Liberals coy about nuclear power, Premier Gladys thinks “it doesn’t matter to the people of New South Wales”
NSW Deputy Premier John Barilaro backs bill to overturn nuclear power ban https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-03-04/john-barilaro-backs-bill-to-overturn-nuclear-power-ban/12024960, By state political reporter Ashleigh Raper New South Wales Liberals must decide whether they support the overturning of a ban on uranium mining that could also pave the way for nuclear energy in the state.
Key points:
- A bill put forward by One Nation MP Mark Latham supports a pathway to nuclear power
- Deputy Premier John Barilaro has long-supported a push towards nuclear energy
- A parliamentary inquiry will deliver findings in September
A parliamentary inquiry, led by Liberal MP Taylor Martin, has recommended that the law prohibiting uranium mining and nuclear facilities should be repealed.
The inquiry was looking into a bill put forward by One Nation MP Mark Latham in the Upper House and, through its recommendations, supports the piece of legislation.
Deputy Premier John Barilaro says the Nationals will support the bill, so too will the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers.
Mr Barilaro has long-supported nuclear energy and hopes the Nationals’ support will put pressure on the Commonwealth.
“That will put the focus on the Federal Government because without the Federal Government lifting its ban, there’s no way we will see a nuclear industry here in Australia,” he told Sky News.
Labor will oppose the bill, along with the Greens and Independent MP Justin Field.
So far, the Liberals don’t have a position because the issue hasn’t gone before cabinet.
Local Government Minister Shelley Hancock today said in budget estimates she wouldn’t support uranium mining or facilities in her electorate on the South Coast.
“There will never be any uranium mining on the South Coast,” she said.
“And I oppose any facilities on the South Coast.”
In Question Time, Premier Gladys Berejiklian was asked by Labor whether the Liberal Party wanted to lift the ban like its Coalition partner, but she wouldn’t be drawn.
“The Deputy Premier has been talking about this for two to three years,” she said.
“Get a better strategy for Question Time. I say to those opposite, ask me questions that matter to the people of New South Wales.”
She told Parliament the Government didn’t need to respond to the inquiry findings until September, but Upper House MPs are likely to vote on the legislation before that time.
New South Wales National Party will support Latham’s nuclear power bill, says Barilaro
 Barilaro says Nationals will support Latham’s nuclear power bill, https://www.smh.com.au/politics/nsw/barilaro-says-nationals-will-support-latham-s-nuclear-power-bill-20200304-p546pe.html, By Alexandra Smith, March 4, 2020 Deputy Premier John Barilaro says the NSW Nationals will support Mark Latham’s bill to allow nuclear power in NSW, in a move likely to cause a split in the junior Coalition party.In his strongest comments yet, Mr Barilaro, a long-time supporter of nuclear power, said the government should “lift the ban on nuclear energy” and confirmed his party would support it.
But the position has not been taken to the Nationals’ party room, and several MPs said there would be serious concern among some members, including those who hold coastal seats. A report into Mr Latham’s bill was tabled in Parliament on Wednesday, recommending the state government support repealing laws that ban uranium mining and nuclear facilities. The report followed an inquiry into the One Nation leader’s private member’s bill, which is before the upper house. The bill would allow the ban on uranium mining and nuclear power be lifted. The issue dominated question time on Wednesday, with Energy Minister Matt Kean stressing the government’s focus was “cheap reliable energy” provided by renewables. Despite Mr Barilaro’s stance, Premier Gladys Berejiklian said the government had until September to respond to the report but MPs will vote on Mr Latham’s bill later this month. Speaking on Sky News on Tuesday night, Mr Barilaro said: “I would say here today that the National Party will support his [Mr Latham’s] bill in relation to lifting the ban on mining uranium and nuclear energy.” He said it follows a motion at last year’s party conference, which supported nuclear power. But a senior Nationals MP said the issue could be very problematic for coastal MPs, where there is a strong Greens vote and anti-mining sentiment. “I think much of the party room will be agnostic but I think if you speak to the coastal Nats, they will have a very different view. This would be very problematic for them.” The MP confirmed Mr Barilaro had not taken the issue to the Nationals’ party room. Nationals MP Geoff Provest, who holds the North Coast seat of Tweed, said he would be “worried about the decision” to support Mr Latham’s bill. “Our job is to represent our communities and I think a few coastal Nats might have a few concerns,” he said. Asked whether Mr Barilaro had told Mr Latham that the Nationals would support his bill, Mr Latham said: “What he has said on Sky is consistent with what he has told me.” The group Nuclear for Climate Australia has identified 12 sites as “regions of interest” in NSW for nuclear reactors, including the area between Coffs Harbour and Port Macquarie, Grafton, Shoalhaven and the South Coast. Cabinet has not considered the issue, and the Liberals do not yet have a position on nuclear power. But in budget estimates on Wednesday, Liberals’ Local Government Minister and South Coast MP Shelley Hancock said she would not support a reactor in her electorate. There will never be any uranium mining on the South Coast and I oppose any facilities on the South Coast,” she said. Chair of the inquiry who looked into Mr Latham’s bill, Liberals’ MP Taylor Martin said, “the prohibitions on uranium mining and nuclear energy reflect the outdated fears of the 1980s”. “On the balance of evidence gathered for this inquiry, nuclear power in its emerging small scale applications is a compelling technology where energy policy settings seek to decarbonise emissions while delivering secure, reliable and affordable energy to the NSW grid,” Mr Martin said.
