Western Australian election: is Clive Palmer’s Party FOR or AGAINST the Renewable Energy Target?
RET And PUP – Confusion (Still) Reigns http://www.energymatters.com.au/index.php?main_page=news_article&article_id=4244 The Palmer United Party (PUP) still appears not to have a solid stance on the future of Australia’s Renewable Energy Target (RET).
PUP’s WA candidate, Zhenya ‘Dio’ Wang, recently expressed support for the Renewable Energy Target to be left as is and Clive Palmer appeared to indicate the same view. Shortly afterwards, Mr. Palmer clarified; stating it perhaps shouldn’t be a “mandatory thing”.
Nearly 2 weeks later and it seems there still isn’t a unified position at PUP.
According to the Guardian, a PUP spokesman told the publication on Monday “the policy is what Clive says; the target has to be voluntary”. However, when Mr. Wang was again asked about when asked about the RET policy on Monday; he told Guardian Australia, “We are still discussing our policy. We are working out what it is.”
With voters set to go to the polls in Western Australia this Saturday, the mixed signals from PUP wouldn’t be very encouraging for solar supporters considering the party – and the outcome of WA’s election could have major implications nationally for renewable energy.
According to the Australian Solar Council, 500,000 WA residents live in solar households and hundreds of thousands more will go solar if the RET is left as is; something that is in doubt due to the Federal Government’s RET review.
“By putting barriers up for 350,000 people in WA who want to install solar on their homes and slashing large-scale solar projects back from the current path of 700 MW, the Federal government looks set to break a key election promise,” says Australian Solar Council CEO John Grimes.
Mr. Grimes says Western Australian householders and small businesses will invest their own money to build 445 megawatts of generating capacity if the RET is retained for rooftop PV systems and hot water. With regard to large-scale solar, the existing RET could deliver more than 700 MW of projects in WA, employing an additional 7,000 people during the construction phase between now and 2020.
With solar so popular in the state; the parties that clearly support the RET in its current form may have a bit of an edge this Saturday.
Solar power making economic sense for remote mining projects in Australia
First Solar close to deal to power Australian mines, SMH, April 1, 2014 First Solar, the largest US solar-panel maker, is close to announcing agreements to supply its technology to remote mining projects in Australia to help resources companies save on fuel costs.
The company expects to develop as much as 200 megawatts of capacity for the mining industry over the next three years, Jack Curtis, First Solar’s Sydney-based vice president of business development for the Asia-Pacific, said in a phone interview. The Arizona-based company plans to combine solar power with diesel, he said.
“In an environment where profitability isn’t what it used to be, with the mining industry focused on cost control, the electricity that powers the mines is becoming a bigger line item, and the ability to put a dent in that and hedge against fuel price volatility is something that solars offers,” Curtis said. “We expect fairly shortly to announce some pretty exciting projects in that space.”
The U.S. company is increasing efforts to install solar systems at industrial sites and warehouses as utilities demand smaller projects, and is seeking deals in other regions including Saudi Arabia, India and South America. The world’s largest mining companies, including BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto Group, at the same time are reining in spending as a decade-long boom in metal prices wanes.
Mining sites
First Solar will target mining sites in Western Australia, the Northern Territory and South Australia and seek to expand as the solar industry proves that it can provide reliable supply, Curtis said, declining to name any companies.
Operators of Australian mines facing high diesel fuel costs should grow more comfortable using solar technology to generate some of their power, said Nathan Lim, who oversees $127 million in assets and owns First Solar shares as manager of the Australian Ethical International Equities Trust.
“The high cost of energy at a facility in the middle of nowhere has always made it interesting to anyone offering an alternative solution,” Lim said. “The difference between today and five to 10 years ago is the reliability, and that the cost of solar has come down. It’s becoming a no-brainer for people in remote locations.”….. http://www.smh.com.au/business/carbon-economy/first-solar-close-to-deal-to-power-australian-mines-20140401-35uth.html
IPCC report strengthens activisim against coal and gas industries
Australian activism reaches fever pitch as IPCC warns on climate, Guardian, 1 April 14 New South Wales campaign group is harnessing community support to confront oil and gas companies over drilling As George Bernard Shaw put it: “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.”
Australia‘s coal and gas operators may not agree with Shaw, but it is the power of these unreasonable people that new campaign group Our Land, Our Water, Our Future hopes to tap. Continue reading
Sunshine: balance the need for Vitamin C with the avoidance of skin cancer
Concerns women may not be getting enough sunshine http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/news/concerns-women-may-not-be-getting-enough-sunshine/2215239/ Rae Wilson 31st Mar 2014 Professor John Wark, who works at both organisations, said vitamin D was an essential nutrient for everyone, young and old.
