Shock Jock Alan Jones comes out swinging against Adani coal megamine project
“I’m not so stupid as not to understand the money is being tipped into major political parties with a view to getting an end result they seek, including a billion dollars of taxpayers’ money to build a railway line. Why? When they get the railway line they believe further mine approvals will be given and make a fortune out of the coal traffic along the railway line. This is smelly no matter how it’s viewed.”
Alan Jones Cries Conspiracy Over Adani’s Carmichael Coal Mine, “This is smelly no matter how it’s viewed.” Veteran radio broadcaster Alan Jones unleashed a scathing rant against Adani’s proposed $21 billion Carmichael mine on Monday night, criticising the connections the Indian group has in Australian politics through foreign donations.
“There’s something very smelly about this that the Federal Liberal Government, the Federal Labor Opposition, the Queensland Labor Government and the Queensland Liberal Opposition all have got their hands up saying they’re going to support this entity,” he said.
Anti Adani coal mine protests to be a continuing feature of Queensland election
Anti-Adani protests to dog Qld election, Herald Sun, Ed Jackson, Australian Associated Press, October 29, 2017 Anti-Adani protesters have tried to upstage Annastacia Palaszczuk as she tried to kick of the Queensland election……Anti-Adani protesters were also waiting outside Government House when she called on the acting governor Catherine Holmes to request writs be issued for the November 25 election.
What High Court ruling means for climate, renewables
Joyce out, Canavan in, Roberts out – What High Court ruling means for climate, renewables, http://reneweconomy.com.au/updated-joyce-out-canavan-in-roberts-out-what-high-court-ruling-means-for-climate-renewables-20175/ By Sophie Vorrath on 27 October 2017 Australia’s deputy prime minister and leader of the National Party, Barnaby Joyce, is headed for a by-election, after the High Court ruled him ineligible to hold his seat due to his dual Australia-New Zealand citizenship.
The ruling – which has also disqualified fellow “citizenship 7” members, Nationals Deputy Fiona Nash, Greens Senator Scottt Ludlam, Greens Deputy Larissa Waters, and Pauline Hanson’s One Nation party senator, Malcolm Roberts – leaves the Turnbull government without its one seat majority in the House of Representatives. At least until the result of the December by-election.
But what does it mean for the clean energy and climate policy debate in Australia?
For starters, the Court’s decision removes Parliament’s chief flat-earther, in Malcolm Roberts – although he is not the only federal parliamentarian to deny climate change (see Fiona Nash, below).
On energy, Roberts – like Hanson’s One Nation – is broadly anti-renewables and pro-fossil fuels. He notably anointed the Turnbull government’s National Energy Guarantee as both “atrocious”, but also in line with the his party’s desire for the RET to be scrapped and its support of “clean coal.”
In a speech to the Minerals Week Seminar, the deputy PM painted a picture of a nation under attack from a sort of economy destroying “green peril” that would shut down coal power plants, kill coal exports and – of course – turn the lights out.
“Around about January, ladies and gentlemen, families are going to come back from holiday, mum and dad are going to go back to work, mum’s going to turn on the air conditioner, get the kids ready for school, school’s going to turn on the power, and if we don’t watch out, the lights are going to go out,” Joyce said.
“And this will be a salutary lesson on how economics really work. A salutary lesson against the fatuous economics that’s being peddled.
(“In the) Galilee Basin, we are in the fight of our lives trying to open up a mechanism that will create wealth for this nation. Total insanity!” he said. “What’s one of our biggest exports, or our biggest export? Coal. And what are we making the argument against? That we should use coal. It’s absurd. …I just don’t get it.”
Joyce also doesn’t get climate science, and like his compatriot, Fiona Nash, is skeptical about the research credentials of global warming. Look….I just – I’m always skeptical of the idea that the way that anybody’s going to change the climate – and I’m driving in this morning and we’re driving through a frost – is with bureaucrats and taxes,” he told conservative commentator and noted climate denier Andrew Bolt in an interview in 2015.
“All that does is….it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. I make you feel guilty so I can get your money and put it in my pocket and send reports backwards and forth to one another,” he said.
