SBS, 24 Apr 19, One Nation leader Pauline Hanson says humans are not behind the causes of climate change which she believes has been happening since dinosaurs were around.
Pauline Hanson has denied man-made climate change is happening, arguing “fearmongering” is behind global concerns about the environment.
The One Nation leader said the same shifts in climate that caused the extinction of dinosaurs are behind changes the world is experiencing today….
………We have volcano eruptions that actually spew out more carbon emissions and even the oceans do.”….Senator Hanson said there was “no scientific fact” about the impact climate change was having on Queensland – despite a wealth of credible, peer-reviewed research on the topic.
“There’s no peer review of these scientists,” she said. Senator Hanson also appeared to question the Bureau of Meteorology’s climate data, hot on the heels of an LNP Senate candidate doing the same.
“They haven’t released the true facts and figures as far as temperature changes over the years. They’ve fiddled with facts and figures,” the One Nation leader said.
Gerard Rennick, who is in the Queensland LNP’s winnable third position, last month accused the weather bureau of rewriting weather records to fit in with the “global warming agenda”.
“Our public servants are out of control,” he said on Facebook.
Labor’s campaign spokesman Jim Chalmers says both parties are being poisoned by “crackpot stuff”. “That’s very concerning to hear the LNP dance to One Nation’s tune on issues like climate change, which the Australian people want a sensible and responsible plan to deal with,” he told reporters in Canberra on Tuesday.
“It’s a reminder that it’s very hard to tell where One Nation ends and the LNP begins.”
The bureau has strongly rejected the allegations, pointing to the nation’s leading statisticians and mathematicians’ support for their methods. “That’s very concerning to hear the LNP dance to One Nation’s tune on issues like climate change, which the Australian people want a sensible and responsible plan to deal with,” he told reporters in Canberra on Tuesday.
“It’s a reminder that it’s very hard to tell where One Nation ends and the LNP begins.”
Kazzi Jaihttps://www.facebook.com/groups/941313402573199/Fight To Stop Nuclear Waste In The Flinders Ranges 23 Apr 19,How many times do you have to explain this to people? In response to some of ANSTO’s propaganda directed at the rural communities targeted for nuclear waste dumping……
So you have a specific inventory of what’s in the drums do you? You must be very special then – because that is not what has yet been released to the public! You seem to assume it’s in your words “aprons and gloves” from handling radioactive objects. There is much more to it. Did they mention that it must be shielded to be handled safely? The steel drums themselves act as the shield for the Low Level Nuclear waste and must be monitored to ensure they remain intact. The proposed dump is for the PERMANENT DISPOSAL of the Low Level Nuclear Waste as an above ground dump, but covered with yet to be determined substance so that it qualifies as an “near-surface” disposal site…and must be monitored for several hundred years for safety.
No-one in their right mind would guarantee that there will not be some form of leakage during all of those hundreds of years! Steel drums…concrete….do not last forever….especially when it comes to radioactivity as well as other external factors.And then there’s the above ground “Temporary” storage of the Intermediate Level Nuclear Waste which will be coming with it. We have been told that the proposed dump is not worth doing without the Intermediate Waste being “temporarily” stored there, from Lucas Heights – which is in fact double handling and NOT World’s Best Practise in any way shape or form! What is in the Intermediate Level Nuclear Waste shielded casks – Did they say? Did they say how long the Intermediate Level Nuclear Waste remains dangerous? Did they say how long the casks were guaranteed by the manufacturers?
Did they mention any hazards or risks? Any at all?
IF it is so safe as they say – why was Sally’s Flat NSW not hounded to take this waste instead? Sally’s Flat is MUCH closer to Lucas Heights at 260kms – Lucas Heights is where over 90% of Australia’s nuclear waste is generated on site – and Sally’s Flat was deemed suitable as one of the six sites chosen by the Federal Government! Even Oman Ama in Qld is closer! Why transport it over 1500+kms into a prime export grain area or into the iconic world renowned Flinder’s Ranges in South Australia?
The answer is that once it is over the state border it becomes South Australia’s responsibility and liability and South Australia’s problem!
And to top it off – as the NATIONAL Nuclear Dump – not just ANSTO’s – the title of it should ring alarm bells – then all of the other states can effectively become “nuclear-free” at South Australia’s expense!
This is NOTHING to do with FEAR OF THE UNKNOWN or “green goo”. It is nothing to do with comparing it with other objects which frankly is pretty stupid because it is just a way of selling it and blurring lines of understanding! It is MUCH to do with SHAFTING nuclear waste from Lucas Heights, where it is currently safely stored and monitored, and is securely held. Lucas Heights in fact are the first to say “not in my backyard”!
