Earthquake damages buildings near site of proposed nuclear plant
The Age, By Ben Cubby and Jessica McSweeney, August 23, 2024
A magnitude 4.7 earthquake struck near Muswellbrook just after midday on Friday, a few kilometres from the site where the Coalition has pledged to build a nuclear power plant, damaging some buildings in the town and sending tremors as far away as Sydney.
The State Emergency Services were called to help some people who suffered damage to their homes and businesses in Muswellbrook, but there were no reports of serious injuries.
Some buildings in Muswellbrook’s CBD had broken windows, fallen chimneys and stock spilling off shelves, locals said. At least two public schools were evacuated, and the local power grid was knocked until 2.30pm.
“It was quite alarming, we certainly felt it within the building,” said Muswellbrook Shire Council’s general manager Derek Finnigan. “It went for about 15 seconds I suppose, but it seemed longer of course.”
“We are assessing reports of minor damage to buildings in the community, some private structures in the CBD.”
Tremors were felt in a large radius around the quake’s epicentre at Denman, just south of Muswellbrook, from southern Sydney to Coffs Harbour on the Mid North Coast.
About 2400 people contacted Geoscience Australia to report that they had felt the quake which struck at 12.01pm, senior seismologist Hadi Ghasemi said.
“That is a very large number,” he said. “The earthquake itself was of a decent size and at a depth of 10 kilometres it was quite shallow, so it’s not surprising that it was widely felt.”
Ghasemi said fault lines run near the quake’s epicentre, and these had probably been triggered by stress building up as Australia’s continental plate nudges slowly north-east at a pace of about seven centimetres per year.
“There are existing cracks and weaknesses in the rock in this area, so it is a place where you might expect stress to build up,” he said.
The quake’s epicentre was a few kilometres west of Lake Liddell, where the federal Coalition plans to build a nuclear power plant if elected.
Nuclear facilities can be designed to withstand quakes of magnitude 4.8 and above, according to the World Nuclear Association and studies prepared by the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation for the Lucas Heights reactor in southern Sydney. However, hardening nuclear facilities against large quakes would add to the overall cost of building them…………………………………..https://www.theage.com.au/national/nsw/earthquake-damages-buildings-near-site-of-proposed-nuclear-plant-20240823-p5k4te.html
Too big to fail? Who cares if there’s no accountability – the Nuclear Lie
How is it that political parties can get away promising huge projects that won’t eventuate for 10 to 20 years; that’s four to eight election cycles in the future.
Even if the current opposition leader, Peter Dutton, manages to sell the nuclear dream at the next election, he won’t be around to see his promises are kept. He simply isn’t accountable for the claims he’s making today.
by David Salt | Aug 21, 2024 https://sustainabilitybites.com/too-big-to-fail-who-cares-if-theres-no-accountability/
Building big on big promises of endless clean energy ignores the limits of our institutions. It’s something rarely considered in the febrile, volatile environment of contemporary politics. We pull our leaders up on the smallest of inconsistencies but let them get away with the biggest of lies. When you next cast your vote, keep in mind that extraordinary promises require extraordinary accountability.
The nuclear lie
Australia is currently contesting a future based on nuclear energy vs renewables.
The conservative opposition Coalition has put forward a ‘plan’ to build seven government-owned nuclear plants across Australia that will come online around 2035. The promise is that these plants will provide cheap, reliable carbon free electricity and help our nation achieve ‘net zero’ by 2050. It’s a strange policy requiring massive government investment and control from a party the stands for smaller government. But that’s just the beginning of strangeness around this thinking.
To call it a ‘plan’ is drawing a long bow because the proposal comes with no costings or modelling attached; existing legislation prevents the construction of nuclear power plants; and Australia currently lacks the necessary capacity to develop a nuclear power network (something the nuclear loving coalition did nothing about while in government for most of the last decade). Experts from across Australia don’t believe it would be possible to build the plants by 2035, or that they can produce electricity at anything close to what can be produced by renewables.
However, if the electorate was to buy the proposal and vote in the conservatives, it would result in the extension of coal power (to fill the gap till nuclear comes online), the expansion of gas energy and a redirection of investment away from renewables, which don’t really complement nuclear anyway.
While questions are being asked about all of these uncertainties, I think a more fundamental issue relates to governance and scales of time.
How is it that political parties can get away promising huge projects that won’t eventuate for 10 to 20 years; that’s four to eight election cycles in the future. Even if the current opposition leader, Peter Dutton, manages to sell the nuclear dream at the next election, he won’t be around to see his promises are kept. He simply isn’t accountable for the claims he’s making today.
Flawed accountability
Clearly this is a weakness of our democratic system of governance. We vote someone in to represent us for a number of years, three to six years in most electorates around the world, and we hold these representatives to account for the how they perform in delivering what they promised at election time. This tends to have voters actively reflecting on day-to-day business (taxes, health care delivery, education etc), while simply ignoring the hundreds of billions of dollars of commitments made for promises that sit well over the electoral horizon (promises like nuclear submarine fleets and nuclear power plants).
This weakness in accountability appears to be increasingly exploited by all sides of politics. Voters are collapsing under the ‘cost of living’, holding their breaths with every quarterly inflation announcement, and quick to pull down any politician who seems insensitive to the needs of ‘working families’.
Yet, at the same time, voters seem oblivious to the consequences of political leaders making a $100 billion dollar pledge to be delivered in 3-4 election’s time (though I note critics say this plan could easily end up costing as much as $600 billion). Consequently, we’re seeing more of these big announcements because the pollies know the electorate is not going to hold them to account. They simply don’t have the capacity to take it in, they are too absorbed by the day-to-day stuff.
Extraordinary accountability
The late, great astronomer Carl Sagan once said that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. He was referring to the possibility of UFOs and extra-terrestrial life, but the same principle should apply to extraordinary political promises. If a political leader makes an extraordinary promise that can’t be delivered in one to two electoral cycles and commits vast quantities of (scarce) resources, then they need to put up a corresponding level of ‘extraordinary accountability’ before their case should be considered seriously by the broader electorate.
It’s not just the money involved and skills needed, it’s also how such a goal might be met over several electoral cycles. Bipartisan support, you would think, would have to be a basic first step.
A couple of decades ago Prime Minister John Howard passed the Charter of Budget Honesty Act in an effort to make political parties more accountable for the spending they promised. Many claim it has achieved little however, at the very least, it was an effort to show the electorate that politicians were aware that they needed to demonstrate greater accountability for the promises they make.
In the case of Dutton’s nuclear plan, this accountability is completely missing. However, rather than acknowledging this and attempting to build a stronger case, the Coalition has instead been attacking the institutions that have been examining the proposal (like CSIRO and the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering). The conservatives have simply written them off when they question the validity of the proposal. (“I’m not interested in the fanatics,” says Dutton.) This doubling down is doubly dumb because it involves both extraordinary promises with no proof and the politicisation of independent experts.
Beyond nuclear
But this tendency to aim extraordinarily big without extraordinary accountability goes way beyond Australia’s future nuclear energy ambitions. Consider the quest for fusion energy.
Europe is chasing the holy grail of clean energy by investing in fusion power. The multi-country International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) project was dreamt up in the 1980s and took over 25 years to come together as a formal collaboration between China, the European Union, India, Japan, South Korea, Russia, and the United States. Construction began in 2010 with operations expected to start about a decade later. But manufacturing faults, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the complexity of a first-of-a-kind machine (one of the most complex machines in the world) have all slowed progress and now ITER will not turn on until 2034, 9 years later than currently scheduled. Energy producing fusion reactions—the goal of the project—won’t come online until 2039!
