Strong opposition to nuclear waste dump plan for Flinders Ranges
South Australia’s nuclear dump deadline looms large, Newcastle Herald, Amy Green, 11 Dec 19
South Australia’s Flinders Ranges nuclear waste ballot closes tomorrow.
Thousands of people have signed an open letter to the federal government asking it not to proceed with the current plan. The Australian Conservation Foundation is behind the letter, which has garnered more than 5000 signatures, addressing Minister for Resources Senator Matt Canavan.
Nuclear Free Campaigner Dave Sweeney has labelled the process “deeply flawed and irresponsible”. “The current federal waste plan lacks key information of such important things as waste acceptance criteria, who would manage any facility and transport methods and routes,” Mr Sweeney said.
“It also fails to make any credible case for doubling handling the long lived intermediate level waste (ILW). “The vast majority of this ILW waste is currently securely stored above ground at the ANSTO Lucas Heights facility in southern Sydney, but the federal Department want to re-locate this above ground storage in regional SA – pending future disposal via a yet to fund or identified place or process.
“There is a real risk this waste will become stranded at any future SA site.”
The Department of Industry, Innovation and Science is encouraging interested people who haven’t done so already, to have their say on the proposed National Radioactive Waste Management Facility.
The department is consulting with two South Australian communities who live near three potential sites volunteered by landowners – two near Kimba and one near Hawker.
The results of these ballots and surveys, together with public submissions and feedback received elsewhere will be given to Minister Canavan to assist him in deciding whether the facility can be established at one of the potential sites…. https://www.newcastleherald.com.au/story/6538918/sa-nuclear-dump-deadline-looms-large/?cs=9397
A foreign corporation gets 89 BILLION litres of Australia’s water, as drought worsens
|
Water restrictions for you, an endless supply for them: How a foreign corporate giant is snapping up 89 BILLION litres of Australia’s H20 as the country suffers its worst drought ever
By ALISHA ROUSE FOR DAILY MAIL AUSTRALIA DAILY MAIL UK 12 December 2019 |A multi-billion dollar Singaporean food company is selling 89,000 megalitres of Australian water to a Canadian pension fund. The mega sale of Australian permanent water rights comes as the country is crippled by one of the worst droughts in its history. On Tuesday, NSW brought in a complete ban on hoses as part of the toughest water restrictions implemented for more than a decade. But no such problem existed for food and agriculture giant Olam International, which sold the 89billion litres of permanent water rights for an astonishing $490 million. The company sold it to an entity associated with the Public Sector Pension Investment Board, one of Canada’s largest pension investment managers, according to Straits Times. It will use the water to irrigate almond trees, in a business venture likely to draw criticism over foreign ownership of farms and water. The water rights are in the lower Murray-Darling Basin. The chairman of the Victorian Farmers Federation’s water council, Richard Anderson, told the Sydney Morning Herald: ‘Really, all you’ve got is a change of ownership, it (the water) has gone from a Singapore-owned company to a Canadian pension fund……. Water restrictions in Sydney, the Blue Mountains and Illawarra were upgraded to level two as dam levels in the region sank to just 45 per cent capacity, the lowest levels since the Millennium Drought took hold in 2003….. The Bureau of Meteorology has predicted a hot-than-usual summer, with no forecast for significant rain. The sale is understood to be giving Olam a ‘one-time pre-tax capital gain of about $311 million’, the paper reported. The agreement is for 25 years, with the option to renew for another 25. In March, the government released its foreign ownership of water entitlement register, showing that investors from China and the US had the largest stake in Australia’s foreign-owned water entitlements. It showed that one in 10 water entitlements is foreign owned. A water entitlement is the right to an ongoing share of water, which can be sold by irrigators, companies or investors. Acting as a property right, it gives access to an exclusive share of water from a water resource. This is different to a water allocation, which is the right to access a volume of water for use or trade. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7780983/Foreign-company-sells-89-billion-litres-Australian-water-rights-490m-drought.html?fbclid=IwAR3wKbYP6OnXTEPhNoZiDeQ2Oj1o6uMzWUmkQSOgMxYjkZn6i0cJFj60Zo4&fbclid=IwAR3oHKAi9vQG4MctY4LMYNppX-pbY88hw0Zj4ACzypNTB_WI9nTtkc710bc |
|
Community of small rural town Kimba “blown apart” by nuclear waste dump plan
The Australian town divided over hosting the country’s first nuclear waste dump, The small South Australian farming town of Kimba is split in two by the proposal to host Australia’s first permanent nuclear waste facility. Here, SBS News meets residents on both sides of the debate.
The women, who both live with their families on farms, have come to the decision that it is time to move on.
“It used to be such a close-knit community, but it’s blown apart.”
Ms Miller says the debate over the proposal for Kimba to host Australia’s first permanent nuclear waste facility has led to so much community division that some people no longer talk to each other.
“It’s not a nice place to live, you don’t want to go down the street because there are people that shun you and won’t talk to you,” Ms Miller says.
