Morwell hears from Miss America on nuclear
Intriguing coverage of the Miss America pro-nuclear blitz….
Questions from the floor were not permitted……. Security was tight for the event……… the selected few who did not entirely agree with what was being said quietly walked out.
By LIAM DURKIN, https://latrobevalleyexpress.com.au/news/2025/02/04/morwell-hears-from-miss-america-on-nuclear/
COMMUNITY passion was evident on Sunday night, as locals congregated to hear from international nuclear experts in Morwell.
The Nuclear for Australia roadshow made its way to the Latrobe Valley, with more than 200 people cramming into the function centre of the Italian Australian Club.
The panel discussion was headlined by former Miss America and nuclear engineer Grace Stanke.
Ms Stanke spoke for around half-an-hour, detailing her career and attempting to spell out some misconceptions surrounding a possible nuclear future for the Latrobe Valley.
She was followed by UBH Chief Nuclear Officer, Mark Schneider, speaking on the finer points of nuclear operations, and University of Adelaide Adjunct Nuclear Law Lecturer, Kirsty Braybon on what would need to take place for nuclear to be given the green light at federal level.
Well-known local union delegate Mark Richards (of the Mining Energy Union) also spoke briefly.
The panel then took questions, although these were selected by the emcee through an online system.
Questions from the floor were not permitted.
Nationals MPs Darren Chester and Danny O’Brien were in attendance, as was Latrobe City Mayor, Dale Harriman and deputy mayor, Sharon Gibson.
Security was tight for the event, with tickets and bags checked upon arrival. Tickets were not available at the door.
Crowd behaviour was first rate, and the selected few who did not entirely agree with what was being said quietly walked out. One man did however mutter a few unpleasantries on his way to the exit.
With Ms Stanke and Mr Schneider both hailing from the United States, their speeches focussed greatly on nuclear in their home country. As a result, it was understandable there were some who felt the Morwell event became little more than a Yankee talkfest.
For the majority however, most reported finding the evening informative and insightful.
Full coverage of the seminar will feature in next week’s Express.
Media coverage of Dutton’s nuclear ‘plan’: Scrutiny, stenography or propaganda.
By Victoria Fielding | 28 January 2025, https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/media-coverage-of-duttons-nuclear-plan-scrutiny-stenography-or-propaganda,19
Unsurprisingly, the conservative media has failed to scrutinise Peter Dutton’s nuclear plan, once again displaying bias towards the Coalition, writes Dr Victoria Fielding.
WHEN OPPOSITION LEADER Peter Dutton snuck his dodgy nuclear energy “plan” out just before Christmas, it was an important moment for Australian news media to demonstrate the quality of journalism they produce: scrutiny, stenography or propaganda.
It was also their opportunity to be honest with the public about why Dutton is backing nuclear power, an opportunity they unsurprisingly did not take.
I analysed 37 news reports published by the ABC, The Guardian, News Corp and Nine newspapers on 13 December 2024, the day Dutton released his long-awaited “plan” for nuclear power. I categorised each article as either scrutinising the plan (a useful form of journalism that critically assesses the viability of the nuclear policy), as stenography (just repeating Dutton’s plan without scrutiny), or as propaganda (news presented to look like news but what is actually a form of political advocacy, aiming to persuade readers to support Dutton’s nuclear plan).
Here are the results.
In what will not be surprising to anyone, propagandistic content made up the majority of News Corp’s 20 articles about Dutton’s nuclear plan, with 14 out of 20 enthusiastically supporting nuclear power as a viable energy solution for Australia.
One notable example of this propagandistic approach by News Corp was in The Australian’s editorial on the subject which clearly gave away the views of the masthead.
‘…the Opposition Leader has taken an important and brave step, setting out the economics of the issue in a context relevant to concerns about living costs, especially power bills… Frontier’s modelling shows that the Coalition’s plan, incorporating nuclear and renewables, would cost $331 billion across 25 years, 44 per cent less than Labor’s renewables approach.’
Just like much of News Corp’s propagandistic content advocating for right-wing policies and politicians, the implied suggestion that nuclear is cheaper than renewables is manipulatively deceiving.
According to Climate Council reports using CSIRO’s analysis:
‘…the cost of electricity generated from nuclear reactors by 2040 would be about $145-$238 per MWh, compared to $22-$53 for solar, and $45-$78 for wind. So that’s at least twice as much for nuclear, or up to ten times as much when comparing with the lowest-cost solar.’
Dutton and his News Corp collaborators never let facts get in the way of manipulating voters.
Next, we have stenography. Stenography is the laziest form of journalism. Rather than doing the difficult work of analysis and being a watchdog to ensure only credible information is relayed to voters, stenographers just repeat what a politician has said, uncritically.
This has the effect of allowing manipulative politicians like Dutton to put information in the public domain which is false and/or misleading. Stenography is actually the opposite of what of journalism is meant to be.
Nine’s newspapers published six articles which just lazily repeated Dutton’s nonsensical nuclear plan, giving it undue credibility and failing to adequately scrutinise it.
For example, Phillip Coorey in the Australian Financial Review authored a piece originally titled ‘New costings signal war over energy’, which starts with the sentence:
‘The Coalition’s nuclear power plan will cost up to $263 billion less than Labor’s renewable rollout between now and 2050, translating into cheaper electricity over the long run, its long-awaited economic modelling purports.’
Coorey would no doubt claim that he is not responsible for any manipulative or misleading content he has included in his article, because he is just reporting what Dutton said. But that is exactly the problem with stenography. Although it is not as bad as News Corp’s overt propagandist style, it still gives Dutton a platform to mislead the newspaper’s audience.
The only useful form of journalism out of the three categories is scrutiny. Indeed, the whole point of political journalism is to scrutinise politicians and policies to ensure voters are not misled and have useful information in which to make an informed decision when voting. All four outlets included at least some articles with extensive scrutiny of Dutton’s nuclear plan. News Corp had five and Nine published three.
The ABC (four articles) and The Guardian (three) were the only two outlets to only present Dutton’s nuclear policy alongside critical analysis.
One shining example of scrutiny from The Guardian’s Graham Readfearn and Josh Butler’s explainer, titled ‘The glaring gaps and unanswered questions in the Coalition’s nuclear plan and costings’, methodically lays out the facts and problems with Dutton’s plans — including the true higher cost comparison with renewables and the huge amount of time it would take nuclear to come online.
The ABC and The Guardian’s useful critique of Dutton’s plan is exactly the information that voters need to accurately appraise whether Dutton’s nuclear policy is beneficial to them and their community. No doubt News Corp and Nine would claim that this scrutiny just shows the ABC and The Guardian are “left wing”, but it shows no such thing. The ABC and The Guardian are doing a public service in scrutinising a major policy announcement and providing factual analysis comparing the real costs of nuclear and renewable energy.
If a left-wing party announced a different energy policy, they would do exactly the same thing. It is called public interest journalism.
Unfortunately, however, this is not the end of the story. There was one major element of Dutton’s nuclear policy which was only included in one of the 37 news reports I analysed — the motive behind Dutton’s nuclear push. This was included in The Guardian’s Readfearn and Butler explainer, albeit only in two after-thought quotes at the end of the piece.
Under the sub-title ‘How have critics responded?’ The Greens’ Adam Bandt was reported to have said “the nuclear strategy relied on extending the life of fossil fuels”. The Australia Institute’s Rod Campbell similarly said the nuclear plan was a “distraction to prolong fossil fuel use and exports”.
