A Covid-19 Green Recovery for Australia
Seizing the moment: how Australia can build a green economy from the Covid-19 wreckage, As the government prepares plans for economic recovery, investors and green groups alike say this is a once-only opportunity to move towards zero emissions
This is the first a new series, The Green Recovery, looking at the environmental challenges of a post-pandemic world, Guardian, by Adam Morton 13 May 20 There is a growing case that recovery from the coronavirus offers Australia a chance to succeed where it has failed for more than a decade: to break away from the climate wars and head in a new direction.
Here and overseas, the idea of helping jumpstart an economic rebuild after the pandemic-forced shutdown by also tackling the other great existential challenge of the time is gaining currency across the political spectrum.
It has been supported not just by climate activists and conservationists, but by industry, banks, energy companies, unions and major investors.
Kristalina Georgieva, the head of the International Monetary Fund, articulated the push in late April while addressing the heads of 30 countries at the annual Petersberg Climate Dialogue. She rejected the suggestion that the health crisis and the economic crash caused by the “great lockdown” that followed meant steps to fight the climate crisis should be paused.
“Nothing is further from the truth,” she said. “We are about to deploy a massive fiscal stimulus which can help us address both crises at the same time.
“If this recovery is to be sustainable – if our world is to become more resilient – we must do everything in our power to promote a green recovery. In other words, taking measures now to fight the climate crisis is not just a ‘nice-to-have’. It is a ‘must-have’ if we are to leave a better world for our children.”
Implicit in Georgieva’s call is that this may be a one-off opportunity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and avoid what scientists warn would be a catastrophe for vast swathes of the planet.
Others agree. The German government has called for recovery programs to invest in future-proof jobs that would cut emissions, rather than return to business as usual. Britain has proposed an accelerated take-up of green technologies, saying it could have a profound impact on “our societies’ future sustainability, resilience and, ultimately, wellbeing”.
The idea of a green stimulus has been supported by governments in countries as diverse as Pakistan, Portugal, Canada and the United Arab Emirates, backed by major business energy giants including BP and Shell, and promoted by the World Bank, which has published a series of blog posts with detailed suggestions of how to respond.
Significant money supports this stance. Global investor groups representing members responsible for more than $55tn in assets warned governments to avoid focusing on short-term, big-emitting projects when backing clean growth, which could create jobs while improving things that have a less obvious monetary value – such as clean air. Again, the opportunity borne from crisis was central to the message. “The path we choose in the coming months will have significant ramifications for our global economy and generations to come,” the groups said in a statement……
States lead, federal government drags its feet
In Australia, the discussion about a green recovery did not begin as urgently as elsewhere, reflecting perhaps the country’s notoriously difficult climate politics and a media tendency to treat climate as a second-order issue unless it is the subject of a political fight.
That began to change last week. Industry groups the Smart Energy Council and Clean Energy Council hosted online summits on green recovery themes with attendances in the thousands. Speaking at both, Innes Willox, the chief executive of the Australian Industry Group, said recovery from the Covid-19 pandemic and setting a path for net zero were overlapping issues that should be dealt with together to boost growth.
The AIG is among a number of Australian interest groups, research organisations and experts working on what a sustainable rebuild could look like, built on evidence that renewable energy is now the cheapest source to invest in.
Just as striking as Willox’s call was that, across the two summits, every state and the ACT was represented either by a premier, energy minister or, in Tasmania’s case, state-owned clean energy agency. Queensland’s Annastacia Palaszczuk spoke about the potential to develop a battery manufacturing industry and claimed green hydrogen resources would eventually surpass the state’s liquefied natural gas exports. South Australia’s energy minister, Dan van Holst Pellekaan, praised his Labor predecessors for helping develop the state into a world leader in renewable energy generation (while taking a swipe at them over cost) and said he hoped the state would run on 100% clean electricity before 2030.
Fellow Liberal Matt Kean, from New South Wales, said his government was considering its electricity strategy and net zero plan in the wake of the pandemic to see what measures could be brought forward to support the economy. He said they would be subject to three tests: “Will they deliver decarbonisation? Will they deliver jobs? And will they deliver faster economic growth?”
On Thursday, the Tasmanian Liberal government went further, launching a draft renewables energy action plan for reaching 200% renewable energy generation by 2040, a goal that means the creation of a vast clean export industry. The state’s energy minister, Guy Barnett, said the shift to renewable energy was more important than ever in the wake of the pandemic.
