Tax-payer funding goes to South Australian nuclear propaganda event Nov 15-16
The Weatherill government continues to break South Australia’s law against tax-payer funding of promotion of nuclear waste importing. Of course, they’ve been doing this for nearly two years now, with close to $10 million on the Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission, the Nuclear Citizens’ Juries and on the blanket of pro nuclear propaganda across the State.
The latest is A new conference called “Australian Nuclear Fuel Cycle ’16 – Managing Radioactive Waste & Spent Nuclear Fuel” , being held in Adelaide on November 15-16 to discuss nuclear waste storage prospects.
Sponsors include the University of South Australia (a public university), ANSTO (a Federal gov’t agency) and UCL (whose Australian campus was publicly supported financially).
Victoria’s Point Lonsdale beach – just one example of rising sea levels
Rising sea levels, stronger waves speeding up Victorian coastal erosion, CSIRO says, ABC News 30 Oct 16 By Joanna Crothers Rising sea levels and more frequent storms are increasing the rate of erosion across Australia’s southern coastline, the CSIRO has said, while locals at one Victorian beach are concerned it is not safe for summer holidaymakers.
Key points:
- CSIRO warns of rising sea levels and a statewide trend of more storms
- Since 2010, Government has spent $450,000 on maintenance at Point Lonsdale
- In the past five years, erosion near Apollo Bay has increased from 8cm to one metre per year
Kathleen McInnes, a CSIRO sea level and coastal extremes expert, said more powerful waves were also contributing to the problem. “Sea levels have risen some 20 centimetres over the past 100 years, and are currently rising at about three millimetres per year,” she said. “There is also evidence that winds in the southern ocean are intensifying and this is driving a positive trend in wave energy reaching our coastline. “So this is creating a double whammy for coastal impacts.”
Individual storms have also become more frequent and intense, meaning beaches do not have as much time to recover after a harsh winter.”They’re driving higher waves which means a higher wave energy [is] reaching the shore,” Ms McInnes said.
Point Lonsdale beach ‘dangerous’, not ready for holidays The beachfront at Point Lonsdale, on the Bellarine Peninsula, has been badly eroded over the past decade and local residents said there was a risk children could slipping and cracking their heads open near the seawall…….http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-30/rising-sea-levels-speeding-up-coastal-erosion-csiro-says/7972924
The danger for Australia as Turnbull wants to change Australia’s environment act
None of these decisions would have been possible without the groups’ standing under Section 487 of the EPBC Act. Removing these provisions undermines the foundational objectives of Australia’s national environmental act at a time when its protective capabilities are needed most.
Turnbull wants to change Australia’s environment act – here’s what we stand to lose, The Conversation, Director of the Centre for Energy and Natural Resources Law, Deakin Law School, Deakin University October 31, 2016 Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull is seeking changes to Australia’s national environment act to stop conservation groups from challenging ministerial decisions on major resource developments and other matters of environmental importance.
Turnbull is reviving a bid made by former Prime Minister Tony Abbott to abolish Section 487 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC Act) – a bid rejected in the Senate in 2015. If it goes ahead, the change will significantly diminish the functionality of the act.
The EPBC Act, introduced by the Howard government in 1999, has an established record of success. Judicial oversight of ministerial discretion, enabled by expanded standing under Section 487, has been crucial to its success.
Section 487 allows individuals and groups to challenge ministerial decisions on resources, developments and other issues under the EPBC Act. An organisation can establish standing by showing they have engaged in activities for the “protection or conservation of, or research into, the environment” within the previous two years. They must also show that their purpose is environmental protection.
Repealing this provision would remove the standing of these groups to seek judicial review of decisions. Standing would then revert to the common law position. That means parties would need to prove they are a “person aggrieved” by showing that their interests have been impacted directly.
Many environmental groups will be unable to satisfy the common law test, leaving a very small group of people with the right to request judicial review – essentially, the right to check that federal ministerial power under the EPBC Act has been exercised properly.
This is likely to have a devastating impact on fragile ecological systems and biodiversity conservation strategies.
This is particularly concerning given the dramatic changes affecting the environment from the expansion of onshore resource development and the acceleration of climate change.