But Joyce may not be gone for long. The by-election is expected to be held very soon, probably December 2, and Joyce is expected to win,
And Joyce’s brief absence should be countered by the safe return of Matt Canavan, the Queensland Nationals Senator who, along with SA independent Nick Xenophon, was cleared by the High Court, despite having dual Italian citizenship. The Court ruled that Canavan did not know about his Italian citizenship, and so could not have taken all reasonable measures to renounce it.
Canavan, who has already been reinstated as the federal minister for resources and northern Australia, was recently dubbed the “minister for the mining sector”, after his heartfelt farewell to the sector when the citizenship scandal first reared its ugly head in July and he stepped aside.
“It has been such an honour to represent the Australian mining sector over the past year,” he wrote on Facebook. “From the small, gambling explorers and prospectors to the large, world-beating multi-nationals, the industry provides rich and diverse experiences that can take you to the smallest towns of outback Australia to the biggest cities in the world.”
The note sparked instant outrage from readers, who noted Canavan was “supposed to represent the people of Queensland, and not private mining companies.” We will see whether his priorities have changed any when he returns to work.
The disqualification of Nationals Senator number three – and deputy leader of that party – NSW Fiona Nash (minister for regional development) could be chalked up as a small win for climate policy. Nash, like Joyce, is skeptical about the science, telling Sky News last year “I don’t think it is certainly necessarily settled.”
To Malcolm Roberts, it is farewell, after just one year in Parliament. During this short period of time, Roberts has distinguished himself by repeatedly denying the human influence on climate change; by introducing a hoax “conceptual penis” research paper to Parliament in an effort to undermine the validity of peer reviewed science; and asked Chief Scientist Alan Finkel if it was important for scientists to have an open mind, to which Finkel responded: “yes, but not so much that your brain leaks out.”
In a statement on Friday afternoon, Roberts said he was sad to leave federal parliament, but accepted the High Court decision entirely. Probably because it’s not based on science. Roberts will now run for the seat of Ipswich – the “heart of One Nation” – in Queensland state politics.
One Nation, meanwhile, still holds four seats in federal parliament. Next in line for Roberts’ seat is Fraser Anning – a publican from the Queensland coal region of Gladstone, who attracted just 19 first preference votes last year. His stance on renewables and climate is not immediately clear – neither his Facebook page nor his One Nation profile were accessible at the time of publication – but he is a fan of a good conspiracy theory.
For the Turnbull government, it is a blow, and an embarrassment, whether the PM likes to admit it or not.
n an upbeat address to reporters on Friday afternoon, Turnbull said the Coalition had remained focused on the business of government pending the Court’s decision, and pointed to his National Energy Guarantee as evidence of that. Never mind that the NEG has been widely derided as non-policy; at best an outline of one possible framework among many.
Turnbull even took the opportunity to do some energy politicking, telling reporters “we all know that Labor’s (energy policy) would see prices rising as far as the eye can see.”
Tony Windsor, who has confirmed he will not be contesting the by-election, said one of the main things that kept him interested in federal politics was the “discgraceful” short-term politics Coalition members like Abbott and Joyce, who supported climate and energy policies that “do nothing” to solve the problems of the future.
And he also noted that, despite Joyce’s position as the front runner for New England, the by-election would open up a key seat to other candidates, who could campaign on some of the key, long0-term political issues that he felt the Turnbull government had fudged.
“The government has a majority of one,” he told the ABC on Friday afternoon. “Now that ‘one’ is going to be out of town for a while. … so if people want to get up there and talk about the significant issues that affect New England, I’ll be right up there supporting them,” Windsor said.
Australian Productivity Commission (hardly radicals!) wants clean energy target
What the National Energy Guarantee lacks though is a formal clean energy target, which, in the absence of a carbon pricing scheme, would at least be a market-based mechanism that provides incentives for low emissions and renewable generation.
the report concludes that advocates of coal-fired generating capacity who oppose carbon pricing are doing themselves a disservice, as investors are unlikely to commit to the investment needed, given future regulatory risks.
