“Nobel prize but PM has no time for peaceniks”, Dimity Hawkins and Tilman Ruff.The Australian, October 9, 2017, Sean ParnellMelbourne doctor Tilman Ruff might have helped initiate a global movement awarded the Nobel Peace Prize but that doesn’t mean he will be congratulated by the Australian Prime Minister.
Indeed, last night, about 48 hours after the announcement, Professor Ruff had still not received a call from Malcolm Turnbull nor anyone acting on his behalf.
“I’m a little disappointed that this is the first time that an organisation founded in Australia has been recognised with the highest global award in the world for peace and I would have hoped that would warrant some acknowledgments or congratulations,” Professor Ruff said.
“I haven’t had the phone calls, but I guess that’s the nature of the beast.”
The beast, on this occasion, is the nuclear bomb. Professor Ruff was one of the founders of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, awarded the Nobel prize as North Korean leader Kim Jong-un and US President Donald Trump all but threaten nuclear war.Continue reading →
The London outing is more strange and sad, and the strangeness and the sadness manifests itself on multiple fronts.
Let’s start with strange.
The bloke who hobnobbed with the climate sceptics at Global Warming Policy Foundation is the same bloke who took a decision as prime minister to sign Australia up to the Paris international climate agreement.
He’s also the same bloke who produced a set of initiatives in government which was badged as a policy to incentivise emissions reductions.
That policy still exists and it’s called Direct Action.
He’s also the same bloke who kept Australia’s renewable energy target, while abolishing the mechanism designed to give the market certainty to make future investments in baseload power generation.
Abbott has a whole lot of feelings, and some loyal media megaphones to help him spread his singular insights, but these are basic facts he can’t escape.
Abbott’s record in government points to him being a “warmist” (as Andrew Bolt is fond of characterising the modest band of weirdos who don’t think they know better than the world’s most eminent climate scientists).
London’s hardcore climate sceptics, frankly, should have laughed him out of the room.
Now let’s get to sad. Abbott’s climate frolic isn’t about a substantive issue. It’s about politics, because Australians haven’t had quite enough of politics, right?
Abbott wants to cause a ruckus. He wants to make enough ruckus to constrain Malcolm Turnbull from producing a sensible energy policy.
The country, the national interest, actually needs the major parties to come to terms and settle the climate wars which have generated the current problems we are all experiencing in the energy market, and settle them in sensible fashion.
But politicians behind in the polls like to win elections.
Put simply, Abbott’s pitch is an appeal to baser instincts – a pitch that prolonged polarisation serves the Coalition’s immediate interests.
The former prime minister has also positioned himself in the public domain as a critical player in Turnbull’s ultimate settlement of energy policy, when the truth is all the heavy lifting on the new policy is happening completely outside Abbott’s orbit.
The actual decision makers in the government are heads down bums up on the new investment framework, swerving around the many obstacles, trying to land something vaguely credible, which doesn’t blow up the Coalition.
That’s the objective. Whether the government can produce something credible, given one of the core objectives has to be not blowing up the Coalition, is at this point seriously moot.
Meanwhile, Abbott’s persistent wrecking tactics allow Labor to claim with a veneer of truth and credibility that the former prime minister is driving the government’s energy policy rather than Turnbull – elevating his status from fringe agitprop activist to centre-stage.
In politics that sort of caper is called frontrunning, but I struggle for a word to adequately characterise that behaviour.
Perhaps we can just keep it nice, and say cynical?
Australia blocks North Korean youth football team over nuclear program, http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017/10/10/australia-blocks-north-korean-youth-football-team-over-nuclear-program A youth football qualifying fixture is likely to be moved offshore after the government moved to stop the North Korean team from entering Australia. The federal government has prevented a North Korean youth football team from coming to Australia to play in a tournament, saying allowing them would be contrary to its opposition to the rogue nation’s nuclear program.
The North Korean U19 team was due to play in the Asian Football Confederation championship qualifiers in November, amongst a group consisting of Australia, Hong Kong, and the Northern Mariana Islands.