Why do we have the EPBC Act?
The hypocrisy of attack on ‘foreign-funded’ environment groups
Why only “environment groups”? Why not take a look at the tax-deductible recipient status of all charities, such as the Institute of Public Affairs?
The IPA is using its tax-deductibility status to raise cash for a third edition of its climate science denial book Climate Change: The Facts, with contributions from US-based and UK-based contrarian scientists, alongside the likes of Clive James and Bjørn Lomborg.
Why the attack on ‘foreign-funded’ environment groups stinks of hypocrisy, Guardian, 
Graham Readfearn, 30 Oct 16 Supporters of coal projects want transparency and proper use of charity status – but only when they support their arguments You might have noticed that all of a sudden, Australians are supposed to be appalled by foreign interests getting in the way of us digging up as much coal as we want, thanks very much.
Last weekend the Australian newspaper started running stories based on a “revelation” from the inbox of John Podesta, the chairman of Democratic nominee for president Hillary Clinton’s election campaign.
One email forwarded to Podesta showed the philanthropic group the Sandler Foundation, based in San Francisco, was a funder of Australian group the Sunrise Project. The emails were published by WikiLeaks.
Sunrise, run by the former Greenpeace campaigner John Hepburn, has been involved in supporting some of the court cases brought against proposed coal projects – chiefly, the massive Adani coalmine in Queensland.
According to an editorial in the Australian, “thinking Australians” should be “appalled” by this news.
On the back of these stories, there have been shouts for more transparency, while Turnbull government ministers have used the coverage as a pivot to call for environment groups to be stripped of their charitable status. The climate change impacts of burning coal, meanwhile, have been summarily discounted or ignored.
So let us count the ways that Australians should not be “appalled” and, on the way, examine some of the bald hypocrisy that has been on display this week. Continue reading
Western Australia missing its opportunity to become a renewable energy superpower
WA must embrace dawn of renewable energy era or risk being left behind https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2016/oct/27/wa-must-embrace-dawn-of-renewable-energy-era-or-risk-being-left-behind Michael Lord
Western Australia could become a renewable energy superpower – if the government halts LNG expansion plans and creates an innovation fund
Last year the world’s governments finally got their act together on climate change, agreeing to limit global warming to well under two degrees. To meet this commitment, we need a rapid global transition to net zero greenhouse gas emissions. The fossil fuel age is over.
The new era, powered by renewable energy, will be swept in on a massive wave of investment. According to Beyond Zero Emissions’ report, Renewable Energy Superpower, the world will invest $US28tn in renewable energy and energy efficiency in the next 20 years.
But Western Australia risks being left behind. Here investors have poured more than $100bn into liquefied natural gas (LNG) over the past decade yet the state has little to show for it. Another $60bn is slated for LNG development, but with current low gas prices, the sense of that investment is questionable. Energy consumers fork out for coal-fired power that goes unused and endure endless debate about grid privatisation. Meanwhile Western Australia’s electricity-related emissions are rising, just as almost all other states are managing to reduce them.
The irony is that Western Australia should welcome the dawn of the renewable energy era. The state’s enormous resources of sunshine, wind and wave mean it could become a renewable energy superpower of the future. Our report shows how Australia’s world-beating renewable energy resources represent a huge economic opportunity. Incredibly the report shows that in Western Australia alone, there is enough wind and solar, available at competitive prices, to provide almost 9% of the world’s energy every year. In other words Western Australia has more renewable energy than fossil energy. Continue reading
Australian to head Green Climate Fund
29 October 2016. The Green Climate Fund will this year approve hundreds of billions of dollars towards projects that help poorer nations mitigate the effects of climate change and transition to low-emission technologies.
Howard Barmsey, a former Australian climate change envoy and former head of the Global Green Growth Institute, will lead the GCF which will play a role in trying to fulfil the Paris Agreement to limit the world’s temperature increase to below 2 degrees Celsius.