“As a result of Covid-19, there are unprecedented challenges facing Australian households and industries. By seizing Tasmania’s immense potential, renewable energy can grow our economy, attract investment, create jobs and support Australia’s transition to renewable supply,” he said………
Practical solutions on the horizon
Environment Minister Sussan Ley not to support protection of Murray-Darling river systems
Murray-Darling systems not assessed for endangered listing after officials warned Coalition would not 
support it
FoI documents reveal struggling systems were ‘clear candidates’ for protection but Sussan Ley ‘unlikely to support’ it, Guardian, Lisa Cox, Wed 13 May 2020 Struggling river and wetland systems in the Murray-Darling Basin were not assessed for listing as critically endangered after officials warned the Morrison government would not support protecting them.
Environment department staff said the two ecological communities were “clear candidates” for assessment for a critically endangered listing, documents released under freedom of information show. But the environment minister, Sussan Ley, was “unlikely to support” their inclusion on the 2019 list of species and habitats under consideration for protection, they told the threatened species scientific committee.
The department also told the committee the work required to do the assessment would have “significant resource implications”.
The two communities are known as the “wetland and inner floodplain of the Macquarie Marshes”, and the “Lower Murray River and associated wetlands, floodplains and groundwater systems from the junction of the Darling River to the sea”.
Both were listed as critically endangered by then environment minister Mark Butler in the final days of the Labor government in 2013.
After the Coalition won government, both listings were disallowed under the new environment minister, Greg Hunt. It followed a campaign against the critically endangered listings by the National Irrigators Council.
Humane Society International, the organisation behind the nomination that led to the 2013 listings, renominated the river and wetlands systems for assessment for a critically endangered listing last year.
In a briefing to the threatened species scientific committee, officials said a tool the department used for conservation assessments had ranked the two communities as the highest priorities from a conservation perspective among a group of five ecological communities nominated for listing in 2019.
But neither made it on to the proposed priority assessment list, which is given to the environment minister to consider before they determine the nominations that will make it on to the final list.
The briefing to the committee is the same document that led to Guardian Australia last week revealing the government had stopped listing major threats to species under national environmental laws…….
Labor’s environment spokeswoman, Terri Butler, said it was “outrageous” the Morrison government had not followed scientific advice. She said the government was attempting “to influence the outcomes of scientific processes designed to protect our environment”.
Richard Kingsford, the director of the Centre for Ecosystem Science at the University of New South Wales, said the scientific research on the two communities showed both had high levels of biodiversity and were degrading significantly as a result of reduced flooding.
“The question would be: why were they ruled out at that first step?” he said…… https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/may/13/murray-darling-systems-not-assessed-for-endangered-listing-after-officials-warned-coalition-would-not-support-it
13 top Australian non government organisations say that the Kimba nuclear waste dump plan is illogical
There is no logic behind the proposal to move intermediate-level waste from interim above-ground storage at Lucas Heights to interim above-ground storage at the Kimba site. The proposed double-handling is illogical, it exposes communities to unnecessary risk, and ARPANSA’s Nuclear Safety Committee has indicated that it is not consistent with international best practice.
[ The group makes 10 excellent RECOMMENDATOINS to the Senate Committee]
Joint NGO Submission to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee Inquiry into National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 Submission 101
The National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment Bill amends the National Radioactive Waste Management Act to specify a site near Kimba in South Australia for a nuclear waste ‘facility’ ‒ a repository for low-level waste and an above-ground ‘interim’ (indefinite) store for long-lived intermediate-level waste.
The Bill is deeply flawed and should be rejected. Further, the existing Act is deeply flawed and should be repealed Continue reading
Catholic Religious Australia (CRA) question government’s plan for nuclear waste dump near Kimba, South Australia
Time for action over proposed nuclear dump, https://thesoutherncross.org.au/opinion/2020/04/24/time-for-action-over-proposed-nuclear-dump/ Michele Madigan April 24, 2020
The reality is that over 90 per cent of the waste, measured by radioactivity, is intermediate long-lived waste including the nuclear spent fuel rods and also the parts of the previous nuclear reactor.
The Barngala initiated a legal action protesting their exclusion. Sadly their appeal has recently been denied. As Barngarla Traditional Owner Jeanne Miller laments, Aboriginal people with no voting power are put back 50 years, ‘again classed as flora and fauna’.