Report throws book at ‘energy mess’ saying governments must get serious on carbon emissions http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/opinion/opinion-report-throws-book-at-energy-mess-saying-governments-must-get-serious-on-carbon-emissions/news-story/b121d3e13e10d74cfce74b8816de2e88, Paul Syvret, The Courier-Mail, October 28, 2017
THE Australian Productivity Commission – the Federal Government’s economic advisory body that recommended cuts to weekend penalty rates – is not renowned as a hotbed of left-wing activism.
On Tuesday Treasurer Scott Morrison released the first of the commission’s five-year reviews, using the document as a platform to mount a case for continuing economic reforms to lift Australia’s productivity rate.
The ideas in the 1200-page document – ranging across the full spectrum of the Australian economy – should have dominated debate at a time when the Government is trying to wrest back control of the political agenda.
The Michaelia Cash trainwreck put paid to that, despite Morrison’s best efforts to warn that “the price of a generation of Australians growing up without ever having known a recession is that reform comes more stubbornly and incrementally”.
What Morrison didn’t highlight though was Chapter 5 of the Productivity Commission report, titled “Fixing the energy mess”.
In this section, the commission says Australian governments “must stop the piecemeal and stop-start approach to emission reduction and adopt a proper vehicle for reducing carbon emissions that puts a single effective price on carbon”. Continue reading
Chief Scientist contradicts Liberal Senator – says far fewer coal-fired power stations being planned
Alan Finkel disputes figures used by supporters of coal power https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/oct/26/alan-finkel-disputes-figures-used-by-supporters-of-coal-power
Chief scientist says far fewer coal-fired power stations being planned around the world than previously projected The chief scientist, Alan Finkel, has challenged figures used by supporters of coal-fired power stations in a Senate estimates hearing.
Liberal senator Ian Macdonald suggested there were more than 600 coal plants under way around the world, which would undermine any emissions reduction achieved by Australia.
Finkel told the hearing on Thursday he had seen a range of figures. However, he understood the number of coal plants in China and India in the initial planning stage or being built was “far less than what was projected a year ago”.
[China] has a commitment as a country to reduce emissions. They are finding they are reaping the benefits of their commitments to wind and solar at a faster rate than they thought,” he said.
Asked about developments in Europe, Finkel said he was aware of only one high-efficiency coal plant currently being built and it was in trouble.
Finkel said the modelling he produced in his review of Australia’s electricity sector had been provided to the Energy Security Board as it put flesh to the bones of the proposed national energy guarantee policy.
He believed the national energy guarantee modelling could be produced in time for a Council of Australian Governments energy council meeting in late November.
But he said the states and electricity sector needed to be properly consulted. “The ramifications of getting any aspect of the rules wrong are very serious,” he said.
In South Australian Parliament, Greens aim to restore Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act
Spending public money on important and necessary services like health, education and public facilities is a wise use of our collective funds. Spending public money on trying to convince the people of South Australia that we should take the world’s high-level nuclear waste and store it for the next few thousand years makes no sense at all.
The Weatherill Labor Government has already wasted more than $13 million of our money on a Royal Commission, Citizens Jury and even a new government agency to spruik the benefits of a nuclear dump. Now that South Australians have put a stop to this international nuclear waste dump nonsense, we need to make sure that the Government doesn’t waste any more public money on so-called “community consultation”. Enough is enough!
Even the Parliamentary Joint Committee which was specifically set up to inquire into this proposal (and which tabled its report last week), agreed on one recommendation – “That the South Australian Government should not commit any further public funds to pursuing the proposal to establish a repository for the storage of nuclear waste in South Australia.” You can read my speech on this report here.
So, how do we make sure this happens?
The Greens have a Bill before Parliament that will restore the Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000 to ensure that no more public money is wasted on nuclear waste dump consultations without Parliamentary approval.
With my Bill coming to a vote in the Upper House on November 1, we need your support to get this passed through Parliament. Please email the Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Ian Hunter MLC, and ask the Government to support the Greens’ Bill to restore Section 13 of the Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act to its pre-2016 state.
The Greens are standing with the people of South Australia who choose a nuclear-free future for our State.