Disappointingly, no articles overtly pointed out to the public that the whole point of Dutton’s nuclear policy was to undermine investment in renewable energy, unsettling the transition to a low carbon economy, to slow down efforts to address climate change, all in aid of fossil fuel and mining billionaires. This exclusion is not just a small part of the story of Dutton’s nuclear policy, it is the story.
This truth, unfortunately, is the story journalists collectively have failed to tell.
The legal decision on the Murdoch media – what does it mean for us?
NOEL WAUCHOPE, DEC 13, 2024, https://theaimn.com/the-legal-decision-on-the-murdoch-media-what-does-it-mean-for-us/
There is nothing either good or bad, but only thinking makes it so.
Shakespeare’s profound idea applies to that recent legal case, about the Murdoch Family Trust, in the Probate Court in Nevada.
The 93 year-old Rupert Murdoch sought to change the existing “irrevocable trust” which is to govern the arrangements of his media empire, after his death. The issue was that the trust should be in “the best interests” of the Murdoch children.
Rupert Murdoch argued that after his death, his children would benefit best if control of his media empire were to be changed from the existing trust arrangement which gives control to four of his children – Lachlan, Elizabeth, James and Prudence. Murdoch wanted that changed to control by only eldest son Lachlan. The other three disagreed, and took the case to court.
Rupert Murdoch’s given reason was that the whole media enterprise would thus be more profitable, – so all four children would get more money. That way, Elizabeth, James, and Prudence would not have control, but would be richer, and this would be “in their best interest”. Under the present unchanged “irrevocable” trust arrangement, they would share the control with Lachlan, but they would be less rich.
Many commentators are arguing that Rupert Murdoch’s real goal is power and influence – so that is why he wanted the very right-wing Lachlan to be in charge of the media show. Perhaps this is true.
The case was heard in a secret court, but the core of Rupert Murdoch’s argument was that the children’s monetary gain was in their best interest, rather than them having any control of the media and its content.
Apparently the three did not think so, and neither did Commissioner Edmund J Gorman, who ruled in the children’s favour, concluding that Murdoch and his son Lachlan, had acted in “bad faith”, in a “carefully crafted charade”.
Lachlan shares the same right-wing views as his father does, even more so,- while Elizabeth, James and Prudence are reported as having more moderate views. Murdoch has controlling interests in Fox News and News Corp , the Wall Street Journal, in the UK the Times and the Sun, the Australian and others. Apparently it is assumed by all, that the media empire will continue its current record profits only under Lachlan’s leadership. In 2023–24 the Fox Corporation’s net income was US$1.5 billion (A$2.35 billion).
This case raises the question – what is the purpose of the news media ?
According to the Murdoch argument, the purpose is to enrich the owners of the media. That would include all the shareholders, too, I guess. The means by which this is done is to provide entertainment and information to the public. And this is central to Rupert Murdoch’s stated argument.
Some people, including many journalists, and perhaps the Murdoch children, might see the informational role of the news media as its main purpose, with excessive profitability as a secondary concern.
Apparently Elizabeth, James and Prudence preferred to have some control in the media empire, even if that meant less money for them. They thought that “having a say” in the business was in their best interest. It is possible that they might take some pride in news journalism that would be more accurate and balanced than the Murdoch media is now.
Only thinking makes it so
The best example of “Murdoch media thinking” -is in its coverage of climate change. For decades, the Murdoch view was pretty much climate denialism – climate concern seen as a “cult of the elite” and the “effects of global warming have so far proved largely benign”. But more recently, this view was moderated, towards concern that some action should be taken to limit global warming – coinciding with the new right-wing push for nuclear power as the solution to climate change.
In the USA, Murdoch media has a powerful influence, supported by the big corporations, and the right wing in general, and by the Trump publicity machine, but it does have some competition from other right wing outlets like Breitbart and the Daily Wire, and in talk radio, and blogs. It has lost some influence in the UK, following its phone hacking scandal in 2011.
That Murdoch interpretation contradicts the view of thousands of scientists, yet is welcomed by the fossil fuel industries, the nuclear industry, and the right-wing governments that they support. Similarly, the Murdoch media’s view on international politics generally favours military action that the USA supports – on Ukraine’s side, by Israel, and now in Syria. All this is seen to be good – by the USA weapons manufacturers and salesmen, US and UK politicians, and presumably by the public.
In the USA, Murdoch media has a powerful influence, supported by the big corporations, and the right wing in general, and by the Trump publicity machine, but it does have some competition from other right wing outlets like Breitbart and the Daily Wire, and in talk radio, and blogs. It has lost some influence in the UK, following its phone hacking scandal in 2011.
In Australia, Murdoch media is far more pervasive, and has been described as a virtual monopoly – with the only national newspaper, newspapers in each state, (often the only newspaper), and News Corp controls radio and television in Australia through a number of assets.
So – what now, after this remarkable probate court decision?
Commissioner Gorman’s recommendation could still be rejected by a district judge. Murdoch’s lawyers can appeal the decision. Even if the decision is finally upheld, it will be a complicated process to rearrange the control of the media in the event of Rupert Murdoch’s death – and that might not happen for a decade or more. News Corp has a dual-class share structure which gives the family 41% of company votes, despite having just 14% of an overall stake in the company. Shareholders might change this arrangement.
In the meantime – fertile ground for endless speculation on what it all might mean – for the share price, for the future direction of the media, for the Murdoch family relationships.
Only thinking makes it so
Some see this legal decision as such a blow to the Murdoch empire – leading to its fatal collapse. And that thought can be viewed as a bad outcome. Even if Rupert Murdoch overturns the decision on appeal, it might have dealt a big blow to the empire.
Some welcome it, visualising a change in direction, with a more progressive media, directed by the three siblings with their more moderate opinions. For Australians who don’t like Donald Trump, and fear a Peter Dutton election win in 2025, well, it really doesn’t matter much. For the foreseeable future, the political right wing is still hanging on to its grip on news and information across this continent, thanks to the Murdoch empire.
The 101 ways Google serves up Australians to known scammers
Using the world’s biggest search platform to find information on scams can deliver victims straight into the arms of criminals.
The Age, ByAisha Dow and Charlotte Grieve, November 18, 2024
oogle searches are delivering Australians into the arms of fraudsters, as websites and advertisements belonging to scammers are prominently served up to users on the world’s most popular search engine.
In some instances, Google searches provide some scam victims false reassurance that they are investing in legitimate companies.
Once they’ve lost their money, scam victims searching for help on Google are then being shown ads that direct them to a new set of criminals, known as recovery scammers, who claim they can retrieve people’s lost money for a fee, but instead disappear with the cash.
The findings are part of a months-long investigation into how investment scammers use some of the world’s biggest tech companies to find victims.
This masthead found that Google presents scam sites to users, even after those scams were the subject of explicit government warnings.
One example is the scam platform Bitcoin Evolution, which was blacklisted by the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority in 2020. In March, Australian authorities placed it on an investor alert list, declaring it “not to be trusted”.
But this month, when this masthead used Google to search for Bitcoin Evolution, the first result that came up was not an official notification, but two Bitcoin Evolution scam websites.
Registering a phone number with one of the websites resulted in a near-immediate call from a scammer. Invest just $300 and make daily profits of 10 to 15 per cent, the fraudster promised.
Fleeced of $700,000
Based on a Google search alone, it can be difficult for Australians to tell if potential investment companies are real or a scam. Results are sometimes muddied by the presence of scam platforms, fake reviews and fake news articles or blogs promoting scams.
Fleeced of $700,000
Based on a Google search alone, it can be difficult for Australians to tell if potential investment companies are real or a scam. Results are sometimes muddied by the presence of scam platforms, fake reviews and fake news articles or blogs promoting scams.
