Albanese defends against attempt to strike nuclear submarines out of Labor platform
ABC News, By political reporter Jake Evans; 19 Aug 23
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has fought off an attempt to have references to nuclear-powered submarines struck from Labor’s platform.
Key points:
- The government has faced off a motion to strike nuclear-powered submarines from Labor’s platform
- Some delegates wanted to avoid Labor committing to nuclear submarines, which are fiercely opposed by some members
- The party instead resolved to redouble its non-nuclear efforts
Mr Albanese is in favour of the AUKUS defence deal with the United States and United Kingdom, as he attempts to quiet internal rebellion against the plan to acquire nuclear-powered submarines.
……………………………… “If you come to the position, as I have, that Australia as an island continent needs submarines, then it is compulsory … that nuclear-powered submarines are what Australia needs.”
It was Mr Albanese’s only intervention into a debate at the conference so far.
The government succeeded in blocking the rebellion, as well as ensuring Friday morning that the conference was prevented from debating a wider motion to have references to “AUKUS” struck from the platform.
Electrical Trades Union secretary Michael Wright, moving the attempt to have references to nuclear propulsion struck from the platform, said his union did not support AUKUS.
“Why would this decision we are taking here not ripple around the world?
“Serious questions must be asked: is this the best way of securing our national interest? Is this the best spend of $360 billion?” he asked.
Mr Wright said Labor should not lock nuclear submarines into its platform, but “keep the window open” for further debate.
Defending the government’s policy, Defence Minister Richard Marles said Australia’s security depended on acquiring nuclear-powered submarines.
“In a difficult moment, Australians are looking to us. I know the word ‘nuclear’ evokes a strong reaction, but we are not talking about nuclear weapons.
“We will never base nuclear weapons on our shores.”
Defence Industry Minister Pat Conroy told Labor delegates only “strength” would deter war, not “appeasement”.
Labor MP Josh Wilson, one of the only government MPs to break ranks on AUKUS, said the decision to acquire nuclear-propelled submarines was “not justified”.
“To a person with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. Deterrence is not a one word justification for every defence position,” Mr Wilson said.
“And with the greatest respect to delegate Conroy, the suggestion that anyone who questions a particular defence and security decision or acquisition is in the game of appeasement … is ridiculous.”
Government seeks to reassure rank and file, redoubling non-nuclear commitment
The government instead moved to recognise “the growing danger that nuclear weapons pose” and committing the government to redouble its efforts towards nuclear disarmament in an effort to settle disquiet within its ranks on AUKUS.
Several local branches have opposed AUKUS and the pact now faces a challenge from internal group Labor Against War, represented by former senators Doug Cameron and Margaret Reynolds.
Outside the conference, Labor Against War convenor Marcus Strom said Friday’s debate at the conference was just the beginning of a campaign against AUKUS.
“The best opposition we get is, ‘Look, let’s keep things calm, we don’t want to scare the horses ahead of elections,’ but this is more important than one election, one parliament, one government,” Mr Strom said.
“This is a 30-year program, multi-billion dollars of wasted opportunity we could be spending on housing, on cost of living pressures, on the transition to a green economy.”
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-18/government-defends-aukus-at-labor-conference-nuclear-submarines/102745950
Assange Be Weary: The Dangers of a US Plea Deal
August 18, 2023
By Binoy Kampmark / CounterPunch, https://scheerpost.com/2023/08/18/assange-be-weary-the-dangers-of-a-us-plea-deal/
At every stage of its proceedings against Julian Assange, the US Imperium has shown little by way of tempering its vengeful impulses. The WikiLeaks publisher, in uncovering the sordid, operational details of a global military power, would always have to pay. Given the 18 charges he faces, 17 fashioned from that most repressive of instruments, the US Espionage Act of 1917, any sentence is bound to be hefty. Were he to be extradited from the United Kingdom to the US, Assange will disappear into a carceral, life-ending dystopia.
In this saga of relentless mugging and persecution, the country that has featured regularly in commentary, yet done the least, is Australia. Assange may well be an Australian national, but this has generally counted for naught. Successive governments have tended to cower before the bullying disposition of Washington’s power. With the signing of the AUKUS pact and the inexorable surrender of Canberra’s military and diplomatic functions to Washington, any exertion of independent counsel and fair advice will be treated with sneering qualification.
The Albanese government has claimed, at various stages, to be pursuing the matter with its US counterparts with firm insistence. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has even publicly expressed his frustration at the lack of progress in finding a “diplomatic solution” to Assange’s plight. But such frustrations have been tempered by an acceptance that legal processes must first run their course.
The substance of any such diplomatic solution remains vague. But on August 14, the Sydney Morning Herald, citing US Ambassador to Australia Caroline Kennedy as its chief source, reported that a “resolution” to Assange’s plight might be in the offing. “There is a way to resolve it,” the ambassador told the paper. This could involve a reduction of any charges in favour of a guilty plea, with the details sketched out by the US Department of Justice. In making her remarks, Kennedy clarified that this was more a matter for the DOJ than the State Department or any other department. “So it’s not really a diplomatic issue, but I think there absolutely could be a resolution.”
In May, Kennedy met members of the Parliamentary Friends of Julian Assange Group to hear their concerns. The previous month, 48 Australian MPs and Senators, including 13 from the governing Labor Party, wrote an open letter to the US Attorney General, Merrick Garland, warning that the prosecution “would set a dangerous precedent for all global citizens, journalists, publishers, media organizations and the freedom of the press. It would also be needlessly damaging for the US as a world leader on freedom of expression and the rule of law.”
In a discussion with The Intercept, Gabriel Shipton, Assange’s brother, had his own analysis of the latest developments. “The [Biden] administration appears to be searching for an off-ramp ahead of [Albanese’s] first state visit to DC in October.” In the event one wasn’t found, “we could see a repeat of a very public rebuff delivered by [US Secretary of State] Tony Blinken to the Australian Foreign Minister two weeks ago in Brisbane.”
That rebuff was particularly brutal, taking place on the occasion of the AUSMIN talks between the foreign and defence ministers of both Australia and the United States. On that occasion, Foreign Minister Penny Wong remarked that Australia had made its position clear to their US counterparts “that Mr Assange’s case has dragged for too long, and our desire it be brought to a conclusion, and we’ve said that publicly and you would anticipate that that reflects also the positive we articulate in private.”
