Just where does South Australia’s Senator Nick Xenophon stand on nuclear waste importing?
Nuclear caution vital, Port Lincoln Times, 18 Apr 16 ROAD funding, nuclear waste and drilling in the Great Australian Bight are among the issues on the agenda for recently announced candidate for Grey, Andrea Broadfoot.
Ms Broadfoot was last week announced as the Nick Xenophon Team’s candidate for the seat of Grey and said she hoped to make the safe Liberal seat marginal to attract the resources the region needed.
“We’re very committed in the community about getting out and talking to people and finding out what their issues are.”
Speaking in Port Lincoln on Thursday, Senator Nick Xenophon said Ms Broadfoot would give current member for Grey, Liberal Rowan Ramsey, a “run for his money”…….
Ms Broadfoot said the potential for a nuclear waste storage facility at one of three sites in South Australia was another issue she was concerned about.
She said the region needed to look at the long term impact on the perception of the region rather than the short term monetary gains that may be made.
“We need to be really cautious and careful about the decisions we make,” Ms Broadfoot said……..
She said the community was divided on the issue, with even the former Liberal member for Grey Barry Wakelin publicly coming out and saying Kimba was not the place for nuclear waste.
Mr Xenophon said it did not make sense to have a nuclear waste storage facility in a premium agriculture region……http://www.portlincolntimes.com.au/story/3855319/nuclear-caution-vital/?cs=1500
Bleaching of Barrier Reef inevitable, unless govt policies change
Great Barrier Reef: Federal, Queensland governments not listening to scientists, ‘Godfather of Coral’ says, ABC News, By Stephanie Smail 18 Apr The Queensland and Federal governments are not listening to scientists about the mass coral bleaching hitting the Great Barrier Reef, a renowned researcher says.
Dr Charlie Veron, a prominent marine scientist who is known as the “Godfather of Coral” for having discovered about one-third of all coral species in the world, described the severe bleaching across the northern reef as “gut-wrenching”.
Dr Veron said he was angry the Great Barrier Reef was not being made a priority. “Governments are being anything but up-front — they’re behaving like a mob of drunken sailors,” he said.
Dr Veron said scientists had warned governments for decades about risks to the reef and frustration was building over state and federal approvals forAdani’s giant Carmichael coal mine in central Queensland.
“For heaven’s sake, take it seriously – listen to scientists for a change,” he said. “They never listen about climate change in general and now they’re not listening about the Great Barrier Reef.”
University of Queensland Professor Justin Marshall, who has been monitoring the reef for decades, also urged action. “I’m now just furious that the Federal Government is still sitting back not doing enough,” he said.
Scientists warn if policy does not change, severe bleaching would keep happening…….http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-18/great-barrier-reef-federal-qld-governments-not-listening-science/7336134
Australia’s government completely beholden to fossil fuel industries
The links between big polluters and politicians , The Saturday Paper, BILL MCKIBBEN, 16 Apr 16 “…….Despite the crisis unfolding around it, the current Australian government seems determined to ignore the role it has to play in preventing the planet from cooking.Six months ago, Australia agreed to the Paris deal. Yet, since then, Australia has reapproved one of the world’s largest coalmines, opened a new research centre for the fossil fuel industry, cut funding for renewable energy, cut funding for climate research. The bewildering list goes on and on…..
Australia’s political system is …….becoming more and more American with each new donation. Until recently you had a prime minister who, between mouthfuls of onion, told the world that coal was good for humanity.
Granted, Malcolm Turnbull is no Tony Abbott. But Turnbull is also friendly with the fossil fuel industry. Just this week in Perth, he attended a dinner with the CEOs of Shell, Chevron and Woodside. Blocked by radical conservatives and wined and dined by the fossil fuel industry, Australia is now left adrift with a laughable climate strategy.
As the planet burns, Australia continues to dig up more fossil fuels. But it’s no surprise when you look at the amount of cash changing hands between your politicians and the big polluters.