“Vitamin D is necessary for strong bones, muscles and overall health. Ultraviolet radiation from the sun is the best natural source of vitamin D, but it is also the main risk factor for skin cancer and premature ageing of the skin,” he said.
“A balanced approach to sunlight exposure can help you avoid vitamin D deficiency, which has been linked to many chronic health conditions such as poor bone and muscle health, cardiovascular disease, some cancers and adverse mental health conditions to name only a few. Continue reading
Australia is a “canary in a cage” when it comes to climate change
Climate change could be putting human health at risk: Australian IPCC report researchers ABC News, By Carl Smith 31 March 14, Climate change will increasingly harm people’s health and Australians will be particularly vulnerable, according to Canberra authors of the latest international climate change report.
The health section of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Commission (IPCC) report shows humans will be more at risk over coming years with areas of the world likely to become uninhabitable.
University of Canberra’s Professor Helen Berry is one of three Canberra researchers who have contributed to the health section of the report. She says human health has so far been neglected in public discussions on climate change, as debate has generally focused on the environment and the economic effects of reducing emissions.
“If climate change goes on unchecked we will see many deaths – we are seeing many deaths already – and you can imagine the human population could possibly go extinct if you take the effects of climate change to their extreme logical conclusion,” she said.
“We as a nation and we as a world really need to be focusing on health and well-being, because it’s the bottom line for human survival.”
Fellow contributor Professor Colin Butler, also from the University of Canberra, says climate change could be a major threat in the decades to come.
“We might be heading into a new dark age, not in the next five years but maybe in the next 100 years,” he said.
“We’ve got to put far more effort onto slowing down the pace of climate change, rather than deluding ourselves to the idea that we can adapt to it.
“I’m very concerned that within 100 years there will be devastation through multiple interacting pathways – more expensive foods, sea level rise, migration, ultimately war.”
Australia a climate change ‘canary in a cage’
Professor Helen Berry says Australia should be particularly concerned. “Australia’s already a hot country, warming is not good for us,” she said. “Warming brings about an increased risk of droughts, of bushfires, of floods and storms, and heatwaves. “All of these climatic conditions are common already in Australia and they will become more and more common and more and more erratic and wild and unpredictable. “When that happens, larger numbers of people are affected, injured, sometimes killed tragically in these disasters.”
Professor Berry warns Australia is a “canary in a cage” when it comes to climate change………http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-31/climate-change-researchers-say-climate-puts-human-health-at-risk/5356306
20 Australia-wide organisations call for W.A. government inquiry into Wiluna uranium project
United call for uranium inquiry 31 March 14 Today twenty* different public health, union, Aboriginal and environment groups have called on the WA Environment Minister Albert Jacob and the WA EPA to hold a dedicated Public Inquiry into the states most advanced uranium proposal, Toro Energy’s Wiluna uranium project.
State Secretary of the AMWU Steve McCartney said “The nuclear industry is increasingly marginal and uneconomic. This industry is worth 0.02% of our national export revenue and holds just 0.015% of Australian jobs. The risks far outweigh any rewards. Uranium mining does not pass the asbestos test for us – it impacts on the workers extracting it, transporting it and the end users.”
Dr Peter Underwood, National Vice President Medical Association Prevention of War, said “We need to have a way to look at all the risks of a uranium project including a detailed look at the public health risks from this industry here and overseas. A public inquiry is the only way to address these issues. We know it was Australian uranium that fuelled Fukushima and that’s something we need to look at before we push forward with plans to mine uranium.”
Melanie Walker, Acting CEO of the Public Health Association of Australia commented “We have seen a number of accidents at uranium mine sites across Australia, most recently at Ranger uranium mine in the Northern Territory. There needs to be public and transparent process to look at the risks of this industry on workers and the public.”
Mia Pepper, Nuclear Free Campaigner with the Conservation Council of WA said “This small inexperienced company is now proposing a uranium precinct – including four mines across two lake systems and a proposal to store over 50 million tonnes of radioactive mine waste in a lake bed*.”
“This idea lacks credibility and the company lacks capacity, experience and financial backing,” concluded Dave Sweeney Nuclear Free Campaigner with the Australian Conservation Foundation.
