Australia’s coming election: climate change policy to be a vote changer
Election 2016: Climate change policy a vote winner for majority of Australians http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2016/election-2016-climate-change-policy-a-vote-winner-for-majority-of-australians-20160513-gouwbf.html May 15, 2016 Fergus Hunter Breaking news reporter Strong climate change policy is a vote-changing matter for a majority of Australians, a new poll shows, establishing the issue as an important battleground one week into the election campaign.
According to the ReachTEL survey of 2400 people, conducted for a coalition of environmental groups, 64 per cent of respondents said they would be more likely to vote for a party seeking 100 per cent renewable energy in 20 years and 48 per cent said they would be more likely to support a party reducing Australia’s net carbon emissions to zero by 2050.
The figures contrast with the Turnbull government’s avoidance of the topic. The Prime Minister did not mention climate change in his speech when kicking off the election campaign.
The Coalition’s policy is a 26-28 per cent cut on 2005 emission levels by 2030 through its multi-billion dollar emissions reduction fund and 23 per cent clean energy production by 2020.
Recently unveiled is Labor’s proposed 45 per cent cut on 2005 levels through emissions trading and restrictions on land clearing.
The Greens want a 63-82 per cent equivalent cut to emissions and 90 per cent renewable energy by 2030.
“The Prime Minister has spoken about the need to transition the economy from one dependent on mining. It is clear from this poll that an increasing number of Australians support that goal on climate change grounds,” Lyndon Schneiders, national director of the Wilderness Society, said.
“It is also clear that the vast majority of Australians recognise that we need new and powerful laws to manage that transition and to protect the places we love from the impacts of climate change.”
The poll also found:
- 56.1 per cent of people would be more likely to support a party phasing out coal-fired power, compared to 27.2 per cent unchanged and 16.6 per cent who would be less supportive.
- 66.9 per cent would be more likely to vote for a party that strengthens environmental laws protecting sites like the Great Barrier Reef, while 23.1 per cent are unaffected and 10 per cent would be less likely to support them.
- 61.9 per cent of people agree that the burning of fossil fuels causes global warming and is destroying the Great Barrier Reef, while 23.2 per cent disagree and 14.9 per cent don’t know.
A squad of environment groups, including the Australian Youth Climate Coalition, the Australian Conservation Foundation, GetUp! and Environment Victoria, are using the election to target 25 marginal seats with a doorknocking and publicity campaign on climate policy.
AYCC national director Kirsty Albion said the organisation is encouraging young people at universities and schools to enrol to vote “so that politicians start taking our future seriously and act on global warming”.
ABC on election issues: climate way down, nuclear waste import doesn’t get a mention
Election 2016: Where the parties stand on the big issues, ABC 15 May 16
“……Environment
The environment has been one of the key battlegrounds in the past two elections, with Tony Abbott’s attack on Julia Gillard’s carbon tax at the heart of his election pitch in 2013.
Despite Malcolm Turnbull previous preference for an emissions trading scheme, which saw him rolled as leader in 2009, since becoming prime minister he has maintained the Government’s direct action policy.
The carbon tax that was designed to address climate change was seen as a key reason for the downfall of the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd government, and consequently, neither party wants to impose a fixed price on carbon.
Both sides of politics have come up with different ways of attempting to reduce emissions while protecting the public and big international companies from feeling too much financial pain.
Climate change
- Both parties agree climate change is a threat and have committed to cutting Australia’s emissions by 5 per cent on 2005 levels by 2020. But from here they differ.
- The Coalition’s goal is to cut by 26–28 per cent on 2005 levels by 2030. Labor wants to cut emissions by 45 per cent on 2005 levels by 2030 and achieve net zero emissions by 2050.
- Their strategies to address climate change also differ. The Coalition opted for a “direct action” approach in which $2.55 billion in taxes is paid to companies to undertake projects which will reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
- Labor wants to introduce two emissions trading schemes — one for electricity generators and one for big industry. Labor says neither is expected to have a large impact on consumer prices.