Swav, a Melbourne man who didn’t want to use his last name for privacy reasons, was connected to overseas criminals through an advertisement that appeared on his Facebook feed in spring 2020.
Although he didn’t realise it at the time, the celebrities who appeared in the ad providing endorsements were fakes, computer-modified replicas of the famous person.
This masthead revealed on Saturday that Meta, owner of Facebook, takes money for these “celeb-bait” scam ads, despite the ads promoting notorious fraudulent investment platforms and coming from accounts that were clearly not legitimate investment companies.
Swav was just one day into the con, and had only handed over $1500, when he noticed a contradiction in the scammer’s sales pitch. It piqued his suspicion, and when he hung up, he began doing a bit more research.
“I started to search intensively about this company to verify if they are legit,” he recalled. “I searched on Google … but most of the reviews were positive.”
Over the following nine months, the fraudster from a platform called StocksCM stole close to $700,000 from him.
This masthead tested Google results based on searches for 100 entities recently added to the Australian Securities and Investment Commission’s (ASIC) investor alert list.
The list includes the names of known scam platforms and businesses targeting Australian consumers without holding the appropriate licences.
It showed that Google was failing to block websites for even these publicised rorts.
In the first page of results, Google returned 101 links to websites for platforms using the same names as the blacklisted entities.
The search results also featured 10 Google ads directly promoting scam brands named in ASIC’s warning list.
Google was accepting money to run ads for the Immediate Connect, Immediate Edge and Immediate Vortex scam platforms, all on ASIC’s alert list.
Ten out of the top 14 Google results that appeared in a search for “Immediate Connect” were likely scam platforms, including the top four results, which were all sponsored links for the scam…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Simon Smith, a cybersecurity expert with Scam Assist, said many of his clients who had lost their savings were originally connected to scammers by Google ads, including through fraudulent AI auto-trading platforms.
He said the public had high levels of trust in Google, and many assumed that the results served up first would be most relevant to them.
“The fact that you can pay your money to have a scam ad is just, in itself, unbelievable,” he said…………………. more https://www.theage.com.au/business/consumer-affairs/the-101-ways-google-serves-up-australians-to-known-scammers-20241113-p5kqew.html
Nuked: The Submarine Fiasco that Sank Australia’s Sovereignty, book by Murray Horton
Global Peace and Justice Aotearoa, 12 Nov 24, Reprinted from Covert Action Magazine
Andrew Fowler’s book Nuked: The Submarine Fiasco That Sank Australia’s Sovereignty (Melbourne University Press, 2024) was not written by a member of the peace movement. That is both a strength and a weakness. A strength, because Andrew Fowler is an award-winning investigative journalist, who has worked in mainstream Australian current affairs TV. So, it can’t be dismissed as “anti-American, anti-military” propaganda.
But it is a weakness because the author never questions the basic tenet of the book’s subject—why does Australia need any submarines at all, regardless of whether they are conventionally powered or nuclear powered. The book’s focus is a forensic analysis of who won the highly lucrative battle to supply Australia’s new subs—it was all set up to be France but then, after hidden, sub-surface maneuvering worthy of one of the book’s subjects, Australia and the U.S. torpedoed the French and did a deal among themselves.
This book is about AUKUS (Australia, UK, U.S.), the new kid on the “Indo-Pacific” block—although it should be pointed out that the UK is an awfully long way away from either the Indo or the Pacific. It is an attempt to build a new Western military alliance, initially between those three countries but with the prospect of other countries (including New Zealand) joining the ill-defined AUKUS Pillar Two at some unspecified time in the future. But let’s not get ahead of ourselves. The book is about the birth of AUKUS, which is all about submarines.
AUKUS
I’ve written about AUKUS previously in Covert ActionMagazine, so I refer you to that for the back story. In 2016 Australia signed a $A50 billion contract for France to build it 12 state of the art conventionally powered submarines for the Australian Navy. It was the largest defence contact in the history of both France and Australia. The right-wing Liberal Party was in Government in Australia, headed by Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
The book names names—the man who fronted the deception and betrayal of France was Scott Morrison, who replaced Turnbull as the Liberal Prime Minister in 2018, in an internal Party coup (a common occurrence in Australian politics). Behind the scenes, the key man was Andrew Shearer, “a vehemently pro-American China hawk” who went on to become Director-General of National Intelligence. Right up until just before AUKUS was announced in 2021, Morrison’s government continued to assure France that it was proceeding with the contract to buy French submarines.
Dumping France For the U.S.
Instead of 12 diesel-powered French subs, Australia signed up to have the U.S. and UK build eight nuclear-powered (but not nuclear-armed) subs for its Navy. The cost is astronomical—up to $A368 billion by 2055. Yes, that’s right—those eight subs will not be ready for more than 30 years. The first of them is unlikely to be ready until the 2040s so, to fill that gap, Australia will buy three existing U.S. subs from the early 2030s, at a cost of up to $A58b, with an option to buy two more. This is a staggering amount to spend on one military project from a country with a population of just under 27 million people.
“(AUKUS) was a clear victory for Washington, which had been concerned for some time that France had a different view on how to deal with the rise of China… There was barely a murmur of opposition from the media. Morrison had pulled off a major achievement of what U.S. public intellectual Noam Chomsky describes as the political art of ‘manufacturing consent’…”.
“How did it happen that the bulk of analysis and criticism of the submarine deal came from two former Prime Ministers, Paul Keating (Labor) and Malcolm Turnbull (Liberal) who, though on opposing sides of politics, were united in warning that the submarine deal stripped away Australia’s sovereignty……………………………..
Australia Expected To Fight Alongside U.S. In War With China
There is only the feeblest pretense that these nuclear submarines (still decades away from reality) will be used to defend Australia. Their role will be to patrol close to the Chinese coast, to hem in the Chinese Navy and, in the event of war, to attack China with cruise missiles. That’s the theory, anyway. The advantage of their being nuclear-powered is that they don’t have to return to port to refuel. U.S. hawks expect Australia to fight on its side in any war with China over Taiwan………………………………………………………………………………………..
Integration With U.S. Military
There is a lot more to the U.S.-Australia military relationship than some exorbitantly expensive nuclear submarines that may or may not ever materialise. There is the top-secret Central Intelligence Agency/National Security Agency Pine Gap spy base near Alice Springs, in central Australia, which is crucial to the global warfighting abilities of the U.S. There is the North West Cape facility on the westernmost point of mainland Australia, which the US Navy uses to communicate with its nuclear attack subs. There is Australia’s increasing involvement with the U.S. military and intelligence satellite programme, in preparation for war in space.
“Australia’s integration with the U.S. military was, of course, well underway before the AUKUS agreement. As already noted, Pine Gap and North West Cape are part of this. But there is also the basing of thousands of U.S. Marines in Darwin (northern coast), the stationing of nuclear-capable B-52s at Tindal (Australian Air Force base, northern Australia), and the stationing of U.S. military throughout the Australian Defence Force, including from the National Reconnaissance Office at the military headquarters in Canberra… Though Defence Minister Richard Marles has ruled out automatic support of the United States in any war over Taiwan, it is difficult to see how Australia won’t be involved. Pine Gap, Tindal, North West Cape and Perth (Western Australia’s biggest city) will all be integral to the battle.”
