuclear-deal-needs-serious-parliamentary-scrutiny.aspx?COLLCC=3260990079&
South Australia and ACT are ahead in renewable energy
Hitting the Renewable Energy Target, Robin Mellon Chief Operating Officer, Green Building Council of Australia Souceable, 3 Feb 15 “……..The Climate Council’s recent report, The Australian Renewable Energy Race, finds that those states with a favourable policy environment and with established renewable energy targets winning the renewables race. South Australia, having already met its 2020 renewable energy target of 33 per cent, now sources more than a third of electricity from renewable sources and a quarter of homes have solar PV panels. South Australia has installed more large-scale renewable capacity since 2001 than any other state, and has now set a 50 per cent target.
The report finds the ACT is also “punching above its weight” with a target of 90 per cent renewable energy by 2020, and a feed-in tariff scheme attracting investment in large-scale project Continue reading
Western Australia’s remote Aboriginal communities will not be getting state royalties – Premier Barnett
1 This month.
20 September –National Day of Action in Melbourne on the International Day of Peace
Help Aunty Sue Protect Her Land and Sacred Sites From Destructive Rocket Testing.
.
Australians deserve the truth
about
AUKUS – https://aukuspublicinquiry.com/
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 