With Pope Francis’s designation of practical Care for Earth as the 8th Beatitude, a wonderful Lenten/post-Lenten penance might be a concerned letter to alert an Opposition or cross bench SA senator at Parliament House, Canberra 5600. The Senate vote is likely at the end of June.
Australia listened to the science on coronavirus. Imagine if we did the same for coal mining
Australia listened to the science on coronavirus. Imagine if we did the same for coal mining The Conversation, Matthew Currell Associate Professor in Environmental Engineering, School of Engineering, RMIT University, Adrian Werner, Professor of Hydrogeology, Flinders University, Chris McGrath, Associate Professor in Environmental and Planning Regulation and Policy, The University of Queensland, Dylan Irvine, Senior lecturer in hydrogeology, Flinders University -12 May 20,We interrogated scientific evidence available to governments and Adani over almost a decade. Our analysis shows governments failed to compel Adani to fully investigate the environmental risks posed by its water plans, despite concerns raised by scientists.
There is also evidence the government approval decisions were influenced by the political climate and pressure exerted by members of government.
Our findings come as the Morrison government conducts a ten-yearly review of the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act. It is critical these laws – Australia’s most important environmental legislation – are reformed to put rigorous, independent science at the core.
Advice ignored
In mid-2019, the federal and Queensland governments approved groundwater management plans for Adani’s Carmichael coal mine. It granted the company unlimited access to groundwater in central Queensland’s Galilee Basin.
We and other experts warned the mine threatens to damage aquifers, rivers and ecosystems – in particular, the Doongmabulla Springs Complex. This system contains more than 150 wetlands which support rare plant communities found nowhere else on earth.
The springs are of major cultural significance to the Wangan and Jagalingou people.
We analysed the full suite of evidence on the groundwater plans from agencies and scientists with expertise in hydro-geology. The evidence, provided to state and federal environment ministers, spanned almost a decade and included at least six independent scientific reviews.
The evidence highlighted major shortcomings, and gaps in knowledge and data. For example – ………
Once-in-a-decade chance
Our analysis exposes flaws in how evidence informs major government decisions. It also shows why reform of the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act is so urgent.
The laws are currently under review. Many reputable organisations and scholars have proposed ways the legislation can better protect the environment, increase its independence from government and put science at the core.
Independent scientific committees, such as the federal IESC, are commissioned by governments to advise on mining proposals. We suggest such committees be granted greater powers to request specific data and studies from mining companies to address knowledge gaps before advice is issued.
Alternatively – or in addition – a new independent national commission should be established to oversee environmental impact assessments conducted by mining and other development proponents.
This commission should be empowered to interrogate and resolve key scientific uncertainties, free from political interference. Its recommendations to government should take into account a wide range of expert advice and public feedback.
This would not only improve the evidence base for decisions, but may also speed up assessments – ensuring more effective resolution of uncertainties that often lead to protracted conflict and debate about a mine’s impacts.
Such reform is urgently needed. Australia is suffering unprecedented water stress, environmental harm and declining trust in government.
Australian governments listened to the science when it needed to flatten the curve of COVID-19. The same approach is needed if we’re to preserve the places we love and the ecosystems we depend on. https://theconversation.com/australia-listened-to-the-science-on-coronavirus-imagine-if-we-did-the-same-for-coal-mining-138212
Australia is uniquely placed to be able to reinvigorate manufacturing through renewable energy
Powering onwards: Australia’s opportunity to reinvigorate manufacturing through renewable energy https://apo.org.au/node/303735 8 MAY 2020 Dan Nahum Centre for Future Work
Not only are we able to power an expanded manufacturing sector using renewables, but it is cheaper to do so than to continue down the path of an energy grid that favours and subsidises coal and gas. These economic advantages in turn can expedite a broader economic rebalancing, away from extraction towards production, in which value-added manufactures increasingly supplant the export of raw materials in our economic mix. This will be good for Australia’s economy—and for the world’s emissions.