“The whole atmosphere is just really depressing”.
For four years, this small town on the edge of the Australian outback has been at the centre of debate, consultation and planning as a potential site to host the facility.
After promises of 45 ongoing full-time jobs and more than $30 million in federal government money earmarked to flow into town projects if the proposal goes ahead, the community last month voted on whether or not to host the site.
Sixty-two per cent of Kimba residents backed the site going ahead in the ballot run by the Australian Electoral Commission, and 38 per cent voted against it.
The public vote was a key final hurdle to indicate community support for the plan and federal resources minister Matt Canavan is expected to make a decision on which site will host the dump in early 2020.
There are three sites that remain on the shortlist, two near Kimba and the other further north near Hawker, in South Australia’s Flinders Ranges region.
Support for the facility
Grain and livestock farmer Geoff Baldock is a third-generation farmer in the Kimba region. He and his family farm more than 700 hectares of land here and he is preparing to sell off a small slice of that, around two per cent, to the federal government for them to build their nuclear waste facility.
He won’t reveal exactly how much the government is offering to pay for his land but says the offer has been “generous”…..
He hopes the proposal will go ahead and play a vital role in securing the future of the Kimba town, which has been in economic and population decline for a number of years. ……
Opponents of the proposal are deeply distrustful of the federal government and the promises made by politicians and scientists on government-paid salaries. They want independent scientists brought in to the safety assessments of the site. ……
The public vote in the town of Hawker closes on December 12 and the government will make a decision on which site will go ahead with the plan early next year.
But for friends Ms Tiller and Ms Miller it is too late. Their properties are on the market and both families are planning to move elsewhere in South Australia as soon as they can. HTTPS://WWW.SBS.COM.AU/NEWS/THE-AUSTRALIAN-TOWN-DIVIDED-OVER-HOSTING-THE-COUNTRY-S-FIRST-NUCLEAR-WASTE-DUMP?CX_CID=EDM%3ANEWSAM%3A2019&FBCLID=IWAR2B19ZUOG9WHGBO9CVSO_81AOYNXY0R4AFZAJFJW4EJWKMW_N6_B2M01WQ
BHP’s Olympic Dam expansion plan deserves serious attention and scrutiny
10 Dec 19, BHP is formally seeking to expand the Olympic Dam mine in northern South Australia and public comment on the federal EPBC referral – the Olympic Dam Resource Development Strategy – closes today.
Conservation SA, Friends of the Earth Australia and the Australian Conservation Foundation have sent a joint submission to the federal Environment department.
After today’s close of public comment the federal Minister has up to twenty business days to make a decision on the required level of assessment.
We maintain that the Olympic Dam expansion plan deserves serious attention and scrutiny for three key reasons: it involves the long lived and multi-faceted threat of uranium, it proposes to use massive amounts of finite underground water and the company is in trouble globally over the management of mine wastes and residues currently stored in multiple leaking – and sometimes catastrophically failing – tailings dams. BHP has identified and conceded that three of the existing Olympic Dam tailings dams are in the most severe global ‘extreme risk’ category.
The key recommendations from environment groups include:
- That BHP’s Olympic Dam operation be assessed in its entirety with the full range of project impacts subject to public consultation.
At a minimum, EPBC Act responsibilities to protect Matters of NES require that the BHP Olympic Dam Referral must be subject to a public environmental impact assessment process.
- A comprehensive Safety Risk Assessment is needed for all Olympic Dam mine tailings facilities.
- BHP must lodge a Bond to cover 100% of Olympic Dam rehabilitation liabilities.
- BHP must stop the use of evaporation ponds to reduce mortality in protected bird species.
These issues are further explored in detailed project briefing papers linked with the joint groups submission.
David Noonan – the submission author is available to provide further issue background on 0414 519 419
The comments below are attributable to ACF spokesperson Dave Sweeney (0408 317 812):
“As the world’s largest miner BHP has a responsibility to adopt best practise standards to every aspect of its Olympic Dam operation, including transparency, rigour and extent of assessment.
“A federal review when BHP wanted to expand Olympic Dam as an open cut mine earlier this decade made clear recommendations about the need to assess the projects cumulative impacts – this approach must be reflected in the current federal consideration of BHP’s proposal.
“Uranium is a unique mineral and risk and is always contested and contaminating.
“The global uranium price remains depressed after Fukushima and BHP should actively model a project configuration where uranium is not part of Olympic Dam’s mineral products.”
(note: there is direct DFAT confirmation that Australian uranium was inside Fukushima when the reactors failed: Australian uranium fuelled Fukushima’s fallout)
“Any increase in the footprint of Olympic Dam would mean an increase in the complexity and cost of future clean up and rehabilitation.
“Cleaning up a uranium mine is never easy and always costly – BHP must be required to ensure there is the dedicated financial capacity to fund this clean-up work – it cannot be allowed to become a future burden to the SA taxpayer or wider community.
