Northern Australia Infrastructure Fund set up to funnel billions to Adani, Independent Australia Mark Zanker 15 July 2017, The NAIF was set up to allow the Coalition Government to pump billions of dollars of public money into Adani’s Galilee Basin coal mine and other coal mining projects, writes former public servant Mark Zanker.
THE Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility(NAIF) was set up ostensibly is to fund the states and territories to carry out infrastructure works to assist economic growth and increased population in northern Australia. However, a close look at the bill, and the people and circumstances surrounding it, suggests that it is, in fact, a tiny fig leaf behind which the Federal Government seeks to hide its desire to shovel billions of dollars of taxpayers money into Adani’s Galilee Basin coal mine project.
The legislation precludes the appointment to the board of representatives of traditional owners, pastoralists, scientists, environmentalists, the tourism industry, and historians. These groups also have significant expertise in northern Australia — pastoral, cultural, spiritual, historical and scientific. Pastoralism, aquaculture, tourism, including conventional, cultural and ecological tourism, are very important industries in northern Australia, but none of them have a seat at the table here.
With the possible exception of Innisfail Mayor Bill Shannon, the board members of the NAIFall have strong links to the mining industry. Chair Sharon Warburton was a board member of Gina Rinehart’s Fortescue Metals Group, and previously worked at Rio Tinto and other resources companies. Continue reading →
July 15, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, climate change - global warming, politics |
Leave a comment
Zibelman is not on board the coal-power train with former Prime Minister Tony Abbott, Nationals leader Barnaby Joyce and Jones.
Views such as Jones’s are alien to virtually anyone who works in – or closely observes – the energy industry.
Energy executives are impressed. “I was quite buoyed by Audrey’s approach on demand response,” said Steven Neave, head of electricity networks for Powercor and Citipower, the largest Victorian distributor, who attended the CEDA lunch.
Zibelman said while the CET and consistent national policy would be useful for energy companies – because it would make their investment decisions easier – it wouldn’t make much difference to AEMO’s actions because the shift to renewables is happening and they have to deal with it.
How has she done this? In one word, “energy”.
Energy policy has become one of the most polarising issues in the country. Electricity and gas prices are soaring, blackouts and shortages plagued South Australia, NSW and Victoria last spring and summer, and debates about whether wind and solar power are to blame – even whether they can “kill people” – have hit fever pitch.
Zibelman landed in this cauldron in March, fresh from New York, to run the Australian Energy Market Operator – one of three agencies responsible for delivering stable, secure and affordable energy markets.
She is a cleanskin in the local energy debate but is hugely experienced, most recently as chair of the New York state utilities regulator–- responsible for implementing New York’s pro-wind and solar “Reforming the Energy Vision” plan – under Democratic governor Andrew Cuomo. Before that she was chief operating officer of PJM, a huge utility company covering 13 north-eastern states and Washington DC. Continue reading →
July 15, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, energy, politics |
Leave a comment
Josh Frydenberg warns states against going it 
alone on clean energy target, The Age, Adam Gartrell, 14 July 17 The Turnbull government has warned the states their threat to “go it alone” on a clean energy target will only create chaos and inefficiency in the nation’s electricity system.
Energy ministers will clash on Friday as the states seek to pressure the Turnbull government to decide whether it will adopt a clean energy target – the key recommendation of Chief Scientist Alan Finkel’s review of Australia’s energy security – despite ongoing internal divisions over the policy proposal.
Led by South Australian Treasurer Tom Koutsantonis, the Labor states on Thursday threatened to bypass the federal government altogether. Without swift progress on Friday they would ask the Australian Energy Market Commission to model how a state-based target would work, Mr Koutsantonis said.
“The time to act is now – Australian households and businesses cannot be held hostage by the impotence of the federal Liberal government,” he said.
But federal Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg cautioned against the move, urging patience from the states…..
The renewed debate over Finkel came as a Liberal backbencher came under heavy fire for suggesting “people will die” as a result of renewable energy subsidies……http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/josh-frydenberg-warns-states-against-going-it-alone-on-clean-energy-target-20170713-gxafok.html
July 14, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, climate change - global warming, energy, politics |
Leave a comment
What Elon Musk’s investment tells us about our energy crisis, The Age, Perry Williams and Jason Scott JULY 14 2017 – Elon Musk’s intervention in Australia’s energy crisis is widening a divide over the future of coal.