This paper compiles evidence to demonstrate that Australia can achieve the continuation and resurgence of a vibrant, competitive manufacturing sector based on the even faster development of renewable power. To do this, the paper:
- reviews the strategic importance of, and opportunities presented by, manufacturing
-
- discusses Australia’s competitive advantage in renewable energy
- shows that, based on the government’s own figures, renewables are already cheaper than coal—and quickly getting cheaper
- debunks claims about the unreliability of renewables relative to more traditional energy sources
- identifies examples where renewable power is already in use, or could be put to use, in manufacturing and industrial processes, and instances where we can use our natural and manufactured inputs to add further value to these renewables
- examines international evidence showing that there is no connection between reliance on fossil fuels and success in global manufacturing trade
- presents a range of recommendations for government action to capitalise on the opportunity of renewable energy for revitalising Australian manufacturing.
Minerals Council of Australia wants radiation risks to be discounted in Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act
Coronavirus: cut green tape delay on projects, miners say
Australia’s six peak mining and resources groups are pushing for a major overhaul of environmental laws, calling for the removal of “unnecessary duplication and complexity” to provide greater certainty for businesses.
In a joint submission to the independent review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, led by former Australian Competition & Consumer Commission chair Graeme Samuel, the mining sector warns companies are facing delay costs of up to $1m a day.
Minerals Council of Australia chief executive Tania Constable said Australia was facing an unprecedented economic and social threat from the COVID-19 pandemic, arguing reforms of the EPBC Act would help reduce delays in project approvals and fast-track projects.
Environment Minister Sussan Ley last month flagged reforms to the EPBC and the government’s commitment to cut green tape to “get rid of unnecessary delays”.
Professor Samuel will deliver an interim report by June and a final report by October. “We are getting congestion out of the system and we will continue to do so as the economy comes through the COVID-19 crisis,” Ms Ley said.
The MCA submission, co-signed by the NSW Minerals Council, Queensland Resources Council, the Chamber of Minerals and Energy of Western Australia, South Australian Chamber of Mines and Energy and the Tasmanian Minerals, Manufacturing and Energy Council, suggest four key points to improve the EPBC.
These include eliminating or reducing duplication and ensuring consistency between federal and state-territory processes, reducing delays in assessment and approval processes, improving certainty for businesses and ensuring better “fit-for-purpose regulation”.
Assessing regulatory duplication and uncertainty, the ’ submission ranks NSW and Victoria lower than less mature mining jurisdictions, including PNG and the Democratic Republic of Congo.
Ms Constable said “pragmatic and considered policy reform can build a stronger minerals industry for a faster and more durable post-COVID-19 recovery”.
“When mining projects can take more than a decade to deliver, it’s clear better regulation can help deliver Australia’s economic recovery without compromising our precious environment,” she said.
“Reform to the act is long overdue to address unnecessary duplication and complexity.”
Ms Constable said a one-year delay to a project can reduce its net present value by 10 to 13 per cent per year. “For large mining projects (with a value from $3bn to $4bn), delay costs can be up to $1m per day,” she said. “Significant growth in regulation across all levels of government including the EPBC Act has not led to better environmental outcomes.”
The groups want uranium mining, milling decommissioning and rehabilitation removed from the definition of nuclear actions under the act, to help unlock the mineral sands industry. The EPBC trigger has captured non-uranium projects, including mineral sands, rare earths and base metals, where naturally occurring radioactive material may be present.
Ms Constable said Australia had the world’s largest mineral sands deposits, offering significant “opportunities for growth and jobs”. “Heavy mineral sands such as rutile, ilmenite (titanium) and zircon are essential inputs to everyday life including paint, medical implants and ceramics.”
“Many of Australia’s mineral sands deposits also contain monazite and xenotime, which are sources of the rare earth elements used in smart phones and computers, as well as medical devices.’’
