Climate Change Authority report recommending ‘a mandatory carbon price’ held back until after election
May 6, 2016. A report that recommends putting a price on emissions from the electricity sector has been held back by the Climate Change Authority until after the election, prompting calls from Labor and the Greens that it be made public to inform debate.
The independent authority, whose board is now dominated by appointments made last October by Environment Minister Greg Hunt, was to have released its policy options paper for the power industry by the end of April. http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2016/climate-change-authority-report-recommending-a-mandatory-carbon-price-held-back-until-after-election-20160506-gonw88.html
Aboriginal award winner calls on Premier Weatherill to save Flinders traditional land from nuclear waste dumping
Premier silent while Flinders Ranges threatened, INDAILY, 6 May 16 One of the traditional owners of the Flinders Ranges land earmarked for a low level nuclear waste dump, Regina McKenzie, writes about the significance of the site and why Premier Jay Weatherill should intervene…….
Last year I was awarded the SA Premier’s Natural Resource Management Award in the category of ‘Aboriginal Leadership − Female’ for working to protect land that is now being threatened with a nuclear waste dump.
But Premier Jay Weatherill has been silent since the announcement of six short-listed dump sites last year, three of them in SA. Now the Flinders Ranges has been chosen as the preferred site and Mr Weatherill must speak up.
The Premier can either support us ‒ just as the SA government supported the Kupa Piti Kungka Tjuta when their land was targeted for a national nuclear waste dump from 1998-2004 ‒ or he can support the federal government’s attack on us by maintaining his silence. He can’t sit on the fence.
Regina McKenzie is a Yappala Station resident and member of Viliwarinha Yura Aboriginal Corporation. http://indaily.com.au/opinion/2016/05/06/premier-silent-while-flinders-ranges-threatened/
Australia’s pro nuclear politicians want to be nuclear industry leaders
AUSTRALIA JOINS INTERNATIONAL NUCLEAR RESEARCH FORUM 29 Apr 2016
Australia has overnight been approved as a member of the Generation IV International Forum (GIF), a co‑operative international endeavour, joining 12 other nations and the European Union to work together on long‑term research on advanced nuclear technologies.
The Forum develops Generation IV technology and addresses not only the construction and operation of the next generation of nuclear power reactors, but also considers fuel efficiency, reducing waste production, and meeting stringent standards of safety and proliferation resistance.
Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science Christopher Pyne said Australia’s success in gaining membership is based on the landmark research infrastructure and world-class research capabilities and expertise at the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) to contribute to the GIF’s goals.
“Australia’s invitation to join this important global project marks an exciting opportunity to be at the forefront of global innovation in the nuclear industry,” Mr Pyne said…..GIF research is focused on six reactor designs that will deliver safe, secure, sustainable, competitive and versatile nuclear technology…
[Frydenberg]“This forum will help develop the technologies that will be integral to the future of the international nuclear industry.”https://www.pyneonline.com.au/media-centre/media-releases/australia-joins-international-nuclear-research-forum
Climate change doesn’t get a mention in Turnbull’s budget
Turnbull’s first budget ignores climate change and dumps clean energy: That’s #innovative?, Independent Australia , Giles Parkinson 5 May 2016 So much for Turnbull’s trumpeting of a ‘transitional economy’ with zip $ for climate initiatives and $1.3 billion stripped from the Australian Renewable Energy Agency.RenewEconomy‘s Giles Parkinson reports.
CLIMATE CHANGE, prime minister Malcom Turnbull once said, is the ultimate long-term problem that needs to be acted on urgently. But in his first budget as government leader, it is as though the issue does not exist.
Climate change was not even mentioned as a word, or a concept, or even an issue — despite Tuesday’s budget apparently being about growth and jobs for the future. T
here was no new money for climate initiatives and the only mention renewable energy got was to confirm that $1.3 billion in funds would be stripped from the Australian Renewable Energy Agency.
“There was nothing in the speech, not a word,”Professor John Hewson, a former leader of Liberal Party, told the SolarExpo conference in 2016.
“The slogan is jobs and growth. I would have though that one of the most significant sectors for economic and jobs growth is renewables — I am staggered that it didn’t get a mention in the speech or in the documents.”
Hewson said the decision to remove funding from ARENA was an “absolute tragedy.”
In the budget papers, for instance, there is no extra funding for the Direct Action plan that Turnbull once ridiculed and dismissed as a “fig-leaf” for a climate policy and now forms the basis of the government’s emissions reductions plan, including the Paris agreement it signed just a few weeks ago.