In his response, Secretary of State Blinken claimed to “understand” such views and admitted that the matter had been raised with himself and various offices of the US. With such polite formalities acknowledged, Blinken proceeded to tell “our friends” what, exactly, Washington wished to do.
Assange had been “charged with very serious criminal conduct in the United States in connection with his alleged role in one of the largest compromises of classified information in the history of our country. The actions that he has alleged to have committed risked very serious harm to our national security, to the benefit of our adversaries, and put named sources at grave risk – grave risk – of physical harm, and grave risk of detention.”
Such an assessment, lazily assumed, repeatedly rebutted, and persistently disproved, went unchallenged by all the parties present, including the Australian ministers. Nor did any members of the press deem it appropriate to challenge the account. The unstated assumption here is that Assange is already guilty for absurd charges, a man condemned.
At this stage, such deals are the stuff of manipulation and fantasy. The espionage charges have been drafted to inflate, rather than diminish any sentence. Suggestions that the DOJ will somehow go soft must be treated with abundant scepticism. The pursuit of Assange is laced by sentiments of revenge, intended to both inflict harm upon the publisher while deterring those wishing to publish US national security information. As the Australian international law academic Don Rothwell observes, the plea deal may well take into account the four years spent in UK captivity, but is unlikely to either feature a complete scrapping of the charges, or exempt Assange from travelling to the US to admit his guilt. “It’s not possible to strike a plea deal outside the relevant jurisdiction except in the most exceptional circumstances.”
Should any plea deal be successfully reached and implemented, thereby making Assange admit guilt, the terms of his return to Australia, assuming he survives any stint on US soil, will be onerous. In effect, the US would merely be changing the prison warden while adjusting the terms of observation. In place of British prison wardens will be Australian overseers unlikely to ever take kindly to the publication of national security information.
AUKUS a cover for the Coalition’s nuclear power agenda
By Jim Green, Aug 18, 2023 https://johnmenadue.com/aukus-a-cover-for-the-coalitions-nuclear-power-agenda/?fbclid=IwAR0tsw-FLtHUY-EFgpbh_b1Lm2jlJSceGe5qkDm0EaLfgKe7NPUlExm4DQw
The federal Coalition’s dissenting report on a Senate inquiry into nuclear power claims that Australia’s “national security” would be put at risk by retaining federal legislation banning nuclear power and that the “decision to purchase nuclear submarines makes it imperative for Australia to drop its ban on nuclear energy.”
The Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee released a report into nuclear power on August 11. The majority report, endorsed by Labor and Greens Senators, argued against nuclear power and against the repeal of Howard-era legislation banning nuclear power in Australia. A dissenting report by Coalition Senators argued for repeal of the legislation banning nuclear power.
The majority report concludes that repeal of the legal ban “would create an unnecessary escalation of risk, particularly given Australia is able to utilise readily available firmed renewable technology to secure a reliable, affordable and clean energy system for Australia’s future”.
The Coalition Senators put forward a suite of false and questionable claims in their dissenting report: that nuclear power is expanding worldwide; it is popular; it is important and perhaps essential to underpin the AUKUS nuclear submarines project; promoting low-carbon nuclear proves that the Coalition is serious about greenhouse emissions reductions; and renewables are unreliable and more expensive than nuclear.
The Coalition has yet to state clearly that it will repeal laws banning nuclear power if elected, but it’s only a matter of time. The nuclear push has the full support of Opposition Leader Peter Dutton.
The Coalition’s economic illiteracy
The Coalition Senators’ dissenting report makes a number of absurd economic claims.
It cites Tony Irwin from the SMR Nuclear Technology company, who claims that the costs of nuclear and solar are “basically the same”. He bases his calculation on the assumption that a small modular reactor (SMR) would generate 13 terawatt-hours (TWh) of electricity per year. But reactors typically generate about 7.2 TWh per 1,000 megawatts (MW) of capacity, so a 300 MW reactor (the upper end of the range for SMRs) would generate about 2.2 TWh – nearly six times less than Irwin claims.
Based on that nonsense, Irwin goes on to make the equally absurd claim that until legislation banning nuclear power is removed, “Australia’s power system will continue to be constrained at great cost to the economy.”
SMR Nuclear Technology also fed economic nonsense to a federal parliamentary inquiry in 2019/20. As RenewEconomy editor Giles Parkinson noted, the company’s claim that 100 per cent renewables would cost four times more than replacing coal with nuclear was based on “Mickey-Mouse modelling” by a husband and wife team who used absurd figures for solar and wind and admitted to deliberately ignoring anticipated cost reductions.
Of course there’s no need for Tony Irwin, SMR Nuclear Technology director (and coal baron) Trevor St Baker, or any other nuclear lobbyist to get their facts straight. As long as their claims fit the narrative, they will be parroted by the Coalition and by the Murdoch/Sky echo-chamber.
Cost blowouts
The dissenting report cites John Harries from the Australian Nuclear Association complaining that CSIRO GenCost reports aren’t “looking at the actual builds happening around the world at the moment.”
Be careful what you wish for, John. Does the nuclear lobby really want to draw attention to the six- to twelve-fold cost blowouts in reactors under construction in the US, the UK and France, with the latest cost estimates ranging from A$25-30 billion per reactor?
The dissenting report concludes that: “If nuclear is more expensive than alternatives, as the CSIRO and others claim, then legalising nuclear energy will not change anything because investors will choose to build the cheaper options.”
However there isn’t a single reactor project in the world that isn’t propped up by state support and taxpayer subsidies.
As for private-sector SMR projects, not one has reached the construction stage anywhere in the world — and perhaps none ever will.
The 2015/16 South Australian Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission commissioned research on the economic potential of two SMR designs: Generation mPower and NuScale Power.
Generation mPower was abandoned in 2017, and NuScale is struggling. Despite lavish US government subsidies, NuScale is struggling to secure private-sector finance to get the project off the ground and it still has licensing hurdles to clear.
NuScale’s latest cost estimates indicate it has no hope of competing with renewables. NuScale estimates capital costs of A$14.4 billion for a 462 MW plant, with levelised costs estimated at A$138 per megawatt-hour. The Minerals Council of Australia states that SMRs won’t find a market unless they can produce power at a cost of A$60‒80 / MWh.
NuScale’s history can be traced to the turn of the century but it hasn’t even begun construction of a single reactor. Likewise, Argentina’s SMR project can be traced back to the last millennium but it hasn’t completed construction of a single reactor.
A dog whistle to climate denialists
Continue readingA profound change’: AUKUS debate looms for Labor’s rank and file.