The billionaire Tesla founder, who’s promised to help solve South Australia’s clean energy obstacles, sees no place for the fossil fuel. That conflicts with the federal government’s push for it remaining a mainstay source of electricity generation, as well as the “clean, beautiful coal” technologies that US President Donald Trump sees helping to save American mining jobs.
“Coal doesn’t have a long-term future,” Musk told reporters in Adelaide last week during a short trip to Australia. “The writing’s on the wall.” His declaration in energy-strapped South Australia, where the 46-year-old entrepreneur announced plans to build the world’s biggest battery to support the state’s blackout-plagued power grid, has rankled politicians.
Energy minister Josh Frydenberg, 45, accused the state of tapping a celebrity to paper over its patchy clean energy record. Tesla’s battery plan “is a lot of sizzle for very little sausage”, Frydenberg, a member of the conservative Liberal-led federal government, said on Monday. Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce, 50, said Musk’s plan “doesn’t make a hell of a lot of difference” to the nation’s struggles over energy security.
Most of Australia’s states and territories – free to determine their own energy and climate policies independent of the national government – beg to differ. Just hours after Musk’s announcement, the neighbouring state of Victoria closed the door on new coal-fired power stations, saying energy companies would rather invest in renewables.
Adani project
Queensland, where India’s Adani Group is planning to develop the $16.5 billion Carmichael coal mine, expects a move to clean energy will completely wipe out its carbon emissions by 2050.
Energy policy is a fraught subject with a push by the majority of Australians for more renewable power sources from the Australian majority is clashing with the government’s political imperative to keep a lid on soaring power prices. Currently, some 76 per cent of Australia’s electricity is drawn from coal-fired power stations which, while a cheap supply source, are at odds with a commitment to lower climate emissions……
The economics of building new coal plants don’t stack up and increasingly renewables will dominate base-load power, AGL chairman Jeremy Maycock said last week. Australians overwhelmingly want the government to focus on clean energy, according to a June poll by the Sydney-based Lowy Institute.
‘Highly improbable’
“It’s highly improbable that AGL will be constructing new coal-fired power stations because we don’t think the economics are likely to favour that,” Maycock said in a phone interview. “As the largest generator, we want to play our fair share in the country’s emissions reduction targets.”
For Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, banging the drum on coal is proving a treacherous task…….
the existing and perceived political and environmental costs attached to coal are deterring lenders.
“The high risk and cost associated with new coal plants make investors and financiers run a million miles from it in Australia,” said Ali Asghar, an analyst with Bloomberg New Energy Finance in Sydney. “The only way new coal could get built is if the government funds it and indemnifies any private entity against all future carbon risks.”
And doing so makes little sense, given that the cost of building cleaner, so-called high-efficiency, low-emission coal plants in Australia exceeds that of new projects relying on solar, wind, or gas, Asghar said.
“As solar and wind become cheaper and continue to undermine the economics of operating coal, investment in new coal plants become an even riskier proposition.” http://www.theage.com.au/business/energy/what-elon-musks-investment-tells-us-about-our-energy-crisis-20170714-gxb3i7.html
July 14, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, energy, politics, South Australia, Victoria |
Leave a comment
Stop trying to save the planet, Matthew Canavan tells Queensland government
Federal minister attracts ridicule after he says state should ‘concentrate on saving jobs today’ instead of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to zero by 2050, Guardian, Michael Slezak, 13 July 17,[article includes many tweets as examples] The federal resources minister, Matthew Canavan, has attracted a slew of criticism after attacking the Queensland government for trying to “save the planet in 2050”.
On Tuesday, Queensland announced it would aim to reduce net greenhouse gas emissions to zero by 2050. The announcement was far from radical, with identical pledges already made by the Coalition-led New South Wales government, as well as Labor-led Victoria, South Australia and the Australian Capital Territory.
But the move attracted the ire of Queensland-based Canavan, who tweeted: “Instead of trying to save the planet in 2050 the QLD labor should just concentrate on saving jobs today!”…….
it was unclear to many on Twitter why taking action on climate change and growing employment today would be seen as mutually exclusive aims.