Change Of Government; No Change Of Foreign Policy
Scott Morrison’s Liberal government was voted out at the 2022 Australian election and was replaced by Anthony Albanese’s Labor Party. But Australia’s commitment to AUKUS remained unchanged………………………………………………………………………………
“Nuked” specifically attributes Labor’s fervent desire not to be seen as “anti-American” to the events of 1975, when the Central Intelligence Agency and its local collaborators, succeeded in getting Gough Whitlam’s Labor government overthrown in a bloodless coup. The U.S. covert state was particularly concerned about Whitlam’s revelations about its Pine Gap spy base and possible threats to close it. Jeremy Kuzmarov has recently written about this in CovertAction Magazine (15/11/23), so I refer you to that.
For half a century the Australian Labor Party has lived in fear of the same thing happening again, and has bent over backwards to prove its loyalty to the U.S.
………The consequences of the fear that drove the ALP leadership to embrace AUKUS with barely a second thought will haunt them for years to come. Just as Morrison was only too willing to trade Australian’s independence for the chance to win an election, so too was Labor. Now it is left to make work a deeply flawed scheme that, more than ever before, ties Australia’s future to whoever is in the White House.”
Jobs For The Boys
And what has happened to Scott Morrison, who retired from politics in 2024? “Along with Trump’s former CIA Director, Mike Pompeo, Morrison became a strategic adviser to U.S. asset management firm DYNE Maritime, which launched a $157 U.S. million fund to invest in technologies related to AUKUS. ………
“Morrison also became Vice-Chair of American Global Strategies (AGS), headed by former Trump National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien. AGS, stacked with former Pentagon, White House and State Department officials, boasts that it ‘assists clients as they navigate U.S. government processes,’ a useful addition to any company wanting to boost profits in the burgeoning area of military spending.”
New Zealand & AUKUS
…………………………………………………………………………… There are plenty of similarities between Australia and New Zealand but also significant differences. Whereas Australian governments of either party fall over themselves to loyally serve the U.S. empire, New Zealand has been nuclear free by law since the 1980s (and it was an Australian Labor government, on behalf of the U.S., which tried to pressure New Zealand to drop the policy. That pressure backfired).
……………………………………………………………….But there is a constant push to get New Zealand further entangled in the U.S. war machine, including Pillar Two of AUKUS (which has been, thus far, only identified as involving “advanced military technology”). New Zealand currently has a very pro-American Government, which is already a non-member “partner” of NATO and which is eager to serve the U.S……………………………………..
Not All New Zealand Politicians Lining Up To Grovel To Uncle Sam.
For a refreshing contrast, here’s an extract from a recent (2/10/24) press statement from Te Pāti Māori, the indigenous party, which has six Members of Parliament (out of 123). “Meanwhile the New Zealand Government is in talks with the United States about joining AUKUS to further support their war efforts. This represents the next phase of global colonisation, and it is being negotiated behind closed doors,” Co-Leader Rawiri Waititi said.
“The U.S. wants to use Aotearoa as a Pacific spy base. This could mean the end of our longstanding nuclear free policy to allow their war ships into our waters. AUKUS threatens our sovereignty as an independent nation, and the Mana Motuhake of every nation in the Pacific. It threatens to drag Aotearoa into World War 3,” said Waititi.
“The New Zealand government is putting everyone in Aotearoa at risk through their complicity. They must end all talks about joining AUKUS immediately. They must sanction Israel and cut ties with all countries who are committing and aiding war crimes,” said Co-Leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer………………………………. more https://gpja.org.nz/2024/11/12/nuked-the-submarine-fiasco-that-sank-australias-sovereignty-by-murray-horton/
Finally Free, Assange Receives a Measure of Justice From the Council of Europe
In the U.S., “the concept of state secrets is used to shield executive officials from criminal prosecution for crimes such as kidnapping and torture, or to prevent victims from claiming damages,” the resolution notes. But “the responsibility of State agents for war crimes or serious human rights violations, such as assassinations, enforced disappearances, torture or abductions, does not constitute a secret that must be protected.”
In his first public statement since his release, Assange said, “I’m free today … because I pled guilty to journalism.”
By Marjorie Cohn , Truthout, October 4, 2024
he Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), Europe’s foremost human rights body, overwhelmingly adopted a resolution on October 2 formally declaring WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange a political prisoner. The Council of Europe, which represents 64 nations, expressed deep concern at the harsh treatment suffered by Assange, which has had a “chilling effect” on journalists and whistleblowers around the world.
In the resolution, PACE notes that many of the leaked files WikiLeaks published “provide credible evidence of war crimes, human rights abuses, and government misconduct.” The revelations also “confirmed the existence of secret prisons, kidnappings and illegal transfers of prisoners by the United States on European soil.”
According to the terms of a plea deal with the U.S. Department of Justice, Assange pled guilty on June 25 to one count of conspiracy to obtain documents, writings and notes connected with the national defense under the U.S. Espionage Act. Without the deal, he was facing 175 years in prison for 18 charges in an indictment filed by the Trump administration and pursued by the Biden administration, stemming from WikiLeaks’ publication of evidence of war crimes committed by the U.S. in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay. After his plea, Assange was released from custody with credit for the five years he had spent in London’s maximum-security Belmarsh Prison.
The day before PACE passed its resolution, Assange delivered a powerful testimony to the Council of Europe’s Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. This was his first public statement since his release from custody four months ago, after 14 years in confinement – nine in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London and five in Belmarsh. “Freedom of expression and all that flows from it is at a dark crossroads,” Assange told the parliamentarians.
A “Chilling Effect and a Climate of Self-Censorship”
The resolution says that “the disproportionately harsh charges” the U.S. filed against Assange under the Espionage Act, “which expose him to a risk of de facto life imprisonment,” together with his conviction “for — what was essentially — the gathering and publication of information,” justify classifying him as a political prisoner, under the definition set forth in a PACE resolution from 2012 defining the term. Assange’s five-year incarceration in Belmarsh Prison was “disproportionate to the alleged offence.”
Noting that Assange is “the first publisher to be prosecuted under [the Espionage Act] for leaking classified information obtained from a whistleblower,” the resolution expresses concern about the “chilling effect and a climate of self-censorship for all journalists, editors and others who raise the alarm on issues that are essential to the functioning of democratic societies.” The resolution also notes that “information gathering is an essential preparatory step in journalism” which is protected by the right to freedom of expression guaranteed by the European Court of Human Rights.
The resolution cites the conclusion of Nils Melzer, UN Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, that Assange had been exposed to “increasingly severe forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the cumulative effects of which can only be described as psychological torture.”
Condemning “transnational repression,” PACE was “alarmed by reports that the CIA was discreetly monitoring Mr. Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy in London and that it was allegedly planning to poison or even assassinate him on British soil.” The CIA has raised the “state secrets” privilege in a civil lawsuit filed by two attorneys and two journalists over that illegal surveillance.
In the U.S., “the concept of state secrets is used to shield executive officials from criminal prosecution for crimes such as kidnapping and torture, or to prevent victims from claiming damages,” the resolution notes. But “the responsibility of State agents for war crimes or serious human rights violations, such as assassinations, enforced disappearances, torture or abductions, does not constitute a secret that must be protected.”
Moreover, the resolution expresses deep concern that, according to publicly available evidence, no one has been held to account for the war crimes and human rights violations committed by U.S. state agents and decries the “culture of impunity.”
The resolution says there is no evidence anyone has been harmed by WikiLeaks’ publications and “regrets that despite Mr Assange’s disclosure of thousands of confirmed — previously unreported — deaths by U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, he has been the one accused of endangering lives.”