ITER is a doughnut-shaped reactor, called a tokamak, in which magnetic fields contain a plasma of hydrogen nuclei hot enough to fuse and release energy. The technocrats running the project will gleefully explain that particle beams and microwaves heat the plasma to 150 million degrees Celsius—10 times the temperature of the Sun’s core—while a few meters away the superconducting magnets must be cooled to minus 269°C, a few degrees above absolute zero. Amazing as that sounds, it’s possibly less challenging than coordinating the actions and investment choices of the world’s superpowers decades into the future; Russia, China and the US are not exactly buddies at the moment. How strong do the ‘particle beams’ have to be to hold this agreement together for 20-30 years.
And even if ITER never eventuates, the possibility of ‘unlimited, clean energy’ over the horizon impacts investment decisions today. We’re seeing this even with the nuclear fission debate today in Australia as investors become wary of putting their money into renewables with the opposition promising nuclear powerplants just down the road.
And then there’s growing talk about implementing geoengineering solutions to fix humanity’s existential overheating problem (‘global boiling’). We’re talking pumping sulphates into the stratosphere, giant mirrors in space and fertilising the ocean to draw down carbon in the atmosphere. Playing God by ‘controlling’ the Earth system is going to be as big a governance issue as it is a technical challenge. And, given we’re doing so poorly on energy solutions using technology that’s relatively well understood, we’d be wise to demand extraordinary accountability before swallowing any promises in this domain.
Going thermonuclear
Which is not to say that ‘thermonuclear’ is not potentially a big part of a possible energy solution, just not the man-made kind. That big ball of energy in the sky called the Sun is driven by thermonuclear fusion, and this energy is there for the harvesting via photovoltaic cells (and indirectly by wind turbines).
And the accountability on these renewable sources of power doesn’t need the same level of extraordinary accountability that nuclear and thermonuclear demands because it can be delivered now, in the same electoral cycle as the promise to deliver it.
Renewables are not without their own set of issues but in terms of cost, feasibility AND accountability, it’s a solution that Australia (and the world) should be implementing now. Renewables are not ‘too big to fail’ but waiting twenty years before switching to them is simply too little too late.
“Gas Trojan horse:” Coalition nuclear push slammed as fossil wedge aimed at renewables
RENEW ECONOMY, Sophie Vorrath, Aug 19, 2024
The chair of Australia’s largest group of clean energy investors has described the federal Coalition’s push for nuclear power as a “gas Trojan horse,” and a political wedge intended to douse investment in renewables and prolong the use of fossil fuels.
John Martin, CEO of renewables developer Windlab and chair of the Clean Energy Investor Group, on Monday named wedge politics as one of biggest issues holding back the shift to renewables in Australia, describing the current industry status quo as “really, really challenging.”
“Australia is the land of wedges,” Martin told the 2024 Clean Energy Investor Conference in Melbourne.
“When I think of the whole nuclear debate, I don’t see that as really about nuclear. It’s a gas Trojan horse,” Martin told the conference.
“If you do any modeling, what will happen? The coal will go, nuclear will take forever, none of us are going to invest in renewables knowing we can’t compete against government-funded nuclear, [so that] big gap will be filled with gas. So there’s a wedge there that’s being aimed at us.”
Painting renewables as a natural enemy of the environment and wildlife is “another fantastic wedge strategy,” Martin says, that likewise threatens to derail progress on decarbonisation, while doing nothing to address the urgent need to reform Australia’s environment and biodiversity protection rules…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. https://reneweconomy.com.au/gas-trojan-horse-coalition-nuclear-push-slammed-as-fossil-wedge-aimed-at-renewables/
Gareth Evans: AUKUS is terrible for Australian national interests – but we’re probably stuck with it
as Paul Keating continues to put it so articulately, that we need to find our security in Asia, not from Asia.
The Conversation, Gareth Evans, Distinguished Honorary Professor, Australian National University, August 16, 2024
This is an edited extract of a presentation by Gareth Evans, Distinguished Honorary Professor at ANU and former Australian foreign minister, to the Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia Conference.
Politics played a significant part in the birth of AUKUS in Australia, and politics both here and in the United States will play a crucial role in determining whether it lives or dies. That is so at least for its core submarine component. The second pillar of the agreement, relating to technical cooperation on multiple new fronts, is both much less clear in its scope and less obviously politically fraught.
On the Australian side, partisan political opportunism was a factor in the initiation of the submarine deal, bipartisan political support was a condition of US agreement to it, and maintenance of that bipartisan support into the future presumably will be a precondition of its continuance, at least when it comes to highly sensitive elements like the handover of three Virginia class submarines.
On the American side, it was perception of US strategic advantage that drove Washington’s agreement to the deal, rather than any domestic political considerations. But strong cross-party support in Congress will remain necessary for its complete delivery. And, at the even more critical executive level, it cannot be assumed the deal is now Trump-proof.
It is only in the United Kingdom that we can reasonably regard domestic politics to be irrelevant to AUKUS’s future. The deal is so obviously a gift to the national Treasury, and has so little impact on national defence and security interests, that no one on any side of politics is ever likely to find it unpalatable.
In Australia, domestic politics have been a factor from the outset. While for the Morrison government the primary driver of the AUKUS decision was, no doubt, the ideological passion of senior Coalition ministers for all things American, it is hard to deny political opportunism came a close second.
Morrison was deeply conscious of the opportunity the deal presented to wedge the Labor opposition in the defence and security space, where the Labor Party has long been perceived, rightly or wrongly, as electorally vulnerable. That the nuclear dimension of the deal was bound to ruffle some feathers in Labor ranks was an added political attraction…………………………………………..
What I am now critical of, is that when Labor did come into office in May 2022, it is clear no such serious review of the whole AUKUS deal ever took place. Crucial questions were never seriously addressed; clearly articulated answers to them have never been given by the prime minister, defence minister or anyone else. The answers that are in fact emerging as further time passes are deeply troubling…………………………………..
……..there is zero certainty of the timely delivery of the eight AUKUS boats. We now know that both the US and UK have explicit opt-out rights. And even in the wholly unlikely event that everything falls smoothly into place in the whole vastly complex enterprise, we will be waiting 40 years for the last boat to arrive, posing real capability gap issues.
………………, the final fleet size – if its purpose really is the defence of Australia – appears hardly fit for that purpose. ………………..
…….the eye-watering cost of the AUKUS submarine program, up to $368 billion, will make it very difficult, short of a dramatic increase in the defence share of GDP, to acquire the other capabilities we will need if we are to have any kind of self-reliant capacity in meeting an invasion threat. Those capabilities include, in particular, state-of-the-art missiles, aircraft and drones, that are arguably even more critical than submarines for our defence in the event of such a crisis.
..the price now being demanded by the US for giving us access to its nuclear propulsion technology is extraordinarily high.
……… The notion that we will retain any kind of sovereign agency in determining how all these assets are used, should serious tensions erupt, is a joke in bad taste.
…….the purchase price we are now paying, for all its exorbitance, will never be enough to guarantee the absolute protective insurance that supporters of AUKUS think they are buying. ANZUS, it cannot be said too often, does not bind the US to defend us, even in the event of existential attack. And extended nuclear deterrence is as illusory for us as for ever other ally or partner believing itself to be sheltering under a US nuclear umbrella. The notion that the US would ever be prepared to run the risk of sacrificing Los Angeles for Tokyo or Seoul, let alone Perth, is and always has been nonsense.