Once the government has spent the current $2.5 billion allocation for handouts to polluters to do pretty much what they were doing anyway, there is zero extra funding for emissions abatement.
The Coalition government might have been expected to shift towards a “modified” scheme that would see Direct Action evolve with its safeguards mechanism to become a baseline and credit scheme. But that’s what Labor suggested last week, and rather than accept the tentative offer of a return to a bipartisan approach to climate policies, the government slammed the door.
It slammed the door, too, on renewable energy innovation. The $1.3 billion of unallocated funds for the Australian Renewable Energy Agency remains excised from the budget papers – even though it remains legislated – while $1 billion is transferred from the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and rebadged as a new Clean Energy Innovation Fund.
Don’t expect Labor to stand in the way of that initiative. It voted with the Coalition earlier this week against a Greens motion to protect ARENA, and has since blamed NGOs for not standing up to the Coalition move to de-fund ARENA,so it won’t stand up either.
For his part, Australian Solar Council chief John Grimes was taking a stand on the matter, telling the Energy Storage Conference in Melbourne on Wednesday that the federal government had “taken a backwards step” in defunding ARENA, and not making the Agency’s competitive grants available any more……..https://independentaustralia.net/environment/environment-display/turnbulls-first-budget-ignores-climate-change-and-dumps-clean-energy-thats-innovative,8955
Australian Greens plan to subsidise households’ solar batteries
Greens to hand households 50% battery cost https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/31522244/greens-to-hand-households-50-battery-cost/ Elise Scott – AAP on May 5, 2016 The Australian Greens would spend billions handing back half the cost of battery storage to households to encourage the uptake of renewable energy.
The five-year program would be funded by savings through slashing fossil-fuel tax breaks.
The $2.9 billion plan would allow individuals to claim a 50 per cent refundable tax credit on battery storage for their homes, up to $5000 in the first year.The credit would taper off to $1500 by 2021 which the Greens say reflects the projected decline in battery storage costs.
The minor party will on Thursday reveal the policy, which also includes a grant scheme for low income households.”Our battery storage plan will help people power up their home and power down their bills,” Greens leader Richard Di Natale said.
Business would be able claim depreciation on the battery storage asset over an accelerated period of three years.
Batteries enable simpler storage of renewable energy, which otherwise needs to be consumed as it is generated. New technologies are emerging, however battery storage remains relatively expensive for households and business.
Parliamentary Budget Office costings obtained by the Greens showed $2.85 billion would be needed over the forward estimates for the household policy.
The business incentives would cost an additional $38 million. The Greens said it would be funded through by savings, including $2.75 billion from removing accelerated depreciation from fossil fuel intensive industries.
No thought of nuclear upgrade for submarines, says Prime Minister Turnbull
Possibility of nuclear upgrade held no sway in subs decision: PM, THE AUSTRALIAN MAY 3, 2016 Brendan Nicholson Malcolm Turnbull has strongly rejected claims his government picked the French submarine so the navy could more easily swap to nuclear powered boats in the future……….
Mr Turnbull said the submarines would be the best.
“This is a great national enterprise and it will drive our economic plan for jobs and growth.” http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/possibility-of-nuclear-upgrade-held-no-sway-in-subs-decision-pm/news-story/ce2c7e245db93571fbd7007a86ce0f04
Senate Committe calls for delay in CSIRO job cuts, until after the federal election
CSIRO job cuts should be delayed until after federal election, Senate Committee says Job cuts at the CSIRO should be delayed until after the federal election, a Senate Select Committee has recommended. ABC News 3 May 16
In a revision of the original plan to shed 350 positions, the CSIRO wants to cut 275 jobs and set up a new climate research centre in Hobart, creating 40 positions.
A Senate Committee has recommended the Government direct the organisation to stop its proposed restructure in light of an anticipated election in July. It also recommended a suitable independent agency investigate the economic value of CSIRO climate measurement and research.
The Oceans and Atmosphere division was the hardest hit under the plan, facing a loss of 75 positions.Losses elsewhere included 35 from Minerals, about 70 from land and Water, about 30 from Agriculture, 45 from manufacturing and about 20 from Food and Nutrition.
Greens senator Peter Whish-Wilson said in a statement it was clear the value of CSIRO’s climate scientists had been underrated. “What is clear from this entire debacle is that both the Australian Government and the CSIRO management has at no stage placed any value on the work being done by the CSIRO climate scientists,” he said.