Although Queensland’s announcement was unlikely to have much impact on Adani’s plans to build Australia’s biggest coalmine in the state, many people pointed out that coalmining produced relatively few jobs compared with those threatened by climate change.
Craig Kelly, the Liberal MP who chairs the Coalition’s backbench energy committee, was also criticised after he claimed renewable energy would lead to people dying of cold because it was pushing up energy prices.https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/jul/13/stop-trying-to-save-the-planet-matthew-canavan-tells-queensland-government
July 14, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics |
Leave a comment
US anti-missile system THAAD ‘not really suitable’ for Australia http://www.afr.com/news/world/us-antimissile-system-thaad-not-really-suitable-for-australia-20170707-gx781e, 8 Jul 17 Australia is developing defences against missile attack but the US THAAD anti- missile system is “not really suitable” for Australia, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull says.
When asked about a possible Australian missile defence system against such threats as a North Korean intercontinental ballistic missile, Mr Turnbull said the Australian focus was on protecting deployed forces in the field.
Speaking to reporters in Hamburg, where he’s attending the G20 summit, the prime minister said the answer to the Korean threat was the denuclearisation of North Korea.
“We are developing missile defences … but the focus is on protecting our deployed forces in the field.”
The question to Mr Turnbull was prompted by comments from former prime minister Kevin Rudd that Australia should consider deploying a missile defence system to defend against attack from a nuclear-armed North Korea. The latest North Korean missile tests have raised fears the regime’s weapons could reach parts of the US and northern Australia. Mr Rudd said that given north Korean developments, “Australia would be well advised to begin analysing ballistic missile defence needs, available technologies and possible deployment feasibility to northern Australia”.
Mr Turnbull said that in terms of a missile defence shield for Australia there had been talk of the THAAD system. “That’s not really suitable for our situation but I can assure you we are constantly examining how we can ensure that Australians are safe.”
The THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defence) system is a US Army anti- ballistic missile defence system. “I do want to stress this, the answer in respect of North Korea is the denuclearisation of North Korea and for it to stop its reckless and provocative conduct,” Mr Turnbull said. He said the nation overwhelmingly with the greater leverage over North Korea was
China.
July 8, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics, weapons and war |
Leave a comment
Greenhouse gas pollution up, data released after FOI struggle reveal, SMH, Lucy Cormack, 8 Jul 17, The federal government has answered calls to release greenhouse gas pollution data it had been sitting on since last year.
Energy and Environment Minister Josh Frydenberg released the quarterly updates on Friday, less than 24 hours after a Fairfax Media exclusive revealed documents confirming the department had failed to release data for the two quarters leading up to the end of 2016.
The federal government has answered calls to release greenhouse gas pollution data it had been sitting on since last year.
Energy and Environment Minister Josh Frydenberg released the quarterly updates on Friday, less than 24 hours after a Fairfax Media exclusive revealed documents confirming the department had failed to release data for the two quarters leading up to the end of 2016……The whereabouts of last year’s pollution data was confirmed by documents obtained under freedom of information laws by the Australian Conservation Foundation, extracts of which were published by Fairfax Media on Thursday. http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/greenhouse-gas-pollution-up-data-released-after-foi-struggle-reveal-20170707-gx6qy8.html
July 8, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics |
Leave a comment
FOI documents confirm government holding almost one year’s worth of pollution data, Brisbane Times, Lucy Cormack 7 July 17 The federal government has been keeping almost a year’s worth of pollution data secret, despite it being scheduled for release in May, documents obtained under freedom of information laws reveal.
Independent estimates suggest Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions have risen sharply since the government last released its quarterly data in December – a trend that would make the nation’s commitment to cutting emissions more disruptive and expensive.
Quarterly updates by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventory, described as “up-to-date information on emissions trends for business, policymakers and the public”, have been released 28 times since 2009, but not since last year.