Renewable energy
- The Coalition introduced the mandatory renewable energy target, which was then raised by Labor under Kevin Rudd.
- The Government and Labor agreed to scale back the target last year, but the Opposition has announced it would seek to increase it again if elected.
- The Coalition has promised more than 20 per cent of electricity will come from renewable sources by 2020. Labor is aiming for 50 per cent renewable energy by 2030. Continue reading
South Australian Premier Jay Weatherill sounding like an old style Liberal!
Jay Weatherill: governments lost the art of talking to people, The Mandarin by
David Donaldson 18.02.2016 Democracies get into trouble when the judgement of experts supplants listening to the people it is supposed to represent, says South Australian Premier Jay Weatherill.
In an op-ed for DemocracyRenewal, Weatherill says the use of experts — “scientists, specialists in particular fields of knowledge and bureaucrats who come up with ‘rational’ answers to issues that they decide are the problem the community should think about” — is important, but if overzealous can disenfranchise people and create distrust in government……..
“Rather than being a threat to established institutions and reform, our Citizens’ Juries have demonstrated that the involvement of citizens in public decisions enables change and helps to restore faith in the political process. Independent evaluation has shown that the cynicism and suspicion people had felt towards government decreased as a result of being involved in the citizen jury process, with a strong interest in participating again.” http://www.themandarin.com.au/56739-jay-weatherill-governments-lost-art-talking-people/
A referendum might be held to decide on nuclear waste import plan
Daniel Wills: Voters’ nuclear reaction can avoid meltdowns in future May 13, 2016 The Advertiser
EVERY South Australian has been assured they can join a grand debate over a high-level nuclear waste dump for the state, but it’s no certainty that voters will get to directly decide.
The Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission’s final report this week included a strong call for the state to urgently pursue the opportunity and usher in a golden era of new wealth for SA.
Premier Jay Weatherill is holding fire until the end of the year. The State Government’s formal position is that its mind is not made up, and a combination of statewide consultation and two citizens’ juries made up of average people will help chart the course to be taken from here.
But ultimately, he’s indicated the final decision will be taken by the Cabinet, Government and 69 members of State Parliament who are put in place to make decisions on behalf of all.
The prospect of a referendum, which could be held concurrently with the 2018 state election and would effectively offer every South Australian a direct say on what would be an irreversible decision, is not being ruled out at the highest levels either major party.
If it were to occur, the electoral dynamics in two years’ time would be dramatically altered………
if a simple change to an Act of Parliament is all that’s required for a future government in coming decades and centuries to shift course, South Australians have reason to be wary.
A business case penned by Jacobs & MCM for the commission shows the state would be swimming in cash for 75 years, and then serious bills would start rolling in for the next 50……..
It’s easy to imagine a future where short-term politics triumphs over today’s best intentions…..
The next six months — with two citizens’ juries and a statewide consultation process — will shake out some of these questions and may even formally recommend a nuclear referendum…… http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/opinion/daniel-wills-voters-nuclear-reaction-can-avoid-meltdowns-in-future/news-story/fae428aedd70a823c06302bf15b92289
Electoral suicide for Labor? The nuclear waste dump plan.
from “Sanity” “Mr Weatherill is understood to be favouring a political decision taken without the delay and additional hassle of a referendum.” Sorry Jay, but it is reasonable to go to the “hassle of a referendum” when the the decision has such a significant impact upon our state and citizens.
Tom Koutsantonis threatened the Liberal party with a referendum on the issue (a nuclear waste dump in SA) so it would be beyond hyporitical (even for a politician) for him not to require one now.
Daniel, could you publish the results of the ‘Advertiser -Galaxy’ poll here too?
Earlier this week a survey of ‘AdelaideNow’ readers gave the following results:
Are you in favour of a nuclear waste dump in SA?