News Corpse relates Cory Bernardi’s misleading statements on thorium nuclear power
With breathtaking hypocrisy, Cory Bernardi puts the case for thorium nuclear power. He implies that nuclear power needs no government funding. He implies that thorium power is not nuclear. Thorium power requires plutonium or enriched uranium, to quickly transform thorium 232 into uranium 233 – then nuclear fission occurs just as with conventional nuclear reactors. But worse, as plutonium or enriched uranium, or both, are also used.
CONSERVATIVE senator Cory Bernardi has weighed
into the power debate, calling on leaders to ‘open their minds’ to an alternative solution. Staff writer, AAP News Corp Australia Network OCTOBER 22, 2017 CONSERVATIVE senator Cory Bernardi has weighed into the power crisis debate, calling the Turnbull government’s approach a “baby step in the right direction”.
In an interview with Sky News, Senator Bernardi said building a nuclear power station or a coal-fired station would be competitive when the government was spending $3 billion on renewables “that aren’t working for us at night or when the wind isn’t blowing”.
“The only way you’re going to solve this energy crisis is to get government completely out of it and to say, ‘If you’re going to build a power station, we’re going to give you contractual certainty that the conditions upon which you build it today will remain for the life of that power station’,” he said.
“They have to open their minds to nuclear power or a thorium power station because that can solve the emissions crisis if you believe that’s important but it can also provide competitive base-load power for our country.”
…..Conservative senator Cory Bernardi said what the Turnbull government was proposing was a “baby step in the right direction”.
“Saving $100 in ten years time is neither here nor there,” he told Sky News.
“We need absolutely to provide certainty for our business community in this country.”
He said building a nuclear power station or a coal-fired station would be competitive when the government was spending $3 billion on renewables “that aren’t working for us at night or when the wind isn’t blowing”. http://www.news.com.au/finance/money/josh-frydenberg-power-prices-will-come-down-in-new-energy-policy/news-story/0c68c4d1cadb8f1371eeb0c1cadd2e9a
Bob Brown: High Court decision ensures free speech against environmentally polluting companies, like Adani
High court proves we have free speech against environmental wreckers https://www.theguardian.com/environment/commentisfree/2017/oct/22/high-court-proves-we-have-free-speech-against-environmental-wreckers, Bob Brown
Adani and the loggers should watch out – we have a right to peaceful protest to protect our environment, The high court has drawn a line in the sand against laws which burden the right of Australians to peaceful protest.
The court made no judgement on Tasmanian premier Will Hodgman’s decision to flatten the Lapoinya state forest in northwest Tasmania against the wishes of the local community. But it struck down his Workplaces (Protection from Protesters) Act 2014 aimed at stopping people from protesting effectively against such forests being logged.
Lapoinya is a huddle of farms southwest of the Bass Strait city of Burnie. Its rolling hills have a patchwork of lush pastures, ploughed fields and copses of trees. At the heart of the district was the Lapoinya forest, a couple of hundred hectares of wildlife-filled rainforest, eucalypts and ferneries with the crystal-clear Maynes Creek, a key nursery for the world’s largest freshwater crayfish, running through it.
When Forestry Tasmania revealed plans for the forest to be clearfelled for the distant wood-processing factory owned by Malaysian logging company Ta Ann, the people of Lapoinya remained confident that common sense would prevail. They called on the state government to intervene and ran a colourful but respectful public campaign to prevent the logging.
Neither the premier nor his minister for forests visited or intervened. Instead, draconian anti-protest laws were enacted and by early 2016 the logging was imminent.
The locals prepared for a peaceful stand. If the public could see how beautiful the Lapoinya forest was then surely, even at this eleventh hour, the resulting political pressure would cause the government to back off.
The bulldozers and chainsaws arrived in January 2016, with a cavalcade of police.
While premier Hodgman assured Tasmanians his new laws were aimed at “radical” environmentalists and not “mums and dads”, the first two people arrested were a grandfather and a mother of two. That mother, also a neurosurgery nurse, was Jessica Hoyt. Her parents, Stewart and Barbara, have a farm adjoining the forest. In her teenage years Jessica, along with her siblings, had enjoyed riding along the forest’s bridle trail. The two were charged and faced first-offence fines of $10,000.