In fact, for every $1 the fossil fuel industry has donated to Australia’s major political parties since your most recent federal election, they will be handsomely rewarded with $2000 worth of handouts in the upcoming federal budget. We have a similar crisis in the US. The more donations the industry gives to congress, the more they get back in subsidies. Recent research shows members of the US house of representatives who voted in favour of the Keystone Pipeline got 13 times more in donations from Big Oil than those who voted against. All up, five key refinery companies spent $58.8 million lobbying.
Like the US, the companies that donate most in Australia are those that have the most to lose from your government taking action on climate. They’re companies such as Australia’s biggest carbon polluter, AGL; or Origin, whose existence depends on throwing a wrecking ball through the solar and wind sector; and Chevron, from the same family of companies as Exxon, which knew about the climate damage we were setting ourselves up for yet pushed its dangerous product onto the world.
And then there’s the revolving door between your government and the mining industry. One of your chief negotiators on the Kyoto Protocol left public service to become the head of the Australian Coal Association. Australia’s former climate change minister is now an adviser to AGL and Santos. The deputy prime minister to John Howard left parliament to sit on the board of Whitehaven Coal. Heck, one of your richest coal barons is a sitting parliamentarian. And this is just the tip of the melting iceberg: it doesn’t consider the many staffers and unelected individuals who walk back and forth between parliament and the fossil fuel industry. This is why Prime Minister Turnbull has no climate plan. His government is full of climate deniers and fossil fuel fanatics whose political life depends upon blocking climate action. …..
Parliamentarians such as Cory Bernardi, who has spent his time in Canberra questioning the weather bureau and running “grassroots” campaigns to axe the carbon price. Or Angus Taylor, who describes human-induced climate change as “religion” devoid of facts. People such as former oil and gas executive, now senator, Gary Gray, who helped found one of the world’s most notorious climate denialist think tanks…….
The incoming federal election means politicians currently have their ear to the ground. Right now is a perfect opportunity to begin calling for an end to polluter handouts and donations – and real action on climate change.
It will take a movement to break the link between Australia’s politicians and the big polluters. But the foundations for a pollution-free politics, here in Australia and around the world, are building by the day. https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/opinion/topic/2016/04/16/the-links-between-big-polluters-and-politicians/14607288003136
Election: Liberal and Labor prefer to ignore Climate Change
Climate change has dropped off the political radar (and this is a big problem) ABC THE DRUM, 14 APR 16 By Mike Steketee The aversion to talking about climate change during the election campaign reflects a wider problem: our concern for this issue has fallen even while it has become larger and more urgent, writes Mike Steketee.
How much of an issue will climate change be in this year’s election?
Not a major one, if Malcolm Turnbull gets his way. He has saddled himself with Tony Abbott’s policy as one of the costs of appeasing the conservatives in his ranks.
And while Bill Shorten will be arguing he has a superior policy – but also risking a fear campaign over re-introducing a carbon tax – Labor, too, believes it has bigger fish to fry, such as pushing forward its credentials on education and health. Continue reading
Victoria making coal mine owners pay for rehabilitation
Victoria’s coalmines forced to pay more towards site rehabilitation costs http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/apr/15/victorias-coalmines-forced-to-pay-more-towards-site-rehabilitation-costs The state’s premier says owners of Latrobe valley mines are profitable enough to absorb tens of millions of dollars in extra costs without cutting jobs Victoria’s coalmines are being ordered to hand over hundreds of millions of dollars more for the rehabilitation of their sites when mining ceases.Latrobe coalmines not paying enough for cleanup: Hazelwood fire inquiry
The state’s premier, Daniel Andrews, maintains the additional payments will not put jobs at risk.
The Victorian government announced on Friday the existing rehabilitation bonds would be increased in June from $15m or less to $34.25m for Yallourn, $36.7m for Hazelwood and $56m for Loy Yang.They will all then double again – to the current estimated rehabilitation liability for each mine – by January. On Thursday, the fourth and final report into the Hazelwood mine fireconcluded Latrobe valley mines were not making sufficient paymentsto cover rehabilitation costs.
It urged an immediately increase of tens of millions of dollars in the bonds until a review into the system was complete.