“Existing federal government standards require the Ranger uranium mine in Kakadu to isolate its radioactive tailings for at least 10,000 years. The same standard must be applied at Olympic Dam – especially as BHP has confirmed that three of Olympic Dam’s existing tailings dam are in the global ‘extreme risk’ category. There should be no new pressure on this already compromised tailings management system without comprehensive and independent review.”
Federal Nuclear Inquiry Report expected this week
 Report due on nuclear power industry, Canberra Times, Paul Osborne, 9 Dec 19, A report looking into the potential for nuclear power in Australia is expected to be released later this week. The parliamentary environment and energy committee was tasked by Energy Minister Angus Taylor in August to examine the potential for nuclear power. Mr Taylor told the committee the moratorium on nuclear energy would remain, but he wanted some “sensible” advice on economic, environmental and safety implications. The inquiry received evidence on the potential for micro-reactors – some as small as five megawatts – and even floating nuclear power stations which are being developed in Russia……. Environment groups said there were huge health, environmental and financial risks from a nuclear industry, which would also need massive taxpayer subsidies. They warned suggestions of small modular reactors were a pipedream and the nuclear waste storage problem had not yet been solved…… It is understood the committee is aiming to table the report in parliament by the end of the week, but no formal release date has been set. https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/6534160/report-due-on-nuclear-power-industry/ |
|
|
Australia on fire. Scott Morrison under fire over bushfire emergency
‘Australians are paying the price’: Scott Morrison under fire over bushfire emergency, The unprecedented severity of Australia’s bushfire season is igniting calls for stronger action in response to the climate emergency. SBS, BY TOM STAYNER , 9 Dec 19, As Australia burns, public concern over the need for greater action against the devastating bushfire season and climate change is igniting.
Dozens of bushfires continue to burn across the nation’s east coast with the effects of these blazes ranging from razed homes on the frontlines to smoke choking metropolitan centres.
The fire season has captured international attention with media outlets from the New York Times to the BBC drawing attention to criticism against the Morrison government’s inaction on climate change.
The Climate Council has also laid fresh blame on the Federal government, accusing it of being “out of touch” with the action Australians are demanding.
“It is irresponsible not to connect the dots – it is absolutely clear … that climate change is exacerbating dangerous bushfire conditions,” the Climate Council’s Dr Martin Rice told SBS News.
“Australia must act on climate change it must join the global collective effort – we’re falling woefully behind and Australians are paying the price.”…..
The Department of Environment and Energy released the “Australia’s emissions projections 2019” report on Sunday citing the nation would exceed its 2030 Paris target by 16 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent.
But Dr Rice said the numbers point to a “dodgy accounting” trick through using “carry-over” credits to reach the commitment, symptomatic of a failure to respond to the “escalating climate crisis”.
“Australia is on the frontline of the escalating crisis, now is not the time to cut corners on climate,” he said.
“We need to actually prepare our emergency services and our fire services and our community for the escalating threats.”…..
More than 90 fires were burning across NSW alone on Sunday evening and there are fears of worsening conditions when temperatures soar later this week.
Amid these conditions, Labor has again urged Mr Morrison to hold an urgent COAG meeting to prepare Australia for the bushfire season.
“We can see, smell and feel the changing climate but our Government says we’re only imagining it,” Opposition leader Anthony Albanese said over the weekend…..
[Morrison] has faced criticism for not meeting with a group of ex-fire chiefs, at the centre of a petition signed by more than 100,000 Australians which calls for a national emergency summit…..
Climate change is Australia’s labyrinth without an exit’
The horrific fire conditions have spawned international headlines about Australia’s response with the New York Times writing the fires revealed “once again” that Australia’s “pragmatism stops at climate change”.
The outlet cited political spats over climate changes and the link to bushfires including Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack’s jibe against “raving inner-city lunatics”, The Greens.
“Climate change is Australia’s labyrinth without an exit, where its pragmatism disappears,” the New York Times wrote.
One of those Greens, Senator Sarah Hanson-Young again took aim at Mr Morrison this weekend over his government’s response.
“Our nation is our fire,” she said.
“Australians deserve better than politicians with their heads in the sand.” HTTPS://WWW.SBS.COM.AU/NEWS/AUSTRALIANS-ARE-PAYING-THE-PRICE-SCOTT-MORRISON-UNDER-FIRE-OVER-BUSHFIRE-EMERGENCY
Hypocrisy of Australian Labor Party on climate change
The ALP remains far more worried about looking like it is attacking people who work in coalmines than getting on the front foot on climate change.
It is 2019 and the leader of the ALP is now repeating lines about our exports of coals that Tony Abbott used.