No: 61.04% (1,648 votes)
Yes: 35.63% (962 votes)
Undecided: 3.33% (90 votes)
Which indicates certain electoral suicide for any party that allows SA to become a nuclear dump.
Citizens’ Juries can be a valuable guide in nuclear decision-making
The role of Citizens’ Juries in decision-making on nuclear waste importation, Online opinion, By Noel Wauchope 13 May 2016 On May 10th South Australian Premier Jay Weatherill announced the process by which the state will decide whether or not to host a global nuclear waste import industry, as recommended by the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission.
The first step will be to set up a “Citizens’ Jury” of 50 participants randomly selected from 25,000 invitees statewide, to be followed later by another one of 350 participants.
I think that Weatherill might have mistaken his terms here, as a Citizens’ Jury, by definition, means a group of 10 to 12 participants. The Weatherill plan sounds more like a “Deliberative Poll”, which involves a much larger group.
A properly constituted Citizens’ Jury can be a valuable process in participatory democracy. The group of 10 or 12 people serves as microcosm of the public. …… The process depends on having the oversight of a neutral but well informed advisory panel. Questions need to be framed in a way that does not risk influencing the response. Transparency is important, and complete audio or video recordings of all jury hearings should be publicly available, although the actual jury room deliberations should be private.
The citizen jury process can be an empowering one for the participants, and, as long as it is perceived to be fair and transparent, can be a valuable democratic option for assessing public opinion. It also has the advantage of being cost-effective.
The “Deliberative Poll” method is potentially another very useful form of participatory democracy. It is a lot more expensive, and more complicated. The biggest disadvantage of the Deliberative Poll method is probably its cost. Wikipedia notes:
“Imagine how much money is needed to pay for the trips, the hotel and the food for each participant, hiring the research crew and moderators, booking a venue, etc. Additional costs can include paying for participants’ compensation so that people that are randomly selected can put aside their duties to attend the events (i.e. hiring someone to milk a participant’s cow and providing child care”
Some critics insist that funding for either of these processes should not come from on single body.
“Multiple sources of funding help to ensure that the jury’s organisers are not seen as having a financial interest in producing a verdict that supports the interests of a single funding body. To maximise the scrutiny they provide, the two or more funders should have somewhat opposing interests regarding the subject likely to be under discussion.”……
In Japan, in 2012, a Deliberative Poll formed the guide to government decision-making. The Japanese government used the Center for Deliberative Democracy’s Deliberative Polling method to both inform participants and allow them to influence policymakers about the public’s will with regard to energy production issues. As a direct result of the deliberative polling process, Japan’s national government pledged to have zero percent dependency on nuclear energy after 2030. (This decision was overturned by a later government).
The South Australian government’s decision to start with a participatory democracy process is a welcome one, provided that it is done fairly and properly. Neither a Citizens Jury nor a Deliberative Poll can be a substitute for a fully democratic process like a referendum, but either could be a valuable contributor to a wider process of decision making. http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=18230
South Australian govt will decide on nuclear waste import, but let citizens talk about it anyway
Premier Jay Weatherill Thursday, 11 May 2016 Community views critical to our State’s nuclear future How will the environment factor in the Federal Election campaign?
Transition from dirty to clean energy a priority election issue http://www.themercury.com.au/news/opinion/talking-point-transition-from-dirty-to-clean-energy-a-priority-election-issue/news-story/1f6ea59d019243b1ff199e731677a018
Paul Sinclair is campaign director for the Australian Conservation Foundation. May 11, 2016 How will the environment factor in the Federal Election campaign?
If last week’s Budget was anything to go by, the Turnbull Government still favours the interests of polluters over the community.
Malcolm Turnbull’s first Budget follows the environmental neglect of his predecessor.
In fact, under the Turnbull Government, spending on the environment is forecast to fall by 17 per cent by 2019-2020.
Despite talking up the need to shift to a diversified economy, policy commitment supporting a transition away from coal and stimulating renewables or helping workers transition to a more energy-efficient future was absent from the Budget.