Andrews said on Friday the mines’ owners were profitable enough to absorb the additional costs. “We’ve had companies for too long that have been allowed to put aside just a fraction of what it costs to keep their mines safe and return those mine sites to the community … at the end of their useful life,” Andrews told reporters in Morwell.
“These are profitable companies. Let’s not have any of this talk that jobs are at risk – they are not at all.”
Greens manage to put some brakes on South Australian govt’s pro nuclear promotion
Nuclear waste dump ‘spruiking’ with taxpayers’ money stopped by Greens http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-14/nuclear-waste-dump-‘spruiking’-with-taxpayers’-money-stopped/7325076 An attempt to change the law in South Australia to allow public money to be spent on promoting a nuclear waste dump has been stopped with the Greens claiming a victory.
A law passed in 2000 to stop public funds from being used in any activity associated with a nuclear waste facility.
The State Government had tried to amend the law to allow consultation with the community on the results of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission.
Greens MLC Mark Parnell said the proposed change was too wide ranging and the Upper House had stepped in to protect taxpayers.
“The Greens do accept that we do need to have a public debate,” he said.
“We’re confident we know what the result will be but nevertheless the Government says they only want to consult, they don’t want to spruik and they don’t want to plan for a nuclear waste dump.”
He said the Government had attempted to “overreach”.
“The law now says that the Government can use public money to consult the community but they’re not to use public money for promoting or designing or even buying land for a nuclear waste dump.”
Since Liberal Coalition govt dumped carbon price, greenhouse emissions have soared
Electricity emissions soar since Coalition dumps carbon price, Independent Australia Giles Parkinson 9 April 2016 RenewEconomy‘s Giles Parkinson discusses Australia’s rapidly rising electricity emissions following the Coalition’s axing of the carbon price and in direct contradiction to the Paris climate agreement.
AUSTRALIA’S ELECTRICITY emissions continue to rise and are now 5.5 per cent higher than they were before the carbon price was dumped, putting Australia against the global trend which is seeing energy emissions flat-lining even as the global economy expands.
Pitt & Sherry analyst Hugh Saddler says in his latest monthly survey that total emissions from electricity generation in the National Electricity Market (NEM) – all but Western Australia and the Northern Territory – increased again in the year to March 2016.
Annual emissions were 5.5 per cent higher than in the year to June 2014, when the Coalition killed the carbon price introduced by the Labor Government, to much acclaim from the government.
This startling jump in emissions comes despite the fact that Australia has signed up to the Paris climate agreement, which seeks to limit global warming to 2°C, and if possible 1.5°C. Energy emissions, according to the International Energy Agency, have flatlined for the past two years.
The rise in emissions also comes amid rising global CO2 levels, soaring temperatures, and the most serious coral bleaching event ever witnessed in the Great Barrier Reef.
Saddler blames the rise in emissions on a number of factors. One is the removal of the carbon price, which paved the way for more burning of coal, black coal in particular.
Another is the rise in coal generation in Queensland to support the exports of liquefied natural gas — which will contribute an extra 8 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent a year. Continue reading
Climate denialist Maurice Newman might split the Liberal Party?
Maurice Newman claims to be head of business council disbanded by Turnbull
Former adviser to Tony Abbott says Malcolm Turnbull’s ‘left leaning positions’ could lead to formation of breakaway conservative party, Guardian, Lenore Taylor, 8 Apr 16 Businessman Maurice Newman has insisted he remains the head of the prime minister’s business advisory council, despite being informed by Malcolm Turnbull last year that the council was being disbanded.
Last September Guardian Australia revealed that Newman’s term as chairman of the prime minister’s business advisory council had expired and that a spokesman for Turnbull had confirmed he would not be reappointed………
Newman, a strong supporter of former prime minister Tony Abbott, told Lateline Turnbull’s “left leaning positions” could potentially lead to the formation of a breakaway conservative party…….
Asked whether he was saying Turnbull’s leadership could lead to the emergence of a new conservative party Newman replied “Well, I think it’s most likely that if the people who support the Liberal party and the Liberal party values find that essentially it’s a Labor-like party, then they’ll clearly be attracted to whatever alternatives might be presented to them.”
He nominated “giving more money” to renewable energy and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation as Labor-like policies being undertaken by the Coalition.