‘under cover of coronavirus’ New South Wales govt approves US company to mine coal beneath a Sydney drinking water dam
|
Woronora reservoir, an hour’s drive south of the CBD, is part of a system which supplies water to more than 3.4 million people in Greater Sydney. The approval will allow Peabody Energy to send long wall mining machines 450 metres below the earth’s surface to crawl along coal seams directly below the dam. Dr Kerryn Phelps says the fact the decision was made “under the cover of coronavirus” is “unfathomable”. NSW has spent 12 of the last 20 years in drought, with record low rainfall plunging much of the state into severe water shortage last year. “We know about the potential for catastrophe,” Dr Phelps told 9News.com.au. “We just cannot let this [decision] go unchallenged.” The former president of the Australian Medical Association may seem an odd figure to lead opposition to a mining project, but Dr Phelps takes what she calls a broad view on health. She grew up on Sydney’s North Shore when koalas still lived in family backyards and has witnessed firsthand the affects human populations have on the natural world. She has also seen, as a doctor, how the degradation of the nature impacts human health. In her role as City of Sydney councillor, Dr Phelps introduced a motion to the council calling on the NSW Minister for Planning and Public Spaces, Rob Stokes, to reverse the approval. “We can’t simply risk the water supply in one part of Sydney, without considering the repercussions for the rest of the state and country,” Dr Phelps said. “We have to make a stand now. If not now, then when?” Chain reactionOn the evening of April 6 this year, the City of Sydney council almost unanimously passed Dr Phelp’s motion calling for the approval to be reversed, prompting mayor Clover Moore to send Mr Stokes a strongly worded internal letter. In it, she described the minister’s decision as “scandalous”. Sutherland Labour Party councillor Ray Plibersek says the move also led Sutherland Shire Council to pass a similar motion urging the decision be reconsidered. “We’re very concerned,” Cr Plibersek told 9News.com.au. “There’s been evidence of damage to the water table… and despite assurances from mining companies, there is a threat to a crucial resource – water.” Sutherland Shire and Wollongong, which both have more than 200,000 residents, share the Woronora special catchment area, the rivers and rivulets passing from one jurisdiction to the next. They share the water within it too – the reservoir supplies 100 per cent of the drinking water……….. https://www.9news.com.au/national/coal-mine-under-greater-sydneys-woronora-drinking-water-reservoir-approved-during-coronavirus-pandemic/d3e51de8-f370-4fcf-b4f8-7f62be1c24c7
|
|
Colleen Grantham spells it out on Kimba nuclear waste dump- NO Broad Community Consent, NO Transparency
I am appalled to learn that the Native Title awarded to the Bungarla People of this District has been
dissolved on the property in question, thus providing an “out” for the Government to need to
consider their views on this issue.
we need to protect our country’s HEALTH and our
ECONOMY and I struggle to see how this facility in this location will do anything but destroy both.
Colleen Grantham Submission 89 to Committee Secretariat, Senate Standing Committees on Economics
Re – Proposed National Radioactive Waste Management Facility
Dear Committee
Thank you for taking the time to consider this submission of opposition to the establishment of a
National Radioactive Waste Management Facility on FARMING land known as ‘Napandee’ in the
District Council of Kimba.
I grew up the daughter of a farmer in the District Council of Wudinna which is a neighbouring council
precinct to Kimba. No one in this council district has had an opportunity to be heard or to influence
the outcome of the CLOSED voting on this facility, yet some of its farming residents live much closer
to the proposed site than those people residing in the township of Kimba. PLEASE PROVIDE AN
EXPLANATION HOW THIS OUTCOME CAN POSSIBLY BE CONSIDERED FAIR OR REASONABLE given the
potential direct NEGATIVE impacts such a facility could have on their future livelihoods and those of
the generations to come.
The Government and its Agencies have continued to widely publish via all mediums that the facility
in question has received “Broad Community Support” for its establishment at the Napandee site,
HOWEVER, not one of the FIVE Ministers who have held this portfolio during the FIVE years of
consideration of this project has EVER been able to publicly quantify or provide a decent description
of what BROAD COMMUNITY SUPPORT would entail. Instead it appears that those in power are just
making up a number as it suits their purpose, thus FORCING this project ahead DESPITE a huge
number of people both inside and outside the District Council of Kimba being OPPOSED to its
establishment.
The process to date has already, metaphorically speaking, exploded a nuclear bomb in the town and
wider district. A once tight knit, cohesive community is now so far divided that people are not
shopping locally or supporting other community activities because they feel unsafe in their own
town.
Given the far reaching implications that such a facility would have on the whole of Eyre Peninsula, I
would have thought it PRUDENT that any Government consider the thoughts and impacts on the
WHOLE OF EYRE PENINSULA and not just one single Council district consisting of approximately 800-
900 people. This is a NATIONAL issue, bringing with it serious potential risks which should absolutely
NOT be decided on the thoughts of one small community of this size.