This is a great pity because we know the PM understands the science of climate change, and elsewhere political leaders are connecting the dots.
In the past weeks Labor and Green party leaders have released climate policies that are miles ahead of where we were 12 months ago. Continue reading
Australian Greens solar policy
Greens unveil solar policy http://www.examiner.com.au/story/3904209/greens-unveil-solar-policy/?cs=95 Georgie Burgess
@georgieburgo May 13, 2016 The Australian Greens have released a policy that aims to encourage households to take up battery storage technology by introducing a 50 per cent refundable tax credit to assist with solar costs.
Tasmanian Greens Senator Nick McKim said the policy would support the more than 26,000 Tasmanians that have solar capacity installed, with $54 million to gain.
Under the policy, people would get up to half the cost of their battery storage system covered, up to a maximum of $5000 in the first year of the program.
The program would run for five years and the amount of the credit would taper off to $1,500 by 2021, reflecting the projected decline in battery storage costs.
A grant scheme would also be available for those on low incomes.
It’s expected up to 1.2 million Australian homes could be supported over the five years of the program.
Together, small household systems in Tasmania are generating approximately 81.5 megawatts of power, with more than 12 per cent of households using rooftop solar.
“The Greens battery storage policy will support the 26,529 Tasmanian households that already have solar capacity installed and encourage thousands more to shift to battery storage,” Senator McKim said.
“Tasmanian households could gain over $54 million in support for battery storage.
“Unfortunately, the energy crisis has exposed Tasmania’s vulnerability and our over-reliance on Basslink importing dirty power from the Latrobe Valley.”
Senator McKim said the policy would be a game changer for the state’s energy security and increase Tasmania’s reputation as a centre of renewable energy.
“The Greens are the only party with the courage and vision to propose sustainable solutions for Tasmania’s energy security.”
Earlier this week, Greens energy spokeswoman Rosalie Woodruff said the feed-in tariff decision by the Economic Regulator to pay solar PV owners 6.6c per kilowatt hour “is a slap in the face for solar owners and the installation industry”.
Can citizen’s juries make decision on Australia importing global nuclear wastes?
Citizen’s council to steer SA nuclear waste decision MEREDITH BOOTH THE AUSTRALIAN MAY 11, 2016
A system used to decide “tricky policy issues” such as how South Australians manage unwanted dogs and cats will be set up to decide the state’s nuclear future.
Labor Premier Jay Weatherill said a citizen’s jury of 50, chosen from 25,000 “everyday South Australians’’ in a similar way to how a jury is chosen for a criminal trial, will be formed next month to pose key questions raised by the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission into the state’s further involvement in the nuclear industry.
A second jury of 350 would seek community feedback and report to the government by September, before a decision on a dump is made by November. Including an advertising campaign, the process would cost $1 million, Mr Weatherill said…..
The Premier said it would be impossible to proceed with recommendations, which included expanding uranium mining and considering nuclear power, without strong community support. “This is going nowhere if it is going to be the subject of political controversy,” he said……
“No serious investor will co-operate with us, no international partner will want to be part of entering into what is a long-term, extraordinarily expensive set of investments if they don’t think the community is going to be able to deliver on them.
“This is a test of our democracy. Can we have a mature and reasoned debate about this issue and come up with a wise judgment,“ he said.
The government has recently used citizen juries on issues of dog and cat management and cycling laws, saying it develops independent views not dominated by lobbyists and activists.
But the nuclear question was “clearly a very significant decision to entrust to this process,’’ said University of Adelaide political analyst Clement Macintyre.
“It means that the decision is arms’ length from the government, and potentially politically safer for them,’’ he said.