Documents obtained under FOI by the Australian Conservation Foundation reveal that while the government possesses data on greenhouse pollution for the two quarters leading up to the end of last year, it has failed to release them……..http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/foi-documents-confirm-government-holding-almost-one-years-worth-of-pollution-data-20170706-gx5um3.html
July 8, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics, secrets and lies |
Leave a comment
How the far Right have hijacked Australia’s energy policy, REneweconomy,
By Giles Parkinson on 5 July 2017 If you ever wondered just how comprehensively the Far Right has hijacked the Coalition’s energy policy, it’s worth reading the speech by
NSW energy minister Don Harwin we reported on last week. It’s a speech that might once have been made by prime minister Malcolm Turnbull – and in fact large parts of it, particularly the focus on energy efficiency and demand management, are exactly the sort of things Turnbull did talk about.
That was, however, before he was prime minister and became master of all he surveyed, apart from his own climate and energy policies. The thrust of Harwin’s speech was this: the era of baseload coal is coming to an end, fossil fuel plants are not a guarantee of reliability, wind and solar offer the cheapest forms of new generation, we need to look at storage, and we must not lose sight of the long-term climate targets.
Turnbull is not allowed to say any of these things, for fear of upsetting the Far Right. The sight of the craven apology offered by front bencher and government whip Christopher Pyne last weekend for daring to suggest that the moderates had some influence over policy matters was testimony to that.
The thrust of Harwin’s speech was this: the era of baseload coal is coming to an end, fossil fuel plants are not a guarantee of reliability, wind and solar offer the cheapest forms of new generation, we need to look at storage, and we must not lose sight of the long-term climate targets. Turnbull is not allowed to say any of these things, for fear of upsetting the Far Right. The sight of the craven apology offered by front bencher and government whip Christopher Pyne last weekend for daring to suggest that the moderates had some influence over policy matters was testimony to that.
And so too have been the efforts of federal energy minister Josh Frydenberg to placate the Far Right by suggesting that each individual new wind and solar farm should carry an equal amount of storage for its rated capacity – megawatt-hour per megawatt – effectively trying to turn the new technology into the same monoliths that exist now in the current energy market model which is clearly past its use by date.
Frydenberg said this to the party room and then repeated it when addressing an energy conference in Melbourne a week later. He made clear it was not about energy security, but “levelling the playing field” between lower cost renewable and expensive and polluting coal.
It’s a classic case of overkill – of politics over policy, and of ideology over technology.
It is true that the Far Right in Australia have not had the same powers as their colleagues now have in the US, where climate science, environmental protections, renewable policies, and emission controls are being systematically trashed and dismantled by the Trump administration.
But they have given it a good shot. While in power, the Abbott government abolished the carbon price, slashed the renewable energy target and other institutions. Since losing power, they have still succeeded in freezing their policy, or politics, in time.
And so too have been the efforts of federal energy minister Josh Frydenberg to placate the Far Right by suggesting that each individual new wind and solar farm should carry an equal amount of storage for its rated capacity – megawatt-hour per megawatt – effectively trying to turn the new technology into the same monoliths that exist now in the current energy market model which is clearly past its use by date. Frydenberg said this to the party room and then repeated it when addressing an energy conference in Melbourne a week later. He made clear it was not about energy security, but “levelling the playing field” between lower cost renewable and expensive and polluting coal. It’s a classic case of overkill – of politics over policy, and of ideology over technology. It is true that the Far Right in Australia have not had the same powers as their colleagues now have in the US, where climate science, environmental protections, renewable policies, and emission controls are being systematically trashed and dismantled by the Trump administration. But they have given it a good shot. While in power, the Abbott government abolished the carbon price, slashed the renewable energy target and other institutions. Since losing power, they have still succeeded in freezing their policy, or politics, in time.
The whole debate around the potentially ground-breaking Finkel Review boiled down to whether it was good for coal generators or not.
The climate science was discarded, and then the fossil fuel industry and the conservatives began to question the very idea that wind and solar were cheaper than new coal. Fake news made front page headlines in the Murdoch media as the incumbents fought back.
Harwin’s speech puts a nonsense to this, and highlights the fact that to be a member of a conservative government does not necessarily equate to the need to deny basic facts.
It is worth repeating Harwin’s major themes, because like the $565 million investment in Nectar Farms, the creation of 1,300 jobs and the shift of one of Australia’s biggest vegetable growing operations to 100 per cent renewables, it did not get a single mention in the mainstream media.
It seems there are some things MsM doesn’t want you to know. (Although we should belatedly note that the Guardian did finally write a story on the Harwin speech on Tuesday, nearly a week after it was delivered).