Assange’s Testimony
The testimony Assange provided to the committee was poignant. “I eventually chose freedom over realizable justice … Justice for me is now precluded,” Assange testified. “I am not free today because the system worked. I am free today after years of incarceration because I pled guilty to journalism.” He added, “I pled guilty to seeking information from a source. I pled guilty to obtaining information from a source. And I pled guilty to informing the public what that information was.” His source was whistleblower Chelsea Manning, who provided the documents and reports to WikiLeaks. “Journalism is not a crime,” Assange said. “It is a pillar of a free and informed society.”………………………………………………………………………………
PACE Urges US to Investigate War Crimes
The resolution calls on the U.S., the U.K., the member and observer States of the Council of Europe, and media outlets to take actions to address its concerns.
It calls on the U.S., an observer State, to reform the Espionage Act of 1917 to exclude from its operation journalists, editors and whistleblowers who disclose classified information with the aim of informing the public of serious crimes, such as torture or murder. In order to obtain a conviction for violation of the Act, the government should be required to prove a malicious intent to harm national security. It also calls on the U.S. to investigate the allegations of war crimes and other human rights violations exposed by Assange and Wikileaks.
PACE called on the U.K. to review its extradition laws to exclude extradition for political offenses, as well as conduct an independent review of the conditions of Assange’s treatment while at Belmarsh, to see if it constituted torture, or inhuman or degrading treatment.
In addition, the resolution urges the States of the Council of Europe to further improve their protections for whistleblowers, and to adopt strict guidelines to prevent governments from classifying documents as defense secrets when not warranted.
Finally, the resolution urges media outlets to establish rigorous protocols for handling and verifying classified information, to ensure responsible reporting and avoid any risk to national security and the safety of informants and sources.
Although PACE doesn’t have the authority to make laws, it can urge the States of the Council of Europe to take action. Since Assange never had the opportunity to litigate the denial of his right to freedom of expression, the resolution of the Council of Europe is particularly significant as he seeks a pardon from U.S. President Joe Biden. https://truthout.org/articles/finally-free-assange-receives-a-measure-of-justice-from-the-council-of-europe/
Australia’s mining lobby is running a pro-nuclear campaign using Liberal Party-linked ad firm
Topham Guerin, best known for its role in helping global conservative political campaigns and a number of other controversial clients, has been enlisted to promote nuclear energy in Australia.
Crikey, Cam Wilson, Oct 03, 2024
Australia’s mining industry has launched a pro-nuclear influence campaign powered by the digital advertising firm credited for its role in Scott Morrison and Boris Johnson’s surprise election victories.
At the end of August, the Get Clear on Nuclear campaign kicked off with the creation of social media posts and advertisements run on platforms on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and YouTube; as well as its own website.
The campaign, which urges “Australia to rethink nuclear as part of our sustainable future”, is only identified on its website as being backed by the Mineral Councils of Australia at the bottom of its terms and conditions page.
Get Clear on Nuclear’s social media accounts feature a political authorisation mentioning the council, too. (Although its social media advertisements on Meta’s platforms have not been tagged as content about social, political or election issues, limiting the amount of information that be seen about them).
A review of the website’s registration reveals the involvement of Topham Guerin, a New Zealand-founded advertising agency best known for its involvement with Australia’s Liberal Party and the UK’s Conservative Party’s election victories in 2019.
The website itself is registered to Topham Guerin Pty Ltd and its registrant is the firm’s global tech director Andrew Macfarlane…………………….
The firm has attracted controversy for its reported involvement in running a “large-scale professional disinformation network on behalf of paying clients including major polluters, the Saudi Arabian government, anti-cycling groups and various foreign political campaigns”, as well as its efforts to pay influencers to attack a critic of one of its clients, Palantir.
While playing down its links to conservative politics, the firm has promoted its ability to shift elections through social media strategy. In 2019, Guerin spoke about how its harnessing of “boomer memes” helped Morrison’s come-from-behind victory over Bill Shorten.
This meme-savviness can be seen in its content for the Mineral Council of Australia campaign. Its TikTok account posts videos of parodies of the popular video game Fortnite and faked text messages purportedly sent to the account’s “girlfriend”, all promoting nuclear energy.
Minerals Council of Australia CEO Tania Constable did not answer Crikey’s questions, instead giving a general statement about the campaign.
“This campaign, entirely apolitical, is about educating and informing Australians about the unique benefits and advantages of nuclear energy, dispelling myths and misconceptions that are being used to denigrate an energy source that the developed world has long embraced,” she said.
Topham Guerin did not respond to a request for comment. https://www.crikey.com.au/2024/10/03/minerals-council-nuclear-campaign-scott-morrison/
Peter Dutton is about to talk nuclear at CEDA. Will he be fact checked by Chris Uhlmann?
Dutton and his team have not come close to explaining how it will dance around rooftop solar, or how rooftop solar will be forced to dance around nuclear. Will Dutton tell solar households that their PV will be switched off in the middle of the day to accommodate his energy ideology?
Giles Parkinson, Sep 19, 2024
Federal energy minister Chris Bowen calls it the great distraction. Virtually everyone in the electricity market calls it a nonsense, but Opposition leader Peter Dutton’s efforts to put the nuclear debate on centre stage appears to be gaining traction.
On Monday, Dutton takes his nuclear campaign, complete with obvious untruths and exaggerations, to the august environment of the Committee For Economic Development of Australia. The event, on Monday, is titled “A nuclear powered Australia – could it work?
CEDA was established in 1960 to “better understand and interrogate public policy” and says it remains independent and not restricted by vested interests or political persuasion. It should, in that case, be the perfect place for Dutton’s nuclear claims to be fact-checked.
Dutton has so far revealed little about his nuclear policy, apart from a vague plan to build reactors, both large-scale and the yet-to-be-commercialised small modular reactors (SMRs) at seven sites across the country where coal fired power stations have or still do operate.
The premise, according to the Coalition, is simple. Just build them and plug them in where there is an existing grid connection, and Australians will be protected from the lights going out and the economy being sent back to the dark ages, something it insists will be the result of Labor’s renewable energy roadmap.
It’s not clear how much more Dutton will tell CEDA about the details of the nuclear plan. He has insisted that the first reactors could be up and running and producing power by 2035 – a fanciful idea according to the regulators and other experts who point out that the late 2040s might be closer to the mark.
Dutton insists that nuclear is essential for the net zero target. It might be for other countries, particularly those with inferior solar resources and a well-established nuclear industry, but for Australia that claim is a nonsense.
The clear intention of the Coalition to slow, even stop, the rollout of new wind, solar and battery storage projects, extend the life of ageing coal generators and invest heavily in new gas – all of which will blow Australia’s emissions budget over the coming decades. It is difficult to think of a worse idea if climate change is the motivation.
Dutton has been regularly fact-checked on a number of other claims both here, and on the Guardian – less so, if not at all, in the rest of mainstream media and on radio and TV, where the claims are often broadcast. It hasn’t deterred him.
It includes the claim that Labor is looking to build 28,000 km of transmission lines to support its green energy transition. Not true. it has only targeted little more than 5,000kms.
The 28,000 km is a target under the most optimistic green energy scenario – it was developed by the Australian Energy Market Operator in its modelling under the previous Coalition government, and has changed little since then.
Dutton claims that nuclear is cheaper than wind, solar and storage. Again, not true and not by a long shot, according to recognised and respected Australian and international experts – all of whom have come under fierce attack by the Coalition and its attack dogs on social media.
It includes the claim that nuclear leads to lower power bills for consumers. But that only happens when the nuclear power is heavily subsidised, as it is in France, and when consumers are protected from market forces.