The ALP cannot afford to play games on this issue. You can’t say climate change is real and then ensure your messaging is about protecting coal.
|
The Coalition isn’t being honest about the climate crisis. But neither is Labor https://www.theguardian.com/business/grogonomics/2019/dec/10/the-coalition-isnt-being-honest-about-the-climate-crisis-but-neither-is-labor, Greg Jericho @GrogsGamut Tue 10 Dec 2019
Of course we need to think about those who will be affected by mine closures, but cripes, we’re all affected by climate change. In the weekend I flew up to Sydney to attend a conference held by the Chifley Research Centre, the ALP’s thinktank. As the plane approached Sydney, the site of the fire front in the Blue Mountains was stomach-churning. And then I got to experience the air quality of Sydney that has become news around the world.Upon returning to Canberra, I discovered a wind change had meant the nation’s capital was now enveloped in a haze of smoke – and expected to be so for the rest of the week. This, I need not tell you, is not normal. Because of climate change, areas of south-eastern Australia are going to be drier and hotter, the times for doing preventative hazard reduction burning will shrink, and as a result our fire seasons will become longer, and the fires will become more intense. This is due to one thing – climate change. The only way to prevent this is to reduce our emissions and to pressure the rest of the world to reduce emissions as well. We are not doing either of those things. Continue reading |
Australia is copping it at COP25 – and rightly so
 Australia is copping it at COP25 – and rightly so, Canberra Times, Dermot O’Gorman , 9 Dec 19,
This week the world’s climate ministers, including Australia’s embattled Minister for Emissions Reduction Angus Taylor, are meeting in Madrid for international climate talks. It has already been an inauspicious start to the COP25 UN Climate Change Conference, where Australia is receiving a well-deserved kicking from the international community for its inaction on the issue.
Australia bagged the infamous Fossil of the Day award from environment groups on the opening day. The satirical award, presented each day of the conference, was in recognition of the Australian government’s downplay of the link between climate change and the bushfires that continue to devastate communities across the country. As the talks continue, we shouldn’t be surprised to see members of the European Union, who are leading the way in tackling climate change, taking aim at Australia for our weak climate commitments. Trade Minister Simon Birmingham recently got a taste of this when France pushed Australia to adopt enforceable climate change targets as part of a planned trade deal with the EU. COP25 should be a wake-up call that our domestic climate policies and position on thermal coal exports are undermining Australia’s standing in the world…..https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/6532512/australia-is-copping-it-at-cop25-and-rightly-so/?cs=14246 |
|
Victoria’s chemical waste scandal
 The man who made a toxic waste disaster, Greed, lax oversight and poor regulation allowed one man to distort the national market for toxic waste disposal and create an environmental catastrophe.The Age, By Chris Vedelago, Sumeyya Ilanbey and Cameron Houston, DECEMBER 8, 2019 August 2012, former truck driver and sandblaster Graham Leslie White bought a 567-hectare block of useless scrubland outside the tiny western Victorian town of Kaniva, nearly five hours from his home and businesses in Melbourne.He began by building a road, designed to support the weight of heavy vehicles, into the desolate patch. Later, White bulldozed a network of tracks deep into the interior of the property that dead-ended in oddly shaped clearings of rough, red earth.
White claimed it was a quad-biking course for his children, an answer that satisfied the curiosity of the council officer. But five years on, we know the truth. Covered by a thin layer of topsoil were the pits that White had dug and that he was filling with toxic waste — millions of litres of chemicals and tonnes of asbestos-contaminated products brought by the truckload. The Kaniva property was the final destination for an illegal dumping syndicate whose operations grew so large they distorted the national market in toxic waste disposal. Victoria’s Environment Protection Authority — relying on a paper-based tracking system and a lax inspection regime — was blindsided by this dark market that threatened public safety and the welfare of emergency services personnel. By the time the scheme was accidentally exposed in 2018, White and his associates at Bradbury Industrial Services had illicitly buried or stockpiled an estimated 50 million litres of highly flammable solvents and other toxic materials. The failure to arrest this operation also laid the groundwork that sparked two of Melbourne’s worst-ever industrial fires. The value propositionSome time after 2013, White made an informal arrangement with waste recycling and remediation company, Bradbury. Their pitch to the producers and owners of toxic waste was simple — we can do it cheaper. Industry sources who declined to be identified for fear of retribution by their employers say the waste industry operates on thin margins. The syndicate offered to dispose of products at up to half the cost of competitors. Sometimes they offered to transport chemicals from the factory door for free. An investigation by The Age has revealed that manufacturers, chemical companies, waste processors, and paint, automotive and cleaning businesses across the eastern states quickly signed up. …… https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/the-man-who-made-a-toxic-waste-disaster-20191205-p53h1x.html |
|
Australian govt’s dodgy climate accounting tricks to be tested in Madrid
Australia’s ‘betrayal of trust’ emissions plan to be tested in Madrid, SMH, By Peter Hannam, December 9, 2019, The Morrison government could be forced to justify Australia’s plan to count “carry-over credits” towards the country’s Paris climate target, with a global summit set to debate eliminating their use.
The 25th Conference of the Parties (COP25) meeting in the Spanish capital of Madrid is scheduled to debate the so-called “rulebook” for the goals agreed by the nearly 200 Paris signatory nations.