The next day, reeling from the destruction, Jessica took friends back into the doomed forest. She was arrested again while walking through the trees and ferns. This second arrest put her in danger of being jailed for four years.
A few days later, along with several others, I was also arrested after going back to Lapoinya to make video clips, intended for public distribution, about the sheer bloody-mindedness of the government’s operation. I was standing in an adjacent forest reserve. A bulldozer had backed off and the screech of the chainsaws and roaring thud of the trees coming down was close and confronting.
The incongruity of laws stifling such a reasonable protest against the destruction of the public commons, in a democracy with a long history of advancement through peaceful protest, was compelling. This was underscored when, after our arrests, I received a number of messages from experienced legal experts from around Australia suggesting the laws breached the constitution’s implied right to freedom of political expression.
Guided by Hobart solicitor Roland Browne and joined as co-plaintiff by Jessica, I engaged Melbourne barrister Ron Merkel QC to challenge the constitutional validity of the Hodgman laws in the high court. A public appeal by my foundation raised more than $100,000 to affray the costs, especially in case we lost.
On Wednesday the high court ruled that those laws do infringe the freedom to peaceful protest inherent in the Australian constitution.
“It is necessary to keep firmly in mind that the implied freedom is essential to the maintenance of the system of representative and responsible government for which the Constitution provides. The implied freedom protects the free expression of political opinion, including peaceful protest, which is indispensable to the exercise of political sovereignty,” they said. by the people of the commonwealth. It operates as a limit on the exercise of legislative power to impede that freedom of expression.”
The Hodgman government had breached the limit of legislative power. Tasmania already had the usual array of laws to prevent dangerous or damaging behaviour. It also had a Forest Management Act which, besides guaranteeing the public its time-honoured access to the forests, empowers the police to arrest people who interfere with logging operations. The draconian new laws were not necessary for that purpose. They were designed to stymie effective environmental protests, like that at Lapoinya, which could draw public support and be politically embarrassing. The high court found the laws out, noting the deterrent effect on peaceful protest of their provisions: “The combined effect … can bring the protest of an entire group of persons to a halt and its effect will extend over time. Protesters will be deterred from returning to areas around forest operations for days and even months. During this time the operations about which they seek to protest will continue but their voices will not be heard.” It is for premier Hodgman, a lawyer, to say; but just as he did not see the unconstitutionality of these laws, so I doubt he was their origin.
It should be a warning to the other environmental wreckers.
We are in a world of gross, rapid and escalating environmental damage. Corporations profiting from exploiting non-renewable resources face growing public scrutiny and antipathy.
They cannot win the argument for wrecking ecosystems, so their alternative is to wreck environmentalists. Elsewhere in the world, scores of environmentalists are being killed each year by rampaging profiteers. But Australia is a peaceful democracy and the effective option is to lobby weak governments to clamp down on protests.
The high court’s decision does not directly affect laws in states or territories other than Tasmania. But it draws that line in the sand and will be a benchmark for more challenges if other governments pass laws to protect environmental destruction from peaceful public reaction. More widely, it bolsters that right for people standing up for any good cause.
There are growing calls for governments, already falling over themselves to grant concessions to the coral-killing Adani coalmine proposal in Queensland, to enact more draconian anti-protest laws than those already in place. The extreme right voices making those calls had better go read this judgment for democracy.
The Lapoinya forest was razed, but it has proved to be a pyrrhic victory for the destroyers. Out of the peaceful but heartfelt stand of the handful of people in Lapoinya has come a high court ruling upholding the right to peaceful protest for every Australian
Survey shows that Turnbull, Frydenberg and Abbott’s electorates back 50% renewables target
Turnbull, Frydenberg and Abbott’s electorates back 50% renewables target
ReachTel poll finds majority in three Liberal-held seats support carbon pricing, and more ambitious renewable policy, Guardian, Katharine Murphy, 22 Oct 17 Voters in the electorates held by Malcolm Turnbull, Josh Frydenberg and Tony Abbott would be more likely to support the government’s new energy policy if it ensured Australia had at least 50% renewable energy by 2030, according to a new opinion poll.