Newman has used a weekly column in the Australian to expound his views on climate change, including that the world was ill-prepared for a period of global cooling and that the United Nations was using debunked climate science to impose a new world order under its own control.
He also called for a government-funded review of the Bureau of Meteorology to “dispel suspicions of a warming bias” in its temperature record-keeping, something freedom of information documents last year revealed was under consideration by the former prime minister’s department…….http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/apr/08/maurice-newman-claims-to-be-head-of-business-council-disbanded-by-turnbull
Greens lock in behind new push to ban nuclear weapons
9 Apr 16 The Australian Greens today launched a campaign calling for Julie Bishop to support a global treaty to ban nuclear weapons.
In December last year, 138 countries voted at the UN General Assembly in favour of supporting a humanitarian pledge for the prohibition and elimination of nuclear weapons. Australia did not support this vote.
Greens co-deputy leader and nuclear spokesperson Senator Scott Ludlam said nuclear weapons are the most destructive on earth.
“In 1972 the world banned biological weapons, in 1993 we banned chemical weapons, in 1997 we banned land mines, and in 2008 we banned cluster munitions. This campaign calls for Australia to join 138 countries in the UN General Assembly to prohibit and eliminate nuclear weapons,” he said.
“The risks are real and the consequences are catastrophic. The best protection against nuclear war is eliminating nuclear weapons.
“At this year’s UN Working Group on Nuclear Disarmament, Australia has an opportunity to stand with the majority of other countries and call for a global treaty banning nuclear weapons.”
Fact Box:
- There are more than 15,000 nuclear weapons belonging to just 9 countries
- In December 2015 the UN General Assembly voted on a Humanitarian Pledge for the prohibition and elimination of nuclear weapons. 138 countries voted in favour, 29 voted against and 17 abstained. Australia voted against the motion.
- In 2016 there will be three meetings of the UN Working Group on Nuclear Disarmament where there will be a push to develop a global treaty banning nuclear weapons
- In Janurary 2016 the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists kept the doomsday clock at 3 minutes to midnight – citing the growing threat of terrorism, climate change and nuclear weapons as the core reason for the threat rating. The Doomsday Clock was at 3 minutes to midnight at the height of the cold war.
- This week the International Coalition to Abolish Nuclear Weapons has launched the “Black Mist White Rain” tour with Aboriginal women from South Australia and the Marshall Islands to discussing the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons.
See the campaign page here http://grns.mp/ban-the-bomb
Political terms versus environmental time-lines – the South Australian nuclear waste folly
Saving the Environment or Centralized Control of a Monopoly in Power (Electricity)? Pan Chemistry, Gareth Lewis 03/03/15 “………Political terms versus environmental time-lines 
This section raises an important point with environmental issues or challenges: the short duration of political terms (often three to six years) limits the amount that can be done in the field of environmental protection. This means that global problems, such as air pollution and global warming that have no geographic boundaries and are likely to be long-term challenges may not be attempted. Even ‘smaller’ challenges like preserving the Great Barrier Reef and ensuring the viability of water supply and usage along the River Murray cannot be addressed in any one political term (nor have they been): there’s just insufficient time and funds to do so. Additionally, the political fallout from such ventures may not ensure the duration of the political term (a political paradox). A case could easily be argued that such issues should be written into Federal politics and once initiated they should go ahead regardless of the social and political climate.
The proposed nuclear industry and global radioactive nuclear waste dump in South Australia is similarly a complex issue and will affect many generations to come. However, given the comparatively simple challenge of managing water supply and usage along the Murray River how likely is it that a proposed nuclear industry would be managed efficiently? I am not being overly ‘emotive’ here, I’m simply saying this: any proposed nuclear industry will ‘outlive’ a Royal Commission, a State and Federal Government and all of us! So; very careful consideration is needed, not only for the current generation of Australians, but for future generations who will not have a say in the decision making process that will determine the cleanliness and viability of ‘their’ environment………
Is the notion of establishing a nuclear industry in South Australia really about centralized control in the creation and distribution of energy (electricity)?