According to the draft “guidance on cooperative approaches“, one “option” for debate will be that “Kyoto Protocol units, or reductions underlying such units, may not be used by any Party toward its [nationally determined goals]”.
The Morrison government has repeatedly said Australia is entitled to use “surplus” units the country will generate during the Kyoto period (2008-2020) to count against the 2021-2030 Paris target.
Australia’s latest emissions projections report, released over the weekend, showed the government is planning to count 411 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO-e) from the Kyoto-agreement era. The use of such credits would mean Australia could meet its pledge of cutting 2005-level emissions 26-28 per cent by 2030 with minimal effort.
Malte Meinshausen, co-director of the Energy Transition Hub at Melbourne University and a former climate negotiator with Germany, said it was good the Kyoto option appears “to be on the table”.
The use of Kyoto credits was “a betrayal of the trust which all countries signed up to at Paris”, Professor Meinshausen said, noting New Zealand, European Union and Pacific states opposed them.
While climate laggards such as Russia and Brazil may join Australia in opposing the Kyoto “option”, “it’s a reminder that the international community does not want to give up easily the good cooperative fruits developed in Paris”, he said…….
Australia will certainly have to defend its carryover and depending on how the text evolves might find itself increasingly isolated,” said Richie Merzian, an emissions analyst with The Australia Institute and former climate treaty negotiator for the Australian government.
“There are apparently over 100 countries supporting the restriction to limit Kyoto Protocol units from being used to meet Paris Agreement commitments,” he told the Herald and The Age from Madrid.
“Australia’s usual allies – other developed countries – either have ruled out using these credits voluntarily or don’t have skin in the game,” Mr Merzian said. “Australia’s only support might come from China and Brazil keen to use their carbon market credits from Kyoto to cash into Paris.”
Adam Bandt, Greens climate spokesman, said “Scott Morrison’s dodgy climate accounting is now up in lights on the world stage.
“Australia is burning at home, and Angus Taylor is turning up at an international event asking for the right to keep on polluting,” he said…….
“[The emissions drop] is driven mainly by declines in the electricity sector because of strong uptake of rooftop solar and the inclusion of the Victoria, Queensland and Northern Territory 50 per cent renewable energy targets,” the report said.
Jamie Hanson, head of campaigns at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, said the Liberal National coalition had long been using “dodgy accounting tricks like these so-called carryover credits to mislead the Australian public on their appalling track record on emissions”.
“Scrapping the ability to rely on carryover credits and shifty accounting is a great step towards holding governments like Australia to account over their rising emissions,” he said. https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/australia-s-betrayal-of-trust-emissions-plan-to-be-tested-in-madrid-20191208-p53hyv.html
UN climate talks: what’s on the agenda in Madrid and what it means for Australia,
UN climate talks: what’s on the agenda in Madrid and what it means for Australia, Angus Taylor heads to COP25 next week, where Australia has already twice been given the ‘fossil of the day’ award, Guardian, Adam Morton Environment editor. @adamlmorton, Sun 8 Dec 2019 For two weeks at the end of every year, the world’s governments meet to work on a global response to climate change. This year is the 25th meeting of what is known as the conference of the parties under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Those who attend know it as COP, or COP25.
Here’s what you need to know about this year’s talks, which started on Monday in Madrid, and what they could mean for Australia.
Where does Australia stand coming into the talks?
There are nearly 190 countries represented at the UN climate talks and, contrary to some perceptions, Australia is not just a bit player.
Under UN greenhouse accounting, Australia is responsible for about 1.3% of annual pollution, which places it 16th on a ladder of polluting nations. It emits more each year than 40 countries with larger populations, including G7 members Britain, France and Italy.
On other measures Australia performs worse. It emits more per person than any other developed country (and far more than most developing countries), and a recent analysis found it was third for exported emissions.
It is the world’s biggest seller of coal, particularly metallurgic coal used in steel-making, and either number one or two for natural gas. It is easily the largest emitter in the south Pacific, and has been increasingly drawing criticism from Pacific leaders for not doing more to tackle the issue.
As the talks began last week, Australia was at the forefront of the climate emergency in other ways, as drought and bushfires made global headlines. Scientists say both are unprecedented and in line with climate projections.
Observers such as Howard Bamsey, the country’s former special envoy on climate change, say events in Australia are noticed and could be used to influence other countries to do more. But the government’s message focuses on its own actions: that it has set a 2030 emissions reduction target, that it more than met previous targets it set for itself and that it will meet this one.
Who is representing Australia?
Australia has a 21-strong delegation from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, led by Jamie Isbister, a senior diplomat who was appointed environment ambassador less than three weeks ago.
In the second week’s political stage, Australia will be represented by Angus Taylor, the minister for energy and emissions reduction. It is his first time at climate talks. He arrives under pressure on several fronts, including a bizarre public spat with American author Naomi Wolf.
How is Australia positioning itself?…….
Scott Morrison has indicated Australia has no plan to increase what it is doing beyond its 2030 target of a 26-28% cut compared with 2005 levels, which is less than what government advisors found would be Australia’s fair share or it could afford to do.