The New Daily James Robertson 15 Aug 23
At this week’s ALP national conference, delegates will vote on a proposal to remove an expression of support for the AUKUS security pact in Labor’s platform.
Some 400 party members will attend the conference, which will be in Brisbane and run from Thursday to Saturday.
One of two motions expected to be put to the conference stops short of rebuking AUKUS but would instead amend the party’s draft platform on defence by removing an explicit endorsement.
“Our self-reliant defence policy will be enhanced by strong bilateral and multilateral defence relationships, including AUKUS,” the platform currently reads.
The proposed amendment would delete the words “including AUKUS”.
Under the deal, Australia will acquire and build nuclear-powered submarines from America and the UK.
Five federal electorate councils have passed motions either expressing reservations about AUKUS or calling for it to be reviewed or delayed, according to a tally kept by Labor Against War, a party activist group.
A spokesman for the group, Marcus Strom, said the conference motion was a significant step, noting earlier reports that it would not be on the agenda.
“Forcing AUKUS to be debated is a victory for the rank and file,” he said. “The first of many, we expect, as we campaign against it.”
Members of the Labor Left will comprise a majority of delegates.
But they are not expected to vote as a unified bloc on either defence policy or a vote to elect party executive members.
Supporters of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Foreign Minister Penny Wong, both of the Left, are not expected to back the AUKUS amendment.
It will be brought by NSW MP Anthony D’Adam, from a grouping once known as the “soft” Left and historically a rival to Mr Albanese’s support base.
ALP president Wayne Swan said last week he expected a conference debate on AUKUS in keeping with Labor tradition.
“National defence has always loomed large in our national conferences,” he said.
Majority support
But the former Treasurer predicted most delegates would support the Prime Minister’s position.
“Our position in the region has changed so dramatically in the last decade or so [that it] has brought about a profound change […in] our defence stance and orientation,” he said.
Defence Minister Richard Marles and Defence Industry Minister Pat Conroy held a briefing for party members on AUKUS via Zoom on Monday night.
Mr Marles described AUKUS as a “difficult call” but said it had been the right decision, one person on the call said.
AUKUS also includes a second phase for sharing advanced defence technology.
US representatives are pushing for export controls to be eased so Australia can access these technologies more quickly, such as quantum computing and artificial intelligence.
In October, Mr Albanese will be received at a state dinner in Washington.
Other issues on the agenda in Brisbane……………https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/politics/2023/08/14/aukus-debate-labor-conference/
Senate inquiry nixes nukes. Here’s why
Renew Economy, Jim Green 15 August 2023
The Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee released a report into nuclear power last Friday.
The majority report, endorsed by Labor and Greens Senators, argued against nuclear power and against the repeal of Howard-era legislation banning nuclear power in Australia.
A dissenting report by Coalition Senators argued for repeal of the legislation banning nuclear power.
The majority report concludes that repeal of the legal ban “would create an unnecessary escalation of risk, particularly given Australia is able to utilise readily available firmed renewable technology to secure a reliable, affordable and clean energy system for Australia’s future.”
The majority report gives the following reasons for its conclusions:………………………………………………………………….
Coalition Senators’ dissenting report
The Coalition’s dissenting report was endorsed by Senators Matthew Canavan and Gerard Rennick (Qld), Alex Antic and David Fawcett (SA), Hollie Hughes and Ross Cadell (NSW), Richard Colbeck (Tas), and Matt O’Sullivan (WA).
The Coalition has yet to state clearly that it will repeal laws banning nuclear power if elected, but it’s only a matter of time. The nuclear push has the full support of opposition leader Peter Dutton.
The Coalition Senators argue in their dissenting report that nuclear power is expanding worldwide – it is popular; it is important and perhaps essential to underpin the AUKUS nuclear submarines project; SMRs are the bees knees; promoting low-carbon nuclear proves that the Coalition is serious about greenhouse emissions reductions; and renewables are unreliable and more expensive than nuclear.
Is nuclear power growing? No – it has been stagnant for the past 30 years and if there’s any non-trivial change over the next 20 years, it will be downwards.
Just 16 per cent of the world’s countries operate nuclear power reactors (31/195), so clearly the Coalition Senators are wrong in describing Australia as a nuclear “outcast.”
Nine per cent of the world’s countries are building reactors (17/195), 91 per cent are not. Only six countries are building more than two reactors.
The International Energy Agency (IEA) expects record global renewable capacity additions in 2023 amounting to 440 gigawatts. Nuclear power has gone backwards so far in 2023, with a net loss of one reactor or 2.4 gigawatts.
The IEA projects that in 2027, renewable electricity generation will have increased to 38 per cent of total global generation. Nuclear power has fallen below 10 per cent and will likely never reach double figures again.
Economics
The Coalition Senators’ dissenting report makes a number of absurd economic claims.
It cites Tony Irwin from the SMR Nuclear Technology company, who claims that the costs of nuclear and solar are “basically the same.” He bases his calculation on the assumption that a “small-body reactor” would generate 13 terawatt-hours (TWh) of electricity per year.
But reactors generate about 7.2TWh per 1,000 megawatts (MW) of capacity, so a 300MW reactor (the upper end of the range for SMRs) would generate about 2.2TWh – nearly six times less than Irwin claims.
The Coalition has yet to state clearly that it will repeal laws banning nuclear power if elected, but it’s only a matter of time. The nuclear push has the full support of oppositi
Is nuclear power growing? No – it has been stagnant for the past 30 years and if there’s any non-trivial change over the next 20 years, it will be downwards.
Just 16 per cent of the world’s countries operate nuclear power reactors (31/195), so clearly the Coalition Senators are wrong in describing Australia as a nuclear “outcast.”
Nine per cent of the world’s countries are building reactors (17/195), 91 per cent are not. Only six countries are building more than two reactors.
The International Energy Agency (IEA) expects record global renewable capacity additions in 2023 amounting to 440 gigawatts. Nuclear power has gone backwards so far in 2023, with a net loss of one reactor or 2.4 gigawatts.
The IEA projects that in 2027, renewable electricity generation will have increased to 38 per cent of total global generation. Nuclear power has fallen below 10 per cent and will likely never reach double figures again.
Based on that nonsense, Irwin goes on to make the equally absurd claim that until legislation banning nuclear power is removed, “Australia’s power system will continue to be constrained at great cost to the economy.”