The whole debate around the potentially ground-breaking Finkel Review boiled down to whether it was good for coal generators or not. The climate science was discarded, and then the fossil fuel industry and the conservatives began to question the very idea that wind and solar were cheaper than new coal. Fake news made front page headlines in the Murdoch media as the incumbents fought back. Harwin’s speech puts a nonsense to this, and highlights the fact that to be a member of a conservative government does not necessarily equate to the need to deny basic facts. It is worth repeating Harwin’s major themes, because like the $565 million investment in Nectar Farms, the creation of 1,300 jobs and the shift of one of Australia’s biggest vegetable growing operations to 100 per cent renewables, it did not get a single mention in the mainstream media. It seems there are some things MsM doesn’t want you to know. (Although we should belatedly note that the Guardian did finally write a story on the Harwin speech on Tuesday, nearly a week after it was delivered).
The major themes of the speech were in direct opposition to the positions and beliefs held by the Far Right. Continue reading →
July 7, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics |
Leave a comment
Idea of an Australian nuclear submarine fleet just won’t float, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/idea-of-an-australian-nuclear-submarine-fleet-just-wont-float/news-story/dd5123c0be52dffb4ec161dd2789be3c, 29 June 17 “…..Abbott’s proposal is also completely unrealistic and, if it gains any traction, can serve only to inject yet new delay into the already insanely slow process of our acquiring new subs.
……..Nuclear-powered subs are vastly more formidable than conventionally powered subs. As Julia Gillard was occasionally wont to point out, submarines are so important in modern warfare partly because they are an asymmetrical weapon.
They can do enormous damage and they require enormous effort from an adversary to detect and destroy. The key to their lethality and their asymmetry is their stealth. You never quite know where the buggers are. Because nuclear subs have an almost infinitely greater submerged range than conventional subs, not to mention being able to carry a much greater payload, they pose a much bigger threat.
………With characteristic and refreshing directness, Abbott tells us what a sub’s main role is: “To inflict massive damage on an enemy’s ability to wage war.”
……. Abbott established definitively that, starting from a position of great strength, he could not sustain a project to buy subs that were built overseas. Now that Adelaide has been solemnly promised, by both sides of politics, that our new subs will be built there, what possible basis is there for imagining that any government could break this promise and survive? Nuclear subs could not be built in Adelaide.
……Even if magically we did make a national commitment to nuclear subs tomorrow, it would take 10 to 20 years for us to acquire the expertise and build the infrastructure, if the Americans would agree to supplying it at all, another initial hurdle that would take years to jump. If we did ever go down the nuclear sub road, it would involve very heavy reliance on the US for an extended period.
……Those in the Coalition who think a leadership change would save them are mistaken, just as the past leadership change did not save them. The Liberals need to rediscover their direction and their leader needs to reunite them. …. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/idea-of-an-australian-nuclear-submarine-fleet-just-wont-float/news-story/dd5123c0be52dffb4ec161dd2789be3c
July 1, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics, weapons and war |
Leave a comment
Tony Abbott rebuked by Marise Payne over criticism on nuclear submarine rejection, ABC News, 30 June 17 By political correspondent Louise Yaxley One of Tony Abbott’s Coalition colleagues has warned the former prime minister he is damaging his credibility with recent speeches and interviews.
Mr Abbott wants the Government to consider nuclear-powered submarines, and criticised the capability of the subs that have been chosen.
Defence Minister Marise Payne has rebuked him, pointing out the list of problems preventing Australia choosing nuclear-propelled boats.
“We don’t have a civil nuclear industry, we don’t have the personnel or the experience or infrastructure, we don’t have the training facilities or regulatory systems that you would need to design to operate to construct a fleet of nuclear-powered submarines,” Senator Payne said.
And she reinforced Mr Abbott was prime minister when the process to choose new submarines started.
“What we are in fact doing is delivering the plan to acquire the plan that was set out and agreed by Tony Abbott and his team in 2015,” Senator Payne said……http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-30/tony-abbott-urged-to-wind-back-nuclear-submarine-comments/8665972
July 1, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics |
Leave a comment
From ENuFF South Australia Australia 20 June 2017, The hidden agenda becomes less opaque….. Coupled to the recent GenIV treaty endorsement, the proposed dumps will be used as additional justification for developing a commercial reactor industry “…. see, we have already resolved the ‘back end’ problem… “.