“The report makes clear recommendations to halt the restructure process until the election is over. Both the board and the Government have the ability to do this right now.”……..http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-03/csiro-job-cuts-should-be-delayed-senate-committee/7380754
Australian Greens unveil 7 point plan for the nation getting off coal and gas
Greens climate policy calls for immediate ban on new gas, coal projects http://reneweconomy.com.au/2016/greens-60604 By Sophie Vorrath on 28 April 2016 The Australian Greens have unveiled a seven-point policy plan to wean the Australian economy and electricity network off coal, including an immediate ban on all new coal and gas projects, a tax on coal exports and a carbon price.
Following on the heels of federal Labor’s Climate Change Action Plan, the Greens’ 7-point plan – released on Thursday – aims to put an “urgent brake” on Australia’s fossil fuel emissions, while also investing in large-scale clean energy.
And it follows the ALP in calling for the reinstatement of a carbon price – although Greens Leader Richard di Natale has already ridiculed Labor’s proposed version, which he told the National Press Club on Wednesday equated to a carbon price of 3c a tonne.
The Coalition, meanwhile, is busy disparaging both, with environment minister Greg Hunt dusting off the party’s tried and tested mantra on ABC Radio National on Thursday, that “the overarching point here is that this is an electricity tax.”
The Greens plan, which would raise revenue by placing a levy on coal exports and “ending tax-free fuel” for mining companies, includes a $1 billion Clean Energy Transition Fund to help workers exit the coal industry.
It would also invest in the health of the Great Barrier Reef, which is already feeling the effects of global warming, with as much as 90 per cent of its coral affected by bleaching. Continue reading
Liberal and Labor will downplay nuclear waste issues, until the election is safely over
Decision on low-level nuclear waste dump unlikely before year-end and without public support, April 30, 2016, The Advertiser, DANIEL WILLSPARIS, FRANCE, Sunday Mail (SA) A GO-AHEAD for a low-level nuclear waste dump for South Australia will not be granted before the end of the year – and will only proceed if there is public support, Premier Jay Weatherill says.
Speaking to the Sunday Mail during a visit to France to meet the designers of the future submarines, Mr Weatherill said the proposal could only be approved after the final Royal Commission report and the delivery of a State Government response to Parliament.
An array of state laws currently ban both low- and high- level waste facilities, as well as the use of nuclear energy and enrichment of mined uranium……..
“I think it’s a community debate that will begin in earnest after the next federal election,” he said.……http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/decision-on-lowlevel-nuclear-waste-dump-unlikely-before-yearend-and-without-public-support/news-story/4fb4790f8c5d433ddb509b60bec39cdc
The submarine boondoggle- over $2000 per each Australian
4. BUT WAIT THERE’S MORE So we spend $2,000 each. That just gets us the big lumps of steel. If you actually want to use them, you’re paying more. It could be another $2,000 to $4,000 per Australian….
OPTIONS The great thing about the way the acquisition will work is there should be the opportunity to cut back from 12 when the inevitable delays and cost blowouts happen. From here we can’t save the whole $2000 but maybe we can save some, for better uses.
Sub standard: why the $2,000 we are each spending on submarines will probably be a terrible waste http://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/design/sub-standard-why-the-2000-we-are-each-spending-on-submarines-will-probably-be-a-terrible-waste/news-story/6922de6f6a72657c669fdc1a1248916f APRIL 30, 2016, Jason Murphy news.com.au@jasemurphy AUSTRALIA is spending $50 billion to buy submarines. The biggest whack of money we’ve ever spent on a Defence project. It comes out at $2000 per person. And it’s probably a shocking idea. Continue reading
Liberal coalition plans nuclear submarine fleet so that we can fight China
Coalition plans nuclear-powered submarine fleet over long term. Fin Rev, by Aaron Patrick and Phillip Coorey, 1 MAY 16
Some of Australia’s new submarines could be nuclear-powered by the time they enter service, making them much more potent against the huge Chinese navy.
One of the reasons French ship builder Direction des Constructions Navales Services, also known as DCNS, won the $50 billion contract was its ability to switch easily to a nuclear version of the submarines being designed for the Royal Australian Navy.
That is because the Australian diesel-powered Shortfin Barracuda will be a shorter, lighter version of a nuclear submarine already being manufactured by DCNS in Cherbourg on the English Channel.
Cabinet ministers and defence officials have already discussed the possibility of switching from diesel engines to nuclear power part-way through the construction contract, political, government and industry sources say.
