Two Kimba landowners offer their properties for nuclear wastes
TWO fresh sites nominated at Kimba for nuclear waste facility http://www.eyretribune.com.au/story/4442963/two-nuclear-sites-nominated-at-kimba/ 2 Feb 2017 TWO Kimba landowners have nominated their properties to be the site for the federal government’s National Radioactive Waste Management Facility.
The site nominations come after the Working for Kimba’s Future Group invited representatives from the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science to Kimba earlier this year, to assess and revisit the potential for a nuclear waste facility in this district.
Kimba was previously considered as a potential site for a national facility but following community consultation last year, the government chose another site at Barndioota, in the state’s far north, for further investigations.
Federal Minister for Resources, Senator Matt Canavan said no decision had been made as to whether the nominations would be accepted.
The government has always said it remains open to receiving new land nominations, and that each would be assessed on the individual merits of the site,” Mr Canavan said.
“I have asked my department to begin reviewing the new nominations, and advise as to whether either should be progressed further and shortlisted.”
Under the National Radioactive Waste Management Act 2012, a landowner may nominate land to host this facility until a final site is decided upon by the Australian government.
The government has said both new sites will be subject to a comprehensive analysis, including scoring them on measures such as technical suitability, community wellbeing, health, safety and the environment.
“If that is the case, and I progress a nomination, public consultation of no less than 60 days would begin to determine if broad community support exists to take this nomination to a further, second phase of detailed technical review and consultation,” Mr Canavan said.
The second-phase assessment of a nominated site at Barndioota is continuing and includes an Independent Heritage Assessment, site-specific technical studies and detailed public consultation.
Details of the site selection process are available at www.radioactivewaste.gov.au/site-selectionprocess/assessing-site, and details of nomination guidelines and multi-criteria analysis can be found at www.radioactivewaste.gov.au/site-selection-process/nominating-site.
Labor leader Shorten – Renewables will create real jobs
Renewables will create “real jobs”, says Shorten, REneweconomy By Sophie Vorrath on 31 January 2017 Federal Labor leader, Bill Shorten, has taken a swipe at his opposite number in his National Press Club address, noting that a “proper renewable energy policy” would create “real jobs” for Australians.
“There are real jobs, not just jobs for the scientists, but jobs for blue collar workers, jobs for engineers, jobs for designers,” Shorten said in his speech on Tuesday, one day before the Prime Minister is to take the same stage. Shorten, whose NPC address focused on the issue of jobs, has faced heavy criticism from the Turnbull government and the Conservative press for his party’s proposed target of 50 per cent renewable energy by 2030, in contrast with the Coalition’s dialled down target of 23 per cent by 2020.
In its editorial on Tuesday, The Australian Financial Review neatly summed up this point of view by describing Labor’s 50 per cent RET as a “policy joke that will lumber Australians with high power prices and a lack of baseload electricity.”
This argument, however, has been skewered by many independent analysts who warn that a failure to act on climate change and to decarbonise the economy will incur a much greater cost, both economic and environmental.
Shorten, in his speech, made a similar point. “There is a bigger bill to pay if we don’t act on climate change,” he said. “We will hold our ground on climate change. He [Turnbull] is about protecting his job.”……..http://reneweconomy.com.au/renewables-will-create-real-jobs-says-shorten-33254/
Companies must meet RET obligations: regulator
(subscribers only)
http://www.afr.com/news/politics/clean-energy-regulator-hits-back-at-retailers-over-avoiding-ret-20170131-gu23dh
Snowy Hydro turns to solar
Snowy Hydro turns to solar – (subscribers only )
http://www.afr.com/business/energy/electricity/snowy-hydro-backs-200m-solar-venture-in-south-australia-20170130-gu1ylt
South Australia’s Essential Services Commission (ESCoSA) has NOT made electricity provatisarion work
Dennis Matthews , 30 Jan 17 Correspondents to The Advertiser make some useful points about electricity supply (The Advertiser, 30/1/17).
On the issue of the state government being responsible for providing reliable power. A role of privatisation, and outsourcing in general, is to distance governments from such responsibilities. Since electricity privatisation the state government has taken a back seat, being content to blame private providers and the opposition.
However, if the companies that the government put in charge of providing electricity don’t do their job then the government has the responsibility to find someone who can.
It is also important to understand the role of the Essential Services Commission (ESCoSA).
ESCoSA is the successor to the Olsen government’s SAIIR (SA Independent Industry Regulator), whose role was to make privatisation work, which it clearly hasn’t.
Why does South Australian Premier Weatherill keep trying to resurrect the dead nuclear waste import scheme?
Might Asian manufacturers find South Australia an appealing site for their knowledge-intensive, high-paying design and research and development functions, as Blandy suggests? Already, the state has an impressive cluster of high-tech industries, with the associated workforce, technical services and university back-up.