Mr Weatherill’s openness to a nuclear dump has clashed with Labor’s national platform, which is strongly opposed to the importation and storage of nuclear waste. However, he said political consensus had to be achieved at state level before taking the question nationally. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/state-politics/citizens-council-to-steer-sa-nuclear-waste-decision/news-story/20e35875865926c8d1746ed9a55174b5
Long haul for South Australia nuclear waste dump project, and serious risks
Australians face big decision on nuclear waste dump, news.com.au MAY 10, 2016 ….. ” it’s not going to be an overnight fix for the state’s budget problems. A permanent facility would take 28 years to build, and this construction could only start once local residents were on board. The commissioner has suggested it could take 10 years to get this approval.
Even if an interim facility was built to take used fuel while the permanent version was under construction, this would still only be operational 11 years after a decision on the project was made.
SAFETY ASPECTS
Used nuclear fuel, stored as a solid ceramic in metal cladding, generates heat and is highly radioactive and dangerous.
According to the commission, radiation levels reduce quickly during the first 30 to 50 years of storage and the most radioactive elements decay within 500 years. But less radioactive elements in nuclear fuel do require storage and isolation for at least 100,000 years.
The commission noted that the most serious consequences of disturbing nuclear fuel were linked to potential exposure to radiation.
And certainly nothing focuses the mind like considering the wasteland of Chernobylor Fukushima………
the difficulty of disposing of nuclear waste, even low-level waste, which needs be stored for up to a few hundred years, have been illustrated in the US and France.
America’s Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) was compromised when a drum of radioactive waste burst open in the underground facility. Most disturbingly, the rupture was blamed on someone putting the wrong type of kitty litter in the drum, possibly due to a typo in a policy manual.
A WAR BEGINS
Conservationists have accused the commissioner of downplaying the risks of nuclear storage and have threatened to ramp up their campaign against the dump.
“We’ll be increasing our profile, our presence and our concerns,” Australian Conservation Foundation spokesman Dave Sweeney told AAP……..
Invitations will be sent this week to 25,000 people seeking an expression of interest in being part of a 400-person jury that will consider the state’s approach…….
Treasurer Scott Morrison said the Federal Government would work constructively with SA to address any issues arising out of the Royal Commission…….
New report attacking environmental groups must be resisted
Green groups are united in calling for the PM and Minister Hunt to reject the report and a number of its recommendations. Any administrative changes to the Register of Environmental Organisations done before the federal election would confirm that the Inquiry was all about politics and not about good management of environmental groups.
Malcolm Turnbull must reject anti-democratic attack on environmental groups, Independent Australia, Cam Walker 9 May 2016, Will Malcolm Turnbull follow Tony Abbott’s witch-hunt on environmental groups, which will see them lose charitable status for “civil disobedience”?
THE DISPROPORTIONATE influence of the fossil fuel and mining sectors over federal government policy is both well documented and long standing.
With the rise of the far right neo-liberal Abbott Government, the agenda of the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) also became more influential after several years of being on the “outer” while the ALP was in power.
The IPA is well known for arguing against the environment movement and has campaigned against specific environmental policies like thecarbon tax.
Being fundamentally opposed to mainstream scientific positions on climate change and the work of the environment movement, the IPA has argued for the government to reconsider all funding which is provided to the environment movement.
This convergence of views – conservative MPs, right wing think tanks and influence by the fossil fuel sector – has led to a sustained attack on the environment movement in recent years.
One key aspect of this attack has been the House of Representatives Inquiry into the Register of Environmental Organisations. After narrative in the media and, we have to assume, lobbying by many in the mining and fossil fuel sectors, Minister for the Enviroment Greg Hunt initiated the Inquiry into the tax status of green groups. It was widely seen as being politically motivated. Continue reading
No national referendum on nuclear waste importing? Just shonky “citizen juries”
Citizen juries to weigh SA nuclear dump https://au.news.yahoo.com/sa/a/31561735/citizen-juries-to-weigh-sa-nuclear-dump/
AAP on May 10, 2016 South Australians will be asked to take part in citizen juries to help decide whether the state should host a high-level nuclear waste dump.
A jury of 350 voters will be asked to produce a report in November outlining the community’s views on the proposed dump and other nuclear issues, with the government to outline its decision by year’s end.