The North Korean team was due to play Australia on November 8 in Shepparton, Victoria. A Victorian Government spokesman said the fixture will now be moved to a “neutral venue”.
Foreign Minister Julie Bishop confirmed she stopped the group from arriving.
“The government has decided to not allow the North Korean U19 soccer team to enter Australia for the Asian Football Confederation U19 Championship Qualifiers,” Ms Bishop told SBS World News in a statement.
“Hosting the team would be contrary to the Government’s strong opposition to North Korea’s illegal nuclear and missile development programs.
“It would also be inconsistent with our efforts to increase diplomatic and economic pressure on Pyongyang to comply with UN Security Council resolutions.”
Football Federation Australia said it was disappointed that the qualifying fixtures would now be played elsewhere.
“Football Federation Australia is disappointed that qualifying fixtures for the Asian Football Confederation U-19 Championship … are now likely to be relocated outside Australia due to the Federal Government’s decision not to grant visas to the team from DPR Korea,” a spokesman told SBS World News.
“FFA respects the Australian Government’s responsibility to make decisions on visa applications.”
It’s understood the potential financial losses from the hosting rights would be minimal but the decision would cost the Australian youth team competitive advantage.
Earlier this year, Malaysia’s qualifying match against North Korea for the 2019 Asian Cup was postponed after the two countries were involved in a tiff over the assassination of the estranged half-brother of Pyongyang ruler Kim Jong-un.
Chief Scientist Alan Finkel makes last ditch plea for clean energy target, SMH, James Massola, Cole Latimer, 9 Oct 17 Australia’s Chief Scientist Alan Finkel has made a last-ditch plea to save the proposed clean energy target, even as the Turnbull government signalled it will reject the proposal by the end of the year.
South Australian premier Jay Weatherill responded on Monday to the apparent standstill, saying the states should “bypass the federal government and provide investment certainty for the electricity sector” by adopting their own target.
The Turnbull government asked Dr Finkel to review Australia’s electricity market to set a policy path that would ensure reliability in the electricity system while also providing clear policy settings to drive investment in generation – something the business community has been demanding.
But in the face of strong opposition from sections of the Coalition backbench to the clean energy target, the Turnbull government delayed any decision on the target while adopting the other 49 recommendations in the Finkel review.
Now, it appears all but certain the target is dead in the water. The expectation is that by the end of the year, an alternative policy proposal that will focus on energy affordability and reliability – and removes incentives for renewable energy – will be brought by Energy and Environment Minister Josh Frydenberg to the cabinet and party room for approval.
That proposal could be put forward as soon as next week, when Parliament returns, though government insiders said that was unlikely at this stage.
Speaking at the Australian Financial Review‘s energy summit on Monday, Dr Finkel said his proposal offered a mechanism to solve the energy crisis and was still needed, while arguing that going back to coal was not the answer as Australia was making the transition away from fossil fuel energy………
Abbott went for the whole canon of tired climate science denial talking points – carbon dioxide is just food for plants, the climate has always changed, it’s the sun –
Abbott’s speech was also chock-full of internal contradictions. He suggested a conspiracy to tamper with temperature readings, but admitted the globe was warming. He described carbon dioxide as a “trace gas” and dismissed its role in warming, but elsewhere thought warming (which might not be happening) would be good. And the “trace gas” is insignificant, but not when it comes to its ability to “green the planet” and help plants grow.
Tony Abbott titled his London speech on climate change “Daring to Doubt” – a challenge, if you will, to reject mountains of evidence and instead lick your fingers and shove them into the plug socket of denial.
But what would constitute bravery for a conservative politician like Abbott? Changing your mind when the evidence tells you you’re dead wrong, or saying what you’ve always said, using the logical fallacies that you’ve always used? One step is brave, the other is cowardly.
Nobody should be surprised that what we got was an absolute crap speech from a man who confessed he still thinks climate science is “absolute crap”. Continue reading →
Leader attacks connection between lobbyists and politicians, saying democratic rules are ‘rigged’ in the state, Guardian, Gareth Hutchens and Katharine Murphy, 7 Oct 17 The Greens say they will offer Queensland voters a chance to clean up politics at the looming state election, and send a clear message that they don’t want the controversial Adani mine to proceed.