The trouble is that this “cluster” is associated with South Australia’s status as “Australia’s defence hub”. Entry to the cluster is granted delightedly to US and European weapons’ corporations. Chinese firms, however, are kept out.
More fundamentally, inducements for Asian manufacturers to hive off their high-tech functions to countries like Australia have essentially evaporated.
Behind South Australia’s nuclear waste dump scheme: the dilemmas of provincial capitalism, Green Left, RENFREY CLARKE, Adelaide, January 13, 2017
To most South Australians, Labor Premier Jay Weatherill’s plan for a vast outback dump to host imported high-level nuclear waste is dead, needing only a decent send-off.
Nevertheless, the Premier keeps trying to resurrect the scheme. Why? Continue reading
Become aware of the dangers of a radioactive environment and of radioactive food.
Paul Waldon Fight To Stop Nuclear Waste Dump In Flinders Ranges SA 26 Jan 17 With Becquerel Awareness Day (Bad Day) approaching there is a call for people to reach out to their local politician, bring to their attention the dangers of a radioactive environment and food.
We maybe blessed here in Australia with clean and green food but there is contamination coming here from places like Japan, food too radioactive for the Japanese to eat, is sold to 14 different countries, Australia is one of them. Everyone that has a passion and a understanding of how important this issue is to this generation and future generations, PLEASE reach out and have a say to your local politician. I say it’s unacceptable to put contaminated food on the table for my children and grandchildren. I may have the strength to fight this alone but not the power to win, so I asking for a army to reach out to your local MP’s. https://www.facebook.com/groups/344452605899556/
Malcolm Turnbull’s doublespeak on climate change
Australia’s conservative government fiddles on climate policy while the country burns, Guardian, Lenore Taylor, 20 Jan 17 When Malcolm Turnbull deposed Tony Abbott as prime minister, serious action on global warming was hoped for – but almost nothing has changed.
Australia’s January news has been full of official reports of record-breaking extreme weather devastating our ecosystems on land and in the sea and government ministers suggesting we build new coal-fired power stations, provide billion-dollar subsidised loans to rail lines for new coal mega-mines,increase coal exports to reduce temperature rises and reduce our ambitions for renewable power.
The disconnect is glaring but perhaps dimmed in the eyes of some readers because Australian politicians have been dissembling on climate change for decades, pretending it will be possible to do what we must without any impact on our position as the world’s largest coal exporter or our domestic reliance on brown coal-fired power, or without incurring any costs.
The Coalition government – which boasts as one of its proudest achievements the repeal of the former government’s emissions trading scheme – has a particular need for doublespeak.
Having run two election campaigns on the pledge of “axing the tax” with hyperbolic assertions that it would strangle the economy and impoverish households, it found it convenient to claim the discovery of the climate policy equivalent of a free lunch.
The Coalition has never resolved the bitter internal divisions with conservative climate doubters that saw Malcolm Turnbull overthrown as leader in 2009 owing to his support for carbon pricing, to be replaced by Tony Abbott, who had declared the settled science of climate change to be “crap” and believed coal was “good for humanity”.
In September 2015 Turnbull overthrew Abbott but, since then, climate change has barely rated a mention and the new prime minister has surprised many by apparently falling into line with the mineral industry’s argument that our coal exports are really doing the world a big favour.
Trump’s victory has emboldened the doubters – the resources minister, Matt Canavan, for example, enthused that “Donald Trump is good for fossil fuels, good for steel and good for Australia”.
But it has also coincided with more conflicting responses from the government.
Less than a day after the US election, the Turnbull government ratified the Paris agreement – the same agreement the new US president has vowed to “tear up” and that calls for zero net emissions by the second half of the century – describing it was a “watershed … that has galvanised global action”.
With the world recording its third year in a row of record temperatures and the Great Barrier Reef bleaching, any objective assessment would suggest the time for prevarication and obfuscation is long since past.
We’ll soon see. On 1 February, in his first major speech for the year, Turnbull will stand before the National Press Club to explain his policy on energy and the greenhouse gases it produces.
Experts from business, industry and the environment movement are wondering what he can possibly say.
For years the former environment minister had privately reassured stakeholdersthat a 2017 review would quietly morph the Direct Action policy into a so-called emissions intensity trading scheme and business and environment groups alike were clinging to those promises as the last hope for a credible climate policy and an end to the investment drought caused by years of mindless “climate wars” and policy uncertainty.