FARMING land in South Australia represents 4.5% of the state’s total land mass. I CANNOT
understand how any responsible Government would willingly sacrifice and put at risk productive
agricultural land that makes a huge contribution to the economy of this state and therefore this
nation! Continue reading
Shirley Inglis – 5th generation Kimba resident – on hasty nuclear waste legislation – this plan has really hurt people
Shirl
ey Inglis – Submission to Sentae Committee re National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 [Provisions] Submission 88
I have found it difficult to understand why a radioactive waste facility needs to be placed amongst farmlands in Kimba. The community I grew up in has seen many changes, growth and struggles over time, but has survived. Much smaller communities than ours continue to soldier on despite hardships and adapted to these circumstances.
Only Kimba has been chosen to host a facility after Rowan Ramsey thought it was a good idea back in 2015 to nominate his land. What has happened since is continued stance that this must be accepted at all cost. I have a lack of trust in what the government proposes and how this has continually changed just like this amended Bill.
As I see out my twilight years that has seen five generations of family live in this community, it is saddening to think of how this has really hurt people.
People must be comfortable with such a proposal, and the best possible solution for Australia’s radioactive waste must be the government’s priority to take the time to get it right..
I hope that your Committee can recommend a better process to be found that respects all Australians to find the right outcome, and not this one.
Assange unwell, stuck in solitary confinement while court hearing delayed till September
In his fight against extradition to the US, where he faces 175 years in prison and being subjected to harsh conditions under “Special Administrative Measures”, Assange is rendered defenseless. He is in effective solitary confinement, being psychologically tortured inside London’s maximum-security prison. With the British government’s refusal to release him temporarily into home detention, despite his deteriorating health and weak lung condition developed as consequences of long detention, Assange is now put at risk of contracting coronavirus. This threatens his life.
Now, as the world stands still and becomes silent in our collective self-quarantine, Assange’s words spoken years ago in defense of a free internet call for our attention from behind the walls of Belmarsh prison:
“Nuclear war, climate change or global pandemics are existential threats that we can work through with discussion and thought. Discourse is humanity’s immune system for existential threats. Diseases that infect the immune system are usually fatal. In this case, at a planetary scale.”
Assange’s US extradition, Threat to Future of Internet and Democracy, CounterPunch by NOZOMI HAYASE 8 May 20 On Monday May 4, the British Court decided that the extradition hearing for WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange, scheduled for May 18, would be moved to September. This four month delay was made after Assange’s defense lawyer argued the difficulty of his receiving a fair hearing due to restrictions posed by the Covid-19 lockdown. Monday’s hearing at Westminster Magistrates’ Court proceeded without enabling the phone link for press and observers waiting on the line, and without Assange who was not well enough to appear via videolink.
Sunday May 3rd marked World Press Freedom Day. As people around the globe celebrated with online debates and workshops, Assange was being held on remand in London’s Belmarsh prison for publishing classified documents which exposed US war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan. On this day, annually observed by the United Nations to remind the governments of the importance of free press, Amnesty International renewed its call for the US to drop the charges against this imprisoned journalist.
The US case to extradite Assange is one of the most important press freedom cases of this century. The indictment against him under the Espionage Act is an unprecedented attack on journalism. This is a war on free speech that has escalated in recent years turning the Internet into a battleground.
Privatized censorship Continue reading
The Liberal coalition government killing the ABC by 1000 cuts – but a possible way exists to save it
With luck the ABC can be saved , Crispin Hull, 8 May 20, This week’s report on ABC funding should alarm Australians.
The death by a thousand cuts of the ABC and the slow strangulation of Medicare have become woven into in Liberal Party’s DNA since John Howard turned Robert Menzies’ broad church of a liberal-conservative Liberal Party into a purely conservative one by shutting out almost everyone left of the nave.
A different liberal-conservative Liberal Party, on the other hand, would have recognised them as essential Australian institutions to be nurtured and supported. After all, the ABC has been around since 1932 and Medicare (in one form or another) since 1973.
The Liberal Party’s desired outright abolition of both has been impossible because of the two institutions’ ingrained popularity. So the onslaught has to be cunningly dressed up as measures to “improve” Medicare and to voice support for the independence of the ABC and promise “no cuts” while ever trying to bully the ABC; sway its board to the right; and to apply cuts to stifle its voice.
This week’s report by the independent think tank Per Capita says that the ABC has lost $783 million in funding since the Coalition came to power in 2013, starting with $245 million in the 2014 Budget, despite Tony Abbott’s promise before the 2013 election that he would not cut the ABC.