Keep it all at Lucas Heights until the Intermediate Nuclear Waste can be PROPERLY dealt with! Then the Low Level Nuclear Waste can go in with that! In fact that was the intention of Lucas Heights and its enormous space all along – is that they would retain any waste they generated on site UNTIL they had found a suitable way of dealing with it once and for all and not for the next generations to have to come to deal with this man-made problem which they continue to generate! They had given themselves 80 – 100 years to find a solution. This current proposal is NOT a solution. It is simply burying the waste and abandoning it – a caveman’s solution to a 20th century problem!
South Australia is NOT the Nation’s Nuclear Dumping Ground!
The Minerals Council of Australia joins in the current pro nuclear propaganda push – classing nuclear power as “reliable, at a very low cost, and with zero emissions” — Mining.com 22 April
Here’s my comment, which they did not publish – surprise, surprise
Nuclear power is not all that reliable, particularly now, as climate change brings extremes of weather, for which nuclear reactors are not prepared. As they require lots of water, they are usually placed near sea or rivers, posing an increasing problem with sea level rise, and sea surges. Australia is a water short country, and should not contemplate such a water-guzzling industry.
As for nuclear being “cheap” – it’s “cheap” only where the tax-payer cops the bill – Russia, China, France etc. In USA and UK the nuclear lobby is screaming for subsidies, and the building of new reactors -Hinkley Point C, and the boondoggle in South Carolina provide a cautionary tale. As for small nuclear reactors – their only hope of being economic is if the are ordered en masse – such a risk, and consequently there are no buyers. Then there’s that little problem of radioactive trash accumulating, with no solution in sight.
Meanwhile,Australia has the opportunity to be a leader in truly clean renewable technologies, which are getting cheaper, while nuclear costs mount.
South Australia’s “The Advertiser” can be depended upon to regurgitate nuclear lobby propaganda. Yesterday’s offering was ” Nuclear-powered desalination for SA?
Some people were impelled to write to the paper. Here are a couple of answers:
from Renfrey Clark: Nuclear-powered desalination for SA? B.W. Foster (The Advertiser, April …) has a vision of nuclear power in South Australia providing abundant desalinated water for domestic use and irrigation. But price considerations, alone, show that nuclear is the wrong choice.
In the most advanced desalination plants, which use reverse osmosis technology, the key price factor is the cost of electrical energy. Here, renewable energy sources have a dramatic and quickly increasing advantage.
Research at the Australian National University concludes that in future decades a 100 per cent renewable energy system, “balanced” by pumped hydropower or batteries to make supplies fully dispatchable, would have a “levelised cost” of A$75-80 per megawatt-hour.[1]
Comparable studies for nuclear power in the US suggest prices well above A$100 per megawatt-hour.[2]
That’s not taking into account the massive additional problems ‒ and real dangers ‒ of the nuclear industry. In 2016 the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission recommended firmly against developing almost all aspects of the industry in South Australia.
In coming years advances in desalination, along with further steep drops in the cost of renewable energy, will likely make desalinated water affordable for various kinds of high-value agriculture.
Nuclear power, however, will not be part of the picture. (picture below is of MIT’s small portable system)
from Robyn Wood : Yet again we hear the same tired old calls for Australia to adopt nuclear power (The Advertiser 22.4.19). We recently had a Nuclear Royal Commission that found that nuclear power is uneconomic. Quite apart from the safety risks and lack of a permanent high level reactor waste disposal system, the costs of building nuclear power plants around the world are skyrocketing, and the costs of building renewables is rapidly coming down. Building renewables with energy storage such as big batteries and pumped hydro makes far more sense than wasting our money on nuclear power.
Former Greens leader describes Murdoch media headlines as ‘a disgrace to journalism’ The conservationist and former federal Greens leader Bob Brown delivered a broadside at “disgraceful” coverage in News Corp newspapers as his Stop Adani convoy arrived in Queensland to fervour among activists and stoushes in the local press.About 5,000 people joined Brown at a rally in the Brisbane central business district on Wednesday afternoon, protesting against the proposed Carmichael coalmine.
But Brown, whose Stop Adani convoy resembles its own mini election campaign, has attracted the ire of News Corp’s Brisbane masthead, the Courier-Mail……..
Brown, who rose to prominence because of his opposition to the Franklin Dam project in the 1980s, was asked why the Carmichael mine, and not other proposals, have become the focus of environmental and climate activism.