SMR Nuclear Technology also fed economic nonsense to a federal parliamentary inquiry in 2019/20. As RenewEconomy editor Giles Parkinson noted, the company’s claim that 100 per cent renewables would cost four times more than replacing coal with nuclear was based on “Mickey-Mouse modelling” by a husband and wife team who used absurd figures for solar and wind and admitted to deliberately ignoring anticipated cost reductions.
Of course there’s no need for Tony Irwin, SMR Nuclear Technology director (and coal baron) Trevor St Baker, or any other nuclear enthusiast to get their facts straight. As long as their claims fit the narrative, they will be parroted by the Coalition and by the Murdoch/Sky echo-chamber.
The dissenting report cites John Harries from the Australian Nuclear Association complaining that CSIRO GenCost reports aren’t “looking at the actual builds happening around the world at the moment.”
Be careful what you wish for, John. Does the nuclear lobby really want to draw attention to the six- to twelve-fold cost blowouts in reactors under construction in the US, the UK and France, with the latest cost estimates ranging from $A25-30 billion per reactor?
The dissenting report concludes that: “If nuclear is more expensive than alternatives, as the CSIRO and others claim, then legalising nuclear energy will not change anything because investors will choose to build the cheaper options.”
However there isn’t a single reactor project in the world that isn’t propped up by state support and taxpayer subsidies.
In the UK, the government insisted that reactors would not be subsidised, but the UK National Audit Office estimates that taxpayer subsidies for two reactors under construction at Hinkley Point – the only reactor construction project in the UK – could amount to £30 billion (A$58.6 billion) while other credible estimates put the figure as high as £48.3 billion (A$94.4 billion).
A dog whistle to climate denialists
The Coalition Senators’ dissenting report claims that nuclear must be in the mix “if we are serious about the reduction of emissions to meet targets”.
But the Coalition isn’t serious about reducing greenhouse emissions. ……………………………………….
Promoting nuclear power doesn’t provide the Coalition with any cover or credibility. The Climate Council, comprising Australia’s leading climate scientists, speaks for those of us with a genuine interest in reducing greenhouse emissions. The Council issued a policy statement in 2019 concluding that nuclear power plants “are not appropriate for Australia – and probably never will be”…………..
https://reneweconomy.com.au/senate-inquiry-nixes-nukes-heres-why/
Game changer: defence industry ‘revolving door’ database to be created.
Undue Influence has been awarded funding from the Jan de Voogd Peace Fund to create an Australian-first database
MICHELLE FAHY, AUG 16, 2023
Our long-held goal of creating a database that makes plain the extent of the revolving door between the government/military/public service and the weapons industry in Australia is set to become reality.
Undue Influence has been awarded a grant to cover the research and development required to fulfil this vision. Work on the database has commenced. More on the grant below.
The well-trodden path from public defence roles into the private weapons industry
With AUKUS expected to cost Australian taxpayers more than $350 billion, at a time of decreasing transparency and poor accountability for record expenditure on armaments, the need for this database has never been greater. Exposing the insidious links between global weapons corporations and the government is now essential. Before an egregious practice can be stamped out, it must be documented. Hence, this project.
When senior people depart politics, the military, or the public service for roles in the weapons industry they take with them extensive national and international contacts, deep institutional knowledge and rare and privileged access to the highest levels of government. Their inside knowledge, contact books and high-level access entrenches the undue influence of the weapons industry on government decision-making, which can undermine integrity and open the door to corruption.
The Grattan Institute described the revolving door problem like this:
…firms that employ former government officials are more successful at getting meetings with government. Relationships matter in politics because they affect both the opportunity to influence and the likelihood of influence. Individuals with personal connections are more likely to get time with policy makers and a sympathetic hearing when they do.
It’s human nature that we’re more likely to listen to people we know and like. Establishing credibility is critical to persuasion, and existing relationships help clear that initial barrier. This is why hiring or employing people with the right connections can ‘buy’ influence.
Undue Influence has reported extensively on the revolving door as a channel of backroom influence on government by the weapons industry. Information on revolving door appointments into and out of this industry must be made public to achieve greater transparency, accountability and integrity in Australian public life.
What the database will cover
The database will document revolving door appointments into and out of the weapons industry from the year 2000 onwards. While it is modelled on the Project On Government Oversight (POGO) Pentagon Revolving Door website, the Undue Influence project will include more information. For example, we will include short articles accompanying key entries explaining the context and significance of certain appointments.
Users will be able to search by individual or by company. Some individuals in the database will have multiple revolving door appointments; this web of appointments across numerous companies will be revealed. Searching by weapons company will provide a list of former public officials hired by that company.
Undue Influence is delighted to be working with Evan Predavec as the project’s technical specialist and website/database creator. Evan is founder of Political Gadgets (politicalgadgets.com), a website that makes government and related information readily accessible to the public. Evan’s unique skillset and can-do attitude has been invaluable in designing and creating our website and database infrastructure.
More about the grant
Undue Influence has been awarded $60,000 by the Jan de Voogd Peace Fund to create the database. Jan de Voogd, a Quaker, died in 2021 leaving his estate to be spent on projects that foster peace and social justice. The bequest is administered by the NSW Regional Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers)……………………………………..
When will the database be ready?
The database will be launched by 29 February 2024.
How you can help
If you have information about revolving door appointments into and out of the Australian weapons industry, please email us.
Email undueinfluence@protonmail.com (encrypted)
Create an encrypted protonmail address (free): https://proton.me/mail https://undueinfluence.substack.com/p/game-changer-defence-industry-revolving-door?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=297295&post_id=136105135&isFreemail=true&utm_medium=email
An Assange Plea Deal? For What Crime? – Good Journalism?
Caitlin’s Newsletter Notes From The Edge Of The Narrative Matrix, CAITLIN JOHNSTONE, AUG 16, 2023
Whenever I talk about the need to dismantle government secrecy I always get some know-it-all empire simp going “Without secrecy we wouldn’t be able to wage wars and coordinate against our enemies and have nukes, you idiot.”
And it’s like, uh, yeah. That’s kind of my point. They only use secrecy to do evil things and act against the interests of normal human beings.
The lie is that the government uses secrecy in order to counter its enemies and win wars, when in reality the government uses secrecy to make enemies and start wars.
Julian Assange said “The overwhelming majority of information is classified to protect political security, not national security.” It doesn’t exist for our benefit, it exists for theirs. It’s so our rulers can keep doing depraved things with no accountability. That’s why they keep expanding government secrecy and increasing the punishment of those who breach it: because they want to do more depraved things and remain unaccountable.