But late last year, despite advice that such a scheme would lead to lower household power prices, despite having bipartisan support and just hours after the current environment minister said the review would look at it, the government ruled it out…….https://www.theguardian.com/environment/commentisfree/2017/jan/20/australias-conservative-government-fiddles-on-climate-policy-while-the-country-burns
10 things you should know about January 26
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/wgar-news/MPkDWCB3Rvg http://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/article/2017/01/18/10-things-you-should-know-about-january-26
Luke Pearson, Sophie Verass | NITV 20 January 2017:
‘Much more has happened on this date beyond Arthur Phillip claiming Aboriginal land under the British Empire. As January 26 encroaches, we reflect some of the important historical moments.’
“1. You should know that… The First Fleet didn’t actually land in Australia on the 26th of January …
“2. You should know that… The first sanctioned marriage between an Aboriginal person and a convict, Robert & Maria Lock, occurred on the 26th January 1824 …
“3. You should know… What Henry Parkes said about the 1888 Centenary celebrations …
“4. You should know that… A significant Aboriginal protest in 1938 rallied against Australia Day and was called the ‘Day of Mourning’ …
“5. You should know that… In 1938, the 150th Anniversary, Aboriginal people were forced to participate in a reenactment of the landing of the First Fleet …
“6. You should know that… The Aboriginal Tent Embassy was established on the 26th January 1972 …
“7. You should know that… On 26 January 1988, more than 40,000 people staged the largest march in Sydney since the early 1970s Vietnam Moratorium demonstrations …
“8. You should know about… Archie Roach’s 1988 protest song, ‘Keep your handouts, give us back our land” …
“9. You should know that… Australia Day was not consistently celebrated on the 26th of January as a public holiday in all states and territories until 1994 …
“10. You should that… The triple j Hottest 100 wasn’t always on the 26th of January …
“And here’s a bonus bit of info – You should know that…
It wasn’t until 2013 that the Aboriginal flag and the Australian flag were raised together on Sydney Harbour Bridge for Australia Day … “
In uranium market glut, Western Australia govt still approves Yeelirrie mine, against environmental and Aboriginal interests
New uranium mine approved on Aboriginal land
– and other nuclear news by: Diet Simon (Account: Nuclear Worrier) Friday, 20 January 2017: https://linksunten.indymedia.org/en/node/201677
“The Western Australian government has approved plans for a uranium mine at Yeelirrie on Aboriginal land 630 kilometres north-east of the state capital, Perth.
Aborigines have fought the plans as best they could, backed by non-indigenous and foreign activists.
Environmentalists warn the mine would wipe out species unique to the region.
Yeelirrie sits on one of the world’s most significant uranium deposits.
Approval of the mine, to be operated by Canadian mining giant Cameco, came despite a ruling by the government’s own Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) that a mine on the site posed a significant risk of extinction to species not known to exist anywhere else. …
“Anti-nuclear activist Mia Pepper writes that the government argued jobs and economics for its decision.
“Now we know that the project would employ a little over 200 fly-in, fly-out (FIFO) workers, but we also know that the uranium market is flooded and there is no economic justification for this mine to go ahead. … “
Potential of Queensland solar farm- to make this State the energy capital of Australia
Project heralds ’energy capital of Australia’
ONE of Australia’s largest solar farms, with the potential to create 400 local construction jobs, has been approved by a regional Queensland council……. (subscribers only)
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/huge-new-solar-farm-project-will-make-the-western-downs-the-energy-capital-of-australia/news-story/f63f29cbc6ef5a53eda1c3dee073dc3a
Liberal hopeful Sean Edwards at odds with South Australian Liberals over nuclear policy
Nuclear differences between Liberal hopeful Sean Edwards and state party noted, but not an issue ABC News 16 Jan 17 Nuclear power advocate and former Liberal senator Sean Edwards’ possible move into South Australian politics has not created a rift, the state party’s leader Steven Marshall has said. Mr Edwards lost his seat at last year’s federal election after being moved down the Liberal Party’s Senate ticket.
He signalled last week he would meet with party officials about possibly nominating for preselection for the next state election in March 2018 in the regional seat of Frome.
Mr Marshall told ABC Adelaide Mr Edwards was a “good friend” and had made a “great contribution to the people of South Australia in the Federal Parliament”.
“In recent years of course, he has been a strong advocate for nuclear energy here in Australia, more particularly here in South Australia,” Mr Marshall said.
“[His opinion] it differs from the parliamentary party. He’s mainly an advocate for nuclear energy. He sees it as clean and affordable.”
Mr Marshall also said the party had considered the Government’s proposal for a nuclear waste dump and decided it was too great of a risk.
“We believe the economic risk was too to high, we have a much greater ambitions for South Australia than becoming a nuclear waste dump.”