Media Comment
- Dr Peter Underwood: (08) 9840 9626
National Vice President Medical Association for the Prevention of War
- Melanie Walker: 0438 430 963
Acting CEO, Public Health Association of Australia
- Mia Pepper: 0415 380 808
Nuclear Free Campaigner, Conservation Council WA
- Dave Sweeney: 0408 317 812
Nuclear Free Campaigner, Australian Conservation Foundation
* Australian Conservation Foundation, Public Health Association of Australia, Australian Manufactures Workers Union WA, Conservation Council of WA, Medical Association for the Prevention of War, Social Justice Board Uniting Church, Maritime Union Australia, UnionsWA, United Voice, Electrical Trade Union, The Wilderness Society, Greenpeace Sustainable Energy Now, Friends of the Earth Australia, Mineral Policy Institute, Anti-Nuclear Alliance WA, Australia Nuclear Free Alliance, WA Nuclear Free Alliance, Beyond Nuclear Initiative,
* Based on the assumption that mining 1 tonne of uranium oxide produces approximately 2,400 tonnes of low level radioactive waste. Total of 22,270 + tonnes of uranium at the four deposits = 53,448,000 + tonnes of tailings.
For solar power in Australia, the Western Australian Senate election is critically important
Western Australia’s Election Crucial In National Solar Battle http://www.energymatters.com.au/index.php?main_page=news_article&article_id=4241 As the people of Western Australia prepare to return to the polls, the Australian Solar Council says the outcome will play a major role in the battle solar is facing nationally.
“There are increasing indications that the Federal Government is planning to remove or scale back support for rooftop and large scale solar through its review of the Renewable Energy Target (RET),” says Australian Solar Council CEO John Grimes. Mr. Grimes says with Labor and the Greens supporting the position of not changing the RET, if numbers can be secured in the Senate, any changes the Abbot Government seeks to make that would negatively impact the RET can be blocked.
The Australian Solar Council has secured letters of support regarding the Renewable Energy Target from Labor and The Greens. Palmer United Party issending mixed signals. The Council’s Save Solar campaign is currently focusing the majority of its efforts in Western Australia and recently launched its first ever TV and print advertising campaign.
The response from the community is such that it says several political parties have asked the Council stop all of the emails being sent by solar supporters as they are receiving hundreds each day.
“Our clear message – anti-solar policies will only happen at great political cost, because the people are with us,” says Mr. Grimes.
“This campaign says to governments across Australia that solar is the future and the industry will not tolerate ad-hoc policy changes that damage our businesses and most of all restrict access to solar for the 3.5 million people who want solar over the next 5 years.”
Shadow Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Water, Hon. Mark Butler MP will meet solar workers in Perth on Monday to discuss the importance of the Renewable Energy Target for the solar industry; which employs thousands of people in Western Australia.
Liberal policies make sense when you realise who funds them
The rise and rise of mining company donations. Crikey BERNARD KEANE | FEB 21, 2012 Labor’s mining tax and the resources boom may have permanently and significantly changed the balance of political donations, with millions of dollars flowing from mining companies to the Coalition, Australian Electoral Commission data shows.
Mining companies began increasing their stake in the political process before the financial crisis, favouring the Coalition but also contributing to Labor. However, the mining tax saw an extraordinary increase in donations to the Coalition that has opened up a huge funding resource for the Liberals.
Mining company donations to state and federal Labor parties and the Coalition since 2004 show the extent to which Coalition benefited from the surge in mining company largesse after the Rudd government infuriated them with its RSPT proposal in May 2010.
But the largesse is predominantly from Western Australia. In Queensland, the ongoing support of Clive Palmer has been the primary mining contribution to the conservative cause, including a monster donation of $500,000 to the LNP by his Queensland Nickel. Other than Palmer, the federal Liberal Party took $100,000 from controversial miner New Hope — the target yesterday of a protest led by Alan Jones and Bob Katter — maintaining the Queensland representation in 2010-11.
Last year the Queensland government capped donations at $5000 to parties and $2000 to candidates, but the cap only applies to donations relating to campaign purposes; general purpose donations to parties are not capped).
Santos and Beach Petroleum each gave big donations to the SA Liberals in 2010-11 as well……….
Federally, Labor’s take from miners slumped to a bare $50,000 worth of small donations and fund-raising dinner contributions, from $200,000 before the 2007 election.