A skeptic 
could easily argue that the use of nuclear energy has nothing at all to do with ‘saving the environment:’ but that it’s really about centralized control in the production and sale of electricity in a monopoly system. After all, it’s easy to control a centralized supply and demand system, and it’s exactly what we have in place today in the world-wide production and sale of fossil fuels.
This notion of ‘centralized control’ is a whole topic in itself and is beyond the scope of the original question: ‘should a nuclear industry (uranium mining, sale of uranium and storage of global radioactive nuclear waste) be established in South Australia. My personal opinion (emphasis) and answer to this question at this time is no. I believe we have sufficient solar energy and land mass in Australia to develop and perfect the solar cell industry and such technology could then be licensed and sold overseas. Besides, the success of this approach has been clearly demonstrated in other countries, many of which have far less sunshine and land mass than Australia.
Additionally, the inherent risks of initiating what may be an untethered proliferation of nuclear (fission) power plants has also been demonstrated in the past at Chernobyl and Fukushima, with close calls in Long Island. However, what has not been demonstrated (thankfully) is what could happen to our environment (groundwater and surrounds) if global radioactive nuclear waste was compromised in transit or in storage by man-made or natural means. It remains to be seen whether the proposed Royal Commission will make the ‘right recommendation’ to the government in South Australia that will benefit and protect not only the current generation, but also of many future generations of Australians: so; fingers crossed :-\ 😉 http://www.gareth-panchem.com/347345675?pagenum=2
Future Fund must not finance Adani’s Carmichael coal mine
Australia’s ‘future’ fund should not consider financing the energy projects of the past http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/01/australias-future-fund-should-not-consider-financing-the-energy-projects-of-the-past Stephen Bygrave
Australia can be a renewable energy superpower if it plays its investment cards right – we have to move on from our misguided fossilised past
It was all over the news in India. The Indian finance minister Arun Jaitleywould be meeting Future Fund chairman Peter Costello to discuss using the Fund to help finance Adani’s Carmichael coal mine. There was no announcement of the meeting in Australia, but the questions must be asked: how should Australia’s sovereign wealth fund be used, and should it, a “future” fund, be considering the energy projects of the past?
The prospect of Costello dedicating sovereign funds to the massive coal mine in the Galilee Basin is so misguided. Future energy investment lies in renewables, not coal, and this trend is already playing out worldwide. The Australian economy already runs a real risk of becoming fossilised, caught in the past and missing out on the huge investment market in renewable energy as the world inevitably decarbonises and shifts to a zero emissions economy.
This global transition to renewables is an unavoidable condition for containing global warming below 2C. The future is renewables, the past is coal, and the economic benefits are easy to highlight.
In this transition, Australia stands to attract a major portion of the $2.3tn annual trade value from emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries, like cement, steel, and aluminium. In this era, countries with abundant, cheap, high quality renewable energy will attract these industries.
The Renewable Energy Superpower report to be released in Sydney on Monday 4 April shows that Australia is consistently in the global top three of countries with economic wind and solar energy resources, whether based on energy production potential per square kilometre, energy production potential from total land area, energy production potential from un-utilised land area, or energy production potential from rural land area.
Under various scenarios developed by the International Energy Agency for their WorldEnergy Outlook, investment in renewables and energy efficiency will make up around half of the future investment in energy in the next two decades, with investment in coal only making up 1-2%.
Whichever scenario the IEA looks at, renewables and energy efficiency attracts more investment in the next two decades than coal, oil and gas combined. Some $28tn is expected to be invested globally in renewable energy and energy efficiency by 2035.
Investment in renewables and energy efficiency globally is already large – around US$390bn isestimated to have been invested in 2013 alone, according to the International Energy Agency. In order to contain global warming to the 2C, the IEA estimates the annual investment in this market to more than double by 2020 to around US$750bn annually, and then to grow exponentially to US$2,300bn annually by 2035.
It also estimates that the renewables dominated power sector and energy efficiency markets will be 20-40 times the value of future coal sector development. The other important point that is relevant to Australia is that power sector and energy efficiency investment is skewed towards Australia’s neighbours in the Asia-Pacific region (40%) compared to global fossil energy investment (25%).