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/saturdayextra/green-climate-fund/7976180
The Road to a Treaty
By Jeff McMullen https://newmatilda.com/2016/10/27/the-road-to-a-treaty/
27 October 2016: “Our nation’s future lies in settling the demons of our past.
A Treaty with Australia’s First Peoples is the best path to get us there,
writes Jeff McMullen. …
“This leads me to my major proposal.
To end the continuing tragedy of the poverty and widespread inequality endured by our First People in their own land,
a national Treaty should recognise Indigenous law and custom,
immediately settle the remaining Native Title claims stuck in the courts and
also guarantee Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people the sub-surface mineral rights to the wealth of their lands.
“My logic is that the depths of poverty, welfare dependence, chronic illness, housing shortages, unemployment, over-incarceration and suicide
impacting so many of Australia’s 750,000 Indigenous people, can only be overcome through
a transformational shift of some of the bounty of this land that is rightfully theirs. … “
New South Wales households lose feedin tariff benefits
Households face steep hike in power charges as solar subsidies end, The Age, 28 Oct 16 Brian Robins Tens of thousands of households are facing a surge in their electricity bills from the start of the new year as the NSW government’s subsidy for rooftop solar panels expires.
This could add more than $1600 to the annual electricity bill as the so-called ‘feed-in tariff’, the price received for surplus electricity sold into the electricity grid, is slashed by as much as 90 per cent in some cases.
Under the original government program, households which installed solar systems received as much as 60¢ a kilowatt hour for surplus electricity sold into the grid. This will fall to 6¢, or possibly less, depending on the deals done with your electricity retailer. The state government’s pricing regulator IPART, the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal, has recommended electricity companies pay 5.5-7.2¢ per kilowatt hour for electricity bought from households with solar systems…….http://www.theage.com.au/business/households-face-steep-hike-in-power-charges-as-solar-subsidies-end-20161028-gscu4s.html
Labor Party dithers in vote over nuclear waste dumping in South Australia
Nuclear waste dump: Labor votes at SA convention to delay decision on proposal, ABC News By Daniel Keane, 29 Oct 16, “……Inside the conference, Mr Weatherill defended the decision to explore the nuclear option, but Labor MP Steph Key told the gathering of ministers, MPs and party members her constituents strongly opposed the idea.
“People in Ashford don’t favour a high-level nuclear waste dump,” she said.
“We think there needs to be a special convention so that we can talk about these issues in detail within the party, and see whether or not there is a social licence within the Labor Party first of all for such a thing.”
Frontbencher Peter Malinauskas used his speech to mock the demonstrators.
“We’re all here past lunchtime, unlike the protesters,” he said.
“The difference between us and them, of course, is that we take very seriously our obligation to make sure that our ideology is underpinned by evidence.”
But Labor voted to delay a decision on whether to pursue a nuclear dump until it holds a special convention, in line with Ms Key’s suggestion, at the end of the community consultation process.
Citizens’ jury hears from expert witnesses The party conference coincides with a royal commission citizens’ jury at the Adelaide Convention Centre, where about 350 randomly selected people are meeting this weekend to discuss the state’s possible involvement in the nuclear fuel cycle.
Mr Weatherill has previously been confronted by protesters over the issue, and was heckled on his way into a previous citizens’ jury. “I don’t know where this debate is ultimately going to end, either in the community or in this party,” he told the convention…..
The citizens’ jury is hearing from more than 30 experts witnesses over two days. A report prepared after the citizens’ jury meetings will be presented to Mr Weatherill next month.http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-29/sa-nuclear-dump-decision-delayed-at-labor-state-conference/7977670
South Australian Premier Weatherill heckled by anti nuclear protestors
Adam Langenberg, Political reporter, The Advertiser October 29, 2016 PREMIER Jay Weatherill and ALP colleagues were heckled by anti-nuclear protesters as he headed into the Labor State Convention in Adelaide today.The Premier and Senator Penny Wong entered the venue amid cries of “nuclear waste, what a disgrace”, with a number of senior party ministers including Police Minister Peter Malinauskas also lobbied by protesters.
Eleven separate motions about a proposal to establish a nuclear waste dump in the state will be heard at the conference this afternoon, with many calling on Labor to immediately rule out establishing a dump.