Federal parliament is due to resume on Monday for a week which could see the high court deliver its much anticipated verdict on the citizenship cases, and also see Queenslanders heading to a state poll.
The debate over energy policy will also continue throughout the week.
The Turnbull government last week unveiled its national energy guarantee, a policy that will impose reliability and emissions reduction obligations on energy retailers from 2020 if the states agree to an overhaul of the national electricity market rules.
The number for Kooyong, the energy minister’s seat, was 60.5% (sample size 911) and Abbott’s seat of Warringah was 55.7% (879 residents).
The poll suggests voters are not buying the government’s message that the proposed guarantee will lead to lower power prices. Voters were more inclined to believe prices would go up than decrease.
Appearing on the ABC on Sunday, Frydenberg stopped short of guaranteeing prices would come downunder his new energy policy, but he said was “absolutely confident” power prices would fall.
Last week the government was claiming wholesale prices would likely decline by 20% to 25% a year between 2020 and 2030 and residential bills would go down “in the order of” $100 to $115 per year over the same period as a consequence of the policy change.
But the government has also requested more detailed modelling work to put to state governments at a forthcoming meeting of the Council of Australian Governments…….
Ben Oquist, the executive director of the Australia Institute, said the latest poll demonstrated the community wanted to get on with the transition from coal to renewables.
“The key to effective energy and climate policy is as much about the ambition as the design of any scheme and these results show voters back a more ambitious program of emissions reduction,” he said.
Oquist said there was concern that the scheme would only deliver a renewable energy penetration of between 28-36%, which is less than what the chief scientist Alan Finkel modelled would happen without any government policy intervention.
He said the proposed emissions reduction target for electricity, which is 26% on 2005 levels by 2030, “is inadequate and will shift the burden to other sectors like agriculture”……https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/oct/22/turnbull-frydenberg-and-abbotts-electorates-back-50-renewables-target
Victoria’s Renewable Energy Target now becomes law
Victoria Renewable Energy Target written into law, without support of LNP, REneweconomy, By Sophie Vorrath on 23 October 2017 Victoria has become the first state in Australia to have its renewable energy target written into law, after the Labor Andrews government’s Renewable Energy (Jobs & Investment) Bill was passed by Parliament on Friday.
State energy minister Lily D’Ambrosio said on Friday the governments’ VRET of 25 per cent renewable energy by 2020, and 40 per cent by 2025, had passed the Legislative Council with 20 votes to 18, and despite not winning a single vote from the opposition Coalition party.
The “historic” vote comes amid growing confusion and concern about what the federal Coaltion’s National Energy Guarantee means for Australia’s energy sector, and particularly for the renewable energy industry, with no national renewable energy target in place beyond 2020, and the suggestion development could go backwards under the new plan, resulting in just 28-36 per cent renewables by 2030.
The state governments, in particular, have reacted with frustration to the NEG, which – as Giles Parkinson pointed out here on Friday – is a decision by the Turnbull government to essentially rely on the same state-based renewables targets it has so often derided as reckless.
All of Australia’s Labor states and territories have their own renewable energy targets, each of them more ambitious than the federal government’s goal of 20 per cent by 2020.
Queensland and the Northern Territory are aiming for 50 per cent by 2030; South Australia is already there but looking to add more; while the ACT has already signed contracts with wind and solar farms to take it to 100 per cent renewables by 2020.
Victoria’s own target, now legislated, is expected to cut the average cost of power for households by around $30 a year; $2,500 a year for medium businesses and $140,000 a year for large companies. It is also forecast to drive a 16 per cent reduction in the state’s electricity sector emissions by 2034-35, and create up to 11,000 jobs.
Despite these projected benefits, the state targets have been used regularly by the federal government as scapegoats for rising electricity prices and the closure of ageing coal plants – an irony that is not lost on the states, particularly considering the federal Coalition needs their approval for the NEG to be put into place, because it requires significant changes to the National Electricity Market rules…….http://reneweconomy.com.au/victoria-renewable-energy-target-written-law-without-support-lnp-31448/
Business South Australia – still a strident voice for the nuclear lobby
Nuclear fight isn’t over, vows Business SA, Business SA has vowed to continue the nuclear waste dump fight after the next election, with boss Nigel McBride slamming the state’s politicians for killing off the debate because of populist politics,In Daily, Tom Richardson, 19 October 17 .