We can rely on military support if the US sees it in its own national interest to offer it, but not otherwise.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………..as Paul Keating continues to put it so articulately, that we need to find our security in Asia, not from Asia.
Australia’s no-holds-barred embrace of AUKUS is more likely than not to prove one of the worst defence and foreign policy decisions our country has made, not only putting at profound risk our sovereign independence, but generating more risk than reward for the very national security it promises to protect. I cannot imagine this decision being made by any of the Hawke-Keating governments of which I was part. Times have changed. https://theconversation.com/gareth-evans-aukus-is-terrible-for-australian-national-interests-but-were-probably-stuck-with-it-236938
Chair of Nuclear for Australia denies that calling CO2 ‘plant food’ means he is a climate denier
Dr Adi Paterson’s statements are apparently at odds with the group’s official position, which says nuclear is needed to tackle the climate crisis
Graham Readfearn, 17 Aug 24, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/aug/17/dr-adi-paterson-nuclear-for-australia-climate-change
The chair of a leading Australian nuclear advocacy group has called concerns that carbon dioxide emissions are driving a climate crisis an “irrational fear of a trace gas which is plant food” and has rejected links between worsening extreme weather and global heating.
Several statements from Dr Adi Paterson, reviewed by the Guardian, appear at odds with statements from the group he chairs, Nuclear for Australia, which is hosting a petition saying nuclear is needed to tackle an “energy and climate crisis”.
Nuclear for Australia was founded by 18-year-old Queensland nuclear advocate Will Shackel, who has said repeatedly he believes reactors are needed to fight “the climate crisis”.
Two climate science experts told the Guardian that Paterson’s statements were misguided and typical of climate science denial.
Paterson defended his statements, telling the Guardian he was “not a climate denier”. He described himself as “a climate realist” and an “expert on climate science”.
In May, Paterson, who resigned in 2020 as the chief executive of the government’s Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, suggested on LinkedIn that concerns about climate change were “an irrational fear of a trace gas which is plant food”. He has been a regular guest on right-wing media outlets since the Coalition earlier this year said it wanted to lift the ban on nuclear and build reactors in seven locations.
On his Facebook page, Paterson has said that “cold is more dangerous than warm” and described a leading scientist as a “climate creep”.
On LinkedIn, he said US space agency Nasa was “deliberately confusing public understanding by publishing ground surface temperatures”, saying the agency’s climate work “should be given to a credible independent group. Defund NASA!”
In April, Paterson told an audience at the Centre for Independent Studies that “you can’t make a correlation between extreme events and climate” and said “no matter what you believe about carbon dioxide – it is plant food”.
“Increasing carbon a little bit is not going to dramatically change the climate. The plants will grow better,” he said, saying the planet was in a period of low CO2.
Prof David Karoly, a councillor at the Climate Council and a respected atmospheric scientist who has been studying the affects of CO2 on the climate since the late 1980s, said Paterson’s statements were typical of those from climate science deniers.
He said while CO2 levels were currently low in comparison to other times in Earth’s history, they were higher than at any time since the emergence of homo sapiens.
“He is misguided,” Karoly said. “CO2 has led to increases in temperature extremes, extreme rainfall, sea level rise and increases in bushfires and fire weather. CO2 has already dramatically changed the climate.”
Dr John Cook, an expert on climate change misinformation at the University of Melbourne, said Paterson was “regurgitating arguments” across a range of “thoroughly debunked talking points”.
He said: “It’s inconsistent to argue that CO2 is a trace gas which can’t possibly make any difference but at the same time claim that CO2 is going to green the planet.”
Shackel did not respond to questions. In an interview with the Guardian, Paterson argued the UN’s climate change panel “has made it very clear” that it was “not possible at this point” to link extreme events to changes in the climate.
But the panel’s latest report said it was “an established fact that human-induced greenhouse gas emissions have led to an increased frequency and/or intensity of some weather and climate extremes”, with evidence for rising temperature extremes, extreme rainfall, droughts, tropical cyclones and more dangerous fire weather.
Paterson said he did think rising levels of CO2 were a problem and that fossil fuels needed to be limited “as soon as we can”. “It is a very, very serious problem but it is not a climate crisis,” he said.
He said he had been concerned about climate change for many years but said unduly worrying children over the issue was “a form of child abuse”, and “the chance of significant catastrophic events” occurring in the next 30 years “related to an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere in the southern hemisphere” was “small”.
Paterson added he was more concerned about the “ecocide” from building wind and solar farms” than about climate change.
When glaciers calve: Huge underwater tsunamis found at edge of Antarctica, likely affecting ice melt.
Bulletin, By Michael Meredith | July 15, 2024
Antarctica is huge, it affects pretty much every place and every living thing on our planet, and it is changing. This should be a concern for all of us, and yet we know troublingly little about some key aspects of the great white continent.
Despite its position in the far distant south, Antarctica is a vital component in the functioning of the planet. It is central to global ocean circulation, thus exerting a profound influence on the world’s climate (Figure 1 on original). The vast Southern Ocean that surrounds Antarctica absorbs huge quantities of heat and carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and distributes them around the rest of the world, thereby slowing the rate of global warming elsewhere. This “climate favor” has comes at a cost, however—the Southern Ocean is overheating and acidifying, with marked impacts on the marine ecosystem. The extra heat in the ocean is also melting the fringes of the Antarctic Ice Sheet, destabilizing its glaciers, and increasingly pushing up sea levels worldwide. The sea ice around Antarctica—formed in the fall and winter of the Southern Hemisphere, when the ocean surface freezes—has now reached record low extents, affecting the Earth’s energy budget and acting to further accelerate climate change.
All the information we have from Antarctica comes from sparse networks of sensors and equipment deployed directly, augmented with satellite measurements of the ice and ocean surface and computer simulations. While we know more about Antarctica and the Southern Ocean than ever before, it is still one of the least-well measured places on our planet, with some areas still remaining “data deserts.” We need to know more, so that we can better understand the causes of the changes happening here, how they will continue to change in future, and hence what the global impacts are likely to be.
One feature of the Southern Ocean that is often overlooked is how (and how strongly) it is mixed. This is a key process that redistributes heat, carbon, nutrients, plankton, and all other things in the sea, with profound consequences.
………………………………………glacier calving event had caused a sudden massive burst in the mixing of the ocean, stretching many kilometers from the ice front.
How did it do this? The data revealed that the glacier calving had triggered an underwater tsunami event. In essence, large waves (the height of a two-story house) were generated and moved rapidly away from the glacier, riding the interface between layers in the ocean that were tens of meters down. When these internal tsunami waves finally broke—like surface waves on a beach—they caused massive churn and mixing…………………………………………………………………………
This process—of glacier calving generating internal tsunamis and bursts of ocean mixing—is entirely absent from the computer models that are used to simulate our climate and ecosystem, hampering our ability to reliably project future changes. We need to know more about how this process works, how it will change, and what its consequences will be. ……. https://thebulletin.org/premium/2024-07/when-glaciers-calve-huge-underwater-tsunamis-found-at-edge-of-antarctica-likely-affecting-ice-melt/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=ThursdayNewsletter08152024&utm_content=ClimateChange_HugeUnderwaterTsunamis_07152024&utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=ThursdayNewsletter08152024&utm_content=ClimateChange_HugeUnderwaterTsunamis_07152024
Transition ‘well under way’ as AGL rejects nuclear push
Illawarra Mercury, By Marion Rae, August 14 2024 –
AGL Energy has staked millions more on the clean energy transition as higher power prices and fewer outages generate stellar profit growth and spare cash.