The federal Greens leader, Richard di Natale, will launch their campaign on Saturday with a speech declaring the state has a democratic deficit because of lobbying and political connections, with “a revolving door between politicians, their staff and the companies that profit from government decisions”.
Di Natale will declare that “the rules in Queensland are rigged”.
The Greens leader will criticise the practice of political staff from the major parties going on to work as corporate lobbyists, and point out that Adani’s lobbyists in Queensland, Next Level Strategic Services, also “act for property developers, gambling firms and Broadspectrum – the company running Manus and Nauru detention centres”.
Federal leaders from all parties have been highly attentive to Queensland in recent months, preparing the ground for when the Labor premier, Annastacia Palaszczuk, fires the starting gun.
One Nation is likely to be the kingmaker, with neither Labor nor the LNP guaranteed to win the 47 seats required for power in the unicameral parliament.
The Greens will also be in fierce competition with Labor for inner Brisbane seats. The Adani project provides a major point of difference between the two parties, and one the Greens will run hard on, as they have done in Melbourne.
Di Natale on Saturday will zero in on Labor’s assistance for the project. “Despite Queensland Labor’s election promise not to give any public money to Adani, they ultimately were able to secure a loan from the Queensland government so Adani don’t have to pay coal royalties that would go towards vital public infrastructure, schools and hospitals.”
The Greens leader will say the company was assisted in securing support from the state government by lobbyists, who were in frequent contact with the state government in the lead up to the royalties decision.
“We still don’t know what is in this contract, because the Palaszczuk government refuses to release it,” the text of Di Natale’s speech says.
“But what we do know through Queensland’s lobbyist contact register is that Next Level lobbyists were in contact with the premier’s office and her chief of staff every single day in the lead-up to the royalties announcement.”
The Queensland lobbyists contact register shows Next Level had daily contact with senior members of the Queensland government from 25 May to 30 May, when the final decision was made.
“We also know that up until that point the premier had had only 10 appointments with lobbyists – six of them were with Adani’s handlers.”
Tony Abbott seems to be a very confused person. He certainly is not following the nuclear lobby script – “that nuclear fixes climate change” – hell – Tony doesn’t even believe that climate change, if it exists at all, matters!
He’s supposed to be a Liberal – I thought that Liberals didn’t believe in socialism – that is – governments taking over industries – but he wants to have government run coal power stations (or more correctly government run stranded assets?)
And, poor Tony – is under the illusion that he knows anything at all about science – and that his knowledge is better than that of researchers at Australian National University.
Tony Abbott says nuclear power should be part of Australia’s energy mix THE AUSTRALIAN GREG BROWN, Canberra @gregbrown_TheOz , 5 Oct 17Tony Abbott has called on the Turnbull government to change laws to allow for the construction of nuclear power plants.
The former prime minister said nuclear power should be part of Australia’s energy mix, as well as government-funded coal power plants.
“If we ever do need zero emissions baseload power the only reliable way of getting it is nuclear, currently nuclear is illegal under federal law, well that law should be changed,” Mr Abbott told 2GB radio on Wednesday.
Mr Abbott was critical of a government advertisement played during the AFL and NRL grand finals that mentioned the electricity system was in “transition”……
“If the private sector won’t build new coal fired power stations because of political risk, well then the government must……
“I think people are thoroughly sick of this kind of alarmism,” he said.
“I don’t think we should take this so-called research very seriously and the researcher in question just few months ago was saying that she didn’t think she could have a baby because that would exacerbate climate change.
Nuclear debate: Burrinjuck Dam a potential site, Yass Tribune,Louise Thrower and Toby Vue,
Rob Parker, who coordinates Nuclear for Climate Australia (NCA), argued politicians should not shy away from nuclear energy.
In southern NSW, NCA has identified Marulan, Burrinjuck and the Shoalhaven as three of 18 potential sites for nuclear reactors, envisaged to be constructed by 2040 and provide 140.9 terawatts of energy annually.