The recommendation received majority support, with Labor, Liberal and Greens MPs backing it and the Australian Conservatives MLC dissenting.
Greens MLC Mark Parnell went further, pushing to reinstate laws that would prevent any Government consulting publicly on the merits of a nuclear waste storage.
But McBride today hit out at the political consensus, warning it set a dangerous precedent of shutting down mature debate on complex issues…….
He said the state had already spent at least $14 million of taxpayers’ money on the Royal Commission – let alone subsequent community consultations………
he reserved particular scorn for Weatherill’s bid to hasten the decision process through a series of citizens’ juries…….
McBride was among those who spoke at the jury sessions, and described the jurors as “intelligent, thoughtful, questioning, decent members of the public”……..
Despite being a long-time advocate for exploring nuclear waste storage in SA, McBride was among the first proponents to declare the plan “dead” after the state Liberals last year withdrew bipartisan support……..https://indaily.com.au/news/local/2017/10/19/nuclear-fight-isnt-vows-business-sa/
Collusion between politicians and scientists on dangers of nuclear radiation
The 1985 Royal Commission report into British Nuclear Tests in Australia discussed many of these issues, but never in relation to the proximity and timing of the 1956 Olympic Games. Sixty years later, are we seeing the same denial of known hazards six years after the reactor explosion at Fukushima?
Australia’s nuclear testing before the 1956 Olympics in Melbourne should be a red flag for Fukushima in 2020, https://theconversation.com/australias-nuclear-testing-before-the-1956-olympics-in-melbourne-should-be-a-red-flag-for-fukushima-in-2020-85787, The Conversation, Part time tutor in Medical Education, University of Dundee, 20 Oct 17, The scheduling of Tokyo 2020 Olympic events at Fukushima is being seen as a public relations exercise to dampen fears over continuing radioactivity from the reactor explosion that followed the massive earthquake six years ago.
It brings to mind the British atomic bomb tests in Australia that continued until a month before the opening of the 1956 Olympic Games in Melbourne – despite the known dangers of fallout travelling from the testing site at Maralinga to cities in the east. And it reminds us of the collusion between scientists and politicians – British and Australian – to cover up the flawed decision-making that led to continued testing until the eve of the Games.
Australia’s prime minister Robert Menzies agreed to atomic testing in December 1949. Ten months earlier, Melbourne had secured the 1956 Olympics even though the equestrian events would have to be held in Stockholm because of Australia’s strict horse quarantine regimes.
The equestrians were well out of it. Large areas of grazing land – and therefore the food supplies of major cities such as Melbourne – were covered with a light layer of radiation fallout from the six atomic bombs detonated by Britain during the six months prior to the November 1956 opening of the Games. Four of these were conducted in the eight weeks running up to the big event, 1,000 miles due west of Melbourne at Maralinga.
Bombs and games
In the 25 years I have been researching the British atomic tests in Australia, I have found only two mentions of the proximity of the Games to the atomic tests. Not even the Royal Commission into the tests in 1985 addressed the known hazards of radioactive fallout for the athletes and spectators or those who lived in the wide corridor of the radioactive plumes travelling east. Continue reading
Turnbull lies – calling coal a “dispatchable”power source
The new policy redefines coal as dispatchable, despite it having the opposite technological characteristics.
This is not an entirely new approach. Before the government 
decided to abandon the proposed Clean Energy Target it put a lot of effort into redefining coal as “clean”.
The government’s energy policy hinges on some tricky wordplay about coal’s role https://theconversation.com/the-governments-energy-policy-hinges-on-some-tricky-wordplay-about-coals-role-85843?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=twitterbutton, The Conversation, The most important thing to understand about the federal government’s new National Energy Guarantee is that it is designed not to produce a sustainable and reliable electricity supply system for the future, but to meet purely political objectives for the current term of parliament.