Ontario is often cited by the Coalition as having cheaper electricity prices than Australia, but they forget to tell you Ontario’s electricity prices are significantly higher than other Canadian provinces, thanks to nuclear.
Australia’s bills are weighed down by the cost of networks, servicing a population nearly twice the size of Ontario in a land are more than seven times bigger.
Dutton’s claim that nuclear can be plugged in to existing power grids without the need for upgrades is also nonsense. Most of those sites already have replacement capacity – Port Augusta and Collie in particular, and the site owners at Liddell, Mt Piper and Loy Yang have their own plans that definitely do not include nuclear.
The Coalition and their choristers also insist that nuclear somehow requires no additional back-up. That would be a miracle. All forms of generation require back up to ensure the lights stay on in case of an unexpected outage, or planned and long term maintenance.
Nuclear is no exception – it was the cause of massive amounts of pumped hydro being built around the world, in France, the Americas and China – and the size of its units at large scale mean additional measures are needed should the units go offline, even if the cause is as mundane as a tree falling across power lines.
Dutton insists that nuclear is attractive because it is “baseload” and “always on.” But modern grids demand flexibility, and none more so than Australia where – because of its excellent solar resources, the falling cost of PV and the high retail prices – more rooftop solar has been installed per capita than anywhere else in the world.
That rooftop PV is already causing problems for the existing “baseload” generators – coal and gas: It destroys their business models, and is technically challenging. The economics of nuclear relies more than any other on being “always on”.
Dutton and his team have not come close to explaining how it will dance around rooftop solar, or how rooftop solar will be forced to dance around nuclear. Will Dutton tell solar households that their PV will be switched off in the middle of the day to accommodate his energy ideology?
Dutton’s event will be compered by Chris Uhlmann, the former ABC political editor who became an instant “expert” in grids and renewables when he seized on the South Australia state-blackout and blamed it all on wind energy, even though multiple reports from regulators and energy experts have shown that not to be the case.
Will Uhlmann fact-check Dutton in the way that CEDA might expect? Uhlmann has spent much of his time since joining Sky News and The Australian earlier this year attacking the same targets as the Coalition – the IPCC, climate science itself, emissions targets, and the transition away from fossil fuels.
One of his more egregious pieces was an attack last month on a research report “Fossil Fuels are a Health Hazard” that was put together by the Doctors for the Environment Australia. Uhlmann’s piece in the Weekend Australian was titled “Fossil fuel bans are hazardous to our health”.
It included claims by Uhlmann that products such as panadol and soap depend on fossil fuels. Nonsense, the doctors wrote in response: These products might source fossil fuels now, but they don’t need to. No, we can’t stop using fossil fuels overnight, but we can phase them out very quickly.
The promotion of nuclear and fossil fuels, and attacks and the downplaying of climate science often go hand in hand. Will that be the case at CEDA next week?
As Nicholas Talley and Kate Wylie wrote in the excellent Croakey:
“Journalists have an opportunity to raise public awareness of climate change, using their power to encourage transformative action on what is termed the defining story of our time. They have a responsibility to ensure their coverage is evidence based and reports on the very real scientific and health warnings.”
Monday’s event should be very interesting.
Hidden in mainstream Olympic Games news – an incisive comment on nuclear costs!
This naughty journalist understood that the news, at the present dragging-on time must be dominated by the Olympic Games, and nothing else matters.
So he wrote in a half page article -a quarter of a page virtuously all about the Olympic Games. Then – shock horror! He aberrated!
Taxpayers will come dead last at the Brisbane Games
Shane Wright, The Age, Business Section, 6 August 24
“……………………….There are myriad reasons why these costs blow out. Governments have a political incentive to under-estimate so they can win taxpayers over to the idea. Requirements for sports change. Organisers ignore inflation risks. And they have strict deadlines, which means paying whatever it takes to get everything ready on time………………….
Last year, Flyvberg and Dan Gardner published a book, How Big Things Get Done — a text that should be mandatory reading for every politician and engineer.
Based on a global database covering 16,000 major projects (including Olympic Games) from around the world and their cost to taxpayers, and stripped of the usual political spin used by every government and political party to sell their projects, it shows the single largest cost overruns for major projects are for nuclear storage projects. In third place is nuclear power itself. Taking out the silver medal for cost overruns is hosting the Olympic Games.
Of note to Dutton should be that the average cost blowout for nuclear storage is 238 per cent, with just under half of all projects suffering an overrun of at least 50 per cent.
Then, there’s nuclear power itself, where the average cost overrun is 120 per cent (the research covers almost 200 separate power plants). In terms of dollars, that means those who think – and will potentially promise voters – the nuclear dream will cost $10 billion will actually wind up billing taxpayers about $22 billion.
Also worthy of note is that in 55 per cent of all nuclear power cases, the overrun is at least 50 per cent. Of that subset, the average blowout is 204 per cent. Again, in terms of dollars, that would mean the $10 billion nuclear program would actually cost a little over $30 billion.
The project with the lowest risk and lowest overall cost of overrun?
Solar power.
Ultimately, the choice is to believe the reality of 16,000 projects from around the world, or politicians who have every reason not to be upfront about the true cost of their various promises.
There’s just one winner in that race, and unlike the Olympics, nuclear blowouts can’t be fixed with a cardboard bed. https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/taxpayers-will-come-dead-last-at-the-brisbane-games-20240805-p5jzio.html
Australian Conservation Foundation’s X account suspended after apparent ‘report bombing’
‘I do believe we are being targeted and they are trying to silence us out of this space,’ ACF spokesperson says
Graham Readfearn, Mon 5 Aug 2024 https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/article/2024/aug/05/australian-conservation-foundation-acf-x-account-suspended-report-bombing
The X account of the Australian Conservation Foundation was suspended for more than 24 hours with the charity saying it believes it is being “report bombed by pro-nuclear groups” seeking to remove negative commentary.
The environment charity’s X account @AusConservation was suspended on Sunday morning, sparking outrage among supporters. The account was reinstated late on Monday, but without the charity’s 32,000 followers.
An explanatory note on its account had said that “after careful review” the account had been suspended for breaking “X Rules”.
The founder of one Australian pro-nuclear group, Nuclear for Australia, celebrated the suspension on X – the social media company owned by free speech advocate and US billionaire Elon Musk.
Major companies last year suspended their advertising on the platform, formerly known as Twitter, after Musk said he agreed with an antisemitic tweet on the platform.
Musk later apologised and called the post his “dumbest”
The ACF’s director of engagement, Jane Gardner, said the organisation had been posting more nuclear content since the Coalition revealed it wanted to lift the country’s ban on nuclear reactors and build seven nuclear plants.
She said: “We have noticed on our posts [about nuclear] there’s plenty of people disagreeing with us, with people threatening to report our content. I do believe we are being targeted and they are trying to silence us out of this space.”
ACF has received another suspension on X for no reason. I believe we’re being report bombed by pro-nuclear groups.
This is not isolated: factual nuclear info from @renew_economy & @climatecouncil has also been removed from Facebook and TikTok recently.On X, Gardner wrote: “As Australia’s largest and oldest environment advocacy group, our content is always evidence based and never in breach of any platform’s rules.
“It’s no coincidence that pro-nuclear proponents are today publicly boasting about these repeated attempts to silence us.”
Conservation charity Friends of the Earth said on X the suspension was “ridiculous” and that “no environmental group is safe from censorship here”.
An economist at The Australia Institute, Greg Jericho, said the suspension was “an absolute disgrace”.
Gardner said after the account was reinstated: “I hope our followers will be re-instated, but we are still to hear from X about why our account was withdrawn, We’ve had no explanation.