It really is nuts how there’s now talk of Julian Assange being offered a “plea bargain” for rightly exposing US war crimes. What’s he meant to plead guilty to? Good journalism?
The last time there was a credible military threat to the United States near the US border, the US responded so aggressively that it nearly ended the world. The reason people don’t tend to get it when you compare Ukraine or Taiwan to a hypothetical scenario in which Russia or China were amassing heavily armed proxy forces on the Mexican border is because people literally can’t wrap their minds around that happening. It’s just too remote and unthinkable a proposition in today’s world.
But that shows you just how clear it is that the US is the aggressor in those standoffs: it’s doing something so freakishly aggressive that people literally cannot imagine it happening on the US border. If you see amassing a heavily armed threat on the border of an enemy nation as normal and fine in one instance and literally unfathomable in another, that shows you your perception and expectations have been warped by propaganda…………………………………….. https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/an-assange-plea-deal-for-what-crime?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=136101620&isFreemail=true&utm_medium=email
Suggestion of completely unsuitable Woomera as nuclear dump site shows gross ignorance
15 Aug 23, The recent suggestion by the Hon. Nick Minchin of using the rocket
range in the relatively remote Woomera region of South Australia for
the disposal of this country’s nuclear waste generated by AUKUS is
quite irrational smacking of gross ignorance.
It has been well known for many years that the Woomera area by its
topography and geological setting is completely unsuitable for any
form of nuclear waste disposal and is clouded – forgive the pun – by
the consequences of the extensive nuclear testing in the region over
seventy years ago.
The consequences of that testing are still being felt by the Aboriginal
peoples of the region and has turned the majority of South
Australia’s general community against any form of nuclear waste
storage in its State.
The Department of Defence already has a significant volume of
nuclear waste held in the Woomera area for which it is seeking a
suitable means of disposal that to a large extent was lost with the federal government recently abandoning its proposals for nuclear waste management at Kimba.
The proof of the pudding is that if the Woomera region were at all
suitable for the disposal or even long term safe storage of nuclear
waste then the defence authorities would have already joyfully
availed themselves of that opportunity.
In his previous ministerial capacity Mr Minchin argued for the
establishment of a national nuclear waste disposal facility to among
other things dispose of the ostensibly large quantities of nuclear
waste held in over a hundred locations throughout Australia but this
in itself was disingenuous since those locations are mainly hospitals
and research facilities developing lower levels of waste which is
invariably disposed by them on site.
In fact the federal government recently acknowledged that if lucky it
would get less than 10% of that waste for disposal at the facility
proposed for Kimba.
It is comments like those now offered by Mr Minchin which make
Australia’s already glaringly limited proficiency in nuclear waste management by international standards to be even more baseless.
It is quite clear that a major one of these consequences is the
attempted successful implementation of the AUKUS arrangements
which Mr Minchin was no doubt trying to achieve with his rather
inopportune suggestion of Woomera
Civil Society faces imposition of an AUKUS military High Level nuclear waste dump
https://nuclear.foe.org.au/wp-content/uploads/AUKUS-nuclear-waste-David-Noonan-brief-13Aug2023.pdf Updated Briefing by David Noonan, Independent Environment Campaigner 13 August 2023
The Federal ALP belatedly disclosed a secret pre-condition in AUKUS plans to buy existing US nuclear submarines: for Australia to keep the US subs military High Level nuclear waste forever.
In a breach of trust the ALP is seeking to ‘normalise’ High Level nuclear waste in Australia. Claims of
‘nuclear stewardship’ in taking on US nuclear subs and in retaining the US sub wastes are a farce.
Disposal of High Level nuclear waste is globally unprecedented, with our AUKUS ‘partners’ the US
and UK having proven unable to do so in over 60 years since first putting nuclear submarines to sea.
New military Agencies are being set up with an ‘Australian Submarine Agency’ (ASA) set up to:
“enable the necessary policy, legal, non-proliferation, workforce, security and safety arrangements”.
A new military nuclear regulator, the statutory ‘Australian Nuclear-Powered Submarine Safety
Regulator’ is to be established. Both Agencies will report directly to the Minister for Defence.
An array of federal legislation is required to manage nuclear submarines, supporting infrastructure
and facilities, from acquisition through to disposal. The Reforming Defence Legislation Review
proposes to take on Defence Act powers to override State and Territory legislation to ‘provide
certainty’ to Defence roles, operations and facilities.
Minister for Defence Richard Marles MP has stated there will be ‘an announcement’ by early 2024 on
a process to manage High Level nuclear waste and to site a waste disposal facility, saying “obviously
that facility will be remote from populations” (ABC News 15 March 2023).
Defence is already working to identify potential nuclear waste disposal sites. Political leaders in WA,
Queensland and Victoria have rejected a High Level nuclear waste disposal site. The SA Labor
Premier has so far only said it should go to a safe ‘remote’ location in the national interest.
AUKUS compromises public confidence in government and sets up a serious clash with
hcivil society:
- Defence must be transparent and made accountable over AUKUS policy, associated rights and
legal issues, and the proposed High Level nuclear waste dump siting process; - Defence must commit to comply with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples Article 29 provision of Indigenous People’s rights to “Free, Prior and Informed Consent”
over storage or disposal of hazardous materials on their lands. - Defence must declare whether the SA Nuclear Waste Storage (Prohibition) Act 2000 is intended
to be over-ridden to impose an AUKUS dump on lands and unwilling community in SA.
The public has a right to know who is targeted and a right to Say No to imposition of nuclear wastes.
The ALP National Platform (2021, Uranium p.96-98) makes a commitment to oppose overseas waste:
- Labor will: 8. d. Remain strongly opposed to the importation and storage of nuclear waste
that is sourced from overseas in Australia.
In contrast, AUKUS proposes Australia buy existing US military nuclear reactors in subs that are to be
up to 10-12 years old, loaded with intractable US origin weapons grade High Level nuclear wastes.
An AUKUS military nuclear dump is likely to be imposed on community in SA or in NT, with override
of State laws, compulsory land acquisition, and disregard for Indigenous Peoples rights to Say No.
Woomera is being targeted as a ‘favoured location’ for an AUKUS nuclear dump, in an
untenable affront to democratic rights in SA and to Indigenous People’s rights
SA community and the Barngarla People have just overcome federal plans to store ANSTO nuclear
fuel wastes and ILW on agricultural land near Kimba that had divided community on Eyre Peninsula.