Australia’s biggest emitter announced on Wednesday the $250 million acquisition of Firm Power and Terrain Solar, adding solar power and battery storage across all states.
Their combined projects, at 8.1 gigawatts, will add to renewable sources of electricity as coal-fired power plants close from coast to coast.
However, recent polls show that many Australians don’t believe the transition is feasible or on track for the national target of 82 per cent renewable energy by 2030.
“We’re investing back into the transition … it’s well underway,” AGL managing director Damien Nicks told AAP.
He said big batteries would ultimately assist renewable generation by responding to market demand in milliseconds, along with pumped hydro and other firming assets including fast-start gas.
“It is the most complex transition this country has seen but you’re right, community engagement through this time is going to be critical … whether that’s on our sites or outside of our sites,” Mr Nicks said.
“We’re also trying to utilise the infrastructure and grid that’s available to us today, whilst the transmission gets built out around the rest of the country – that’s incredibly important.”
But he dismissed the option of nuclear reactors, which the coalition has promised to build if it wins power in 2025.
“Nuclear is not part of our plans, nor our strategy … we cannot sit around and wait for nuclear,” Mr Nicks said.
“The rationale for that is both cost and time to get there.
“We need to find 12 gigawatts of renewable and firming assets by 2035.”
AGL earlier posted an underlying net profit of $812 million for the year to June 30, up 189 per cent, while underlying earnings rose 63 per cent to $2.22 billion.
Shares in AGL rose in the wake of the results, delivering paper gains for AGL’s major shareholder billionaire Mike Cannon-Brookes…………………………………………………. more https://www.illawarramercury.com.au/story/8729378/transition-well-under-way-as-agl-rejects-nuclear-push/
Forced Posture: has Australia already ceded military control to the US?
by Michelle Fahy Aug 13, 2024, https://michaelwest.com.au/forced-posture-has-australia-already-ceded-military-control-to-the-us/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=2024-08-15&utm_campaign=Michael+West+Media+Weekly+Update
The war of words between Defence Minister Richard Marles and Paul Keating belies how the US bid for military control of Australia has been underway for over a decade, supported by both the Coalition and Labor. Michelle Fahy and Elizabeth Minter explain the Force Posture Agreement.
The Albanese government has not explained the full picture in its rejection of Paul Keating’s concerns about Australia’s defence policy. The former Labor prime minister said on ABC’s 7:30 last Thursday that AUKUS was likely to turn Australia into the 51st state of the United States: “AUKUS is really about, in American terms, the military control of Australia.”
The next morning deputy prime minister Richard Marles claimed Keating’s remarks were “not a fair characterisation” and that Keating’s remarks were not news.
Unmentioned by either Keating or Marles was that America’s bid for military control of Australia has been under way for more than a decade, with the enthusiastic support of both Coalition and Labor governments. As we write this, the US is spending $630 million as part of an extensive militarisation of the Australian Top End to suit its purposes.
Furthermore, five days ago, after the annual Ausmin (Australia-US Ministerial Consultations) talks, it was announced that the US was planning more frequent deployments to Australia of long-range B-52 bombers, which can carry nuclear weapons.
When asked last year whether Australia would allow US aircraft operating out of Tindal air base in the Northern Territory to carry nuclear weapons, the response of Foreign Minister Penny Wong was simply: “We understand and respect the longstanding US policy of neither confirming or denying.”
Compare that stance with that of Malcolm Fraser’s government. As John Menadue explained in a recent podcast “The Americanisation of our public policy, media and national interest”, then prime minister Fraser stood up in Parliament and insisted that no US aircraft or ships carrying nuclear weapons could access Australian ports or operate over Australia without the permission of the Australian government.
As Menadue said: “This is our territory, this is our sovereignty, [yet today] we won’t even ask the Americans operating out of Tindal whether they’re carrying nuclear weapons.”
Unimpeded access for the US
A critical piece of evidence regarding Australia’s sellout is the little-known Force Posture Agreement (FPA) with the United States, which the Abbott Coalition government signed in 2014, building on agreements made with the US by the Gillard Labor government. Her government allowed up to 2,500 US marines to be stationed on a permanent rotation in Darwin, and increased the number of military aircraft that could fly in and out of the Top End and use Australia’s outback bombing ranges.
The FPA provides the legal basis for the extensive militarisation of Australia by the US. In short, it permits the US to prepare for, launch and control its own military operations from Australian territory: “United States Forces and United States Contractors shall have unimpeded access to and use of Agreed Facilities and Areas for activities undertaken in connection with this Agreement.”
Defence Minister Marles has been effusive in his support for the force posture agreement and the control the US has been given over Australian soil.
Just last week, he announced that: “American force posture now in Australia involves every domain: land, sea, air, cyber and space.” Yet the longstanding Outer Space Treaty, which each AUKUS ally has ratified, reserves outer space for purely peaceful purposes.
Two months after Labor won office in May 2022, Marles was in Washington DC announcing that Labor would “continue the ambitious trajectory of its force posture cooperation” with the US.
He added that Australia’s military engagement with the US military would “move beyond interoperability to interchangeability” and Australia would “ensure we have all the enablers in place to operate seamlessly together, at speed”.
While the FPA strongly supports America’s ability to wage war against China, politicians have not explained its significance to the Australian public. Moreover, public consultation on the FPA was virtually non-existent. The Northern Territory government was consulted, while other state and territory governments merely received advice about it.
Defence Minister Marles speaks of the “appreciation for the contribution that America is making to the stability and the peace of the Indo-Pacific region by its presence in Australia”, but numerous critics, including Sam Roggeveen, the director of the Lowy Institute’s international security program and a former Australian intelligence analyst, warn of the risks of bringing “US combat forces, and its military strategy to fight China, on to our shores”.
The FPA allows the following and much more:
- unimpeded access to our airfields and airport facilities for US combat aircraft and bombers;
- unimpeded access to our seaports for US naval vessels, including US nuclear submarines at HMAS Stirling in Western Australia;
- the construction of a US Air Force mission planning, intelligence and operations centre in Darwin as part of $630 million in American spending across the Top End over the next two years;
- the establishment, under US military control, of several storage facilities for aircraft fuel, spare parts and munitions, including 11 giant jet fuel storage tanks near Darwin’s main port, which “will allow the US to run large-scale exercises and operations from Northern Australia”.
AUKUS, in conjunction with the FPA, ensures that Australia’s navy, in particular, will be tightly integrated with the US navy for the purpose of fighting China, and that the two navies can operate as one from Australian ports and waters.
Handcuffed to the US
Australia’s high-tech major weapons systems also make us more reliant than ever on the United States. As respected veteran journalist Brian Toohey reported in 2020, “The US … denies Australia access to the computer source code essential to operate key electronic components in its ships, planes, missiles, sensors and so on.”
This includes the F-35 fighter jets, which both Foreign Minister Penny Wong and Defence Minister Marles have noted this year form the largest proportion of the Australian Air Force’s fast jet capacity.
The significant erosion of Australian sovereignty did not start with AUKUS. Australians were warned as far back as 2001 of the high costs of our dependence on the US by a Parliamentary Library research paper that stated: “It is almost literally true that Australia cannot go to war without the consent and support of the US.”
The paper also noted that the Australian Defence Force is critically dependent on US supply and support for the conduct of all its operations except those at the lowest level and of the shortest duration.