The sheer scale of mining company generosity illustrates why Tony Abbott remains committed to repealing the carbon pricing package 
and the mining tax despite the difficulties he will face in securing Senate support. That should continue to lock in big mining company donations this year and next and establish the mining industry as a go-to source for big donations that Labor cannot access for years to come.
The donations are widespread across the WA industry, with 25 companies giving the party on average $95,000. The list doesn’t include Rio Tinto and BHP Billiton, who no longer donate or only provide small donations; given they can pick and choose prime ministers and dictate how much tax they pay, donations would appear to be of limited value for the big foreign miners………..http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/02/21/the-rise-and-rise-of-mining-company-donations/
Superannuation fund is deeming fossil fuels as an unethical investment
Superannuation fund UniSuper plans to to add fossil fuels to list of unethical investments http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-30/super-fund-adds-fossil-fuels-to-unethical-investments-list/5354066 By Nonee Walsh 30 Mar 2014, One of Australia’s top 10 superannuation funds is planning to add fossil fuels to its list of unethical investments.
UniSuper, Australia’s seventh largest fund that services higher education and research workers, told members who chose its socially responsible packages that investment in fossil fuels, gaming, alcohol and weapons would be withdrawn this year unless members objected.
Those sectors are currently included in the Dow Jones sustainability index.
UniSuper proposes initially withdrawing from exploration and production in the coal and gas sector.
However it says in the future it will look at withdrawing from investment in power suppliers and other fossil fuel companies.
UniSuper has $1.6 billion in its sustainable investments, which is a small proportion of its overall fund
Adelaide wake up: the nuclear lobby is trying to put it over you!
Adelaide is under attack from nuclear advocacy fraudsters who tell lies to promote their evil nuclear fantasies.
Our universities and our politicians have been “influenced” by junk science that falsely claims that nuclear power is “safe”.
Our universities and our politicians have been “influenced” by junk economics that falsely claims that nuclear power is “cheap”.
Our newspapers falsely claim that we want nuclear power in South Australia – this page is a place where you can register your protest at this false claim, where you can say “No Nukes In South Australia”.
Don’t invest in or work for BHP or Rio Tinto – Don Henry
Australian Conservation Foundation outgoing head Don Henry calls on people to monitor big business, The Age, March 29, 2014 Tom Arup The outgoing head of the Australian Conservation Foundation, Don Henry, has urged people not to invest in or work for big businesses – including mining giants BHP and Rio Tinto – he says are pushing to bring down Australia’s climate change laws.
On Monday Mr Henry will step down as the foundation’s chief executive after almost 16 years. In an interview with Fairfax Media this week he accused a section of big business, and their lobby groups, of driving the Abbott government’s repeal of the national carbon price and other policies, saying ”Australians shouldn’t have a bar of it”.
Mr Henry specifically pointed to mining giants BHP and Rio Tinto. He said they were large members of industry bodies, such as the Minerals Council of Australia, that are pushing repeal of what he said was the most cost-effective way to cut emissions – carbon pricing.
”Let’s not be stupid here, they are very influential on our politics. Governments in Australia, both Coalition and Labor, listen closely to business,” he said. ‘Don’t watch the Prime Minister here, you should follow the BHPs, the Rio Tintos and other major actors. And you should start having a discussion with them. If you are shareholder in Rio or BHP do you really want to give licence to actions that are clearly against Australia’s well-being?”
He decried their position as ”short-termism”, focused only on boosting quarterly profit results. They are ignoring the erosion in their public standing and social licence caused by their position on climate, he says……http://www.theage.com.au/environment/australian-conservation-foundation-outgoing-head-don-henry-calls-on-people-to-monitor-big-business-20140328-35o7n.html
Play safe with WiFi technology – it might be harmful to health
Waves of uncertainty over wi-fi Stuff.co.nz 29 March 14“……..CUT BACK ON YOUR EXPOSURE
MOBILES AND DEVICES
Before buying a cellphone or internet-capable device, check out its SAR (specific absorption rate) rating – though in New Zealand you’ll likely have to go online for this information. The SAR measures how much the device’s emissions are absorbed by the body. Lower ratings indicate lower absorption.
Ensure your mobile has flight mode and use this as often as you can, including overnight, and when carrying it close to your body.
For long computing tasks, select a wired desktop or plugged-in laptop, rather than a wireless tablet.
Avoid holding a laptop or device on your lap or stomach – use a table instead, unless it’s in flight mode.
When you can, choose a text over a call. Keep phone calls to a minimum or use a hands-free kit.
Keep calls to a minimum where reception is bad – when a mobile is far from a cell tower, it has to boost its signal to connect.