The Bargarla People won a hard fought court case against the Federal Government that set aside the
Kimba dump siting decision by Coalition Minister Pitt as affected by bias and pre-judgement.
In response, Labor Minister Hon Madeleine King MP decided to not appeal the Judge’s finding of
apprehended bias, saying “The judgement was clear, and the Government is listening.”
The next day the national press reports: “Woomera looms as national nuclear waste dump site
including for AUKUS submarine high-level waste (afr.com) (11 August 2023). The article states the
AFR understands the Woomera rocket range is the ‘favoured location’ for the submarine waste.
The federal gov may also decide to ‘co-locate’ AUKUS submarine waste with ANSTO nuclear fuel
wastes and long lived ILW. However, the regulator says ANSTO wastes can be securely retained at the
Lucas Heights reactor site for decades. An imposed AUKUS dump will discredit any associated plans.
A suite of public interests are already at stake. For instance, which Ports will be requisitioned for
roles in AUKUS nuclear waste plans? (the federal gov previously targeted the Port of Whyalla).
AUKUS nuclear waste dump plans trigger the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples (adopted by United Nations, Sept 2007) in Indigenous People’s Article 29 rights to “Free,
Prior and Informed Consent” over storage or disposal of hazardous materials on their lands.
Traditional owners must have a right to Say No to nuclear wastes, see “AUKUS nuclear waste dump
must be subject to Indigenous veto” (By Michelle Fahy May 2023): “Bipartisan secrecy and Defence’s
poor record with Indigenous groups at Woomera are red flags for consultations over an AUKUS
nuclear waste dump. Human rights experts say government must establish an Indigenous veto right.”
The “Woomera Protected Area” (WPA) a large Defence weapon testing range in SA had already been
flagged by other State Premiers as a site for a military High Level nuclear waste disposal facility.
Most of the WPA is State owned Crown land and not federal owned Defence lands. Siting a nuclear
dump on the WPA would be imposed through compulsory land acquisition and over-ride of SA laws.
Storage and disposal of nuclear wastes compromises the safety and welfare of the people of South
Australia, that is why it is prohibited by the SA Nuclear Waste Storage (Prohibition) Act 2000.
The Objects of this Act cover public interest issues at stake, to protect our health, safety and welfare:
“The Objects of this Act are to protect the health, safety and welfare of the people of South
Australia and to protect the environment in which they live by prohibiting the establishment
of certain nuclear waste storage facilities in this State.”
Defence are already ignoring Aboriginal Heritage law and contravening protections in SA, see
“Defence bombing Indigenous site in Woomera” (May 2023). Defence is now further ‘angling for
exemption from State laws it admits serve important public purposes’.
The SA Premier is yet to say if he will support an Indigenous right to Say No to an AUKUS dump in SA.
South Australians have a democratic right to decide their own future and to reject an AUKUS dump.
Stop renewables and wait for nuclear: Nationals stunning rejection of science and industry
Giles Parkinson 14 August 2023 https://reneweconomy.com.au/stop-renewables-and-wait-for-nuclear-nationals-stunning-rejection-of-science-and-industry/
Nationals leader David Littleproud says he wants to have an “honest” conversation about Australia’s energy transition. Well and good. But maybe Littleproud himself can help that process by not telling outright lies.
On Sunday, Littleproud did us all a favour by spelling out in detail the Nationals energy policy, just in case it wasn’t already obvious: Stop renewables and wait for nuclear.
It has been, he admitted, the party’s policy for at least the last decade, if not longer.
That’s not surprising, given that its the favoured policy and strategy of Big Oil, Big Gas, Big Coal, and the likes of Gina Rinehart to whom the Nationals appear completely beholden. And it wins support at all levels of the Nationals grass roots through a co-ordinated and quite extraordinary campaign of fear and misinformation.
Littleproud’s train crash of an interview on ABC’s Insiders program on Sunday – well, it might have been a train crash if he had been questioned by someone with the wit to hold his talking points up to scrutiny – highlight the tragedy of Australia’s and the world’s current climate policies.
All these policies are focused on net zero by 2050, or 2060 if you happen to be China. As many scientists fear, it’s a target that is used as a prompt by naysers and do-nothings – such as the Nationals and the fossil fuel industries – to put things off for another day.
It is another excuse for delay, delay, and yet more delay – even though the science tells us, quite clearly, and more emphatically given the summer in the northern hemisphere and tumbling heat records – that what matters most is how quickly we act now.
Littleproud is completely unfazed by the science. In fact, it is a stunning rejection of the science. He wants a “pause” to the roll out of wind and solar and transmission links and a stop to the “reckless pursuit” of the government’s 82 per cent renewables targets.
He suggests that wind and solar has its place, but that solar should be built on city rooftops, not on “prime agricultural” farmland, or in remnant forests. We should wait for nuclear, he says, because “we’ve got time” and net zero by 2050 is the government’s “only commitment.”
He wasn’t asked the obvious question about the Nationals acceptance of climate science, the need to act by 2030, the need to try and cap average global warming to 1.5°C, a target that would require net zero to be reached more than a decade earlier.
Littleproud appealed for “honest conversations”, and then said the federal government’s 83 per cent renewables target requires 28,000 kms of new transmission lines.
Let’s be absolutely clear, that is simply not true.
The Australian Energy Market Operator’s Integrated System Plan suggests that up to 10,000kms of new transmission will be needed over the next two decades under its “step change” scenario, which includes the 82 per cent renewable share that is now the federal government’s target.
That renewables target, by the way, is key to reaching Australia’s modest emissions reduction target of 43 per cent below 2005 levels – a year chosen because of its peak land clearing of remnant forests under the Liberal/National Coalition.
Granted, the preparation work for the transmission lines have been poorly handled, by transmission companies, governments and the likes of AEMO, but it should be noted that most of these transmission lines are considered necessary even in the “slow scenario”, where science is completely ignored and coal hangs around a lot longer.
Littleproud’s number of 28,000kms is only mentioned in the “hydrogen superpower” scenario that imagines huge arrays of wind and solar in remote areas that might need to be connected to the grid. It is of course, his sponsors’ worst nightmare – because it means the end of the fossil fuel industry as we know it.
Littleproud then goes on to mention the prospect of nuclear SMRs (small modular reactors), and even something called “micro reactors”, which are little more than an idea, and probably even further down the pipeline than the SMRs, which are themselves at least a decade away, and not likely to be cheap.