The prime minister has not acknowledged what groups representing business, unions, farmers, investors and the social policy sector this week spelled out in a joint statement – that the goals of the Paris agreement mean Australia will need to plan to stop emitting any carbon dioxide.
Australia’s emissions are not coming down and most experts believe it is not on track to meet its target. ……. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/dec/08/un-climate-talks-whats-on-the-agenda-in-madrid-and-what-it-means-for-australia
Peter Garrett urges Labor to reconnect with environmental movement, warns ‘true believers are dying’
|
Peter Garrett urges Labor to reconnect with environmental movement, warns ‘true believers are dying’, Brisbane Times, By Rob Harris
December 7, 2019, Midnight Oil frontman and environmental campaigner Peter Garrett has urged Labor to stare down the “self interest” within its ranks and commit to ambitious plans to avoid the “catastrophe” of climate change.
Warning that the suburbs of western Sydney and Melbourne are being “crucified on the altar of inaction” and regional and rural communities were “hostage to climate damage”, the former Labor minister said the party’s true believers are “dying out” and a younger generation of voters will be “more radical and less forgiving” if it fails to act. Speaking to Labor’s Environmental Action Network on Saturday night, Mr Garrett took direct aim at former colleague Joel Fitzgibbon and “some in the CFMEU”, who he accused of deliberately undermining the party and “not committed to the challenge” of reducing emissions. “The natural world is under siege. The threat we face is literally existential,” Mr Garrett told the gathering of about 100 people at the Keg and Brew Hotel in Sydney’s Surry Hills. “We are surrounded by fires, force-fed by a super hot spring. Our cities and towns are blanketed with smoke and the sun has gone out, it’s hard to breathe.” Labor has engaged in a fierce internal debate since its shock election loss on May 18 with Mr Fitzgibbon, the agriculture and resources spokesman, arguing the ALP should offer “a political and policy settlement” on climate policy to make a 28 per cent reduction in emissions the target by 2030. Opposition Leader Anthony Albanese has signalled Labor’s future climate policy platform will be focused on jobs in the low-emissions energy sector. Mr Garrett said progressive politics must realise the world was “witnessing a tectonic shift” in the climate and its faith was waning in established institutions. “Our times do not call for ‘business as usual’ politics,” Mr Garrett said. Labor must face down self-interest and sectional interest, whether from some in business, or some in the CFMEU, or from individual members who eschew reality and are not committed to the challenge, and indeed in the case of the shadow minister for Agriculture and Resources Joel Fitzgibbon, deliberately undermine the party whilst still holding their position.” …….. https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/politics/federal/peter-garrett-urges-labor-to-reconnect-with-environmental-movement-warns-true-believers-are-dying-20191206-p53hqe.htm |
|
Money, Money, Money, or perhaps not. Plan to dump nuclear waste in the Flinders Ranges –
|
Kazzi Jai Fight To Stop Nuclear Waste Dump In Flinders Ranges , 9 Dec 19
 MONEY MONEY MONEY…..Part 1 of a 2 part post…
Not that I am interested in the Money side of this poorly thought out Dump proposal at all, but this has been sent to me by a reliable source to post…Will follow up with further information regarding the MONEY side of this proposal in a Part 2 post tomorrow. “I checked to see if the National Radioactive Waste Management Act has been amended and it has not altered. This act has to be amended by Parliament, not the BCC (or KCC) and will not be amended before we get a chance to vote. (if it is not stopped before hand). I have also tried to find information regarding the promise of the $20m but have not come across any documentation to date. Just to make things a bit more complicated, the Community Development Fund which was $10m but now promised to be $20m, will come from the National Repository Capital Contribution Fund. Credits to this fund will be money appropriated by the Parliament for the purpose of the fund, and amounts in excess of the first $10m received from fees charge to use the dump.
This fund will be established immediately after the dump is issued with an operating licence which could be 6 years away. However, a Commonwealth entity or an authority of, plus the state government will be exempt from paying dump fees and taking into consideration that approx 96% of the waste will be from this source, the dump is not going to be a big money making venture. (unless the Government allows overseas customers to use it and pay the dump fees). So this puts the promised $20m on shaky ground especially if there is a change of government in the meantime.
The following is copied from section 34E of the Act and details how money from the fund will be administered. It does not mention any thing about a local development board or council having a say into how the money will be spent in our backyard. All we will have is a dump in our back yard.”
Section 34E Conditions attaching to the initial use of facility (1) A radioactive waste management facility established on a site selected under this Act must not commence accepting any radioactive waste for storage, management or any other purpose, unless: (a) the requirements specified in subsection (2) of this section have been met; and (b) the Minister has given to the person managing the facility a notice certifying that each of those requirements has been met.