Since when have the Liberals’ been interested in Government having commercial money making enterprises? Never. We are witnessing the global military industrial wedge being hammered home…
In the Senate, Arthur Sinodinos tabled the ‘AUSTRALIAN NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ORGANISATION AMENDMENT BILL 2017′
“…. includes the use of ANSTO’ s property to bring together start-ups, high-tech industry … it will allow ANSTO to leverage its facilities to generate additional capability and increase opportunities for ANSTO to generate commercial revenues…” https://www.facebook.com/sanuclearfree/posts/1693731754265029
June 28, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics, secrets and lies |
Leave a comment
Australia should embrace nuclear subs: Abbott http://www.skynews.com.au/news/politics/federal/2017/06/27/australia-should-embrace-nuclear-subs–abbott.html, 27 June 2017 Tony Abbott will deliver a speech on Thursday calling for Australia to embrace nuclear powered submarines
Mr Abbott has previously expressed his ‘regret’ at not considering off-the-shelf nuclear propelled subs while he was prime minister. The former PM will raise his concerns that Australia will not have replacement subs until the 2030s during his address.
The Turnbull Government awarded the contract for designing Australia’s new submarine fleet to French shipbuilder DCNS
Australia would have to buy the nuclear power from the US or Japan to power the submarines if the Navy bought nuclear submarines.
Businessman Dick Smith, Gary Johnston of Jaycar Electronics and John Singleton have previously taken out full page ads urging for the government to purchase for nuclear power submarines.
June 28, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics |
Leave a comment
Final chapter in Adani loan deal, Karen Middleton , Saturday Paper, 24 June 17, While the dealings of the government’s Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility remain shrouded in secrecy, pressure mounts over funding for the Adani rail line. “…….Among those addressing the annual Developing Northern Australia conference, held this year in Cairns, was Sharon Warburton, the chairwoman of the somewhat opaque Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, known as the NAIF.
The NAIF is a $5 billion-government-owned lender, set up to make concessionary loans to companies planning infrastructure projects in northern Australia that are of demonstrated public benefit and would not otherwise be able to proceed…..
The NAIF has not yet lent any money. But Warburton is hinting that it’s close to a decision on at least one application, the one that’s attracted the most controversy and has become an open secret: the request from Indian mining conglomerate Adani for $1 billion to fund a railway line to support its proposed Carmichael coalmine in Queensland’s Galilee Basin.
“We know there is a lot of interest in NAIF and the Adani rail project,” Warburton told the conference on Monday. “I can confirm we are in our due diligence phase on that project.”
That translates as the final stage of assessment, with three other applications apparently also reaching finality. But, Warburton said, she could not say any more about Adani than that…..
Greens senator Larissa Waters said clean coal was “a lie”.
“This is straight from the big tobacco playbook,” Waters said. “Remember ‘light’ cigarettes? To meet the commitment under the Paris Agreement to keep global warming to safe levels, we need to reach zero pollution in the electricity sector transitioning away from coal. Building more coal-fired power stations is simply incompatible with the science.”
Environmental activists continue to mount a strenuous campaign against any kind of coal-fired power and the Adani mine development in particular, on the grounds that it represents an investment in a backwards-looking energy source that will add to Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions and damage the Great Barrier Reef…….
The company has sent mixed messages on whether it needs the NAIF loan to proceed, initially saying it wasn’t essential and then saying it was, a distinction crucial to NAIF’s considerations.
Details of any NAIF decision will only be published after it has been finalised and within 30 days of being taken.
Larissa Waters and Labor senator Murray Watt succeeded last week in establishing a senate inquiry into the NAIF, and Waters is pushing to have Adani called before it.
In recent senate budget estimates committee hearings, Labor and the Greens attempted to extract information on the status of the NAIF’s deliberations in general and the fate of Adani’s bid in particular.
As part of its processes, the NAIF must consult with Infrastructure Australia on projects it proposes to fund.
Greens leader Richard Di Natale asked Infrastructure Australia chief executive Philip Davies whether it had received a submission on the Adani rail line, as per the requirement that it must assess all projects seeking more than $100 million.