The Nationals leader reckons big industry users like smelters might like the idea of micro reactors because they are modular, and about 3-5MW and can be used to power their facilities, and bring down costs.
It’s a ridiculous suggestion. A smelter draws up to about 500MW of load, so it will need around 100 of these things that don’t exist, and as the former head of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission wrote recently, only ideologues and ‘tech bros” think that nuclear can be cheap. And the Coalition.
The owners of Australia’s smelters, for the record, have already made their views clear. Rio Tinto, for instance, has said that its smelters only have a future beyond the end of the decade if they can convert their power supply to renewables by 2030.
If not, they will not be able to compete with the rest of the world, either on cost, or on emissions. And who is providing the biggest stumbling block to renewables? The Nationals and fossil fuel industry led campaign against wind, solar and transmission.
And therein lies the tragedy, the dishonesty, and the absurdity of the Nationals’ and the Coalition’s stance against green energy.
It will stuff industry in Australia, and the local economy, long before it stuffs the planet and the environment. But by then, they – and the Murdoch media which trumpet their positions, and the mainstream media that refuses to question it – will have found something else to whinge about.
Senate nuclear power report sees no role for nuclear .
A Senate committee released a report into nuclear power last Friday. The majority report, endorsed by Labor and Greens senators, argued against nuclear power and against the repeal of Howard-era legislation banning nuclear power in Australia. A dissenting report by Coalition Senators argued for repeal of the legislation banning nuclear power.
The majority report concludes that repeal of legislation banning nuclear power “would create an unnecessary escalation of risk, particularly given Australia is able to utilise readily available firmed renewable technology to secure a reliable, affordable and clean energy system for Australia’s future”. It gives the following reasons:
1. Nuclear power is the most expensive energy option for Australia whereas firmed renewable energy is the cheapest option. Introducing nuclear power into Australia’s electricity network would “drive up power prices, causing additional economic pain for everyday Australians who are already struggling with the cost of living pressures.”
2. Next generation nuclear technology is unproven and there are no commercially operational ‘small modular reactors’ anywhere in the world. “It is clearly not possible for Australia to develop a nuclear power sector with SMR technology which is not commercially available,” the majority report states.
3. Given the “very considerable” lead time that would be involved in establishing a new nuclear industry in Australia, the contribution of nuclear power to the electricity market would likely be negligible given Australia’s projected 83 per cent uptake of firmed renewables by 2030. “The committee recognises that addressing climate change requires immediate action and pursuing nuclear energy would only be a distraction from Australia’s 2030 target and broader efforts to reach net zero emissions by 2050.”
4. Nuclear power is inflexible. The energy output of nuclear power plants lacks the flexibility required to meet the needs of a modern electricity market. Firmed renewables are much better suited to the load profiles of modern electricity grids which require greater flexibility.
5. Nuclear carries inherent and consequential safety risks. In addition to other risks, establishing a nuclear power industry in Australia “would unnecessarily add to the local and global problem of managing high-level nuclear waste”.
6. Water scarcity — an issue “close to the hearts of many Australians”. Reactors require “significant volumes” of water for cooling and the “necessity of locating nuclear power plants near sea water would likely mean the construction of nuclear reactors near densely populated areas and would create additional environmental and security risks.”
7. Nuclear power would create “potential and unnecessary national security risks” due to “perceived links between civil nuclear industries and nuclear weapons proliferation, as well as opening the possibility of nuclear reactors being the target of hostiles.” Australia continues to be an international advocate of nuclear non-proliferation and the committee supports Australia’s ongoing participation in the Nuclear Non‑Proliferation Treaty, as well as the international and bilateral nuclear safeguard agreements it has ratified.
8. “There is no social license to support the establishment of a civil nuclear industry in Australia. A significant majority of Australians are not comfortable with the prospect of having nuclear power plants, or the radioactive waste they produce, in their backyards. Overwhelmingly, Australians recognise the importance of transitioning to a secure and sustainable energy future, and firmed renewables are the key to achieving that future.”
Gina Rinehart: Australia’s wealthiest person uses Bush Summit speech to push for nuclear power
Rebecca Le May, The West Australian, Mon, 14 August 2023
Gina Rinehart is pushing for Australia to become nuclear-powered instead of upsetting farmers with more “bird-killing wind generators and massive solar panel stretches”.
The multi-billionaire used the final sentence of her keynote speech at The Australian Bush Summit on Monday to call for a national foray into the contentious energy source — easing into the topic with a joke purportedly by nuclear physicist Edward Teller, who helped Robert Oppenheimer produce the first nuclear bomb………… (Subscribers only) more https://thewest.com.au/business/mining/gina-rinehart-australias-wealthiest-person-uses-bush-summit-speech-to-push-for-nuclear-power-c-11581010
Why the nuclear option is clever in opposition but a nightmare in government
The Coalition’s push to include nuclear energy in the nation’s arsenal has nothing to do with solving the climate debate.
InQueensland, August 14, 2023, John McCarthy
If only that was the case.
The first and most reasonable question for them is why is the Coalition is pushing nuclear now and did nothing to progress it when they were in power?
The answer is just as reasonable. It has no hope and it’s not because of its inherent cost and efficiency, which seems to make up a lot of the debate.
An example of how difficult it would be to push forward with nuclear energy was the recent Federal Court decision to overturn the approval of a waste dump for radioactive material in the South Australian town of Kimba, where the issue had split the town.
It took a decade to get to that point and the division in Kimba would be likely to be played out nationally if the Coalition ever got serious about adopting nuclear energy.
……….The reason the Coalition has started pushing nuclear is very much the same reason it won’t succeed. It’s devisive. It would be a nightmare.
You may think that’s a criticism of the Coalition but it isn’t. It’s politics and clever politics, as well.
Nuclear provides an agitation point for the Albanese Government and a pivot on which the Coalition can position themselves as forward-thinking and rational…………………………..
It should also be noted that a nuclear power station in the US was recently completed seven years late and cost $US34 billion ($52.3 billion), about $US21 billion over its initial budget.
While adopting nuclear, the LNP in Queensland has ditched coal. Its support is now whispered rather than championed, as it was in 2019 when it was instrumental in handing Government to Scott Morrison.
………………………………………………… The real issues however are about waste, where a nuclear power station would be sited, how much would it cost and how long would it take to develop and, most importantly, is it safe? All pretty reasonable questions.
Whether they would continue to advocate for nuclear if they returned to Government is a completely different question. It’s reasonable to assume that the issue would be handed to a committee where it would gather dust.