More cuts in staff and programming will come before the end of this financial year. They follow seven years of program and staff slashing, critically a 50 per cent cut in the hours of scripted Australian drama.
The Per Capita report concludes that real funding per year since 1985-86 is down 30 per cent or $370 million. Per head of population, the ABC’s funding has been halved in that time. The cuts have come despite the ABC having to provide extra services to keep up with the digital age.
Very likely the Government will cut more as it seeks to claw back from the Covid-19 crisis, even though the ABC – especially the excellent Dr Norman Swan – did so much to inform Australians about the pandemic, as it always does in times of crisis.
What can be done? The ABC itself is down to the bone, though perhaps it could cut out all sport which the commercials to well enough. It is doubtful a Coalition Government would ever increase real funding for the ABC. Perhaps the best we can hope for is that Labor makes some suggestions that the Coalition feels obliged to match or that they become reality with a Labor Government (whenever that might be). ……..
funding solution used in Britain, New Zealand, and only Western Australia among the Australian states to fund culture which could help fund the ABC – a lottery. The Federal Government should set up its own national lottery to boost ABC funding……..
The BBC is well-funded and broadcasters throughout the world line up to pay for its product. The result is a lot of soft-power dividend for Britain. Australia, too, would get a lot of benefit from properly funding the ABC, not least a better-informed community.
Silly me. It’s that last bit the Coalition detests more than anything. http://www.crispinhull.com.au/2020/05/08/with-luck-the-abc-can-be-saved/?utm_source=mailpoet&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=crispin-hull-column-16-nov-2019_99
Australian government stops listing major threats to species under environment laws
|
Australian government stops listing major threats to species under environment laws
Documents show department has stopped recommending assessment of ‘key threatening processes’ affecting native wildlife Lisa Cox ,Guardian 8 May 2020 The federal government has stopped listing major threats to species under national environment laws, and plans to address listed threats are often years out of date or have not been done at all. Environment department documents released under freedom of information laws show the government has stopped assessing what are known as “key threatening processes”, which are major threats to the survival of native wildlife. Conservationists say it highlights the dysfunctional nature of Australia’s environmental framework, which makes aspects of wildlife protection optional for government. The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Act is being reviewed, a once-a-decade requirement under the legislation, and there are calls for greater accountability rules to be built into Australia’s environmental laws. It follows longstanding criticism that the act is failing to curb extinction. ‘An unacceptable excuse’In a series of reports since 2018Australia has uncovered multiple failures including delays in listing threatened species and habitats, threatened species funding being used for projects that do not benefit species, critical habitat not being protected, and recovery actions for species not being adopted or implemented. The act lists threats such as feral cats, land clearing and climate change as key threatening processes that push native plants and animals towards extinction. Once a threat is listed, the environment minister decides whether a plan – known as a threat abatement plan – should be adopted to try to reduce the impact of the threat on native species. Advertisement
But a 2019 briefing document shows the department has stopped recommending the government’s threatened species scientific committee assess new key threatening processes for potential listing……… ‘It’s shocking really’Further government data shows that of the 21 listed major threats, only three of those were listed in the last decade of the act, the most recent was in 2014…… The process for listing threats can also take years and is subject to ministerial discretion. Major alterations to the flow of river systems – caused by industry and dams – was accepted by the department for assessment in 2016 but removed from the list by the then environment minister, Josh Frydenberg. The only major threat currently under assessment – “fire regimes that cause biodiversity decline” – has been on the assessment list since 2008 and remains incomplete 12 years later. Its deadline is listed as August 2013. Fire regimes that cause biodiversity decline refers to changes in the frequency and scale of fire due to human influence. Every state of the environment report identifies changed fire patterns as a major threat to the survival of native wildlife. “They haven’t even listed it as a threat, let alone done something about it. It’s shocking really,” Andrew Cox, the chief executive of the Invasive Species Council, said. ……. ‘The system’s broken’Environmental organisations and the threatened species scientific committee have highlighted the weaknesses of the KTP system in submissions to the EPBC review, chaired by Graeme Samuel. ‘The system’s broken’Environmental organisations and the threatened species scientific committee have highlighted the weaknesses of the KTP system in submissions to the EPBC review, chaired by Graeme Samuel……… “It’s all optional. That’s the problem,” James Trezise, a policy analyst at the Australian Conservation Foundation, said. “A threat abatement plan is this optional thing where it’s optional to establish them, it’s optional to implement them, there’s no system for tracking them and there’s not enough resources available.”…. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/may/08/australian-government-stops-listing-major-threats-to-species-under-environment-laws |
|
Australian Renewable Energy Agency funds end in 2022 – a major blow for solar research
 ‘Major blow’ looms for top Sydney solar research unit as funds wither, SMH. By Peter Hannam, May 8, 2020 The future of a leading research centre whose designs power $50 billion in solar systems globally is at risk because of the uncertain future of the federal government agency that funds it.Richard Corkish, a senior lecturer at the University of NSW’s School of Photovoltaic and Renewable Energy Engineering, said as much as 80 per cent of his section’s money is provided by the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) which is due to run out of funds in 2022.