It is more than dependency though? Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles boasts that “American force posture now in Australia involves every domain: land, sea, air, cyber and space” yet the Albanese government denies that Australia is turning into the 51st state of America.
Wake up Australia! We need what Britain’s got – a NUCLEAR FREE LOCAL AUTHORITIES!
Read the article below, if you can dredge through it all. It’s about the complexities of placing a nuclear waste dump.
Note the words used – the willingness of the community to accept it – a public referendum.
Australia cannot afford to leave our future in the hands of incompetent twits like these AUSMIN fools.
People like Defence Minister Richard Marles have the nerve to sign up to “undisclosed political commitments” , that involve us getting nuclear fuel wastes from submarines. No public information, discussion, consent……….
Now the unfortunate Brits have already got their burden of this toxic stuff. We don’t. This absurd plan to buy obsolete nuclear submarines looks like a cover for introducing foreign radioactive trash to Australia .
NFLA 13th Aug 2024
NFLAs welcome developments to move forward to an early poll in Theddlethorpe
The NFLAs have welcomed recent developments to move towards an early Test of Public Support of the proposal to bring a Geological Disposal Facility to Theddlethorpe in East Lincolnshire.
Nuclear Waste Services, a division of the taxpayer-funded Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, is seeking to identify a potential site for the GDF in West Cumbria or in Lincolnshire. The GDF would be the final repository for Britain’s legacy and future high-level radioactive waste. Most of this is currently in storage at Sellafield. Any final decision on the location of the nuclear waste dump would be based on two key factors – the suitability of the geology and the willingness of the community to accept it.
In Theddlethorpe, the shock revelation that the former Conoco gas terminal was being considered as a surface site generated an immediate public response. An opposition group, the Guardians of the East Coast, was soon formed and members now work with supportive elected Councillors to oppose the plan.
Amongst the Labour, Green and independent members elected in May 2023 on a platform of opposing the GDF, Theddlethorpe Councillor Travis Hesketh and Sutton on Sea Councillor Robert Watson have been active in championing the need for an early ballot to determine public support for the plan. The two Leaders of East Lindsey District Council and Lincolnshire County Council have already agreed to hold a poll in 2025, but at the last meeting of East Lindsey District Council, the two Councillors brought a further motion to commit the authority to back a local ballot within twelve months or otherwise withdraw from the process.
Under the government’s established procedures for determining public support for a GDF, Lincolnshire County Council and East Lindsey District Council are deemed to be ‘Relevant Principal Local Authorities’ with the right to decide when a ‘Test of Public Support’ should be held. However, the Community Partnership, which provides limited oversight to the process, determines the boundaries of the ‘Potential Host Community’, the geographic area within which the residents are eligible to participate in any test, and determines the nature of the ‘Test of Public Support’, which does not have to be a public referendum.
At the East Lindsey District Council meeting, the motion was carried, but with an amendment proposed by the Council Leader. Councillor Colin Leyland said he had now come round to supporting an earlier poll in principle, but with certain caveats; namely that the boundary of the ‘Potential Host Community’ be first defined and subject to Nuclear Waste Services being given an additional twelve months to provide more information to residents impacted by the proposal. Councillor Leyland indicated that, if after a year, no poll had been held and NWS engagement efforts remained unsatisfactory, he would recommend to his Executive that Council withdraw from the process. This would be subject to a review by the Council’s Overview Board.
After this amended motion was carried, the NFLA Secretary wrote to David Fannin, the newly elected Chair of the Theddlethorpe GDF Community Partnership, urging him to consider as his ‘urgent workstreams’ defining the Potential Host Community and preparing to hold a local referendum as a Test of Public Support.
The NFLAs have now received Mr Fannin’s response; in it the Community Partnership Chair said: ‘The Community Partnership will continue to press NWS (Nuclear Waste Services) to make this (open and transparent dialogue) a priority and produce information for the local community and supports the local authorities’ ambition for an early Test of Public Support. I can assure you that activities that lead to determining the Potential Host Community and preparing for the Test of Public Support are the top priority for the Community Partnership.’
In a second interesting development, newly elected Louth and Horncastle MP, Victoria Atkins, has invited her constituents to complete an online survey in which they are asked whether and when they would like to see a referendum on the GDF and who they would like to see invited to participate in such a ballot. Ms Atkins circulated a letter just before the General Election in which she made a welcome affirmation that she had ‘always argued for a swift conclusion to this and will support local residents in their quest for a prompt referendum’. In the preamble to her survey, Ms Atkins stated that ‘I will back the call for a public vote within the next 12 months if this is the will of the majority of constituents in Theddlethorpe’.
The NFLAs hope that as many Theddlethorpe residents will participate in the survey. We look forward to hearing the result and hope that it will reflect a local desire to hold a referendum within twelve months and limit participation to those local residents who are directly affected.
A letter was sent by the NFLA Secretary to Ms Atkins the day after the general election is which the MP was asked ‘to use (her) influence as the local MP to speak with your Conservative colleagues, the Leaders of East Lindsey District Council and Lincolnshire County Council, to urge the Leader of East Lindsey District Council to throw his support, and that of his Conservative Group, behind (the recent) motion and for the Leader of Lincolnshire County Council to indicate his support for its aspirations, either to hold a poll by 2025 or withdraw from the process’. The letter remains unanswered.
Ends://… For more information, contact NFLA Secretary Richard Outram by email at richard.outram@manchester.gov.uk or by telephone on 07583 097793
AUKUS revamped: Australia to indemnify US and UK against ‘any liability’ from nuclear risks
Documents tabled in parliament on Monday have also revealed the United States or United Kingdom could walk away from the AUKUS deal with Australia with a year’s notice.
SBS News, 12 August 2024
Key Points
- The US, UK and Australia signed a new AUKUS agreement in Washington last week.
- Documents tabled in parliament on Monday revealed several key elements of the revamped agreement.
- Australia will indemnify the US and UK from any ‘liability’ arising from nuclear risks related to the program.
The United States or the United Kingdom could exit the AUKUS agreement to provide nuclear-powered submarines with Australia with a year’s notice under a new arrangement.
The revamped agreement also requires Australia to legally protect both allies against costs or injuries arising from nuclear risks.
The arrangement was signed by all three partner countries in Washington in the US last week.
Advertisement
Documents tabled in parliament on Monday set out the agreed legal framework for transferring nuclear materials and equipment to Australia for the $368 billion acquisition of atomic-powered submarines announced in 2021.
The plan will bring eight nuclear-powered subs into service by the 2050s.
US and UK could walk away with a year’s notice
The agreement, which “shall remain in force until 31 December 2075”, says the AUKUS deal shouldn’t adversely affect the ability of the US and UK to “meet their respective military requirements and to not degrade their respective naval nuclear propulsion programs”.
“Any party may terminate the agreement … by giving at least one year’s written notice to the other parties,” it reads.
Australia responsible for storage and disposal of waste
Nuclear material for the future submarines’ propulsion would be transferred from the US or UK in “complete, welded power units”, the agreement says.
But Australia would be responsible for the storage and disposal of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste from the nuclear power units that are transferred under the deal.
Australia to cover other members for nuclear risks
The updated agreement also means Australia will indemnify the US and UK from any “liability, loss, costs, damage, or injury (including third party claims)” arising from nuclear risks related to the program.
But the legal protection won’t apply in relation to a conventionally armed, nuclear-powered submarine that has been in service with the US Navy “until such time as it is transferred to Australia”…………………..
Greens attack revamped agreement
Greens defence spokesman David Shoebridge criticised the new agreement for its “multiple escape hatches” which risked Australia being left high and dry.