……….More than 130 motions will be debated at the convention. http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/jay-weatherill-colleagues-heckled-by-antinuclear-protesters-at-labor-state-convention-in-adelaide/news-story/93593b17164cba17c78cbaf6d856bb63
Delaying tactics on the nuclear waste agenda at South Australia’s Labor party Conference
Treasurer defends SA dump debate Read more at http://www.9news.com.au/national/2016/10/28/12/18/treasurer-defends-sa-dump-debate#rpdClBGbUpWJ4umI.99 October 28, 2016 The Labor party is no different to a football club or a family barbecue when it comes to debating the merits of establishing a nuclear waste dump in South Australia, Treasurer Tom Koutsantonis says.
The issue will come under discussion at the party’s state convention on Saturday, with a number of motions to be debated, some calling for any plans for a dump to be scrapped and others buying the state government some time before having to make a decision. Mr Koutsantonis says the party is rightly engaged in the same discussion that mums and dads are having across South Australia, weighing up the pros and cons of taking high-level waste from overseas.
“People are just talking about what do we do next? Do we do this or don’t we do this? What are the risks, what are the rewards.
“So absolutely we should have this debate.”
Among motions to be debated at the convention, one calls for the government to hold a state referendum on the issue of a dump, others call for the government to delay any decision until after the issue is discussed at the next national ALP conference and one calls for a special state convention to be called.
There is also one that calls for the state government to “cease and desist” any further action to consider nuclear waste dumps of any kind.
Mr Koutsantonis acknowledged there were strong feelings within the party on the question of nuclear waste. “Our view, very simply is, we want to continue the debate,” he said. “The party is allowed to express its views, individuals are allowed to express their views.”
Also this weekend the second citizen’s jury will continue to deliberate on the dump proposal, which was raised as possibility by a royal commission conducted into SA’s future involvement in the nuclear fuel cycle.
The 350 people making up the jury will present their final report to Premier Jay Weatherill on Sunday.
The No Dump Alliance, which plans to stage a protest outside the convention on Saturday, said the ALP should “close the door on this deeply flawed and reckless plan”.
“Despite a huge amount of taxpayer-funded promotion, opposition to an international nuclear dump is growing within the Labor Party and the wider community,” spokesman Craig Wilkins said.
UN vote to start negotiating treaty to ban nuclear weapons- Australia voted against it
UN votes to start negotiating treaty to ban nuclear weapons
Australia votes with major nuclear powers against the resolution – including US, Russia and Israel – but 123 nations vote in favour, Guardian Ben Doherty, 28 Oct 16, United Nations member states have voted overwhelmingly to start negotiations on a treaty to ban nuclear weapons, despite strong opposition from nuclear-armed nations and their allies.
In the vote in the UN disarmament and international security committee on Thursday, 123 nations were in favour of the resolution, 38 opposed and 16 abstained.
Nuclear powers the United States, Russia, Israel, France and the United Kingdom were among those that opposed the measure.
Australia, as forecast last week, and as a long-time dependant on the US’s extended nuclear deterrence, also voted no.
The resolution now goes to a full general assembly vote some time in December.
The resolution aims to hold a conference in March 2017 to negotiate a “legally binding instrument to prohibit nuclear weapons, leading towards their total elimination”.
Support for a ban treaty has been growing steadily over months of negotiations, but it has no support from the nine known nuclear states – the US, China, France, Britain, Russia, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea – which includes the veto-wielding permanent five members of the security council.
But Australia has been the most outspoken of the non-nuclear states.
During months of negotiations, Australia has lobbied other countries, pressing the case for what it describes as a “building blocks” approach of engaging with nuclear powers to reduce the global stockpile of 15,000 weapons…….
Professor Tilman Ruff, founding chair of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons and co-president of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, said the vote was a “historic step” for the world that “heralds an end to two decades of paralysis in multilateral nuclear disarmament”.
“The numbers are especially encouraging given the ferocious pressure on countries to vote no by the nuclear-armed states, who see that this will fundamentally challenge their continued possession of nuclear weapons,” he said.
The treaty will fill the legal gap by which the most destructive of all weapons – nuclear weapons – are the only weapon of mass destruction to not yet be outlawed by international treaty.”