In 2017, the High Court accepted that peaceful protest is a legitimate part of Australia’s representative democracy. It is encouraging to know the Adani convoy will be a legitimate part of the nation’s public discourse. Whatever problems we encounter, they will not come near the problems caused by us doing nothing. The Adani coalmine is a harbinger of global catastrophe. This convoy of concerned Australians will be taking on Adani out of respect for our children and the future of all life on Earth.
Bob Brown The Stop Adani Convoy , The Saturday Paper, 15 Feb 19
“………..My foundation, the Bob Brown Foundation, is preparing for a public showdown with the coalmining industry and its political backers. In the run-up to the federal election, our focus will be Adani – as the global mining giant looks set to be pushing ahead with its colossal Carmichael coalmine in central Queensland.
Before Easter, my partner, Paul, and I will be driving from Hobart to the Galilee Basin, site of the proposed Carmichael mine. Along the way we will be joining more than 1000 fellow Australians who have already signed up for the Adani convoy. It is a community commitment – an act of defiance – for the future of our planet. A peaceful protest against Gautam Adani’s mine, which his operatives say will be under way soon.
The decision-making process on the Adani mine is no less murky or corruptible than that for the Murray-Darling. Adani needs approval for water management and its bogus plan to protect the rare and beautiful black-throated finch……..
On Wednesday, Queensland grazier Bruce Currie, alarmed by Adani’s potential impact on water, delivered a petition with more than 27,000 signatures to the Queensland government to ban the mine. Meanwhile, Labor’s deputy leader Chris Bowen backed the mine, saying: “Adani was to have been the largest coalmine in Australia but it is now far from that.” He has not figured that Adani still plans to take all the coal out of Carmichael and export it, only slower.
The Stop Adani Convoy will travel the length of Australia, holding public meetings and rallies en route to the Galilee Basin, west of Mackay. We will be there in solidarity with the traditional owners of the land who oppose the mine. Having visited the mine region, we plan to move on to Canberra in May to question whether Australia really wants to back pro-Adani candidates in the federal election.
Millions of Australians are deeply concerned about global warming but have limited means for demonstrating that concern. We plan to unite Australians who feel our country is in self-inflicted and unnecessary jeopardy – especially vulnerable to global heating, while at the same time jostling Indonesia into second place as the world’s biggest exporter of coal.
Australia’s environmental vulnerability has been on show as the disaster overtaking the nation’s biggest river system has played out in public during the past few months. ……
There seemed to be no good time or place to make a stand for the Murray-Darling. Head in sand, the nation let it go and hoped everything would turn out all right.
We must not so easily wait for salvation from Adani. There will be no divine intervention. The onus is on us. And worse is yet to come.
Yet the parliamentary majority, voted in by the majority of Australians, favours more coalmining, gas fracking across the country and new deep-sea oil drilling, including in the Great Australian Bight.
With the support of the Business Council of Australia, then treasurer Scott Morrison thought it reasonable to hold up a lump of coal in parliament and claim its burning was good for us. “Don’t be afraid, don’t be scared, it won’t hurt you,” he said, taunting the opposition. “It’s coal.” With that he handed it to a gleeful Barnaby Joyce.
Now the prime minister and Australia’s most powerful environment arbiter, Morrison knows – as we all do – that burning fossil fuels is both loading the atmosphere with greenhouse gases and serially lowering its content of breathable oxygen, for want of which those Murray cod are dead.
Here we are in an age of popular greed-driven stupidity. Money rules. The value of life, let alone happiness, on Earth does not count in the marketplace of the richest per capita country in the world.
This must change and only we, the people, can change it. That challenges us with personal discomfort.
Faced with the immense wealth and power of the mining industry, it may seem an impossible task. But I have seen, firsthand, how grassroots campaigning can shift public and political opinion in Australia. In May 1982 the “Whispering Bulldozer”, Liberal premier Robin Gray, swept to power in Tasmania. By July, bulldozers were rolling into the Franklin River valley to build the Gordon-below-Franklin dam. Saving the wild river seemed a hopeless cause. But in December 1982 the Wilderness Society’s peaceful blockade began in the riverside forests. Some 6000 people went to the region, 1300 were arrested and 500 jailed, including me. In March 1983, Labor’s feisty new leader Bob Hawke was elected prime minister on a platform that included the slogan “I will stop the dam”. The rest is history. People power and strong leadership saved the Franklin, which has since become an icon for Tasmania’s job-rich tourism and hospitality industries.