Labor’s energy spokesman Adam Searle said nuclear would produce the “most expensive electricity” which would “cripple homes and businesses across the state”. “The future of energy generation for NSW lies in clean and renewable energy sources, supported by storage,” Mr Searle said. |
|
Prof Peta Ashworth, stooge of the nuclear lobby, is again propagandisingfor them
Supposedly independent (LOL), Ms Ashworth was contracted by DIIS to massage the NRWMF community consultation process ~ & recommended a 2 site competition strategy to “…. ‘motivate competing communities to become invested in winning …”
Yet here she now be, boldly spruiking nuclear power in the company of other tricky nuke cyclists……
PS…. JACOBS would be one of the front runners in the chase to get the Govt contract for construction &/or to operate any national radioactive suppository. https://www.facebook.com/groups/1314655315214929/
Government’s latest pressure on the ABC is slammed by Paul Keating
‘Ideological contempt’: Keating slams pressure to sell ABC offices, The Age, By Jennifer Duke and Fergus Hunter, March 3, 2020 Former prime minister Paul Keating has slammed the government for encouraging the ABC to canvass a sale of its inner-city offices, saying it shows “ideological contempt” and is an attempt to “fracture” the public broadcaster.
Communications Minister Paul Fletcher wrote to ABC managing director David Anderson on Monday recommending the broadcaster consider reviewing its capital city property portfolio, which includes offices in Sydney’s Ultimo and Melbourne’s Southbank. Mr Fletcher did not refer to specific property assets in the letter, but government sources who declined to be identified said the Ultimo office in particular was under-used.
Mr Keating said the pressure on the ABC to explore these sales represented “nothing other than an attempt by the Liberal and National parties to fracture the ABC at its foundations, in settlement of its ideological contempt for the organisation”.
“For the first time in its long history, the Ultimo, Sydney and Southbank, Melbourne premises delivered to the ABC a consolidation of workplaces which facilitated cross-platform and cross-divisional facilitation of a kind that was impossible in the old fragmented locational structure,” he said in a statement.
The ABC is grappling with a funding freeze projected to shave up to $84 million off its annual budget and is set to present a five-year strategic plan for the broadcaster later this month. ……
Mr Anderson said the broadcaster’s costs had risen while it was also confronting the funding freeze. The unprecedented bushfire season saw the ABC’s emergency broadcast requirements surge, adding about $3 million on top of expected spending.
“We estimate that it’s going to cost us an extra $5 million per annum from next financial year where we are going to have to build up our ability to respond [to] this being the new normal,” he said…… https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/ideological-contempt-keating-slams-government-pressure-to-sell-abc-offices-20200303-p546ev.html
Cosy little cocktail party for Liberal and Labor MPs, with coal industry bigwigs
Climate campaigners condemn ‘insidious’ cocktail party for MPs and coal industry
Parliament House event represents an effort to undermine climate action, environmental group 350 Australia says, Guardian, Christopher Knaus @knauscWed 4 Mar 2020 Environmental campaigners say a cocktail night involving the fossil fuel industry and federal politicians represents an “insidious” lobbying effort to undermine climate action.
The pro-coal Liberal MP Craig Kelly and Labor’s Joel Fitzgibbon hosted a cocktail event at Parliament House to discuss carbon capture and storage with industry leaders on Wednesday night.
An invite seen by the Guardian was sent out by Kelly and Fitzgibbon, who chair the parliamentary friends of resources, together with representatives of Santos and the carbon capture body CO2CRC. The event is described as a “cocktail event to mark the inaugural meeting of the CO2CRC Carbon Capture and Storage Policy Forum”.
That forum features companies such as BHP, Chevron, Coal21, ENI, Exxon, the Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute, JPower, Shell and Woodside.
The invite says the forum aims to “work with governments, industry and other stakeholders” to create “suitable policy settings and a regulatory framework to accelerate the development and deployment of CCS technology in Australia”…..
Environment group 350 Australia says the event shows the need to “crack down on the undue influence of lobby groups on our democracy”.
The 350 Australia chief executive, Lucy Manne, said the event was an “insidious effort by the fossil fuel lobby to undermine action on the climate crisis”.