“This is a $368 billion gamble with taxpayers’ money from the Albanese government,” he said…………………..more https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/aukus-revamped-australia-to-indemnify-us-and-uk-against-any-liability-from-nuclear-risks/rudp9zf10
Resisting AUKUS: The Paul Keating Formula
The venomous icing on the cake – at least for AUKUS critics – comes in the form of an undisclosed “Understanding” that involves “additional related political commitments.”
The contents of Biden’s letter irked Keating less than the spectacular show of servility shown by Australia’s Defence Minister Richard Marles, and Foreign Minister Penny Wong on their visit to Annapolis for the latest AUSMIN talks. In what has become a pattern of increasing subordination of Australian interests to the US Imperium, US Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III and US Secretary of State Antony Blinken played happy hosts and must have been delighted by what they heard.
August 13, 2024, : Dr Binoy Kampmark, https://theaimn.com/resisting-aukus-the-paul-keating-formula/
From his own redoubt of critical inquiry, the former Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating has made fighting the imperialising leprosy of the AUKUS security pact between Australia, the UK and the United States a matter of solemn duty.
In March 15, 2023, he excoriated a Canberra press gallery seduced and tantalised by the prospect of nuclear-powered submarines, calling the Albanese government’s complicit arrangements with the US and UK to acquire such a capability “the worst international decision by an Australian Labor government since the former Labor leader, Billy Hughes, sought to introduce conscription to augment Australian forces in World War one.
His latest spray was launched in the aftermath of a touched-up AUKUS, much of it discussed in a letter by US President Joe Biden to the US House Speaker and President of the Senate. The revised agreement between the three powers for Cooperation Related to Naval Nuclear Propulsion is intended to supersede the November 22, 2021 agreement between the three powers on the Exchange of Naval Nuclear Propulsion Information (ENNPIA)
The new agreement permits “the continued communication and exchange of NNPI, including certain RD, and would also expand the cooperation between the governments by enabling the transfer of naval nuclear propulsion plants of conventionally armed, nuclear-powered submarines, including component parts and spare parts thereof, and other related equipment.” The new arrangements will also permit the sale of special nuclear material in the welded power units, along with other relevant “material as needed for such naval propulsion plants.”
The contents of Biden’s letter irked Keating less than the spectacular show of servility shown by Australia’s Defence Minister Richard Marles, and Foreign Minister Penny Wong on their visit to Annapolis for the latest AUSMIN talks. In what has become a pattern of increasing subordination of Australian interests to the US Imperium, US Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III and US Secretary of State Antony Blinken played happy hosts and must have been delighted by what they heard.
The details that emerged from the conversations held between the four – details which rendered Keating passionately apoplectic – can only make those wishing for an independent Australian defence policy weep. Words such as “Enhanced Force Posture Cooperation” were used to describe the intrusion of the US armed forces into every sphere of Australian defence:the domains of land, maritime, air, and space.
Ongoing infrastructure investments at such Royal Australian Air Force Bases as Darwin and Tindal continue to take place, not to bolster Australian defence but fortify the country as a US forward defensive position. To these can be added, as the Pentagonfact sheet reveals, “site surveys for potential upgrades at RAAF Bases Curtin, Learmonth, and Scherger.”
The degree of subservience Canberra affords is guaranteed by increased numbers of US personnel to take place in rotational deployments. These will include “frequent rotations of bombers, fighter aircraft, and Maritime Patrol and Reconnaissance Aircraft.” Secret arrangements have also been made involving the disposal of nuclear propulsion plants that will feature in Australia’s nuclear powered submarine fleet, though it is unclear how broad that commitment is.
The venomous icing on the cake – at least for AUKUS critics – comes in the form of an undisclosed “Understanding” that involves “additional related political commitments.” The Australian Greens spokesperson on Defence, Senator David Shoebridge, rightly wonders “what has to be kept secret from the Australian public? There are real concerns the secret understanding includes commitments binding us to the US in the event they go to war with China in return for getting nuclear submarines.”
Marles has been stumblingly unforthcoming in that regard. When asked what such “additional political commitments” were, he coldly replied that the agreement was “as we’ve done it.” The rest was “misinformation” being spread by detractors of the alliance.
It is precisely the nature of these undertakings, and what was made public at Annapolis, that paved the way for Keating’s hefty salvo on ABC’s 7.30. The slavishness of the whole affair had made Keating “cringe”. “This government has sold out to the United States. They’ve fallen for the dinner on the White House lawn.”
He proved unsparing about Washington’s intentions. “What AUKUS is about in the American mind is turning [Australia into suckers], locking us up for 40 years with American bases all around … not Australian bases.” It meant, quite simply, “in American terms, the military control of Australia. I mean, what’s happened … is likely to turn Australia into the 51st state of the United States.”
Having the US as an ally was itself problematic, largely because of its belligerent intentions. “If we didn’t have an aggressive ally like the United States – aggressive to others in the region – there’d be nobody attacking Australia. We are better left alone than we are being ‘protected’ by an aggressive power like the United States.”
As for what Australian obligations to the US entailed, the former PM was in little doubt. “What this is all about is the Chinese laying claim to Taiwan, and the Americans are going to say ‘no, no, we’re going to keep these Taiwanese people protected’, even though they’re sitting on Chinese real estate.” Were Australia to intervene, the picture would rapidly change: an initial confrontation between Beijing and Washington over the island would eventually lead to the realisation that catastrophic loss would simply not be worth it, leaving Australia “the ones who have done all the offence.”
As for Australia’s own means of self-defence against any adversary or enemy, Keating uttered the fundamental heresy long stomped on by the country’s political and intelligence establishment: Canberra could, if needed, go it alone. “Australia is capable of defending itself. There’s no way another state can invade a country like Australia with an armada of ships without it all failing.” Australia did not “need to be basically a pair of shoes hanging out of Americans’ backside.” With Keating’s savage rhetoric, and the possibility that AUKUS may collapse before the implosions of US domestic politics, improbable peace may break out.
Revamped AUKUS document reveals how US and UK can walk away from nuclear submarine deal
ABC News, By defence correspondent Andrew Greene 14 Aug 24
In short:
A revamped AUKUS agreement has been tabled in federal parliament revealing the submarine project can be cancelled with a year’s notice.
Under the deal, Australia has also agreed to indemnify the US and UK against any loss or injury connected to nuclear materials transferred here.
What’s next?
The deal will last until December 2075, provided the ANZUS alliance continues and the US and UK remain in NATO.
Australia would foot the bill for any loss or injury caused by sensitive technology and radioactive materials transferred by the United States and United Kingdom for nuclear submarines, under a revamped version of the AUKUS agreement.
An updated document for the trilateral partnership reveals Australia would indemnify the United States and the United Kingdom against such an outcome.
It also reveals the US or the UK could pull out of the submarine deal with just a year’s notice if either nation decides the deal weakens their own nuclear submarine programs
Details of the “understanding” signed by all three AUKUS partners last week in Washington have now been tabled in federal parliament with the agreement to “remain in force until 31 December 2075”.
Article I specifies that the US and UK can transfer “material and equipment relating to conventionally armed, nuclear-powered submarines to Australia” providing this does not constitute an “unreasonable risk” to their own defence and security.
“This is a $368 billion gamble with taxpayers’ money from the Albanese government,” Greens senator David Shoebridge said following the tabling of the document on Monday.