In 2017, the High Court accepted that peaceful protest is a legitimate part of Australia’s representative democracy. It is encouraging to know the Adani convoy will be a legitimate part of the nation’s public discourse. Whatever problems we encounter, they will not come near the problems caused by us doing nothing. The Adani coalmine is a harbinger of global catastrophe. This convoy of concerned Australians will be taking on Adani out of respect for our children and the future of all life on Earth.
The convoy is a simple option for people who can spare some time, money and courage to act on their commonsense convictions in this age of absurdity. We will cop it from the radical powerbrokers who put coal before coral. There will be outrage about us not being at work, driving petrol-burning cars – in fact, our Stop Adani Convoy’s vanguard of electric cars will challenge the government to catch up with comparable countries in facilitating non-petrol vehicles – or simply our being “greenies”, “do-gooders” or a threat to big corporations. To offset this, there will be a special chair available at public meetings along the way for Gautam Adani – but not his understrappers – to personally take us on. Should he fly in, I think we will manage. This article was first published in the print edition of The Saturday Paper on Feb 9, 2019 as “A mighty convoy”. https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/opinion/topic/2019/02/09/the-stop-adani-convoy/15496308007421
Federal election 2019: Labor says it’s ‘extraordinary’ Morrison is ‘contemplating’ nuclear power – as it happened
Tony Burke says ‘nuclear power is against the law in Australia’. Guardian, Amy Remeikis 18 Apr 19
……. Anthony Albanese is being cheeky on Patricia Karvela’s Afternoon Briefing on the ABC, about Scott Morrison’s slip on nuclear power.
Morrison has tweeted that it is not the Coalition’s policy. But he didn’t actually say that when asked on Tasmanian radio today. He said it was “not, not” on the agenda, but would have to stand on its own two feet.
But like a three-eyed fish, Albo is looking to grab the headlines:
PK: He said it’s not their policy and you said he needs to explain where he will put the nuclear power plants. He doesn’t because it’s not their policy.
AA: Why did he raise it? Why did he put it on the agenda if they haven’t been giving consideration to it? That’s what he’s got to answer. Why it is that during an election campaign Scott Morrison, so desperate to try to look like he has an energy policy somewhere, has now put nuclear power on the agenda during this election campaign. Labor’s opposed to nuclear power.
Record result but still no breathing space for Lynas, The Age, Colin Kruger, April 20, 2019
It should have been a great week for Lynas Corp….. Despite soft prices in the rare earths market – and a forced shutdown of its operations in Decemberdue to a local Malaysian government cap on its production limits – Lynas reported a 27 per cent jump in revenue to $101.3 million in the March quarter……
Unfortunately, Lacaze could provide no information on the glaring issue outside the company’s control that imperils its future: the regulatory cloud around the 450,000 tonnes of radioactive waste produced by its Malaysian operations since 2013, which is jeopardising the renewal of its licence to operate in the country. …..
Mahathir said Lynas – or any potential acquirer (without explicitly naming Lynas’ estranged suitor, Wesfarmers, whose $1.5 billion indicative offer for the group was rebuffed in March) – would be able to continue to operate in Malaysia if it agreed to extract the radioactive residue from its ore before it reached the country.
Despite two cabinet meetings since that announcement, Mahathir has failed to clarify his comments, or confirm whether it means Lynas might not need to move the existing mountain of radioactive waste that has been accumulating at its $1 billion, 100-hectare processing facility in Kuantan province.
Scott Morrison warned on ‘cherry-picking’ $35 billion climate cost, SMH, 22 Apr 19The election fight on climate change has sparked warnings against “misleading” voters about the cost of cutting greenhouse gas emissions, as an independent researcher repudiates Coalition claims of a $35 billion hit from Labor policies.
Prime Minister Scott Morrison has been accused of “cherry-picking” numbers in the escalating row over the competing pledges on climate, as he prepares to release new estimates of the economic impact of the Labor carbon target…….
The head of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, Dr Martin Parkinson, has responded to the climate dispute by warning against the “misleading” use of economic modelling and assuring Mr Shorten the public service has not costed the Labor policy.
The research company cited in the government’s $35 billion claim, Bloomberg New Energy Finance, has also told The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age that the figure was “not a credible estimate” of the cost of buying international carbon permits.
“To come up with this number, the government has taken the highest point in our 10 year forecast for European carbon credits and assumed 50 per cent of Australia’s abatement for the next decade is bought at this price,” said Bloomberg NEF global head of special projects Kobad Bhavnagri.