Manne said carbon capture and storage had proven a “pipe dream of the coal and gas lobby” and diverted millions away from proven renewables…..
“It’s outrageous that instead of working out how to rapidly transition to the renewable energy future the vast majority of Australians and businesses want, our elected representatives will tonight be sipping cocktails with the coal lobby and discussing how to extend the life of dirty coal-burning power stations.”
Such lobbying is generally hidden from the public unless revealed by the media. The Fitzgibbon-Kelly cocktail event was reported in News Corp papers.
It does not appear in any of the transparency measures governing lobbying. Federal ministers are also not required to disclose who they have met with, unlike in states like Queensland and New South Wales. ……https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/mar/04/climate-campaigners-condemn-insidious-cocktail-party-for-mps-and-coal-industry
No advantage in ‘new’ back-to-the-future nuclear reactors for Australia. Is the real motive military?
Part 2 of A Study of the “Report of the inquiry into the prerequisites for nuclear energy in Australia” Australian Parliamentary Committee 2020. The Industry Push to Force Nuclear Power in Australia
The Parliamentary Committee recommends, in part, the following: Recommendation 2
The Committee recommends that the Australian Government undertake a body of work to progress the understanding of nuclear energy technology by:
- Commissioning the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO), or other equivalent expert reviewer, to undertake a technological assessment on nuclear energy reactors to:
- produce a list of reactors that are defined under the categories of Generation I, II, III, III+ and IV;
- advise on the technological status of Generation III+ and Generation IV reactors including small modular reactors;
- advise on the feasibility and suitability of Generation III+ and Generation IV reactors including small modular reactors in the Australian context; and
- formulate a framework to be used by Government to monitor the status of new and emerging nuclear technologies.The first item of the recommendation – for ANTSO to compile of reactors according to each one’s status within the table of Generation – 1 to 4 might be a good idea, for many of the Generation IV reactor designs were first envisaged and trialled in the 1950s and 1960s before being discarded. Whereas, at the present time, and since the time the US Department of Energy sought ways of halting the decline of nuclear power’s percentage contribution to global energy supply in the 1990s. For that is the time that the idea of resurrecting old designs and calling them new and “Generation IV” and re marketing them first arose
The waste from the very first molten salt fuelled and cooled reactor, as we saw in the previous post, continues to cost US taxpayers money 60 years later.
In 2014 the Brookings Institute published an essay by Josh Freed entitled “Back to the Future, Advanced Nuclear Energy and the Battle Against Climate Change”. This essay is available to read at http://csweb.brookings.edu/content/research/essays/2014/backtothefuture.html The cover illustration is very interesting.
The titled cover includes the disclosure that the nuclear industry sees a future for previously discarded, old reactor designs. It shows a nuclear reactor sitting below sea level, protected by a combined Dyke / Causeway for levitating vehicles. Huge waves threaten the Dyke, vehicles, reactor and giant Science Woman, who is watching on with skilled impartiality. In the distance, buildings taken straight from the cartoon “The Jetsons” appear. The illustration is also, actually, a reinterpretation of the events which occurred in March 2011 at Fukushima. The sub text of the picture admits that nuclear industry cannot keep going in the way that it has done since the days between 1945 and now. The industry would disappear if it did not “modernise”.
The fission industry is dying as more and more competition arises in the form of alternative technologies in the energy generation technology market. Even Fusion research continues to make inroads toward the goal of successful and economic power generation, but it still a few years off. The 1930s fission patents of Szilard are long in the tooth and actually, in terms of economic energy production has always been a failure. Kick started by governments, the standard designs are trusted by fewer and fewer people, especially throughout Asia. Westinghouse Nuclear, GE Nuclear, Toshiba Nuclear are all bankrupt. British Nuclear Fuels Ltd is broke, Sellafield is broke and a growing cleanup cost liability.
So increasingly, the industry needs a unique selling point, something new and radical, something that solves the old nuclear problems. It needs a product which never fails or spills radioactive materials into the biosphere, it needs a product that will not fail because the grid goes down for a few days, it cannot melt down, catch fire like Windscale, Monju and Fermi 1 did.
Seeing as there actually no new concepts, why not look again, in desperation, at the rejected designs of the past? The essay by Josh Freed (his real name) mentions a company called Transatomic. In contrast to the contents of the Freed article, which claims the old new reactor envisioned by Transatomic run on nuclear waste, Transatomic make no such claim. They state that their proposed reactor would run on liquid uranium fuel. As per the original 50s/60s design. They claim that the Molten salt reactor would create less weight of high level waste.