Mr Parker ran unsuccessfully as a Labor candidate for Goulburn in 2007 and as an independent in 2011. But he says his views are not political, other than to shatter notions………
Burrinjuck Dam cited for nuclear reactor
Mr Parker argued that nuclear energy needed to be 80 per cent of the mix due to climate change. He said the best locations were those near water, rail and the transmission grid.
“Yass has a high viability because of the dam. It also has a good grid connection and good geology,” he said.
NCA proposes that cooling in Burrinjuck would be a hybrid wet-dry process, with water being drawn from Burrinjuck Dam to a storage reservoir at the power station.
However, Ms Goward said “those of us who live here would recall the last serious drought, when the levels of the Burrinjuck Dam were dangerously low”.
“I do not believe the community nor this government would support the use of Burrinjuck Dam as part of a nuclear facility,” she said.
Mr Parker believed Mr Barilaro was raising the possibility of smaller modular reactors being developed across more sites, which did not involve significantly opening up the grid or a large water supply.
Rob Parker, who coordinates Nuclear for Climate Australia (NCA), argued politicians should not shy away from nuclear energy. In southern NSW NCA has identified Marulan, Yass and the Shoalhaven as three of 18 potential sites for nuclear reactors.
Mr Parker ran unsuccessfully as a Labor candidate for Goulburn in 2007 and as an independent in 2011. But he says his views have little to do with politics, other than to shatter notions.
He was speaking about the latest tit-for-tat between shadow State energy spokesman Adam Searle and Goulburn MP Pru Goward. Mr Searle last week said Deputy Premier John Barilaro should “come clean” about his social media post on Thursday.
“We could have them (small nuclear reactors) operating here in a decade – which is not long for the energy industry…,” it stated.
Mr Searle said it was the second time Mr Barilaro had raised the possibility of nuclear energy in the State, the first time being in May when he was “prepared to talk about it as an option.”
“He can’t just float an idea like this without being specific. He should be clear with the public on where he thinks the nuclear reactors should be. A pro- nuclear power group is on the record suggesting reactors should be in the Goulburn electorate – does Mr Barilaro agree?
“Our farmers’ clean and green reputation is known throughout the world but a nuclear industry in these areas would end all that.”
Mr Searle told The Post the technology was a “silly idea” given there were no apparent solutions for dumping nuclear waste and required a “huge amount” of water….
The consultant civil engineer [Parker] said one of the great problems with renewables supported by gas was that “they entrenched failure while giving the impression of achievement.” …….
Mr Parker argued that nuclear energy needed to be 80 per cent of the mix due to climate change.
The NCA has listed 18 possible nuclear reactor sites on its website, including Yass, Marulan and Shoalhaven which could be constructed by 2040 and provide 149 terrawatts of energy annually.
Mr Parker said he considered many locations but the best ones were those near water, rail and the transmission grid…….. He maintained the Snowy Mountains area could work given its plentiful water reservoirs. Yass was also close to the Burrinjuck storage.
Mr Parker believed Mr Barilaro was raising the possibility of smaller modular reactors being developed across more sites, which did not involve significantly opening up the grid or a large water supply.
He also maintained that nuclear was becoming more price competitive due to the combined effects of electricity generation at $105/MWh in 2018 and the likelihood of increased network costs.
He will address the Australian Nuclear Association conference in Sydney this weekend. He will argue nuclear energy will not only restore business confidence and energy price stability but increase Australia’s resilience in the face of increasing climate change.
IEEFA’s Tim Buckley told Four Corners a potential $1.5bn loss on any decision to walk away from the mine proposal explained why the Adani Group remained focused on securing Australian taxpayer support through a Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility loan
Adani needs Carmichael mine to stave off income crash, report says
The Indian mining giant faces plummeting revenue and risks losing the Abbot Point coal terminal, while new questions have arisen about its ownership structure, Guardian, Joshua Robertson, 3 Oct 17, Adani’s ambitions face a grave new risk in Australia, where its grip on its only operating asset, a Queensland coal port, is threatened by a crash in income unless its contentious Carmichael mine becomes a reality, a new report says.