Davies said it had not…..
….NAIF director Karla Way-McPhail, who is chief executive of two companies that service the mining industry.
Minister Matt Canavan confirmed to a senate estimates hearing this month that Way-McPhail, who has spoken out in support of opening up the Galilee, was a friend whom he had recommended for the board…..
NAIF chief executive Laurie Walker declined to tell the senate estimates committee whether Way-McPhail or any other NAIF director had recused themselves from any discussions on the grounds of a potential conflict of interest. Walker said that was “not information that I think is appropriate to disclose”.
She said more than six conflicts had been declared…..
The Greens’ main focus has been on the suitability of the loan applicant rather than the assessors.
Larissa Waters wants the government to insert a “suitable person” test into the NAIF’s process for assessing loan bids, arguing she believes it would rule out Adani.
The Greens also want the environmental history test strengthened within environmental law and are calling for Adani’s approvals for the Carmichael project to be reviewed on the basis of “revelations about their environmental and corporate history” in activities overseas.
Waters has produced a private member’s bill to reflect the concerns but the government is not obliged to bring it forward for a vote……
despite Adani having announced with flourish recently that it had taken the final decision to proceed, others argue there are still obstacles to be cleared.
Tim Buckley, a director at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, believes it is not viable without massive taxpayer subsidies.
“The green light that Adani made such a fuss about a couple of weeks ago was actually just a sham,” Buckley told The Saturday Paper.
He has written a paper suggesting “defer, delay and pray” appear to be the company’s unspoken watchwords……despite Adani having announced with flourish recently that it had taken the final decision to proceed, others argue there are still obstacles to be cleared….https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/economy/2017/06/24/final-chapter-adani-loan-deal/14982264004830
June 28, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, climate change - global warming, politics, Queensland |
Leave a comment
Dissenting Report – Australian Greens, Senator Sarah Hanson-Young Australian Greens Senator,
While not always supporting the outcomes, the Australian Greens have acknowledged previous JSCOT inquiries on nuclear issues for their diligence and prudence. We are disappointed on this occasion to submit a dissenting report into the Generation IV Nuclear Energy Accession. The inquiry process into the Framework Agreement for International Collaboration on Research and Development of Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems has been unduly rushed and lacked adequate public hearings or detailed analysis and reflection of public submissions. This is particularly disturbing given that this inquiry relates to public spending for an undefined period of time towards a technology that is prohibited in Australia.
The Australian Greens’ dissent to Report 171 (Section 4: Generation IV Nuclear Energy Accession) is based on a range of grounds, including:
The lack of transparency regarding the costs to the Australian taxpayer over an undefined period of time;
The technology that this agreement relates to is prohibited under Australian law and its promotion is inconsistent with the public and national interest;
The lack of consideration of the global energy trends away from nuclear technology;
The lack of procedural fairness in refusing adequate public hearings and consideration of public submissions;
An unjustified reliance on the submissions from the highly partisan Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO). The Australian Greens note that ANSTO is not a disinterested party in this policy arena. Furthermore, ANSTO has made a number of unfounded assertions, particularly regarding the Agreement’s impact on Australia’s standing on nuclear non-proliferation.
Unchecked capacity and resourcing
The timeframe for the agreement is loosely stated as being between 10 and 40 years. Over this period there is a commitment for Australia to pledge resources and capacity at the expense of Australian taxpayers. In exchange for this undefined public expense for an undefined period of time, there is no clear public benefit – given that the technology is, properly and popularly, prohibited in this country.
Point 4.20 states that the Framework is in essence about spreading the significant costs associated with the development of Generation IV reactors. In public submissions made to JSCOT there are detailed cost estimates for individual projects that are all in the range of billions of dollars. There have been numerous delays, cost constraints and problems with the various types of reactors described as Generation IV. While some countries continue to pursue this technology, there is no clear end-game in sight and many nations are stepping away from this sector. Most Generation IV reactors only exist on paper while some others are modified plans of expensive failed projects but are still just conceptual.
It is understandable that countries who are invested in Generation IV would seek to transfer costs and inflate the potential benefits. It is unreasonable, however, for a Government agency to commit Australian resources to fund and develop this technology which is decades away from being anything more than a concept.