The government will also launch an advertising campaign encouraging people to “explore the facts” on the nuclear fuel cycle, Premier Jay Weatherill told reporters on Tuesday.
Both Labor and Liberal supporting South Australian nuclear waste dump importing
SA nuclear royal commission sets 10-year timetable MEREDITH BOOTH THE AUSTRALIAN MAY 10, 2016
South Australians could be ready in 10 years to accept nuclear waste from overseas for storage, royal commissioner Kevin Scarce said yesterday following the release of his final report.
The report, released 14 months after Mr Scare’s appointment, made 12 recommendations. It said the state could “safely increase its participation in nuclear activities”, with a storage facility generating more than $100 billion over a 120-year lifespan.
But Mr Scarce said there would be “10 to 15 years, 10 years I hope, to get to a point where we’ll make a decision’’, with ongoing community support required and consultation to start as soon as possible through an independent agency.
“I would hope that if there’s strong social consent, we might get there faster,” he said. “We need to take the time to explain the steps, to explain the safety concerns.’’
At the same time, the agency should also determine general criteria for an appropriate dump site, he said.
Labor Premier Jay Weatherill said the commission’s findings had bipartisan support but required strong public approval. A community engagement process would begin “within days” to inform the government’s response by the end of the year…..
Opposition Leader Steven Marshall said both sides of politics would need to work together……http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/state-politics/sa-nuclear-royal-commission-sets-10year-timetable/news-story/35c622dec6665e53850407ce47777041
Turnbull government will back nuclear waste dump import plan
Former Governor Kevin Scarce recommends go ahead for nuclear storage in SA The Advertiser, May 9, 2016 DANIEL WILLSSTATE POLITICAL EDITOR SOUTH Australia should immediately start talking to nuclear power nations about whether they would use an international storage facility in this state and seek an indication of how much they would be willing to pay, the Royal Commission has found.
Premier Jay Weatherill on Monday released the final findings of former governor Kevin Scarce’s Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission, which strongly backs an SA waste dump……….
Mr Scarce made 12 recommendations, which include ending bans on the use of nuclear power and enrichment of uranium. He finds only nuclear storage is likely to be viable in the medium term and that it “should be actively pursued, and as soon as possible”.
It is estimated to be about a decade before SA could host a storage facility, because it would need to win both state and federal approval as well as demand the construction of about $2 billion in new infrastructure including a port, rail and roads before waste arrived.
Mr Weatherill is expected to detail further steps later this week. However, Mr Scarce’s report says that should include seeking host community bids and identifying customers.
“A preliminary indication should be sought from potential client countries as to their interest in further discussions on their potential participation,” it states.
“To provide the SA community with more detailed information regarding economic viability and potential benefits, it is necessary to determine with more confidence whether potential client nations would be willing to use an international used fuel storage and disposal facility.”
Countries with large stockpiles include Korea, Japan, Germany, Spain and Belgium.
The report stresses that “from the outset, it should be acknowledged that there would be a substantial package of community benefits” and says there could be multiple bidders.
There would also need to be significant scientific studies of the Outback to find land which is dry and stable. Previous analyses have identified the Gawler Craton and Officer Basin, which cover much of the state west of Adelaide, as potentially viable regions….
Federal Resources and Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg said the report was a “sound basis” for further discussion and he would develop a thorough response.
“A re-elected Turnbull Government stands ready to work with the SA Government if they choose to pursue any new economic opportunities in this area,” he said.http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/technology/former-governor-kevin-scarce-recommends-go-ahead-for-nuclear-storage-in-sa/news-story/c320cdebf7f0b3bc745ecb447abf9aef
1 This month.
20 September –National Day of Action in Melbourne on the International Day of Peace
Help Aunty Sue Protect Her Land and Sacred Sites From Destructive Rocket Testing.
.
Australians deserve the truth
about
AUKUS – https://aukuspublicinquiry.com/
PETITION – To: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the Australian Labor Government
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 