The Coalition wants to keep the option open in case public opposition to nuclear power changes in the future. National polls taken from 2006 to 2009 found between 35 and 50 per cent of Australians supported introducing nuclear power, a study by the National Academies Forum showed.
DCNS, which is majority owned by the French government, is expected to start building the Australian submarines in Adelaide next decade. The last one might not be completed until 2050.
The other bidders for the contract, Germany’s Thyssenkrupp Marine Systems and Japan’s Kawasaki Heavy Industries and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, don’t make nuclear submarines………..
The government, which has been criticised for opting to build the submarines in Australia, said it was not considering switching to a nuclear-powered version………
Another drawback of nuclear reactors is that, unlike diesel motors, they can’t be turned off to make the submarine silent.
Australia’s submarines are unusual. They would be the only conventionally powered ones that used pump jets for propulsion rather than propellers, Stephan Fruehling, a defence expert at the Australian National University’s College of Asia and the Pacific, said.
The Coalition government quietly supports developing a nuclear industry in Australia and on Friday proposed storing radioactive waste on a remote South Australian cattle station.
It has encouraged the South Australian Labor government to push ahead with a debate over storing spent nuclear rods from overseas. Given the submarines will be built in Adelaide and South Australia has some of the largest uranium deposits in the world, the state could one day become the centre of an Australian nuclear industry. http://www.afr.com/business/manufacturing/coalition-plans-nuclearpowered-submarine-fleet-over-long-term-20160429-goieal
New submarines chosen as prelude to nuclear submarines
Business SA says Future Submarine fleet could include nuclear-powered versions once local atomic industry is established, Adelaide Now April 30, 2016 State political reporter Daniel Wills, Paris, France, Sunday Mail (SA) AUSTRALIA’S future submarine fleet could be transitioned to include a potent mix of both intelligence gathering diesel boats and rapid, fast-moving nuclear-powered vessels once the state develops a sophisticated atomic industry based around storage, Business SA says.
The Federal Government is facing calls from across the strategic policy and business communities, as well as from an outspoken SA Senator, to strongly consider the nuclear option.
Premier Jay Weatherill visited DCNS’ Cherbourg shipyard last on Friday Adelaide time, just hours after SA was chosen as the likely site of a low-level nuclear waste dump and as former governor Kevin Scare puts the finishing touches on a Royal Commission due for release within days.
Business SA chief executive Nigel McBride, who joined the Cherbourg tour to observe the construction of a nuclear Barracuda sub that will become the template for Australia’s diesel fleet, said there was strong national defence reasons for having a mix of the two…..
Mr McBride told the Sunday Mail that building community confidence behind nuclear storage was crucial before the question of expanding the industry into defence capabilities.
“As we’ve gone around Europe and looked at their nuclear cycle, and take into account the likely final recommendations from the Royal Commission in regards to the storage of waste, we will as a nation and state soon come to a decision about if we participate or not,” he said…….
Mr McBride said storage was a “starting point” in a discussion about other applications.
The first future sub is set to hit the water in the early 2030s, about the time when Mr Scarce says the state could have a storage industry up and running if it moved to do so immediately……
“We walked around a facility today which had a significant nuclear threat, nobody even blinked. We walked around and took it for granted that it would be professionally contained,” Mr McBride said……
Senator Day said there was “no escaping” the strategic need for nuclear subs…….
“The winning DCNS bid links SA with a French nation with nuclear subs and nuclear power. This opens up great opportunities for SA to learn how to embrace all facets of the nuclear fuel cycle.”…….
Mr Thomson said diesel subs were valuable in “certain, specific circumstances”.
“But if you had to choose between 12 nuclear or 12 conventional subs, it’s a no-brainer. You’d have the nuclear subs every time…
Australian law currently bars the use of nuclear subs………http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/business-sa-says-future-submarine-fleet-could-include-nuclearpowered-versions-once-local-atomic-industry-is-established/news-story/9ae30cb1933a6119182944f6dbdcf09c
Nuclear inquiry needed for waste dump sites
29 Apr 2016 The Australian Greens have called for an independent, deliberative inquiry into long-term stewardship options for spent nuclear fuel, drawing widely on international experience in light of today’s announcement to use Wallerberdina Station near Barndioota in South Australia’s Flinders Ranges as a proposed dump sitefor WA Scott Ludlam said this should start with the question, what is the safest way to isolate long-lived wastes from people and the environment for tens of thousands of years, rather than where should we dump it?