“We are worried this could happen again and, if it does, we will have to make some decisions about whether we want to be on the platform.”
ACF’s X account was also suspended briefly last month, again after posting nuclear content. The account was reinstated, without explanation, within a day of that suspension.
Guardian Australia asked X in an email why ACF’s account was suspended and if the suspension related to complaints about particular content. An automated reply said: “Busy now, please check back later.”
Last month the not-for-profit Climate Council had a video critical of nuclear energy temporarily removed from the social media platform TikTok.
The renewable energy media outlet RenewEconomy last month had an opinion article written by the University of Queensland economics professor John Quiggin on the costs of nuclear removed from Facebook.
“Disgraceful:” Bowen demands answers as social media giants remove EV and nuclear articles
Giles Parkinson, Aug 5, 2024, https://reneweconomy.com.au/disgraceful-bowen-demands-answers-as-social-media-giants-remove-ev-and-nuclear-articles/
Federal energy and climate minister Chris Bowen has demanded answers from social media giants, and Facebook owner Meta in particular, after a series of articles supportive of electric vehicles and critical of the federal Coalition’s nuclear policy were removed from their platforms.
Last month, Renew Economy published an analysis on the soaring cost of nuclear power by leading economist John Quiggin. We attempted to post it in our feed on social media but Facebook removed it without explanation.
Other posts critical of the Coalition’s nuclear claims have also been removed, and readers report that their attempts to post the articles on their Facebook feeds had also failed.
On Friday, the Australian Conservation Foundation – which has also been critical of the Coalition’s nuclear policies, also had its page on X, formerly twitter, frozen, much to the delight of the pro-nuclear zealots, including the schoolboy funded by the deep-pocketed renewable critic Dick Smith.
“ACF has received another suspension on X for no reason,” the ACF’s head of engagement Jane Gardiner wrote on her account, which has not been suspended.
“I believe we’re being report bombed by pro-nuclear groups. This is not isolated: factual nuclear info from @renew_economy & @climatecouncil has also been removed from Facebook and TikTok recently. We are under attack.”
Last week, Renew Economy’s EV-focused sister site The Driven also had a post removed from Facebook by Meta. This time it was about the start of a new price war on electric cars, this time driven by MG. Facebook said it was because the article breached community standards.
Bowen said he was not impressed.
“This is disgraceful,” he wrote on X. “A news outlet publishes a straight and factual article about EV prices coming down and @Meta bans it.
“Social media has the responsibility to police disinformation and facilitate factual updates. Social media is of course full of climate disinformation. There is no excuse for Meta blocking this factual article. I look forward to Meta justifying this decision.”
Researchers have pointed to a network of so-called think tanks and fossil fuel ginger groups who have been ramping up their presence on social media, attacking renewable and EV technologies, and promoting coal and nuclear. Yet it appears these posts, often laughably wrong, are not taken down.
The fossil fuel industry is largely behind these actions because nuclear serves two purposes for coal and gas – it delays action on climate and emissions reduction by several decades, and causes coal fired power generators to stay open for longer and for new gas generation to be built. The social media giants appear to have taken sides.
Giles Parkinson is founder and editor of Renew Economy, and is also the founder of One Step Off The Grid and founder/editor of the EV-focused The Driven. He is the co-host of the weekly Energy Insiders Podcast. Giles has been a journalist for more than 40 years and is a former business and deputy editor of the Australian Financial Review. You can find him on LinkedIn and on Twitter.
Gina Rinehart’s threat to the proud independence of Australia’s Fairfax newspapers
So why is Gina Rinehart buying? She has no interest as a shareholder in making money. She wants to buy influence.
In 1979, Gina’s father, Lang Hancock argued: “We can change the situation so as to limit the power of government,”
before concluding: “it could be broken by obtaining control of the media and then educating the public”.
The Conversation, By Andrew Jaspan, Editor, 11 Feb 12, News of Gina Rinehart’s tilt at Fairfax Media is a circuit breaker in the never-ending story of the media company’s decline. As a former editor of The Age, one of Fairfax’s prized mastheads, I have spent the day wondering where this might end. Whichever way, it looks bad for quality, independent journalism. This is a defining moment for the kind of Australia we want….
Fairfax’s papers have an awful lot of clout. The combined audience for The Age in print and online is about 1 million readers per day, and the SMH just above. For those who follow these things, that’s higher than for any Channel 7, 9, 10 or ABC news bulletins. And more importantly, the audience for the Fairfax papers, including The Australian Financial Review, is the influential and affluent “AB” market. For these people, what the Fairfax papers report, matters.
Unlike the tabloids read by the bulk of Australians. The Age, SMH and The Fin, along with The Australian, set Australia’s news agenda and are slavishly followed by the radio talk-back and TV news shows.
So why is Gina Rinehart buying? She has no interest as a shareholder in making money. She wants to buy influence. In 2007 she placed full
page ads in The Age and SMH against then-Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s
proposed mining tax. That campaign ended with the removal of Rudd and
the collapse of the tax. Now instead of buying pages, she wants to buy
the papers.
Such motivation is deep in the Rinehart family genes. In a 1979
polemic called Wake up Australia, Gina’s father, Lang Hancock argued:
“We can change the situation so as to limit the power of government,”
before concluding: “it could be broken by obtaining control of the
media and then educating the public”.
And on the miners’ right to mine anywhere, he wrote: “Nothing should
be sacred from mining whether it’s your ground, my ground, the
blackfellow’s ground or anybody else’s. So the question of Aboriginal
land rights and things of this nature shouldn’t exist.”
The Murdoch press in Australia is already favourably disposed to the
miners and the Minerals Council view of the world. Fairfax provides an
alternative view. And one that Gina no doubt wants neutered, silenced
or turned around. Perhaps by Gina’s favourite columnist, Andrew Bolt?
Whether Australia retains an independent and semi-pluralist media will
become clear within the near future. In the meantime, The Conversation
will keep a close eye on this matter of national importance.
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/croakey/2012/02/07/latest-wrap-of-health-and-medical-reading-from-the-conversation/
We published an analysis from a leading economist on soaring nuclear costs. Facebook removed it
Facebook pages all still full of articles and videos making outrageous claims about renewables and nuclear. But that, it seems, is OK for the social media giant.
Giles Parkinson, Jul 22, 2024 https://reneweconomy.com.au/we-published-an-analysis-from-a-leading-economist-on-soaring-nuclear-costs-facebook-removed-it/—
On Sunday, Renew Economy published an analysis on the soaring cost of nuclear power by leading economist John Quiggin. On Monday we attempted to post it in our feed on social media.
Facebook removed the item, saying it was an attempt to generate clicks by providing misleading information. We’d like to know on what basis this decision was made, but Facebook has yet to provide an answer.
It’s a concerning development, and not the first time one of our posts has been removed by Facebook.
Social media platforms including Facebook, X, YouTube, TikTok, and Instagram – are full of unchecked and misleading information about climate change and energy technologies. Much of it is complete nonsense creating FUD – fear, uncertainty and doubt – about new technologies.
It appears to be part of a well-funded and orchestrated plan by vested interests, and the fossil fuel industry in particular, to demonise renewables, electric vehicles, battery storage and other emerging competitors.
Much of this is amplified in mainstream media, where outrageous claims against renewables – and claims of blackouts, economic collapse and environmental failure – are repeatedly given voice.
Social media platforms including Facebook, X, YouTube, TikTok, and Instagram – are full of unchecked and misleading information about climate change and energy technologies. Much of it is complete nonsense creating FUD – fear, uncertainty and doubt – about new technologies.