Because the waste would be continuously removed from the reactor. he corporate website for Transatomic is here: http://www.transatomicpower.com/the-science/ And this, from their web site, is precisely what they promise: Molten salt reactors like Transatomic Power’s are fueled by uranium dissolved in a liquid salt. The fuel is not surrounded by cladding, making it possible to continuously remove the fission products that would otherwise stop the nuclear reaction. The liquid fuel is also much more resistant to structural damage from radiation than solid materials – simply, liquids have very little structure to be damaged. With proper filtration, liquid fuel can remain in a molten salt reactor for decades, allowing us to extract much more of its energy.” end quote. They claim their reactor design produces half the nuclear waste of a comparable conventional light water reactor.
This still does not solve the high level nuclear waste stockpile. It adds to it. Given the competition nuclear power has in the modern world, given that the need for ‘baseload’ energy is now shown to be nonsense, what would 1 or 2 small modular molten salt reactors add to Australia? Would they merely replace coal fire powered generation? SA has not had coal fired electricity for some years now. A combination of solar, wind and storage in SA means SA is a net electricity exporter to the Eastern States. We have back up of gas fired generation which very rarely needed.
Sadly for Transatomic, Green Tech Media state the following at https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/transatomic-to-shutter-its-nuclear-reactor-plans-make-its-technology-public announced the following in 2018:
“Transatomic to Shutter It’s Nuclear Reactor Plans, Open-Source It’s Tecnology.
The startup backed by Peter Thiel won’t be able to build its advanced reactor designs—but it’s making its IP available for others to carry on the work.” Source: Jeff St. John, 25 Sept 2018.as given above.
This gift to the world by Transatomic occurred at the time in Australia when various people began a bombastic and highly enthused campaign to convince Australians that Molten Salt Reactors, fuelled with either Uranium or Lithium or nuclear waste, were Jesus Mark 2. “We’ll Save Yer, just like we did in the Cold War. Solar and batteries are for whimps. We Can’t have solar and wind power in Australia, its a threat to Queensland Coal. Let’s nuclear instead and all make a quick a buck with IP”.
Funny that. Talk about drumming up business prospects and investment funds, and in 2020, floating a float on the back of sympathetic and one eyed Parliamentary Inquiry!
Double or Nothing?
The promise made by Transatomics is that molten fuel/molten salt reactors made with modern techniques will reduce by roughly half the amount of high level nuclear waste generated per unit of power generated. However, at the current time the amount of high level nuclear waste (ie, fission products -the transmutation products described in Szilard’s 1930s patents) and the release of the gaseous forms of these substances into the atmosphere, generated by Australian electricity generation is ZERO.
So the introduction of Molten Salt Reactor into Australia for electricity production will RAISE the production of high level nuclear waste from this activity by 100%. It won’t half, it won’t double, it will increase by x grams per watt. It is a spurious argument to say any reactor type will reduce Australia’s power industry high level nuclear waste when we produce zero at the moment. And if Australia continues on its non nuclear path, that zero rate of power related high level waste will remain zero forever. So where is the advantage for Australia in introducing power reactors in the civilian sphere?
I am led to believe that it will take between 10 – 20 years for any Australian nuclear power reactor to come on line from the time it is approved. By that stage the competition from other forms of low carbon power production will be much, much more severe than it is now. And today, in my opinion, only a devotee of nuclear power would see any advantage in introducing any type of nuclear reactor to Australia. Unless the real motive for such a reactor is a military motive. If so, the O’Brien Committee and the government needs to come clean on that. Not that they will. Such an admission is likely to be impossible for several reasons. Besides, no nuclear industry is free to fully disclose the corporate production and disposition of “special nuclear materials”.
So, I suppose in the end the Committee recommend ANTSO compile a list of reactor types and nominate the current industry PR terms for each type. For the Generational types (1 through IV) have actually very little to do with the chronological order and date range over which each type first manifest as a prototype. The small World War 2 German reactors, of which there were many, are little known, and the US ALSOS project has not disclosed that much about them. Germany had at least 4 reactor programs, 7 ways of enriching uranium. Japan had an Army fission project, a Navy fission project, an Air Force Fission project. All were formally abandoned, ironically , in July 1945. Germany was able to enrich uranium.
This is ancient history, but the world remains fairly ignorant I think, as to which reactor type is the safest, most economic, most reliable and so on. So far, all I have heard from the nuclear industry is PR manufactured originally by the US Department of Energy which relabelled the various reactor designs originated in the US according to a “Generation Number” which is completely detached from the chronological sequence in which they occurred.
In World War 2 Germany was working on heavy water reactors. Does that mean Hitler’s heavy water reactors were Generation III+ ? Of course not. They were Gen 1. As was the Canadian heavy water reactor of World War 2 which supplemented the US plutonium production at Hansford. If the Candu reactor is Gen III+ I’m Father Christmas. What the US DOE is doing with its naming is using marketing techniques to sell old concepts as new ideas.