Those political objectives are: to provide a point of policy difference with the Labor Party; to meet the demands of the government’s backbench to provide support for coal-fired electricity; and to be seen to be acting to hold power prices down.
Meeting these objectives solves Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s immediate political problems. But it comes at the cost of producing a policy that can only produce further confusion and delay.
The government’s central problem is that, as well as being polluting, coal-fired power is not well suited to the problem of increasingly high peaks in power demand, combined with slow growth in total demand.
Coal-fired power plants are expensive to start up and shut down, and are therefore best suited to meeting “baseload demand” – that is, the base level of electricity demand that never goes away. Until recently, this characteristic of coal was pushed by the government as the main reason we needed to maintain coal-fired power.
The opposite of baseload power is “dispatchable” power, which can be turned on and off as needed.
Classic sources of dispatchable power include hydroelectricity and gas, while recent technological advances mean that large-scale battery storageis now also a feasible option. Continue reading
Queensland government to take over agricultural land for Adani coal mine rail line
Government resume land for Adani
A FARM group – partly backed by the Tim Flannery-led Climate Council – has hit out over the State Government resumption of agricultural land for the Adani rail line.
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/palaszczuk-government-resume-emerald-farmland-for-adani-rail-link/n
Townsville and Rockhampton councils could pay at least $31 million for Adani coalmine airstrip
Queensland councils to pay at least $31m for Adani coalmine airstrip
Townsville and Rockhampton councils may pay millions more if company’s bid to sew up deal with traditional owners fails, Guardian, Joshua Robertson, 20 Oct 17, Two local councils are paying $31m to build an airstrip for Adani’s Queenslandcoalmine – and could fork out millions more if the energy giant’s bid to sew up a deal with traditional owners hits a stumbling block.
Townsville and Rockhampton councils last week announced they would spend $15.5m each on the airport – hundreds of kilometres away – in a deal to secure Adani’s guarantee of 2,200 construction jobs for their residents.
And Townsville has agreed to pay up to $18.5m if the airport is shifted to a second location outside Wangan and Jagalingou land, where Adani’s right to build Australia’s largest coalmine is tied up in a drawn-out legal battle with a traditional owners group.
Rockhampton, which originally put up $20m for the airport in a bid to gain Adani’s guarantee, may also invest up to $18.5m but this has not been made clear.
Despite the Carmichael mine having broad support in both communities, there is some backlash to ratepayers providing infrastructure for a transnational corporation.
Councillors from both cities voted in favour of paying for the airport for Adani’s workforce in closed discussions of confidential reports, recorded in minutes that did not mention the company……….
Rockhampton councillors met on 26 September for a confidential discussion about “economic development opportunities” and an update from council’s general manager of “regional development and aviation”.
The minutes make no mention of Adani but note a confidential report contained information “for which a public discussion would be likely to prejudice the interests of the local government or someone else, or enable a person to gain a financial advantage”.
Councillors unanimously voted for their chief executive to “execute the terms sheets as discussed at the meeting” but did not put a figure on the cost to ratepayers.
Neither the Townsville mayor, Jenny Hill, nor the Rockhampton mayor, Margaret Strelow, responded to a request for comment. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/oct/20/adani-coalmine-queensland-councils-to-pay-at-least-31m-for-airstrip
1 This month.
PETITION – To: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the Australian Labor Government
Chernobyl: The Lost Tapes – A good documentary on Chernobyl on SBS available On Demand for the next 3 weeks– https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/tv-program/chernobyl-the-lost-tapes/235274195556
19 May – Webinar- Webinar: No Nuclear Weapons in Australia
Start: 2026-05-19 18:00:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
End: 2026-05-19 19:30:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
20 May – Webinar – The dangerous world of AUKUS, US, military occupation and suppression of dissent
National Webinar, 20th May, 2026, 6.30pm AEST. Confronting laws restricting/suppressing protest speech and action
Speakers: Former Sen. Rex Patrick, Lawyer Nick Hanna ,Arthur Rorris ,Jorgen Doyle, Sen David Shoebbridge,
Facilitator Kelley Tranter.
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 