It appears to be part of a well-funded and orchestrated plan by vested interests, and the fossil fuel industry in particular, to demonise renewables, electric vehicles, battery storage and other emerging competitors.
Much of this is amplified in mainstream media, where outrageous claims against renewables – and claims of blackouts, economic collapse and environmental failure – are repeatedly given voice.
Quiggin notes that the Czechia deal suggests the opposite is true, and confirms the widely held view in the energy industry itself that GenCost underestimates rather than overestimates the costs of nuclear. Nuclear, he says, is really really expensive.
But Facebook has now ruled that such analysis is misleading, and it won’t allow its users to view such information. Over the last few months, this has happened on several occasions to Renew Economy and its sister site The Driven.
Just last week, another article on the certification of green hydrogen technologies in Australia was pulled down. Last month, it was a story on how households will be a driving force of the energy transition. A few months earlier, an analysis on nuclear costs by Jeremy Cooper, the former deputy chair of ASIC and chair of the 2009/10 Super System Review, was also removed.
Over on The Driven, a story on how EVs are actually suitable for farmers in regional communities, was also pulled down. No explanation was provided. Despite protests, the posts were not reinstated.
Yet Facebook allows media groups such as Sky News Australia to post misleading information about renewables and climate without a check.
It’s a shocking development, and one that points to the manipulation of information by naysayers and vested interests. Some attribute it to the work of the Atlas Network, a shadowy group with strong Australian fossil fuel links that has campaigned against renewables, the Voice referendum, climate action, and climate protests.
Researchers say that the whole point of the Atlas network of organisations and so called “institutes” and think tanks – which this article in New Republic says includes Australia’s Centre for Independent Studies, which has launched loud attacks against institutions such as the CSIRO, AEMO, and renewables in general – is to drown out actual academic expertise.
The Atlas Network does this, researchers say, to reduce the capacity for public and government influence with its own corporate propaganda that is dressed up as “research.”
George Monbiot, a columnist for the Guardian, calls many of the 500 institutions linked with the Atlas Network “junk tanks.” Jeremy Walker, from the University of Technology in Sydney, wrote in a paper that the network in Australia includes the CIS and the Institute for Public Affairs, both strongly anti renewable, and pro nuclear.
Their Facebook pages all still full of articles and videos making outrageous claims about renewables and nuclear. But that, it seems, is OK for the social media giant.
Book – “Nuked” on Aukus ‘fiasco’ says decision to embrace pact will ‘haunt’ Labor for years
“undermines any argument that the new submarines – whether nuclear or not – would be used primarily to defend Australia or to protect the nation’s shipping lanes”.
“at least one new cabinet minister wondered if it was possible to stop Aukus, but the suggestion went no further”.
Fowler said he did not believe there had been adequate public debate in Australia about the merits of Aukus,
Andrew Fowler’s book reveals one of Australia’s most important requirements for its submarines was the ability to work alongside the US in South China Sea
Daniel Hurst , 7 July 24, https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jul/07/book-on-aukus-fiasco-says-decision-to-embrace-pact-will-haunt-labor-for-years
One of Australia’s most important requirements for its new submarines is the ability to work alongside the United States in the South China Sea, a new book discloses.
The book by Andrew Fowler, a former investigative journalist for the ABC’s Four Corners and Foreign Correspondent programs, also predicts that Labor’s rush to embrace the Aukus pact “will haunt them for years to come”.
Fowler examines the Morrison government’s cancellation of the French submarine contract and its pursuit of a nuclear-powered alternative in the book Nuked: The Submarine Fiasco that Sank Australia’s Sovereignty.
The book makes the case that Aukus is a “deeply flawed” scheme that, when combined with a parallel effort to deepen military integration with the US, effectively ties Australia’s future “to whoever is in the White House”.
It includes an interview with David Gould, a former UK undersecretary for defence, who was headhunted by the then Gillard Labor government in 2012 as a consultant on a replacement for Australia’s ageing Collins-class submarines.
“As we sat talking, Gould revealed for the first time what has long been suspected: one of the submarine’s most important requirements would be to work with the Americans in the South China Sea,” Fowler writes.
“He explained that the submarine would need ‘to get through the archipelago to the north of Australia and into the South China Sea and operate in the South China Sea for a reasonable period of time and then come back again, without docking, or refuelling or anything. That’s what it needs to do.’”
The book quotes Gould as saying that the submarine would work alongside the US and Japan in an “integrated system”, which had become “even more pertinent with China”.
Fowler writes that the statement “undermines any argument that the new submarines – whether nuclear or not – would be used primarily to defend Australia or to protect the nation’s shipping lanes”.
Fowler contends that the focus is “to contain China and threaten its trade routes and food and energy supplies in a crisis”.
The Australian government has repeatedly said that its strategic motivation for acquiring nuclear-powered submarines is to “contribute to the collective security of our region” and maintain the global rules-based order.
The Labor defence minister, Richard Marles, has argued that the defence of Australia “doesn’t mean that much unless we have the collective security of our region” and that the nuclear-powered submarines would put a “question mark in any adversary’s mind”.
Fowler contends that the focus is “to contain China and threaten its trade routes and food and energy supplies in a crisis”.
The Australian government has repeatedly said that its strategic motivation for acquiring nuclear-powered submarines is to “contribute to the collective security of our region” and maintain the global rules-based order.
The Labor defence minister, Richard Marles, has argued that the defence of Australia “doesn’t mean that much unless we have the collective security of our region” and that the nuclear-powered submarines would put a “question mark in any adversary’s mind”.
The book reveals that after Labor won the 2022 election, “at least one new cabinet minister wondered if it was possible to stop Aukus, but the suggestion went no further”.
In an interview with Guardian Australia, Fowler said he began researching the book after becoming fascinated with “the overuse of executive power of government in the Morrison government, particularly the exposure of his five secret ministries”.
“I thought that the arrival of a $368bn secret deal that was done and then sprung on the public and the opposition party at the last moment would require an investigation,” he said.
Fowler said he did not believe there had been adequate public debate in Australia about the merits of Aukus, the security partnership with the US and the UK that involves the nuclear-powered submarine project but also collaboration on other advanced defence technologies.
“I think we debate the dollar-and-dime arguments, as the Americans might say, but we don’t debate the really big issues,” Fowler said.
“I don’t give advice to government but I think the Australian people have a right to know what the submarines are being bought for. They’re being bought to run with the Americans and Japan to contain the rise of China.”
Fowler said the then Labor opposition was put “in a diabolical position” when forced by Scott Morrison to make a quick decision on whether to support Aukus in 2021.
“This was a calculated attempt to wedge Labor on this issue and Labor only had 24 hours to make a decision,” he said. “It was obscene and absurd, and yet they made the decision fearing that if they opposed it they would be accused of being anti-American and weak on national security.
“I do understand why they went with it, but I think they also had some time to do some backtracking.”
Fowler called for an inquiry focused on “a failure of due process” in the cancellation of the French contract and the decision to pursue the Aukus arrangement, which officials admitted during Senate estimates hearings had not gone through the normal two-gate process for defence acquisitions.
Instead, the Morrison government announced Australia, the US and the UK would carry out an 18-month joint study to work out how to deliver the project. That led to the Albanese government’s March 2023 announcement of more detailed plans.
The book argues the French submarines would have given Australia “greater independence”, noting the president, Emmanuel Macron, had described Australia, India and France as being at the heart of a “new Indo-Pacific alliance and axis”.
The book says this “more independent thinking” caused “consternation in Washington”.
1 This month.
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 