So how large is Australia’s renewable energy resource? While it is widely accepted that the total renewable energy resource across Australia is significant, the Superpower report conservatively models only the solar and wind resource that is available within 10kms of Australia’s existing electricity grid and able to generate power at a price competitive with other new power stations.
This is the resource that is immediately available to the existing electricity grid. The results are staggering even when only this small portion of Australia’s total renewable energy resource is captured – it is equivalent to 5000 exajoules, enough to power the world for 10 years.
Put another way, this solar and wind resource is greater than Australia’s coal, oil, gas and nuclear resources combined. Many proponents of fossil fuels argue that there are enough fossil fuels to power the world for hundreds of years, that coal is cheaper and isgood for humanity. These arguments ignore the reality that burning fossil fuels is incompatible with meeting the globally agreed goal of limiting warming to 2C, that new renewables are cheaper than new coal and new gas, and that many developing countries want solar.
In the decarbonised world in which we are heading, Australia will be a renewable energy superpower if it plays its investment cards right. If we are serious about our Future Fund funding the future for all Australians, it is renewables – not coal – where the investments must be made.
Guardian Australia and the author sought comment from Future Fund before publication. Future Fund responded after publication with the statement that “Finance Minister Jaitley has never raised Adani with the Future Fund.”
We assume that Julie Bishop will oppose radioactive trash import, as she fears nuclear terrorism
Nuclear terrorist threats ‘terrifying’, Yahoo News 7 AAP on April 2, 2016 There are “terrifying possibilities” that terrorists could get access to nuclear material to make dirty bombs, Foreign Minister Julie Bishop warns.
Speaking on the sidelines of a global nuclear summit in Washington on Saturday, Ms Bishop said Australia was committed to the global effort to secure nuclear material amid fears of the potential for a nuclear terrorist attack.
The summit is dealing with hypotheticals of what could occur and how to prevent it.
“There is a high level of concern that nuclear material could fall into the hands of terrorists or terrorist groups or that they would get sufficient material to make what is called a dirty bomb,” Ms Bishop told reporters……https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/31238577/nuclear-terrorist-threats-terrifying/
South Australia’s changes to Aboriginal Heritage Act – a precursor to nuclear waste dumping?
Minister rejects nuclear dump spectre in Aboriginal heritage overhaul , INDAILY 29 Mar 16 Tom Richardson The State Government insists changes to the Aboriginal Heritage Act pushed through parliament last week will have “absolutely no impact whatsoever” on the debate over a potential future nuclear waste dump, which indigenous communities fear could end up on traditional lands.
Aboriginal advocates and the Greens expressed concern at the haste with which the bill was passed, arguing there was inadequate consultation on its final draft.
Legislation to amend the Heritage Act passed parliament with Labor and Liberal support, despite opposition from the South Australian Native Title Services and the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement, who argued the changes “have not been put before Parliament with the support of Aboriginal People”.
Sue Tilley, an indigenous social policy advocate, told InDaily: “One has to wonder about the rush to get this bill through parliament and the critical timing of this.” “South Australia is currently facing a number of contentious developments that may significantly impact on Aboriginal land and on the protection of heritage, such as the consideration of potential sites for a nuclear waste dump, and the development of the Northern Connector Road Project, amongst others,” she said in a written statement.
“Was the motivation driven by the need to have the seemingly constraining Aboriginal Heritage Act out of the way to enable these and other developments to proceed unhindered?”
But Aboriginal Affairs Minister Kyam Maher rejected the suggestion, insisting the changes safeguarded Aboriginal communities ……..
Advocates are unconvinced, particularly with the minister ceding his authority to delegate his decision-making powers to traditional owners of a site.
“This provision gave traditional owners a powerful tool to make decisions and enter into agreement-making about protecting their heritage,” Tilley said. “The amended legislation deletes this all-important provision.”
Andrew Beckworth, the principal legal officer with South Australian Native Title Services, provided advice to Greens MLC Tammy Franks that “this bill will come as a shock to many Aboriginal People in SA, as it has done for us”.