……………………….. The problem is nuclear remains a social and environmental nightmare…….. https://inqld.com.au/opinion/2023/08/14/why-the-nuclear-option-is-clever-in-opposition-but-a-nightmare-in-government/
Woomera looms as national nuclear waste dump site
Financial Review, Phillip Coorey, Political editor, 10 Aug 23,
A federal government decision to scrap plans for a nuclear waste dump outside the South Australian town of Kimba has increased speculation it will instead build a bigger facility on defence land at Woomera that could also accommodate high-level waste from the AUKUS submarines.
More than two decades of work by successive governments to find a site to store low- and medium-level waste ended on Thursday when Resources Minister Madeleine King announced the government would not appeal last week’s Federal Court decision against the dump going ahead.
The court ruled on an action brought by the local Barngarla people, angering the Kimba community which had been bracing for the jobs and revenue the facility would have created.
……………………………………………. The dump was also opposed by the state Labor government.
Local Liberal MP Rowan Ramsey, who holds the federal seat of Grey, lashed Ms King and the government in parliament, calling the decision not to appeal as “cowardly, gutless and lacking moral fibre”.
Liberal Senate leader and SA senator Simon Birmingham concurred, especially as the Federal Court ruling was “very narrow” one……………………………………………………………….
[The dump] was not designed to store high-level waste such as the spent reactors from the nuclear-powered subs Australia will acquire and build under AUKUS.
Favoured location
Earlier this week, Defence Minister Richard Marles reaffirmed that the submarine waste would have to be stored on Defence Department land. The Australian Financial Review understands the favoured location is the Woomera rocket range in remote SA, although the selection process has yet to begin.
A high-level waste dump in Woomera would also store low and medium-level waste, ending the decades of conflict that have been caused by trying to choose such sites as Kimba.
In March, former Howard government minister Nick Minchin told the Financial Review that Mr Marles should cut to the chase and identify Woomera as the site for the high-level nuclear waste dump required under the AUKUS pact.
As industry and science minister between 1998 and 2001, the then Liberal senator for SA fought to establish a repository for low- and medium-level waste after initially choosing Woomera but being rebuffed by the Defence Department because of the stigma associated with nuclear waste.
This was despite tonnes of radioactive soil having been stored at Woomera in barrels for years.
“From my long experience of working on this issue, the Commonwealth would be well-advised putting it on Commonwealth land to avoid the states playing politics,” Mr Minchin said.
“Having previously assessed Woomera, it ticks all the boxes in terms of remoteness, stability and space.”…………………………………………….. https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/woomera-looms-as-national-nuclear-waste-dump-site-20230810-p5dvle
How will they explain themselves to their grandchildren?
August 11, 2023, by: Mark Buckley https://theaimn.com/how-will-they-explain-t
It is hard to understand the stupidity of Australia’s political leaders when it comes to the climate catastrophe. It is a given that the likes of Barnaby Joyce and Tony Abbott will ignore the facts as they unfold, but even they must have noticed what’s going on.
Maybe the political class don’t watch television, or read newspapers, or have relatives living overseas, but the rest of us do.
Two years ago there were horrific floods in Germany and Belgium, in mid-July 2021, which killed more than 220 people. Damage was widespread and was seen as far away as the Netherlands, Austria and Switzerland. In Europe, in summer.
In Australia we know the lasting devastation of floods, and the impossibility of future proofing. The only solution is to re-build, if re-build you must, on higher ground.
Is a flood more real if it happens in Germany rather than in Lismore, or Shepparton? Are wildfires more devastating when they happen in Canada or Greece? Does total destruction of a town in Hawaii mean more than if it happens in Mallacoota?
Ask Matt Canavan why he chooses to ignore the facts of climate destruction in Australia. What does he think of the lack of sea ice in the Antarctic this year? Some scientists think the rise in sea levels, caused by the undermining of the ice in Antarctica, could range from between 2 metres to 10 metres.
Imagine the harm to our coastal cities if it comes in closer to 10 metres. Well, they won’t be there anymore, so it’s not difficult to imagine the damage. It won’t make it hard to get onto the West Gate Bridge, because the West Gate Bridge will be an abandoned arc of empty roadway, and what would be the use of driving to Geelong, because Geelong won’t be there anymore.
Kardinia Park will be an empty reservoir. But enough imagining, already. For our intellectually challenged leaders, the plight of our civilisation is at stake.
Droughts and bushfires will alternate with flooding rains, as the seasons change. Mass starvation will lead to mass migrations, from those lands most affected, to those less affected.
If you think living in the mountains, far away from the mass populations of cities, will make you safe from the changes in the climate, think again.
Towns in the Andes mountains in Peru have reached 38°C or more, while in Argentina’s capital, Buenos Aires, temperatures above 30°C have been recorded; this month. It is winter there now.
Peter Dutton wants to fix the climate crisis with nuclear power. Does he know how long it takes to arrange for a nuclear power station to be approved, planned and built? Does he not own a clock, or a calendar?
On the government’s side of the ledger, more than 2,000 medical professionals have demanded that the Albanese government withdraw $1.5bn funding for the Middle Arm industrial development, in the Northern Territory.
The funding is a handout to assist the development of the huge Beetaloo Basin gas field. Labor is struggling to disguise the funding. Are votes in the short-term worth wrecking the climate?
We have been told that the earth is reaching, and in some cases, passing through “tipping points” for the climate.
It doesn’t take much imagination to recognise the utter failure of almost every government on earth to react to the crisis.
See the piss-ant state governments as they legislate to criminalise the actions of climate activists. Jailing them won’t achieve anything. It is as effective and as ridiculous as trying to stop the tide.
See how the so-called leaders of governments world-wide baulk at the difficult conversations they need to have with their citizens, to convince them that time has almost run out.
Believe it or not, but the scientists need to change their language, from calm reason to barely suppressed terror. We are facing Armageddon, and politicians are worried that people will either panic, or vote them out of power.
They need to get to the front. Show some leadership. Make change. Don’t worry about plans for fifty years in the future, your rubbish plans for nuclear subs and inland rail.
Worry about the end of civilisation as we know it. Worry about our children and their children. I don’t want my grandchildren starving because we had a leadership which valued the chance of a directorship with a gas company over the survival of humanity.
And the leaders of today need to know there is nowhere to hide if it all turns to manure. They were warned, and there is not a mountain high enough to escape to.
1 This month
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 