Car companies do the same when naming cars. Makers of garbage trucks send salesmen around to Council depots extolling the virtues of the Gen IV 2 ton rubbish truck, complete with compactor, a tilt tray and 8 track stereo sound. And Depot managers get given toy model rubbish trucks they sit on their book cases to show how technically astute they are in the field of garbage.
Same deal here. It’s a no brainer. Yet, start collecting lists from ANSTO Mr. O’Brien. Great idea sir. It’ll keep you off the streets for awhile.
Busting the lies of the Australian Government about “new” nuclear reactors
The core propositions of non-traditional reactor proponents – improved economics, proliferation resistance, safety margins, and waste management – should be reevaluated.
Before construction of non-traditional reactors begins, the economic implications of the back end of these nontraditional fuel cycles must be analyzed in detail; disposal costs may be unpalatable………. reprocessing remains a security liability of dubious economic benefit
Non-traditional” is used to encompass both small modular light water reactors (Generation III+) and Generation IV reactors (including fast reactors, thermal-spectrum molten salt reactors, and high temperature gas reactors)
|
Burning waste or playing with fire? Waste management considerations for non-traditional reactors Full Text
The Industry Push to Force Nuclear Power in Australia https://nonuclearpowerinaustralia.wordpress.com/2020/03/02/burning-waste-or-playing-with-fire-waste-management-considerations-for-non-traditional-reactors-full-text/ by nuclearhistory March 2, 2020 The following paper is copied here in order to counter the false, incorrect and erroneous propaganda published by the Australian Government and its Parliamentary Committee for lying to the Australian people about so-called new nuclear reactor designs, all of which were rejected by competent authorities in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. The residues produced by these test reactors continue to cost the American taxpayer money and continue to present the American people with stored, hazardous radioactive waste which is also high chemically reactive. |
Greens leader Adam Bandt introduces climate emergency Bill
‘People are angry and anxious’: Adam Bandt introduces climate emergency 
bill, https://www.sbs.com.au/news/people-are-angry-and-anxious-adam-bandt-introduces-climate-emergency-bill Greens leader Adam Bandt has introduced a bill to formally declare a climate emergency and set up a ‘war cabinet’ to tackle the crisis.
Greens leader Adam Bandt has painted a post-apocalyptic future for Australia unless the government declares a climate emergency.
Mr Bandt told parliament on Monday that “environmental collapse was here” as he introduced his bill to formally declare the crisis.
“It is not scaremongering, it is hard physics and we have just had a taste of it over the last summer,” he said.
He said northern Australia would be inhospitable for parts of the year, one-in-six native species would be extinct, mosquito-borne diseases will travel south and the country’s river systems will see more algal blooms that lead to mass fish kills in the Murray-Darling.
Under the bill, the government would be required to set up a “war cabinet” to tackle the crisis, government agencies would refer to the declaration of a climate emergency when developing policy and table annual reports on how they were meeting their obligations.
Mr Bandt’s bill was seconded by independent MP Zali Steggall, who knocked off former Liberal prime minister Tony Abbott for the NSW seat of Warringah at the last election.
“There is no doubt we are in the midst of a climate emergency,” Ms Steggall said.
We have a duty to Australian people … it is time for us all to be accountable.”
A climate emergency motion moved in October fell four votes short.
So-called ‘Ethical’ super funds invest in coal, oil, gas
‘Ethical’ super funds invest in coal, oil, gas, SMH, Charlotte Grieve, March 3, 2020 Sustainable investment options offered by two major industry superannuation groups and wealth giant AMP have millions invested in the fossil fuel industry, despite pledging to apply strict screening based on environmental, social and governance standards.
AustralianSuper’s “socially aware investment option” claims it does not invest in Australian or international companies that directly own fossil fuels while disclosures of its portfolio holdings show it has at least $39 million invested in more than 20 global coal, oil and gas projects. These include Marathon Petroleum Corp, Indian thermal coal plant Adhunik Power and Natural Resources and oil, gas and chemicals company, WorleyParsons.
Latest figures show the fund has more than $2.4 billion invested on behalf of 38,000 members, less than 2 per cent of the $172 billion superannuation giant’s total membership pool.
After conducting a survey of members’ interests, the top investment concern for those wanting an ethical alternative was exposure to coal and other fossil fuels. The socially aware option pledges to screen out companies that own reserves of fossil fuels or uranium, regardless of the size of its ownership.
This screen is not applied to private equity, which makes up 4 per cent of total investments and the fund’s fact-sheet explains it can still invest in companies that provide services to, buy, process or sell products from or invest in the excluded companies.
The fund has a stake in 24 companies that either produce fossil fuels or rely on their production. These include: thermal coal producer Westmoreland Mining that in December announced a six-year coal supply agreement in middle America; $9.6 million in Halliburton, one of the world’s largest providers of drilling and production services for oil, gas and coal companies; and $9.6 million in Marathon Petroleum, the largest refining company in America that produces more than 3 million barrels of crude oil per day.