“It takes the highest instantaneous forecast price, in the most expensive market, to come up with the biggest number.
Julian Assange: Within Washington’s grasp? | The Listening Post (Full)
Debunking All The Assange Smears, by Caitlin Johnstone , Robert Gore, STRAIGHT LINE LOGIC,21Apr19
This is the definitive and comprehensive source for anyone who wants to defend Julian Assange in an argument and win. From Caitlin Johnstone at theburningplatform.com:
Have you ever noticed how whenever someone inconveniences the dominant western power structure, the entire political/media class rapidly becomes very, very interested in letting us know how evil and disgusting that person is? It’s true of the leader of every nation which refuses to allow itself to be absorbed into the blob of the US-centralized power alliance, it’s true of anti-establishment political candidates, and it’s true of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.
Corrupt and unaccountable power uses its political and media influence to smear Assange because, as far as the interests of corrupt and unaccountable power are concerned, killing his reputation is as good as killing him. If everyone can be paced into viewing him with hatred and revulsion, they’ll be far less likely to take WikiLeaks publications seriously, and they’ll be far more likely to consent to Assange’s imprisonment, thereby establishing a precedent for the future prosecution of leak-publishing journalists around the world. Someone can be speaking 100 percent truth to you, but if you’re suspicious of him you won’t believe anything he’s saying. If they can manufacture that suspicion with total or near-total credence, then as far as our rulers are concerned it’s as good as putting a bullet in his head.
Those of us who value truth and light need to fight this smear campaign in order to keep our fellow man from signing off on a major leap in the direction of Orwellian dystopia, and a big part of that means being able to argue against those smears and disinformation wherever they appear. Unfortunately I haven’t been able to find any kind of centralized source of information which comprehensively debunks all the smears in a thorough and engaging way, so with the help of hundreds of tips from my readers and social media followers I’m going to attempt to make one here. What follows is my attempt at creating a tool kit people can use to fight against Assange smears wherever they encounter them, by refuting the disinformation with truth and solid argumentation.
This article is an ongoing project which will be updated regularly where it appears on Medium and caitlinjohnstone.com as new information comes in and new smears spring up in need of refutation.
Here’s a numbered list of each subject I’ll be covering in this article for ease of reference:
Scott Morrison has clarified comments suggesting he was open to nuclear power.
The Prime Minister earlier today said nuclear power was “not ‘not’ on the agenda” and he was “fine” with energy generation “wherever it comes from.”
But after backlash from Labor, Mr Morrison moved on Twitter to declare he had no plans to change the law to allow nuclear power stations.
“Labor are getting desperate, and we are only 8 days in. This is not our policy and we have no plans to change that,” he tweeted.
Mr Morrison’s original comments came on Tasmanian radio on Thursday morning.
When pushed on whether he would be happy to take proposals from the nuclear industry on going ahead with power projects, the Prime Minister said it would be allowed to do so.
“It’s not ‘not’ on the agenda, wherever it can come from is fine, but it has to be self-sustaining,” Mr Morrison told Launceston FM.
“If they want to put them forward they can. (Nuclear physicist) Ziggy Switkowski did a major report for the Howard Government on this issue, and it came back and it didn’t say it could support itself.”
Nuclear power has been an almost untouchable issue in Australian politics for decades and Labor was quick to leap on the Prime Minister’s comments.
Opposition environment spokesman Tony Burke said Mr Morrison would need to change the law if he were ever to accept a nuclear power station proposal.
“Nuclear power is against the law in Australia. It is extraordinary that Scott Morrison is now contemplating changing the law to allow nuclear power stations in Australia,” he said.
“Several places have been identified in the past for nuclear power stations — like Jervis Bay, Townsville, Bribie Island, Mackay.
“Where is Morrison proposing to put his nuclear power plants? Which coastal community is under threat?”
Senator Cory Bernardi has backed nuclear power after the Prime Minister said he is not considering the energy alternative. Nuclear power plants are illegal in Australia but experts say [these “experts” turn out to be the Australian Nuclear Association] it could be the answer to Australia’s energy concerns.
Senator Cory Bernardi had introduced a bill last year to remove a ban on nuclear energy.
He tells Luke Grant he was hopeful when he heard Scott Morrison had been open to the idea.
“The Prime Minister got my hopes up when he said nuclear energy might be a part of the mix if it stacks up on its own two feet. But within 48 hours all the usual suspects come out and monster him into a position which is basically ‘oh no it’s not on the table’.