Ruff said Australia should reverse its opposition “and get on the right side of humanity”.
“Australia is doing dirty work for Washington, and is willing for US nuclear weapons to be used on its behalf, and potentially with its assistance,” he said.
“It is inconceivable that Australia would not eventually sign up to a treaty prohibiting the last to be banned and worst [weapons of mass destruction]. We’ve signed every other treaty banning an unacceptable weapon, and on some, like chemical weapons, we were a leader.”…….https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/28/un-votes-to-start-negotiating-treaty-to-ban-nuclear-weapons
Adani coal mine: Queensland Government publicly embarrassed over handling of megamine
October 26, 2016. A POWERFUL lobby of regional councils and business groups have started to publicly embarrass the State and Federal governments over their inability to pave the way for the $21 billion Adani megamine… (subscribers only)
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/adani-coal-mine-queensland-government-publicly-embarrassed-over-handling-of-megamine/news-story/5fe5d13935e1c187df9c0248a3d81053
Kimberley’s Indigenous fire management experts featuring at UNESCO climate talks
Kimberley representatives head to Morocco to share traditional fire management techniques ABC Kimberley By Leah McLennan, Matt Bamford and Fi Poole, Representatives from the Kimberley region of Western Australia will travel to climate talks in Morocco to discuss their strategic burning methods.
Traditional fire management techniques have generated more than $85 million for Indigenous groups across northern Australia.
Kimberley Land Council chief executive Nolan Hunter will deliver a presentation on Indigenous fire management in Australia at the UNESCO Indigenous Knowledge and Climate Change conference in Marrakech next month.
“We have been invited to go over there to present the work we have been doing with traditional owner groups in the north Kimberley on fire abatement and the role of Indigenous people in climate change and biodiversity,” Mr Hunter said……http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-28/indigenous-fire-management-delegation-climate-change-conference/7972486
Will Australia become the global nuclear toilet? Events in Adelaide 29 October
Will Australia become the global nuclear toilet?, [corrected version] Noel Wauchope, 29 Oct 16 It’s not obvious to the rest of the nation, but this question is about to be advocated in two South Australian events, that will have repercussions for the whole of Australia. These are the second Nuclear Citizens’ Jury in Adelaide on October 29 and the South
Australian Labor Party Conference, also on October 29. The ALP conference is really the most important one, as Premier Weatherill will surely need the backing of his own party as he moves to the process of overturning South Australia’s law against nuclear waste importing.
Indeed, the Nuclear Citizens’ Jury is really irrelevant. Whatever decision it makes, is in no way binding on the government. And anyway, this so-called “Jury” of 350 persons cannot make a convincing decision. The brief given to them is worded, in terms that come straight from the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission South Australia’s (NFCRC) report that advocated nuclear waste importing:
Under what circumstances, if any, could South Australia pursue the opportunity to store and dispose of nuclear waste from other countries?
I understand that some jurors wanted a change from this question, but no change was allowed.
The previous Citizens’ Jury had some very dubious witness presentations, particularly on the health effects of ionising radiation. This was not entirely the fault of the organisers, DemocracyCo, as the 50 jury members themselves selected the witnesses to be invited.
One might expect this second Citizens’ jury to be better served by witnesses, but the new witness list is a curiously mixed bag. Of the 31 names, 16 are likely to be supporters of nuclear waste importing, 11 opposing it, and 4 appear to be neutral.
The most worrying section in this Citizens’ Jury is the session on SAFETY, dealing with general safety, siting and transport. For this session, there are 7 witnesses. Of these, only one witness, Dean Summers , appears to be anti nuclear, and one a neutral expert. This is Professor Sandy Steacy who knows all about earthquakes.
The witnesses are:
- Professor David Giles, of Minerals & Resources Engineering Future Industries Institute has all too strong a background in the mining industry.
- Dr John Loy: his theme is all about medical waste(an almost negligible component of Australia’s own Lucas Heights nuclear waste), and over-confidence on the safety of nuclear waste facilities. He has a background in promoting nuclear power to United Arab Emirates.