Other oil and gas companies AustralianSuper’s sustainable fund bankrolls include Fieldwood Energy, a company that claims to be one of the largest producers of oil and gas in the Gulf of Mexico, Perth-based Northern Oil and Gas and Ajax Resources, recently acquired by Texas oil and gas company, Diamondback.
AustralianSuper declined to answer questions about its screening process or if it had plans to create a fund that applies a hard screen to the fossil fuel industry.
Similarly, the 2019 portfolio holdings for $54 billion Hostplus’s sustainable investment option launched in March 2017 includes at least eight oil and gas companies, including Oil Search, Santos and Woodside Petroleum.
Hostplus was contacted for comment.
However, AMP invests in at least nine oil and gas companies, including Oil Search, Woodside Petroleum and Santos……. https://www.smh.com.au/business/banking-and-finance/ethical-super-funds-invest-in-coal-oil-gas-20200228-p545ja.html
Australia’s disappearing beaches, as global heating causes sea level rise
|
Thousands of kilometres of Australia’s beaches at risk from rising seas, SMH, By Peter Hannam, March 3, 2020 More than 12,000 kilometres of Australia’s sandy beaches are threatened by coastal erosion by the end of the century, with greater losses predicted if greenhouse gas emissions remain high.The projections, made by European researchers and published in Nature Climate Change on Tuesday, used satellite data that tracked shoreline change from 1984 to 2015. They found a “substantial proportion” of the world’s sandy coastline is already eroded, a trend that could worsen as climate change pushes up sea levels.
Under a “moderate” effort to curb emissions – with carbon pollution peaking at 2040 and then declining – at least 12,324 kilometres of Australia’s sandy coast will be threatened with erosion by 2100. That tally is the most of any nation, and would amount to about 40 per cent of the country’s sandy beaches. Should greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise through the century – the so-called 8.5 Representative Concentration Pathway – Australia’s sandy coastline at risk increases to 15,439 kilometres, the paper said. “You have a long coastline and part of the coast is very mildly sloping” and is therefore susceptible to erosion, said Michalis Vousdoukas, a coastal oceanographer at the European Commission and the paper’s lead author. “Melbourne is worse than Sydney,” Dr Vousdoukas told the Herald and The Age, adding Brisbane and Adelaide’s beaches fell between the two in terms of vulnerability to erosion. The researchers said global sea levels had been increasing “at an accelerated rate during the past 25 years and will continue to do so with climate change”. So far, most of the increase had come from the thermal expansion of warmer water but, by mid-century or so, the increase in sea levels would likely come more from melting ice sheets, Dr Vousdoukas said……..https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/thousands-of-kilometres-of-australia-s-beaches-at-risk-from-rising-seas-20200302-p5463p.html |
|
|
Australia’s early nuclear history – a scandalously crooked co-operation with Britain
The British also deliberately spread plutonium dust over the outback in so called safety tests. Although a number of Australians had knowledge they desperately wanted to share with the Australian people, the Australian government threatened these people with many years jail if they spoke out.
Australian service personnel and their health status records were treated and kept at the Maralinga Hospital. John Hutton was the only involved person to ever see his Maralinga file and actually get to retain a page from it. (He nicked it).
Australia and Britain perfected a medical regime in which medical responses to radiation induced syndromes were solved without documenting the actual diagnosis. The afflicted personnel, with the exception of Mr. Hutton, never got to read their own medical records, all of which disappeared when the British Bombardiers left Australia in the 1960s. And some say they took the Maralinga medical records with them. That’s very close collaboration, isn’t it?