Mr Marshall said there was “no rift” between him and Mr Edwards and the difference of opinion was encouraged in partyroom debate…….. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-16/nuclear-differences-between-edwards-and-marshall/8184546
Tasmania’s Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom speaks out for nuclear weapons ban
http://www.themercury.com.au/news/opinion/talking-point-a-chance-to-create-a-safer-saner-world/news-story/bbe9562122e5dc8edf5d356825efb8f5 LINLEY GRANT, Mercury January 16, 2017 
HERE we are at the beginning of 2017 and I am sure you, like me, would rather be thinking about some of the delightful things that have happened recently, or the easier problems which beset our community and our nation.However, with the changeover in the US Presidency to President-elect Donald Trump occurring on 20th January and the United Nations Conferences on the banning of nuclear weapons beginning in March, it seems important to let our Australian leaders know exactly where we stand on this critical issue.
In last year’s vote at the UN, 123 countries voted for a ban, but our Australian representatives voted against. Why? Who gave them this right? If the Government had conducted a survey, it would have found, once again, that a significant majority of thinking Australians clearly want an end to nuclear weapons with a binding and enforceable treaty, like the UN already has for other terrible weapons. But the Government should not need to conduct a survey.
The majority of Australians are well aware that if used, nuclear weapons can destroy all life on the planet. They have indicated many times previously, that they want an end to nuclear armaments. There is no indication that there has been any change. Those in my networks were amazed and disgusted that the Australian representatives at the UN Conference last year voted against a ban on these weapons.
Perhaps it is time for every one of us who can, to urgently write a letter or send an email to our current Government, or our political representatives, stating that we want a ban and that those who represent us at the coming United Nations Conference should work for a ban, not the reverse.
Some argue that these weapons are needed because other nations have them, will always want them and work to get them. But if these weapons are used, no matter where they are used, millions will lose their lives; and life as we know it in that area of the planet, if not the whole planet will be impossible for centuries. With global warming increasing and with it a significant reduction in arable land for food production, nations cannot afford to keep nuclear weapons. If we consider the continuing problems at and around the Fukushima power station and other places where nuclear ‘accidents’ have occurred, we cannot support the use of nuclear weapons, let alone the upkeep of these weapons which cost billions of dollars which should be available for use in more constructive ways.
Having nuclear weapons does not make any country stronger. That such power should be available to a few men is ridiculous. The sooner the weapons are all got rid of the better.
What would happen if leaflets were dropped over those nations making or storing nuclear weapons towards educating the population on their dangers so that they would demand an end to this stupidity Linley Grant is state president of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom.
Renewable investment hampered by policy void
Renewable investment hampered by policy void (subscribers only)
http://www.afr.com/personal-finance/superannuation-and-smsfs/vision-super-boss-says-climate-policy-uncertainty-not-good-for-investment-20170111-gtpfoz
Loss of Great Barrier Reef will be part of major collapses of ocean ecosystems,
Death of the Great Barrier Reef: One scientist’s planetary tipping point, Independent Australia 12 January 2017 Nearly a quarter of the Great Barrier Reef is dead and there has been no discernible political response, writes Dr Geoff Davies.
THERE WAS no big revelation, just a train of thought. Nearly a quarter of the Great Barrier Reef is dead and there has been no discernible political response. Global temperature is rising off the chart, only glancingly noted in the torrent of chatter. The decades-long trend of ever-more perverse and destructive politics continues. Societies are fragmenting.
For perhaps two decades I have held to the thought that while ever there was a chance of avoiding a planetary tipping point I would continue explaining how we can avoid the worst. Through that time, the path to a healthy, stable world has become clearer and more obvious, demonstrated in a thousand practical, small-scale ways. All that time, the window of opportunity was closing. It is, in my judgement, barely open any more.
Few seem to understand that even if we ceased greenhouse gas emissions tomorrow the world would still warm for two or three decades more. That is about the time marine scientists give for the rest of the Great Barrier Reef to be killed off on present trends. I can’t see how the Reef can survive. Its loss, along with vast stretches of mangroves in our north, kelp forests in the west and rich continental shelf life across the south, will be see major collapses of ocean ecosystems, with unknown consequences for life on this Earth…….https://independentaustralia.net/environment/environment-display/death-of-the-great-barrier-reef-one-scientists-planetary-tipping-point,9917
1 This month
Chernobyl: The Lost Tapes – A good documentary on Chernobyl on SBS available On Demand for the next 3 weeks– https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/tv-program/chernobyl-the-lost-tapes/2352741955560
15 April – Zoom –Nuclear Power is Not the Solution
Apr 15, 2026 01:00 AM in Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney
Join the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) on Tuesday, April 14th for a timely webinar exploring the risks associated with nuclear power and challenging the myth that it offers a simple, safe, carbon-free solution to the climate crisis
21 April Webinar: No Nuclear Weapons in Australia
Start: 2026-04-21 18:00:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
End: 2026-04-21 19:30:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
Event Type: Virtual
A virtual link will be communicated before the event.
Host Contact Info: australia@icanw.org
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 