Adani must refinance more than $2bn in debt on the Abbot Point coal terminal – more than it paid for the port in 2011 – despite earning $1.2bn in revenue and paying virtually no tax in Australia since, according to the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis.
And Adani must gain fresh lender backing at a time when the port faces plummeting revenue that only its $5bn mine proposal, itself yet to secure finance, can make up for, the analysis says.
IEEFA’s analysis was included in an ABC Four Corners program on Adani on Monday that also featured a former Indian environment minister saying he was “appalled” by Australia’s approval of the mine.
Jairam Ramesh told the program Adani’s environmental history in India “leaves a lot to be desired” and questioned whether the Australian and Queensland governments had properly considered this or its financial conduct, including allegations of large-scale fraud.
“There’s no reason for me to believe that Adani would be a responsible environmental player globally,” he said.
The IEEFA report found new links between Adani’s Australian corporate structures and a Caribbean tax haven, the port in particular having a “complex and opaque ownership structure [that] appears well-suited to minimising tax”.
It was previously thought that local companies relating to Abbot Point and a proposed rail link with the Carmichael mine – for which Adani is seeking a concessional loan of up to $900m from Australian taxpayers – were owned by an Adani family company in the Cayman Islands, Atulya Resources Limited.
But Singapore corporate filings show Atulya is owned by another Adani family company in the British Virgin Islands, ARFT Holding Ltd.
And two trusts related to the Carmichael rail project are potentially held by another BVI-registered company called Carmichael Rail Australia Ltd, according to the IEEFA analysis. One of the trusts holds a $2/tonne royalty deed that would net the Adani family income from the Carmichael mine, which is expected to yield up to 60m tonnes a year.
Contracts that force Abbot Point’s coalmining customers to pay for using the port’s full capacity have begun to expire, with the port actually running at just over half its capacity as the bullish predictions of a coal boom gave way to a downturn.
To refinance the port, Adani needed to “convince financiers that [Abbot Point] will be fully utilised into the future” with its own Carmichael mine the only candidate to pick up this looming shortfall of about 25 million tonnes a year, IEEFA said.
The port thus ran “the risk of becoming a stranded asset” if the Carmichael mine, itself a $5bn greenfield project that represented a “high-risk gamble”, did not secure financial backing overseas, it said.
Major members of the MCA are majority foreign-owned (BHP and Rio 70 per cent plus) and Glencore and Peabody owned in Switzerland and the US respectively. Therefore this is an organisation which effectively represents overseas interests.
The Minerals Council, coal and the half a billion spent by the resources lobbyby Michael West | Oct 2, 2017There is no peak body in the country which conducts its business as belligerently, and its proponents would say as successfully, as the Minerals Council of Australia (MCA).
Flush with funding thanks to the contributions of its multinational mining company members such as BHP, Rio and Swiss-owned coal giant Glencore, the miners’ peak body can raise a campaign warchest at a moment’s notice. And it is uncompromising, often venomous, in its rhetoric.
Meanwhile, Rio Tinto booked a net profit of $6 billion profit for 2016, while BHP handed down a first-half profit of $4.2 billion.
An investigation of the financial statements of the MCA shows the not-for-profit association has booked revenues of more than $200 million over the past 11 years. Revenues peaked at $35 million, $32 million and $37 million in 2010, 2011 and 2012 when the group was busy fighting the mining tax, the carbon tax and the Renewable Energy Target.
Doesn’t this tie in nicely with the push by American nuclear weapons firms like Lockheed Martin to sell military and space technology to Australia?
Australia must prepare for nuclear war with North Korea, former Pentagon official warns, Yahoo News, Australia has no choice but to prepare for a missile attack from North Korea, a former Pentagon nuclear weapons official warns.
Brad Roberts served as US deputy assistant secretary of defence for nuclear and missile defence policy is warning a weapon fired from North Korea could strike the country.