(2) The requirements to be met for the purposes of subsection (1) are: (a) that the Fund stands in credit to the value of at least $10,000,000; and (b) either: (i) the Commonwealth has entered into an agreement with the relevant State or Territory for the administration of the Fund, which provides that the Fund be administered by the Minister, on the advice of a committee chaired by the Premier or Chief Minister of the relevant State or Territory and comprising 3 other persons resident in that State or Territory with expertise in education, infrastructure and health respectively; or (ii) failing such agreement—the Commonwealth has established a committee comprising 3 persons with expertise in education, infrastructure and health resident in the relevant State or Territory, whose function is to advise the Minister on the administration of the Fund by the Minister. https://www.facebook.com/groups/941313402573199/
|
|
Why Australia must retain its nuclear bans: Dr Jim Green explains to Senate Nuclear Inquiry.
REPORT ON PROCEEDINGS BEFORE STANDING COMMITTEE ON STATE DEVELOPMENT URANIUM MINING AND NUCLEAR FACILITIES (PROHIBITIONS) REPEAL BILL 2019 At Macquarie Room, Parliament House, Sydney, on Monday 11 November 2019
PRESENT The Hon. Taylor Martin (Chair) The Hon. Mark Banasiak The Hon. Mark Buttigieg The Hon. Wes Fang The Hon. Scott Farlow The Hon. Mark Latham The Hon. Natasha Maclaren-Jones The Hon. Mick Veitch (Deputy Chair) JIM GREEN, National Anti-Nuclear Campaigner, Friends of the Earth Australia, affirmed and examined DAVE SWEENEY, Nuclear Policy Analyst, Australian Conservation Foundation, affirmed and examined CHRIS GAMBIAN, Chief Executive, Nature Conservation Council of NSW, sworn and examined Monday, 11 November 2019 Legislative Council Page 30
The CHAIR: Would anyone like to begin by making an opening statement?
Dr GREEN: Yes, we all would, with your permission. I am going to speak about nuclear power. Dave will speak about uranium, and Chris will speak about New South Wales energy issues—opportunities, road blocks and so on. I am going to quickly run through issues canvassed in our joint submission, and in particular the reasons why we believe that State and Federal bans against nuclear power should be retained.
The first one is that those bans have saved Australia and saved New South 
Wales from the catastrophic cost over-runs with every reactor project in Western Europe and the United States over the past decade. It is a sad truth that every one of those reactor projects is at least A$10 billion over budget. That’s $10 billion—with a ‘B’. It is hard to believe that but it is true. Perhaps the most catastrophic of all those catastrophic projects was in South Carolina, where they have had to abandon a reactor project mid-stream, having already spent over A$13 billion.
Nuclear power could not possibly pass any reasonable economic tests, and it certainly would not pass the tests set by Prime Minister Scott Morrison. It 
could not possibly be introduced or maintained without massive taxpayer subsidies. There are a couple of examples. Hitachi has recently walked away from a project in Wales in the United Kingdom, despite the offer of staggering, unprecedented subsidies. Also in the UK, the lifetime subsidies for the Hinkley Point project alone—a 3.2 gigawatt project—are estimated by the European Union to be A$55 billion for a two-reactor project. Other credible estimates put those lifetime subsidies at A$91 billion. These are extraordinary figures. I know it is hard to believe but it is all documented.
The other economic test set by Prime Minister Morrison is that nuclear power would need to reduce electricity prices, and clearly it would do no such thing. It would clearly increase electricity prices. Legislation banning nuclear power should also be retained because of the lack of a social licence, and in particular numerous polls over the past 10 years have found that only 20 per cent to 28 
per cent of Australians would support living in the near vicinity of a nuclear power plant. As the Clean Energy Council put it, in its submission to this inquiry, it would require “a minor miracle” to win community support for nuclear power in Australia.
There is a lot more that could be said about nuclear economics and I am happy to field questions on that issue. There is plenty of information in our joint submission and in the separate Friends of the Earth submission dealing specifically with small modular reactors. There is one point that I would particularly like to make to the committee and to the secretariat, which is that there is an excellent critique of some of the claims made by nuclear lobbyists, both to this inquiry and to the Federal inquiry. This article neatly corrects and debunks those claims. The article is by Giles Parkinson. It was published at reneweconomy.com.au on 23 October. It is called, “Why the nuclear lobby makes stuff up about cost of wind and solar”. Our joint submission also does some of that work— debunking highly questionable claims made by nuclear lobbyists about nuclear economics. In particular I would draw your attention to sections 3.5 and 3.6 of our joint submission.
The next issues is that we believe legal prohibition should be retained because the pursuit of a nuclear industry would almost certainly worsen patterns of disempowerment and dispossession experienced by Australia’s First Nations. To give just one example of that, the National Radioactive Waste Management Act dispossessed and disempowers traditional owners in many different ways. To list one of many, the Act states that the nomination of a site for a radioactive waste dump is valid even if Aboriginal owners were not consulted and did not give consent. I would ask this Committee to consider recommending that those appalling and indefensible clauses of the National Radioactive Waste Management Act be repealed.