Choose a wired mouse and keyboard.
CORDLESS PHONES
If possible, choose corded devices, or purchase one with speaker-phone capabilities.
Keep the main transmitting base of the cordless phone away from bedrooms and desks.
Keep calls short.
WI-FI
When installing a transmitting unit, ask for it to be put up high, such as on the wall or a shelf, away from bedrooms or where people sit.
Only turn the system on when you’re using it. Make sure the router is turned off overnight, especially.
Choose software on a laptop rather than cloud-computing technology such as Google Docs, if you’re using wi-fi. Typing in a Google Docs word processing means a wi-fi signal is sent with every single keystroke.http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/9882716/Waves-of-uncertainty-over-wi-fi
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; how does it work?
Explainer: how are IPCC reports written? , The Conversation, 29 March 14 David Karoly, Professor of Atmospheric Science at University of Melbourne This week in Yokohama, Japan, a group of scientists and representatives of more than 120 governments are meeting to approve the report Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. They will also agree on its Summary for Policymakers – an arduous process of negotiation and line-by-line approval. On Monday they will release it to the media and public.
This is the second part of the Assessment Report of the IPCC. It follows last September’s release of the first part, Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis.
The IPCC was established in 1988 to undertake comprehensive assessments of the scientific basis of climate change and the impacts and future risks to different sectors and regions. It also assesses the options for adapting to these impacts, and opportunities to mitigate climate change.
The IPCC is the accepted global authority on climate change. A recent explainer on The Conversation has described the structure of the IPCC and how it works.
It has three “Working Groups”: one on Climate Change Science; one on Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability; and one that deals with Mitigation of Climate Change. They work together to prepare comprehensive Assessment Reports roughly once every six years. The IPCC Third Assessment Report was released in 2001 and the Fourth Assessment Report in 2007.
Now we are in the middle of the release of the various parts of the Fifth Assessment Report, one from each Working Group and finally the Synthesis Report, to be released later this year.
How are the reports written?
The IPCC assessments are written by hundreds of leading scientists who volunteer their time. They undertake comprehensive assessments of the scientific literature across a very wide range of topics relevant to climate change. The reports are required to present policy-relevant information, but it must be presented in a policy-neutral manner, so there are no recommendations in any IPCC assessment.
Each part of the report goes through three stages of drafting and review by experts and governments. All review comments and the responses from the authors on how they addressed the comments are made public. This review process is more open and comprehensive than for any other scientific publication or assessment, including the peer-reviewed science publications on which the reports are based.
The final stage, the approval of the Summary for Policymakers, is often misunderstood. The government representatives go through the final draft line by line, seeking to ensure that the text is scientifically accurate, that any uncertainties are carefully explained, and that the language is as clear as possible. The authors of the chapters ensure their scientific accuracy and can veto any text that they consider to be inaccurate. Every line is approved by consensus by the representatives of all the governments present. It takes a long time.
A very helpful explainer on how to read an IPCC report was published on The Conversation last September.http://theconversation.com/explainer-how-are-ipcc-reports-written-24641
Abbott would make it open slather for public racial bigotry
Locked in a war of words to define free speech, SMH, March 29, 2014 Gay Alcorn “………-At the centre of debate is section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, which makes it unlawful to do an act publicly that is likely to ”offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate” on the basis of race or ethnic origin. You can do all those things but still be protected if your action was done reasonably and in good faith, and if it’s an artistic, academic or scientific work, or part of a debate in the public interest. It’s a civil, not a criminal, provision – there are no convictions for breaching the act, and remedies are often apologies or small payments.
Electromagnetic (non-ionising) radiation might not be safe and healthy
The uncertainty around the radiation’s effect should mean we treat the technologies using it with kid gloves rather than abandon, Monash University radiation researcher Mary Redmayne said.
The Melbourne-based scientist said there was not enough research for us to know what a safe level of exposure was…… She said young people have thinner skulls, and the brain’s protective defences – a protein that covers nerve cells called myelin – were only fully developed in middle age. This combination meant children’s brains were poorly insulated from outside interference, such as radiation.
Waves of uncertainty over wi-fi Stuff.co.nz 29 March 14, After thousands of studies, the most that experts worldwide can determine is the radiation used for wi-fi networks, digital devices, cordless phones and cell phones is a “possible” cause of cancer. With such uncertainty, OLIVIA WANNAN asks if we are using this technology with enough caution. Continue reading
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