We’ll get significantly smaller unless something positive comes along,” said Dr Corkish, who is also chief operating officer of the UNSW-based Australian Centre for Advanced Photovoltaics. “It’s a major blow for us.” His school has already begun turning away prospective PhD students who would otherwise have contributed to multiple lines of scientific inquiry aimed at improving the efficiency and performance of solar cells, their integration into power networks and other renewable energy developments. …… Mark Butler, Labor’s climate spokesman, said “letting ARENA’s resourcing lapse is a devastating self-inflicted wound for Australia’s clean energy future that exposes the Liberals anti-renewable and anti-climate action ideology”. “Scott Morrison should be looking for a COVID-19 recovery plan which brings forward investment in new renewable projects which would create tens of thousands of new jobs, stimulate regional economies, and deliver cheaper power prices,” Mr Butler said. Mark Butler, Labor’s climate spokesman, said “letting ARENA’s resourcing lapse is a devastating self-inflicted wound for Australia’s clean energy future that exposes the Liberals anti-renewable and anti-climate action ideology”. “Scott Morrison should be looking for a COVID-19 recovery plan which brings forward investment in new renewable projects which would create tens of thousands of new jobs, stimulate regional economies, and deliver cheaper power prices,” Mr Butler said……. https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/major-blow-looms-for-top-sydney-solar-research-unit-as-funds-wither-20200507-p54r3j.html |
|
Kerri-Ann Garlick – Lucas Heights is the correct place for Australia’s nuclear waste. The Kimba dump plan is unfair, undemocratic and dangerous.
Kerri-Ann Garlick Submission 99 to Senate Committee on National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 [Provisions]
The National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment Bill amends the National Radioactive Waste Management Act to specify a site near Kimba in South Australia for a nuclear waste ‘facility’ ‒ a repository for low-level waste and an above-ground ‘interim’ store for long-lived intermediate level waste.
I have deep concerns about the federal government’s proposed changes to the National Radioactive Waste Management Act. They are unfair, undemocratic and dangerous.
The government has no valid case on safety or security grounds and not made a clear case about the need for the planned national nuclear waste facility at Kimba.
The necessary infrastructure, resources and expertise for nuclear operations and waste management are all located at Lucas Heights and transferring the waste component of the system to a remote location at Kimba is a recipe for disaster in the medium and long term – up to 10,000 years from now, in the case of intermediate waste.
The whole process has been restricted and inadequate. The traditional owners of the land were disrespected and excluded from the purportedly public and democratic approval process. All citizens of Australia have a stake in the successful resolution of our national nuclear waste problems yet we were not consulted either.
The Bill is deeply flawed and should be rejected.
In particular, I am concerned that the planned changes:
- restrict or remove options for judicial review of the government’s site selection under
current laws, - unreasonably reduce the rights and options of the Barngarla Traditional Owners and other
directly impacted parties and have not been made with proper consultation, - exempt key environmental and cultural heritage protection laws from being usedfail to make any clear or compelling radiological or public health case for doubling handling the long-lived intermediate level waste (ILW) at significant public expense
- do not provide any certainty about the long-term management of Australia’s radioactive
waste, - are not consistent with international best practice in relation to siting, community
consultation or procedural fairness around radioactive waste, - do not recognise or respect long standing South Australian legislation prohibiting any federal
radioactive waste facility.Against the current context of uncertainty and disruption due to the impact of Covid 19 the further
uncertainty and contest generated by the federal government’s approach to radioactive waste is not
helpful or justified.
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/235274195556
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 