Legislation banning nuclear power should also be retained because no-one could have any confidence that satisfactory solutions could be found for waste streams. Globally, no country has a repository for high-level nuclear waste. There is one deep underground repository for long-lived intermediate level waste in the United States. It was set up in the late nineties. Almost as soon as it was set up, safety standards and layers of regulatory oversight were peeled away, and those failures led to a chemical explosion in an underground waste barrel, which shut the repository down for three years. Direct and indirect costs amounted to about $3 billion. The thing that I really want to focus on there is that safety standards and regulatory standards fell away straight away—and you are dealing with plutonium, with a half life of 24,000 years. We need to safely manage this waste for millennia; they failed to safely manage it for one single decade.
I want to make a quick point on wastage of another sort. That is that nuclear 
power reactors are voracious consumers of water. A single reactor typically consumes 50 million litres of cooling water every single day. Their water intake pipes are slaughter houses for fish and other marine creatures. Arguably, the best way to destroy a local fishery is to build a nuclear power plant nearby. This is just considering routine operations of a nuclear power plant. In the case of Fukushima, that disaster has crippled and almost killed the local fishing industry. Currently fishers in the region are fighting plans to dump vast amounts of contaminated water into the ocean surrounding the nuclear plant.
I have one final point. Legislation banning nuclear power should be retained because the introduction of nuclear power would delay and undermine the development of effective economic energy and climate policies based on renewables and energy efficiency. A December 2018 report by CSIRO and AEMO found that the cost of power from small modular reactors would be more than twice as expensive as power from wind and solar PV, even with some storage costs included. CSIRO and AEMO are about to release another report, which firms up that conclusion and also considers the costs of a higher degree of storage attached to renewables. They have canvassed the findings of that report. They find that, even with a considerable amount of storage factored in, renewables are still far cheaper than nuclear, comparable to the costs of existing fossil fuels and are almost certain to become cheaper than fossil fuels because of the clear cost trajectory of renewables and storage.
So nuclear simply is not even in this debate. There has been a big spat about the CSIRO and AEMO costings with respect to small modular reactors. Their costing is $16,000 per kilowatt of installed capacity, and the nuclear lobbyists are furious with that and strongly contesting it. What I would say is that if you average the cost of small modular reactors, which are actually under construction in China, Russia and Argentina, that average is higher than the figure given by CSIRO and AEMO. Also, if you look at the reactors being built in the United States—the large reactors—one again, the CSIRO and AEMO figure for nuclear is lower than the real-world cost for reactors that are actually under construction in the US. So the CSIRO and AEMO figure is entirely defensible. In conclusion I quote the senior vice-president of Exelon, which is the largest nuclear company in the United States, who said:
I don’t think we’re building any more nuclear plants in the United States. I don’t think it’s ever going to happen … They are too expensive to construct …
That is in the US where they have a vast amount of infrastructure and expertise but nuclear has clearly priced itself out of the market. The calculations in Australia would certainly be worse because we do not have that infrastructure, we do not have that expertise and we are blessed with renewable energy resources. As the Climate Council, comprising Australia’s leading climate scientists, puts it, nuclear power reactors “are not appropriate for Australia—and probably never will be.” I will leave it there.
Dr Jim Green busts ANSTO’s spin about nuclear wastes
Dr Jim Green at Senate Nuclear Inquiry , 11 Nov 19
WES FANG: I am unaware if you heard the evidence earlier today, but we heard from Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation about the advances that have developed not only in the development of power but also in the way that waste is handled. ANSTO is not a lobbyist; it is a scientific organisation.
Dr GREEN: ANSTO is a lobbyist and its claims about nuclear waste are demonstrably false. I mean that quite literally. If you take the example of the integral fast reactor, the idea is that you can use high-level nuclear waste, consume it in a reactor and then turn it into low-carbon power. That is an incredibly enticing proposition but the reality in Idaho—where they operated one of those demonstration reactors and are now trying to deal with the waste—is that they have turned one difficult, challenging form of nuclear waste, namely spent fuel, into multiple forms of challenging, difficult nuclear waste. They have not improved the situation; they have made a bad situation worse.
That is the reality of the theoretical arguments that you have heard from ANSTO this morning. I would also strong recommend that you read the articles that we have pointed to in our submission from Dr Allison Macfarlane, who is a former chair of the US Nuclear Regulatory Committee. Once again, she has looked at demonstration advanced reactor projects. They are not improving waste management issues; they are making those issues more difficult to deal with—demonstrably in the real world, as opposed to the theoretical nonsense you have heard from ANSTO.
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
20 May – Webinar – The dangerous world of AUKUS, US, military occupation and suppression of dissent
National Webinar, 20th May, 2026, 6.30pm AEST. Confronting laws restricting/suppressing protest speech and action
Speakers: Former Sen. Rex Patrick, Lawyer Nick Hanna ,Arthur Rorris ,Jorgen Doyle, Sen David Shoebbridge,
Facilitator Kelley Tranter.
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 