|
Part 1 of A Study of the “Report of the inquiry into the prerequisites for nuclear energy in Australia” Australian Parliamentary Committee 2020. Nuclear History, 29 Feb 2020 “………..Australia cooperated with the United Kingdom in that nations’ successful attempt to duplicate the Manhattan’s Project plutonium bomb. Prime Minister Menzies, without the approval of ordinary Australians, agreed to the British request to detonate atomic bombs over and on Australia. This involved excluding the Australian Sir Mark Oliphant from participating in the Atomic Weapons Safety Committee (AWTSC). Instead following British desires, Australia appointed the Englishman Professor Titterton, a radar and timing expert, to that committee. Even though the Committee was not a British Committee, but one which was paid for by Australians, and which reported to, and was subordinate to, the Australian government. Titterton rose quickly to head the committee. Justice Jim McClelland, during the Royal Commission into the British Nuclear Bombing of Australia, concluded that Titterton deliberately with held important safety information from the safety committee, the Australian government and the Australian people. Justice McClelland found that Titterton was acting under security protocols imposed by Britain and the United States. And that this was counter to Australian interests and to the safety and security of Australians. The results of this deception against Australia continue to resonant in Australia today. Continue reading
|
Greens Senator Hanson-Young calls for Senate Nuclear Waste Inquiry to meet in Whyalla, South Australia
 Nuclear bill referred to inquiry https://www.whyallanewsonline.com.au/story/6653019/nuclear-bill-referred-to-inquiry/?cs=1550&fbclid=IwAR3AvrninZlnLmX8r79QDkQopkBb5hXoWhguw106lCyiisCDdmWMy714MPM, Louis Mayfield 27 Feb 20,
The formal process for the federal government’s push for a nuclear waste dump in Kimba will be put under the microscope by the Senate Economics Committee, with a Greens Senator calling for hearing in Whyalla. On Thursday the Greens announced they would be referring the government’s legislation for the Nuclear Radioactive Waste Management Facility to a Senate Inquiry for ‘scrutiny of the laws and the process that led to this point’. South Australian Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young requested that the committee organise a public hearing in Whyalla and a visit to the federal government’s chosen site for the facility at Napandee.
“I have requested a hearing in Whyalla because it shouldn’t be left to the suits in Canberra to decide, anything less would be offensive to the communities involved,” she said. Senator Hanson-Young also claimed the site selection for the facility had been ‘dodgy from the start’.
“It’s ripped small communities apart and Traditional Owners have vehemently objected to the proposal,” she said. “It’s clear there isn’t broad community support for a nuclear waste dump in Kimba, despite what former Minister Matt Canavan would have everyone believe.”
“Port Augusta, Whyalla, Port Pirie and Port Lincoln and every town living along potential transportation route, should have been consulted and given an opportunity to have their say,” she said. “The Greens aren’t leaving it to the community of Kimba to hold the line on their own. A Senate Inquiry will give the entire proposal the scrutiny it needs.” The committee has resolved to report on the legislation in June, submissions to the committee are now open and will close at the end of March. |
|
THE AUSTRALIAN newspaper joins in right-wing media reactions and conspiracy theories surrounding coronavirus
- The Australian, a national newspaper part of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp., published an anti-trans article on February 9 that compared coronavirus to a “global epidemic” of transgender teens. The outlet has a history of anti-trans reporting and spreading misinformation about trans youth.
A guide to right-wing media reactions and conspiracy theories surrounding coronavirus, MEDIA MATTERS BY KAYLA GOGARTY & COURTNEY HAGLE RESEARCH CONTRIBUTIONS FROM NOOR AL-SIBAI, ALEX KAPLAN, NIKKI MCCANN RAMIREZ & MADELINE PELTZ 02/28/20
-
As the lethal outbreak of coronavirus continues to spread around the world and the U.S. government warns that it will almost certainly also spread within the United States, right-wing media outlets and online accounts are spreading misinformation and conspiracy theories which could have deadly consequences.
The strain of novel coronavirus known as COVID-19 is a respiratory disease that was first detected in the city of Wuhan, China. It swiftly spread and has now been detected in 53 countries, including the United States. So far, the outbreak has led to nearly 3,000 deaths and more than 82,000 cases worldwide, according to The New York Times.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention describes the disease behind the current outbreak as part of “a large family of viruses that are common in many different species of animals, including camels, cattle, cats, and bats.” The CDC adds that “rarely, animal coronaviruses can infect people and then spread between people.” Earlier patients in the COVID-19 outbreak appeared to have a link to seafood and animal products, but the virus has since been shown to spread person-to-person.
On January 30, the International Health Regulations Emergency Committee of the World Health Organization declared the outbreak a “public health emergency of international concern,” and on January 31, Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar declared a public health emergency in the United States.
As the impact of coronavirus continued to be reported, concerns began to arise that it was driving xenophobic attacks toward people of Asian descent. In New York City, a man assaulted a woman wearing a face mask while calling her a “diseased b****.” On a Los Angeles subway, one man declared that “every disease has ever came from China.” In another incident, a Costco worker in Washington state told an 8-year-old child to “get away” because she believed he may be “from China.” Across the country, there has been an uptick in physical and verbal attacks toward Asian Americans.
In addition to xenophobic sentiments, conspiracy theories and agenda-driven narratives began to arise on the internet and throughout right-wing media, adding more panic and confusion to an already chaotic situation. These conspiracy theories include claims that the Chinese government created coronavirus at a lab in Wuhan; that the United States is using the virus to attack and undermine China from within; and that coronavirus was previously created and patented by former Microsoft CEO Bill Gates.