ANSTO submits in the National Interest Analysis that the “costs of participation in the Systems Arrangements will be borne by ANSTO from existing funds”. The Australian Greens note that in the last financial year ANSTO reported a loss of $200 million (including $156 million in subsidies). The commitment of funds and resourcing from an agency that operates with an existing deficit that is already funded by the Australian people is fiscally irresponsible and has not been investigated through the JSCOT process.
The Australian Greens maintain that there is a particular need for the rationale of any contested public expenditure to be rigorously tested. Sadly, this Committee has failed in this role.
Point 4.24 of the report states that “Australia was required to demonstrate that it could contribute to the research and development goals of the GIF” yet the inquiry process failed to establish exactly what form those contributions will take and the cost of those contributions to the Australian people.
Prohibited Technology
Point 4.39 on the question of nuclear power in Australia brushes aside the fundamental issue that the future of nuclear energy in Australia is entirely dependent on changing Commonwealth laws.
Report 171 section 4 fails to acknowledge that the technology in question is prohibited under two separate pieces of Commonwealth legislation:
Section 37J of the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999;
Section 10 of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998.
These Acts reflect considered positions, public opinion and the environmental and economic risk associated with nuclear technology which has repeatedly proved to be dangerous and expensive. The position reflected in these laws has been repeatedly reiterated in subsequent Government reports into the technology and prospects for development in Australia. For example:
The Switkowski Report – Uranium Mining, Processing, and Nuclear Energy – opportunities for Australia? (2006)
The Australian Power Generation Technology Report – Summary (Nov 2015)
Department of Energy and Science Energy White Paper (2015)
Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission (South Australia) (May 2016)
These reports all arrive at the same conclusion: that there is no case to develop nuclear power in Australia, albeit for different reasons. These reasons include costs, time constraints, legal constraints, public opposition, restrictions on availability of water and other environmental factors.
Lack of Procedural Fairness and over reliance on evidence from ANSTO
ANSTO has pursued this agreement, signed the agreement, will be responsible for enacting the agreement, drove the National Interest Analysis and were the only agency invited to present at a hearing. This agency is publicly funded, has run at a deficit, and is seeking to further commit Australian resources to a technology that is not only unpopular but is prohibited under Australian legislation.
There is a wide range of experts and public interest groups who have lodged detailed submissions and requested an audience with the Committee to offer some scrutiny and balance to the highly selective view of Generation IV options presented by ANSTO.
These submissions are barely mentioned in Report 171 and additional public hearings were denied. This level secrecy and denial of procedural fairness is of grave concern and, while out of character for JSCOT, is very much in line with the secrecy synonymous with ANSTO and the wider nuclear industry.
Australia’s accessibility to nuclear technology and standing on nuclear non-proliferation
ANSTO claim in the NIA that a failure to accede “would impede Australia’s ability to remain constructively engaged in international nuclear activities and would limit our ability to forge links with international experts at a time when a significant expansion in nuclear power production is underway……. It would diminish Australia’s standing in international nuclear non-proliferation and our ability to influence international nuclear policy developments in accordance with our national economic and security interests.”
The Australian Greens understand that Australia currently pays $10 million per annum to the International Atomic Energy Agency which grants us access to the safety and regulatory fora and to publicly published research. Where there is a commercial interest in the technology this would no doubt be made available to Australia at a price – but a price not borne by the taxpayer in this crude subsidy by stealth proposed in report 171 (Section 4).
Claims that our failure to accede would somehow diminish our standing on nuclear non-proliferation are absurd. While the industry might promote Generation IV as addressing issues of nuclear non-proliferation there is little concrete evidence that it can or ever would be done. It was the same promise industry proponents made about Generation III reactors and failed to deliver.
Australia’s standing on nuclear non-proliferation is currently being diminished because this Government is actively boycotting the current UN process supported by 132 nations on negotiating a treaty to ban nuclear weapons, not because our country has not been funding research into nuclear power.
The Australian Greens fundamentally dissent from this Committee’s findings and believe that no compelling or credible case has been made to proceed with the treaty action. Rushed, limited and opaque decision making processes are a poor basis for public funding allocations in a contested policy arena.
June 24, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics, reference |
Leave a comment
Antinuclear 