“This bill flies in the face of what previous governments or ministers have attempted and does so without any respect for the primacy of Aboriginal people’s voices and their rights and interests in managing and protecting Aboriginal Heritage,” the submission argues.
“This is against the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.”………http://indaily.com.au/news/local/2016/03/29/minister-rejects-nuclear-dump-spectre-in-aboriginal-heritage-overhaul/
Uncertainty created by Australian govt’s new Clean Energy Fund
Clean Energy Fund creates uncertainty for existing renewable proposals, SA Energy Minister says ABC News 24 Mar 16 Changes to the Federal Government’s energy agencies have created uncertainty in South Australia’s renewable energy industry, State Energy Minister Tom Koutsantonis says.
Key points:
- Changes ‘turn grants into loans’
- Business models to be affected, SA Energy Minister warns
- Union says clean energy fund is ‘too little, too late’
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull yesterday announced he would retain the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, which former prime minister Tony Abbott tried to dismantle.
The agencies will manage a $1 billion Clean Energy Innovation Fund (CEIF) using money previously allocated to them.
But Mr Koutsantonis said the changes meant funds administrated as grants would now be considered loans.
He said this would affect business models for proposals such as solar, wind, tidal or hot rocks energy generation.
“That has to be changed now because the money has to be paid back, so they [the Federal Government] are creating a lot of uncertainty,” Mr Koutsantonis said.
Clean energy fund ‘too little, too late’
The Australian Services Union said the clean energy fund was “too little, too late” to help SA’s Alinta Energy workforce………http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-24/clean-energy-fund-changes-creates-uncertainty-sa-energy-minister/7272472?section=environment
Turnbull’s new cleantech fund likely to sink without trace
Turnbull Fiddles With Green Energy Policy While Carbon Continues To Burn https://newmatilda.com/2016/03/24/turnbull-fiddles-with-green-energy-policy-while-carbon-burns/ By Ben Eltham on March 24, 2016 With its renewable policy sinking without a trace and Arthur Sinodinos again in trouble, Turnbull’s extended election campaign has got off to a bad start, writes Ben Eltham.If you accept – and it’s hard to deny – that Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s decision to recall Parliament signals the start of a 14-week election campaign, then that campaign has not got off to a great start.
Policy is being announced. Yesterday, for instance, the government announced a new $1 billion Clean Energy Innovation Fund, “to support emerging technologies make the leap from demonstration to commercial deployment.”
Superficially, the fund looks like a good idea. Australia is well behind the rest of the developed world when it comes to clean tech industries. A fund to support capital investment in “emerging clean energy technologies” will no doubt be welcomed by a struggling sector.
Of course, a big reason for these struggles is the Coalition itself. The Rudd and Gillard governments put in place a comprehensive suite of policies designed to drive investment in the clean tech and renewables sectors. The Abbott government abolished nearly all of them. Amidst the smoking ruins of the Abbott government’s climate policies, investment and jobs in the renewables sector cratered. Meanwhile, our competitors in America, Europe and China forged ahead.
At least the Coalition has finally decided that it will keep the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, a government finance corporation for the clean tech sector. Once derided as “Bob Brown’s bank”, apparently someone has at last noticed that he CEFC actually makes money for the government by lending at commercial rates of interest.
That’s about as much as you could say for yesterday’s announcement, which has already been derided by experts and analysts as little more than a “shell game.” This is not a billion new dollars for clean tech: it is instead simply a repurposing of money already budgeted to the CEFC, which the government has bee trying to abolish for years now, but wasn’t able to as a result of opposition from the Senate crossbenchers. Continue reading
1 This month
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/2352741955560
15 April – Zoom –Nuclear Power is Not the Solution
Apr 15, 2026 01:00 AM in Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney
Join the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) on Tuesday, April 14th for a timely webinar exploring the risks associated with nuclear power and challenging the myth that it offers a simple, safe, carbon-free solution to the climate crisis
21 April Webinar: No Nuclear Weapons in Australia
Start: 2026-04-21 18:00:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
End: 2026-04-21 19:30:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
Event Type: Virtual
A virtual link will be communicated before the event.
Host Contact Info: australia@icanw.org
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 