“Article I of the new AUKUS agreement says that if at any point the United States thinks supplying material under the AUKUS agreement to Australia prejudices their defence, they can effectively terminate the agreement and pull out.
“What this agreement makes clear in black and white: If the United States at any point thinks they don’t have enough submarines for themselves, they can pull out of AUKUS 2.0 — why isn’t the Albanese government being honest about the size of the gamble?”
According to the document, “Australia shall be responsible for the management, disposition, storage, and disposal of any spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste resulting from the operation of Naval Nuclear Propulsion Plants”.
The Albanese government has also agreed to indemnify the US and UK against “any liability, loss, costs, damage or injury (including third-party claims) arising out of, related to, or resulting from Nuclear Risks” connected with the project……………….
The head of the AUKUS submarine program has refused to say whether an almost $5 billion government payment to the United States would be refunded if no nuclear-powered boats were delivered to Australia.
The agreement for “cooperation for naval nuclear propulsion” is also contingent on Australia and the US remaining in the ANZUS alliance, along with the US and UK staying as NATO members.
Defence Minister Richard Marles said the agreement “expressly rules out enriching uranium or reprocessing spent nuclear fuel in Australia” and prevents AUKUS partners from any activity that would contravene international non-proliferation obligations.
“The Albanese government, alongside AUKUS partners, continues to re-affirm that Australia’s acquisition of conventionally-armed, nuclear-powered submarines will set the highest non-proliferation standards through the AUKUS partnership.
“The agreement is unequivocal that, as a non-nuclear weapons state, Australia does not seek to acquire nuclear weapons,” Mr Marles stressed.
Last week, President Joe Biden revealed the existence of a new agreement in a letter to Congress in which he said the non-legally binding “understanding” had provided “additional related political commitments”. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-08-12/revamped-aukus-document-reveals-how-us-and-uk-can-walk-away/104214398
Defence Minister Richard Marles insists AUKUS milestone won’t force Australia to accept foreign nuclear waste
The Greens say legislation already before parliament would allow the UK and US to dump high-level nuclear waste in Australia from their nuclear submarines, an issue the Labor-led inquiry into the proposed laws recommended amending to prevent.
9 Aug 2024 #ABCNewsAustralia https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-08-0…
In short:
The defence minister says there is no circumstance where Australia would accept radioactive waste from foreign nations.
Critics of the AUKUS deal claimed Thursday’s milestone could oblige Australia to take waste from the US and UK.
What’s next?
The agreement will see secret nuclear information shared with Australia, and plans progressed to acquire second-hand nuclear submarines.
The defence minister insists Thursday’s milestone agreement on AUKUS does not oblige Australia to take nuclear waste from the United States or the United Kingdom.
Australia and the US made significant progress on Thursday towards acquiring nuclear-powered submarines under the AUKUS agreement, in a deal that included undisclosed “political commitments” to Australia’s partner nations, the US and the UK.
Critics of the nuclear submarine plan claimed that the deal would eventually oblige Australia to take high-level radioactive waste from the US and UK.
Defence Minister Richard Marles insisted on Friday morning that was not the case.
“Nuclear waste won’t end up in Australia, other than the waste that is generated by Australia,” Mr Marles said.
“That is the agreement that we reached with the UK and the US back in March of last year, and so all this is doing is providing for the legal underpinning of that.”
Mr Marles said there would be “no circumstance” where Australia takes waste from any other country.
Instead, Thursday’s agreement would allow for the transfer of nuclear naval technology to Australia, including restricted data never shared outside the US and UK.
The agreement also progresses plans to transfer second-hand US Virginia-class submarines to Australia, while its own submarines are being built.
Nothing unusual in undisclosed ‘additional political commitments’ on AUKUS, says PM
The government however has been pressured to further explain the details of the deal formalised on Thursday.
US President Joe Biden’s letter to Congress on the agreement said it provided “additional related political commitments”, but did not detail what those were.
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton challenged the government to explain the political commitments made to the US.
“It’s certainly an unusual statement, and I think the prime minister should provide an explanation as to what Australia has signed up to,” Mr Dutton said.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said there was nothing out of the ordinary in the agreements the federal government had made.
“We have agreed to have nuclear-powered submarines, that is what we have agreed to, and the transfer of technology that is related to that,” Mr Albanese said.
“There aren’t extra political commitments, I’m not sure what you mean.
“There will be no nuclear [waste] transfer from either the US or UK.”
The Greens say legislation already before parliament would allow the UK and US to dump high-level nuclear waste in Australia from their nuclear submarines, an issue the Labor-led inquiry into the proposed laws recommended amending to prevent.
Mr Marles also defended himself after Labor luminary and vocal critic of the AUKUS deal Paul Keating repeated his criticisms of the program and the minister.
Mr Keating claimed that the Albanese government had sold out Labor values by adopting AUKUS from the former Morrison government, and said Mr Marles’s comments while in the US would make “any Labor person cringe”.
Mr Marles said that criticism was “not fair”, but said Mr Keating had a right to express his view.
In Taiwan, reaction from some corners was scathing.
Former US ambassador to Palau US John Hennessy-Niland, who was the first US ambassador to visit Taiwan since 1979, said Mr Keating was living in the past “and never changes”.
“Keating reveals his true colours when he talks about ‘party values’ should be paramount but what about Australia’s national interests?” Mr Hennessey-Niland told the ABC.
Wen-Ti Sung, from the Atlantic Council’s Global China Hub, said partnerships like AUKUS were essential to preventing future conflict.
“Forward defence planning in concert with like-minded democratic partners is how countries have managed to deter and prevent major wars,” he said.
“Long-term partnership building with at least one superpower has been the cornerstone of Australian foreign policy ever since World War II, namely ANZUS. There is no clear reason why Australia should be abandoning its almost century-long partner.
“Facing an increasingly strategically uncertain world, Australia needs to develop more partners, not less.”
Director of international affairs for Taiwan’s opposition Kuomingtang Party, Alexander Huang, said the island’s first priority was preventing conflict through both deterrence and dialogue.
Mr Huang declined to comment on Mr Keating’s “disagreement with Prime Minister Albanese and his cabinet”.
Call to end nuclear power ban brings heated reaction in Australia
Ft.com, Nic Fildes in Sydney, 12 Aug 24
Opposition wants to change law and build new plants but critics say focus should remain on renewable energy
Liddell Power Station in Australia’s Hunter Valley burned through coal for five decades before closing last year. Opposition leader Peter Dutton now wants Liddell to be reborn as something banned in the country for a quarter of a century: a nuclear power plant. The site in New South Wales is one of seven operating or closed coal-fired plants that Dutton, leader of the centre-right Liberal party, has said could become nuclear power stations as part of a big shift in the way Australia generates its energy.
Nuclear energy is what Australia needs for its “three goals of cheaper, cleaner and consistent power”, he said earlier this year. Dutton’s pitch has pushed energy policy to the fore ahead of next year’s election, as Australia — rich in resources and a big exporter of energy in the form of coal, liquefied natural gas and uranium — grapples with how to decarbonise its economy
Anthony Albanese’s Labor government has put its focus on renewable energy, passing legislation that targets a 43 per cent cut in carbon emissions from 2005 levels by 2030 and net zero emissions by 2050. It hopes to rapidly phase out coal — which has accounted for almost two-thirds of power generation over the past year — and deliver 82 per cent of electricity from renewable sources by 2030. But the opposition Liberals and their allies, the rurally focused Nationals, have pledged to abandon the 2030 target and scrap large-scale wind farm projects. They say nuclear energy could deliver power from the middle of next decade………………………………..