The virus has also triggered anti-Semitic sentiments, medical and scientific disinformation, and fearmongering from the religious right about the end of the world. In the United States, President Donald Trump and his allies in right-wing media have also absurdly argued that Democrats and the media are politicizing coronavirus for their own gain to make him look bad and cause panic in the stock market, which has plunged in reaction to the potential pandemic. Continue reading
#ScottyFromMarketing a ‘predatory’ centrist on climate policy with no plans for meaningful emissions reduction
 Wayne Swan Morrison a ‘predatory’ centrist on climate policy with no plans for meaningful emissions reduction, says SwanLabor president says party must work against PM’s PR strategy and get on with ‘solving the bloody problem’, Katharine Murphy Political editor, Sun 1 Mar 2020
Labor federal president Wayne Swan says Morrison does not have a serious climate policy ‘but as you would expect from a marketing guy, [he has] a clearly articulated PR strategy to use climate as a wedge. Labor’s federal president Wayne Swan will accuse Scott Morrison of engaging in “predatory centrism” on climate policy by styling himself as the pragmatist between the extremes of climate emergencies and denialism, when the government has no intention of driving meaningful emissions reduction. In a speech to be delivered on Sunday, Swan will argue Labor will only win the decade-long climate wars if it approaches the challenge with “pragmatic policy and ruthless organisation”. According to speech notes, Swan will say Labor needs to articulate a roadmap for the domestic coal powered industry “which manages its decline”……. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/01/morrison-a-predatory-centrist-on-climate-policy-with-no-plans-for-meaningful-emissions-reduction-says-swan |
|
Global heating, rising seas, and the plight of Torres Strait Islanders
It’s our right to be here’: the Torres Strait Islanders fighting to save their homes from a rising sea
An entire way of life is under threat in the Torres Strait, where locals have taken their case to the United Nations, Guardian Jack Banister, 1 Mar 20
Kabay Tamu slows his dusty white ute to walking speed on the dirt road that runs along the south-western shoreline of Warraber, a tiny coral cay in the Torres Strait that is home to about 250 people.
“This was the best spot for a day out,” 28-year-old Tamu says, recalling his childhood.
Most of the beach where Tamu used to play is gone, along with several enormous wongai trees that were a barrier of sorts, protecting the dirt road and the nearby dam, which supplies the island’s drinking water, from the sea.
Warraber is just 1.4km long, and half as wide, but shrinking fast. Some data suggests that sea levels in the Torres Strait could be rising at twice the global rate.
Now, Islanders dump their green waste to hold back the rising sea. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates that by 2100 tides will rise 30–60cm with immediate cuts to carbon emissions, and 61-110cm without…….
The Billy family also live on nearby Poruma island, where Danny spent part of his childhood. Just a 15-minute flight away, Poruma is smaller and thinner. On the western shore, a road and buildings are threatened, and 250 coconut trees – a source of food, shelter and leaves used in traditional ceremonies – have already been washed away.
Local man Phillemon Mosby feels that loss keenly. The picturesque plantation should be a place to share with children and grandchildren, who would ordinarily take over the nurturing of the site.
“That experience was taken away because of climate change, because of the rising sea levels. We’ve seen areas where we used to go fishing that are no longer there. We’ve seen rocks where people used to go diving that are covered.”…….
Tamu, Billy, and Uncle Frank’s cousin, Nazareth Fauid, are among the eight Torres Strait Islanders who lodged a complaint last May with the United Nations human rights committee against the Australian government, alleging that its failure to reduce emissions, or pursue proper adaptation measures across the region impedes their human rights, to culture and life.
Sophie Marjanac, a lawyer with environmental non-profit ClientEarth, is representing the group, who want the government to meet its targets under the Paris Agreement, to reach net zero emissions by 2050 and to phase out thermal coal.
In December, the federal government matched an earlier commitment of $20 million from the Queensland governmentto build new seawalls. But there is widespread scepticism among Islanders about when the new walls will be constructed.
Other islands including Boigu, Masig, and Iama need new seawalls. It is unclear which islands will be prioritised, and if the new funding will cover them all.
Tamu is quick to point out that “sea walls are only to buy us time” – the best fix is emissions reduction.
“The thing that got me was [the federal government] didn’t announce [the new funding] as seawalls to combat climate change. They said it was ‘an infrastructure development in the community’. They’re still trying to cover up climate change and the rising sea levels here.”
Tamu gained international headlines when he asked prime minister Scott Morrison to visit Warraber during the UN climate summit in New York last September. He maintains that the damage visible on Warraber and other islands would shock them into action on climate and coal…….
The invitation was rejected via email in November, and Tamu says that the government is still “hearing, but not listening” when it comes to nationwide pleas for climate action. ……
While the UN complaint won’t be settled until 2021, Danny Billy says islanders won’t stop making noise until Australia finally offers global leadership on climate change…https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/mar/01/its-our-right-to-be-here-the-torres-strait-islanders-fighting-to-save-their-homes-from-a-rising-sea
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 