“Unfortunately, Australia doesn’t really get to choose whether or not North Korea threatens it — it’s the choice that the North Korean leader [Kim Jong-un] makes,” he told the ABC.
“His objective is to make us fearful so that our leaders will not stand up to his threats and coercion.” The former Obama administration defence official also said that warships should be fitted with proper while pointing out that Australia’s radar defences were rather sparse.
Nationals Interest: Larry Anthony, the party president who runs a lobbying firm, The Age, Patrick Begley, Mario Christodoulou, 30 Sept 17,
A lobbying firm run by National Party president Larry Anthony is pushing the interests of energy firms as the Coalition grapples with looming gas shortfalls and bitter infighting over renewable energy policy.
Santos and Delta Electricity this year joined the client list of SAS Consulting Group, the government relations firm founded and co-owned by its executive director, Mr Anthony.
“Through our extensive networks we create powerful, purposeful connections for businesses and organisations,” the SAS Group website says.
The first line of Mr Anthony’s SAS Group biography refers to his presidency of the Nationals, “one half of the ruling Coalition government”.
A leading expert on lobbying said the party president’s absence from the public register of lobbyists “so undermines the intent of the lobbyist code of conduct as to make it nearly useless”………
After a federal conference debate moderated by Mr Joyce and Mr Anthony this month, the Nationals passed a motion urging the government to freeze and then phase out renewable energy subsidies…….
When he became party president in 2015, Mr Anthony was criticised for lobbying for the Shenhua Watermark mining project. At the time, he said he had removed himself from lobbyist registers and had no conflict of interest.
“We do a lot of things aside from government relations – media, communications, stakeholder relations, et cetera,” he said. “But executive director? Yes, I might have to come off that.”
The SAS Group website has promoted the fact Mr Anthony attended the Liberal National Party’s Queensland convention in July. Asked whether his party presidency helped to attract clients, Mr Anthony said: “I don’t know about that, but my name is synonymous with the National Party.”
His father, Doug, served as party leader from 1971 to 1984 and his grandfather, Larry snr, was a Country Party minister…….
The lobbyist code of conduct prohibits lobbyists from being a member of a party executive. It also requires anyone who lobbies or employs lobbyists to register on a public database.
University of Melbourne politics lecturer George Rennie said even if Mr Anthony had not technically breached the code, his failure to appear as a registered lobbyist “so undermines the intent of the code, as to make it nearly useless”.
“Being a part-owner and director of a lobbying firm, while concurrently serving as president of the National Party, creates a clear conflict of interest,” Mr Rennie said……..
The Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, which administers the lobbyist register, did not respond to specific questions about Mr Anthony but said in general it would investigate evidence or allegations of code breaches.
This follows musing by Deputy Premier and Nationals Leader, John Barilaro, that nuclear reactors could be operating in NSW within 10 years. Mr Barilaro said on social media: “We could have them (small nuclear reactors) operating here in a decade – which is not long for the energy industry…”
Opposition Energy spokesman Adam Searle said it was the second time this year Mr Barilaro had raised the possibility of nuclear energy for the State.
In May, Mr Barilaro said he was “prepared to talk about nuclear as an option”. One pro-nuclear power group, Nuclear for Climate Australia, has identified 12 regions of NSW as possible sites for nuclear reactors – including on the North Coast.
“A pro-nuclear power group is on the record suggesting reactors should be on the North Coast – does Mr Barilaro agree?” Mr Searle said.
“He should be clear with the public on where he thinks the nuclear reactors should be.
“Our farmers’ clean and green reputation is known throughout the world but a nuclear industry in these areas would end all that.”
Chief Scientist L Read is publicly advocating for illegal nuclear waste imports – Premier Jay please sack
“Why would South Australians want to become further involved in this industry when there are much safer alternatives available for people, the environment, country, culture and the economy?”
Kaurna ask the Scarn (South Auustralia Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission) to justify the illegal immoral plotting which is being paid for by our tax dollars at the rate of a million dollars per month … a simple question which exposes the wasteful stupidity of the Scarn and the evil of radioactive poisons.
Antinuclear 