- Frank Boulton, General Manager WMC (Olympic Dam Marketing) Pty Ltd
- Dr AndrewHerczeg, formerly of the International Atomic Energy Agency
- Ian Hore-Lacy formerly of the Uranium Institute in Australia-he now works for the World Nuclear Association. Mr Hore-Lacy is unusual: he sees support for nuclear power as areligious and moral duty (He is also very critical of Pope Francis’ ideas on environment)
These pro nuclear experts have had much to say on storage of nuclear wastes. But none seems to have taken much interest in the issues around transporting highly radioactive wastes over thousands of kilometres across oceans and land. With the increasing volatility of weather events, as climate change progresses, and with the also growing concerns about terrorism, this omission is one of the greatest weaknesses of the case for importing nuclear wastes. The subject just glossed over in a few brief paragraphs in the NFCRC Report.
On the subject of SAFETY, focussing on the aspect of human health, one witness, Tony Hooker is a bit of a worry. He worked with Professor Pamela Sykes on her mouse studies, at Flinders University? Funded by America’s Department of Energy, Syke’s research purported to show that low dose radiation is actually good for you.
The 6 witnesss for this section are not evenly matched, with Dr Margaret Beavis and Dr Robert Hall opposing nuclear waste importing, and Dr Paul Degman, Dr Sami Hautakangas , Dr Stephan Bayer and Dr Tony Hooker likely to support it.
The vital section could well turn out to be ECONOMICS. And here, there IS a surprise, with an apparent bias towards the negative camp. Speakers Adjunct Professor Richard Blandy,Richard Dennis, Professor Barbara Pocock and Assoc. Professor Mark Diesendorf (via Skype) all have views opposing waste importation. The remaining speaker, Tim Johnson, from Jacobs, is supportive of the plan, but only cautiously so.
If economics were the only consideration, the waste import plan might conceivably die a quiet death, following this Citizens’ Jury, and a possibly negative report from a Parliamentary Inquiry. However, there are other considerations, such as underlying connections with the defence industry.
The South Australian Labor government, led by Premier Jay Weatherill, is enthusiastically backing the nuclear lobby’s campaign for setting up South Australia as the first place in the world to invite in the world’s nuclear waste, as a profit-making enterprise.
In practical terms, you can forget this government’s extravagant public relations promotion of the nuclear industry, culminating in these “Citizens’ Juries”. They really matter very little, in comparison with the actual steps to be taken for the pro nuclear campaign to succeed.
Step One is to overturn a South Australian law – the NuclearWaste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000. It includes:
8 Prohibition against construction or operation of nuclear waste storage facility
9 Prohibition against importation or transportation of nuclear waste for delivery to nuclear waste storage facility (The Act does have exemptions for the nuclear waste generated within Australia, e.g from Australia’s research reactor at Lucas Heights).
The government has already weakened this Act (In April 2016) by amending this provision:
13—No public money to be used to encourage or finance construction or operation of nuclear waste storage facility
(1) Despite any other Act or law to the contrary, no public money may be appropriated, expended or advanced to any person for the purpose of encouraging or financing any activity associated with the construction or operation of a nuclear waste storage facility in this State.
They had to change it quickly – to allow for financing community consultation or debate on the desirability or otherwise of constructing or operating a nuclear waste storage facility in this State. – seeing that they had already spent $7.2 million promoting nuclear waste storage, in the NFCRC
Anyway, prior to overturning this Act, Premier Weatherill is surely going to need to have the Labor Party onside. At last year’s ALP Conference, He and State Labor president Peter Malinauskas made a big push for South Australia going nuclear As the national ALP policy remains clearly opposed to all nuclear industry further development, we can expect that Weatherill will meet with some opposition to his nuclear plan from Labor members at the conference.
Perhaps the nuclear lobby, their captive South Australian Premier, and subservient national media, will not be able to press on with their plan without an unpleasant fracas.
1 This month
Help Aunty Sue Protect Her Land and Sacred Sites From Destructive Rocket Testing.
.
Australians deserve the truth
about
AUKUS – https://aukuspublicinquiry.com/
PETITION – To: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the Australian Labor Government
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