“Any idea that’s not driven by the left is outrageous and terrible and awful.”
Many are calling for the construction of High-Efficiency Low Emission (HELE) coal power plants, in order to avoid outages and soaring power prices.
But Australian Nuclear Association Vice President Rob Parker tells Natalie Peters and Erin Molan nuclear energy is the most environmentally friendly and cost-effective option.
“When we look at nuclear energy we find that it is established as being the safest form of power generation that we have on the planet.
“It is safer than coal, safer than oil, safer than anything, including solar and wind. “We have established that we can have a clear low carbon, low-cost, future using nuclear energy.”
Candidates behind the ban, ICAN, Candidates for the 2019 Australian federal election are joining their parliamentary colleagues in declaring support for Australia to sign and ratify the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.
If elected, candidates that “pre-pledge” will be listed as signatories to the Parliamentary Pledge (see text below). The following list of supportive candidates does not include incumbents, who are listed here.
Candidates that support the nuclear weapon ban treaty:……………
With the federal election just around the corner, candidates are committing to work for Australia to sign and ratify the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Parliament if elected. Ninety-two current federal parliamentarians have signed the ICAN Parliamentary Pledge, and an additional 46 candidates have “pre-pledged” their support.
Fifteen cities and towns across Australia have spoken out against nuclear weapons and called on the federal government to sign and ratify the TPNW. This groundswell of local activism in Australia and worldwide includes Melbourne, Sydney, Canberra, Washington DC, Geneva, Manchester and LA
Former Assistant Secretary of Arms Control and Counter-Proliferation at DFAT, Peter Hooton, has critiqued Australia’s position on the TPNW in this article for Charles Sturt University. He argues
“for the formal and complete renunciation of an instrument of war on which the United States continues to depend. We have done this already with respect to landmines and cluster munitions—and we are a party, too, to the nuclear-test-ban treaty, which the United States has not ratified. Australia can join the TPNW and remain a good friend and ally of the United States.”
A few days ago Panama became the 23rd country to ratify the TPNW, bringing it one step closer to entry-into-force!
Darebin Council in Melbourne has commissioned and launched a stunning new mural to honour local ICAN co-founders Dimity Hawkins and Dave Sweeney as well as nuclear test survivors and disarmament activists worldwide. It features the late Yankunytjatjara elder and nuclear test survivor Yami Lester. The Lester family, including Karina Lester , have advocated against nuclear weapons and nuclear waste for decades.
Pledge for the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons
We, the undersigned parliamentarians,warmly welcome the adoption of the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons on 7 July 2017 as a significant step towards the realization of a nuclear-weapon-free world.
We share the deep concern expressed in the preamble about the catastrophic humanitarian consequences that would result from any use of nuclear weapons and we recognize the consequent need to eliminate these inhumane and abhorrent weapons.
Lynas still has to move a radioactive mountain, say Malay officials, SMH, By Colin Kruger, April 18, 2019Malaysian Environment Minister Yeo Bee Yin accused Lynas Corp of putting its bottom line before the environmental concerns of local Malays in a letter to the company’s employees last year, and it appears that her hard line stance against the controversial rare earths group is prevailing.Malaysian Government officials told the Sydney Morning Herald and The Ageon Wednesday that Lynas Corp still needs to remove more than 450,000 tonnes of radioactive waste from the country for its licence to be renewed in September.
Minister Yeo laid down the law in a letter to Lynas employees in December just days after her ministry effectively ordered the company to remove 450,000 tonnes of low level radioactive waste.
As of now, there is no viable near-term solution to manage the accumulated residue, which is stored at the open landfill temporary site,” Minister Yeo said in the letter.
“The risks to the surrounding communities and environment increases with the increasing amount of accumulated residue as it is exposed to the threat of natural disasters such as major flooding.”
The officials, who are not authorised to speak on behalf of the government on this subject, confirmed that the original conditions that the Environment ministry introduced in December remain in place.
In the Lynas employee letter, which was posted to her official Facebook page, Minister Yeo emphasised that the government was holding Lynas to its promise of removing the waste from Malaysia and seized on Australian analyst reports indicating that the cost of removing the residue could be as low as $60 million……..
Lynas, and its estranged suitor Wesfarmers, both welcomed comments this month from Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad that appeared to give a green light to Lynas continuing its operations if it agreed to extract the problematic radioactive residue before the ore was shipped to Malaysia.
While still seeking further clarification from the government on his comments, it was suggested that the radioactive waste no longer needs to be exported.