Dutton’s plan would reverse decades of Australian policy and require changes to national and state-level laws in Australia that ban nuclear power. The ban dates from 1998, when John Howard’s conservative government offered it as a quid pro quo to minority parties for supporting the construction of a research reactor near Sydney. It remains the country’s only reactor, producing material for medical and industrial use………………………………………………………………..
Chris Bowen, Australia’s energy minister, has dubbed the opposition’s proposal “a nuclear scam” that is too expensive, too slow to build and too risky. A report in May by CSIRO, the government science agency, argued that generating nuclear energy — whether by building large-scale plants or small modular reactors — would be significantly more expensive than renewables and that building a plant would take at least 15 years. “Long development times mean nuclear won’t be able to make a meaningful contribution to achieving net zero emissions by 2050,” the report concluded.
………………………………Marilyne Crestias, interim chief executive of the Clean Energy Investor Group, which represents investors in renewables, said conditions for putting money into projects had improved, but more was needed to improve confidence and clarity around policy. “We need more ambition on climate and energy, not less,” she said.
Jeff Forrest, a partner at LEK Consulting’s energy practice, said the nuclear idea was “a 2040s solution to an energy problem we’ve got today” and said there was frustration among investors and in boardrooms that long-term investment plans could be disrupted by the “left-field” nuclear debate. “Energy investment needs consistent and clear signals. That is really important for long-dated investments and no one wants the rug pulled out from under them,” he said. Around the Loy Yang coal-fired power plant in the Latrobe Valley in the state of Victoria, locals said the nuclear proposal would disrupt plans by its owners to make the region a renewable energy hub after the plant’s closure during the next decade.
Wendy Farmer, Gippsland organiser for Friends of the Earth and president of the Voices of the Valley community group, said the proposal would threaten A$50bn of planned renewable investment. “Are they telling investors to go away?” said Farmer. “Imposing nuclear on these communities without any consultation or discussion with the owners of the sites is an insult and a bullying tactic.”
Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.comT&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email licensing@ft.com to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found here.
https://www.ft.com/content/89c1ea46-29bc-4a7e-9943-a420b3f1512c
Tim Buckley, director of the Climate Energy Finance think-tank, said the opposition’s proposals would displace private capital with a “communist-style policy” requiring more than A$100bn of public funds. “It is not impossible, but it is financially illogical,” said Buckley, who questioned the move’s political motivations ahead of an election. “This is not nuclear versus renewables. This is about extending the climate wars.” https://www.ft.com/content/89c1ea46-29bc-4a7e-9943-a420b3f1512c
The AUKUS operations are stalled because Australia cannot meet the nuclear waste disposal requirements of the non-proliferation treaty regime
13 Aug 24
Despite the somewhat difficult or convoluted language in the Agreement it gives the power and agreed authority to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to demand a proper and safe means for the storage and disposal in accordance with the prescriptions of IAEA of all nuclear material including waste generated in or acquired by Australia by whatever means and for the continuing inspection and audit of that material by IAEA
This applies specifically to the nuclear waste generated by the rotational visits of the nuclear powered submarines of the United States and the United Kingdom with Australia being solely responsible for the management and disposal of that waste
Irrespective of the strength of AUKUS by the involvement of the United States and the United Kingdom the requirements of IAEA under the Agreement will be strongly demanded by the member states who are
signatories to the non-proliferation treaty regime
The international demands on this issue will be readily adopted since they go to the most basic principles of nuclear safety and both the United States and the United Kingdom are known to have serious problems with the management of their own nuclear waste
COMPREHENSIVE SAFEGUARDS AGREEMENT
From the latest available information the Comprehensive Safeguards
Agreement as described below has still not been varied which means
that the AUKUS arrangements cannot be fully implemented for the
purposes of the non-proliferation treaty regime
The reason is that Australia cannot meet all the safety requirements of
IAEA by not having the proper means for the management and disposal
of all the nuclear waste generated by the AUKUS activities in
accordance with its prescriptions as outlined in the publication by IAEA
as to Disposal of Radioactive Waste No. SSR-5 and other
prescriptions.
There is the problem of the disposal of all the
nuclear waste generated initially by the rotational visits of nuclear submarines of the United States and the United Kingdom to Stirling in Western Australia.
Australia by its foreign minister has advised IAEA that it is seeking
appropriate sites on Defence land for a facility for the AUKUS
generated nuclear waste but this has been insufficient for the variation
of the Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement and hence is delaying
the implementation of AUKUS
*********************************************
COMPREHENSIVE SAFEGUARDS AGREEMENT
The problem for Australia is that without a variation with the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) of the
Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement as it is commonly
called it will be difficult for Australia to implement the AUKUS
arrangements yet at the same time remain within the non –
proliferation treaty regime.
In order to achieve the variation Australia must show that it
has or is in the latter stages of planning a nuclear waste
facility for the permanent disposal of the nuclear waste to be
generated by the AUKUS operations.
COMPREHENSIVE SAFEGUARDS AGREEMENT
PROVISIONS
AGREEMENT BETWEEN AUSTRALIA AND THE INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC
ENERGY AGENCY FOR THE APPLICATION OF SAFEGUARDS IN
CONNECTION WITH THE TREATY ON THE NON-PROLIFERATION OF
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Opened for signature at London, Moscow and Washington on 1 July 1968
and which entered into force on 5 March 1970
NON-APPLICATION OF SAFEGUARDS TO NUCLEAR MATERIAL TO BE
USED IN NON-PEACEFUL ACTIVITIES
Article 14
If Australia intends to exercise its discretion to use nuclear material which is
required to be safeguarded under this Agreement in a nuclear activity which
does not require the application of safeguards under this Agreement, the
following procedures shall apply:
(a) Australia shall inform the Agency of the activity, making it clear:
(i) That the use of the nuclear material in a non-proscribed military
activity will not be in conflict with an undertaking Australia may
have given and in respect of which Agency safeguards apply, that the nuclear material will be used only in a peaceful nuclear activity;
and
(ii) That during the period of non-application of safeguards the
nuclear material will not be used for the production of nuclear
weapons or other nuclear explosive devices;
(b) Australia and the Agency shall make an arrangement so that, only while
the nuclear material is in such an activity, the safeguards provided for in this
Agreement will not be applied. The arrangement shall identify, to the extent
possible, the period or circumstances during which safeguards will not be
applied. In any event, the safeguards provided for in this Agreement shall
apply again as soon as the nuclear material is reintroduced into a peaceful
nuclear activity. The Agency shall be kept informed of the total quantity and
composition of such unsafeguarded nuclear material in Australia and of any
export of such nuclear material; and
(c) Each arrangement shall be made in agreement with the Agency. Such
agreement shall be given as promptly as possible and shall relate only to
such matters as, inter alia, temporal and procedural provisions and reporting arrangements, and shall not involve any approval or classified knowledge of
the military activity or relate to the use of the nuclear material therein.
APPLICATION OF SAFEGUARDS
Article 2
The Agency shall have the right and the obligation to ensure that safeguards
will be applied, in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, on all source
or special fissionable material in all peaceful nuclear activities within the
territory of Australia, under its jurisdiction or carried out under its control
anywhere, for the exclusive purpose of verifying that such material is not
diverted to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.
±±The relevant provision of INFCIRC/153 is paragraph 14
Paragraph 14 provides for the “non- application” of “the safeguards
provided for in the Agreement”, but only while the nuclear material is in
the non-proscribed military use. 15 Feb 2022
1 This month
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 