“Existing spent fuel and reprocessing wastes should be properly containerised in 60-year licenced castors, effectively big bomb-proof lead and steel containers, and remain at Lucas Heights under active care and maintenance,” he said.
The Government must also come clean about what kinds of waste they intend to dump.
“While the Government emphasises that this debate is about low-level medical wastes (gloves and discarded diagnostic equipment), the real debate is about where the spent nuclear fuel from the Lucas Heights research reactor ends up,” he said.
Mr Ludlam said today’s announcement was only happening because community action led by Aboriginal leaders managed to defeat the proposal to dump nuclear waste at Muckaty Station in the Northern Territory.
“Unless the Government wants a repeat of that disaster, it needs to listen to local voices now. Minister Josh Freydenberg and his predecessor Ian MacFarlane said they would not proceed without consent. That consent is clearly missing: the community is saying no, and this must be respected,” he said.
“What we needed was a genuinely deliberative investigation into how to isolate this waste for tens of thousands of years; instead we got this attempt to cut corners and dump it off on an unsuspecting community.”
The Greens have committed to support local Aboriginal people who recently led a tour of the region for Australian Greens representatives.
The Greens also call for: Continue reading
Were those French submarines chosen so that t they could later be NUCLEAR submarines?
Why did we agree to pay too much for French submarines? THE AUSTRALIAN
APRIL 29, 2016 Robert Gottliebsen,Business Spectator columnist Melbourne The evidence now mounting shows that the submarine tender is one of the most irregular ever conducted in Australia. Defence officials in the US, Japan and Germany are shocked at what is now being revealed.
Within 24 hours of the tender being announced, both sides are saying different thingsso, as anyone experienced with tenders knows, that means the deal has every prospect of becoming a disaster. (The good, the bad and the ugly of the submarine tender process, Apr 29)
There is mounting evidence that the French do not want to build the first two submarines in Australia. They need to make the first two submarines back home.
In Paris, they were shocked that Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull was so definitivein his statement that all 12 submarines would be built in Australia.
To understand how this bizarre situation developed and the implications that stem from it, we need to go back to the defence white paper which estimated the cost of the 12 submarines at $50bn (we learned later that this is an inflation-adjusted figure).
At the time, the Japanese were mystified because they knew their tender was less than half that and the German “all local” tender was even lower — probably under $20bn…….
Why would you need 4,000 French workers — three times the number of Australian workers required for the German bid — when 12 submarines are to be built in Australia?
The other strange aspect of the submarine tender is that the submarines are not going to be delivered until 2033 or 2034. The Germans were offering to have submarines available around 2028.
But maybe there was something about doing the deal with the French that has not been disclosed. Perhaps a group of defence officials believe longer term that Australia needs nuclear submarines because of their greater range. Given its 15 years before the first submarine arrives, everyone would have forgotten what Malcolm Turnbull said this week. Indeed, he will have retired.
To build a nuclear submarine in Australia requires a change in the legislation, and a nuclear industry, which we don’t have, although the climate is changing and South Australia looks set to become a nuclear hub.
When the tender was first announced, I noted that there might be a nuclear agenda but at that stage I had no idea of the tendering mess (Australia’s defence options open up, April 27).
If it’s a nuclear submarine that Australia wanted, then it would have only been fair the other tenderers know about it and be given an opportunity to include a nuclear option. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/opinion/robert-gottliebsen/why-did-we-agree-to-pay-too-much-for-french-submarines/news-story/9ed179b276d13922c15d767873c6dea2
6 reasons why Australia’s Liberal Coalition government’s climate scare campaign is wrong
Labor, and those in the Coalition who understand that climate change is a thing, are actually converging in their ideas about what policies Australia should adopt. They are moving towards sectoral, and maybe intensity-based, trading schemes and towards using a suite of policies (energy efficiency, vehicle standards, regulations) to get to our targets. And every interest group with a stake in this argument – business, environment groups, investors – are desperately willing the major parties to find some kind of consensus. The Business Council of Australia said Labor’s policy could be a “platform for bipartisanship”. They are right.
And the barren, stupid climate wars and dumb fact-free scare campaigns are a guaranteed recipe for a terrible economic and environmental failure.
Why Coalition climate scare campaign is not credible and makes no sense, http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/apr/27/why-coalition-climate-scare-campaign-is-not-credible-and-makes-no-sense Guardian, Lenore Taylor
Malcolm Turnbull is attempting to discredit Labor’s new emissions plan. Here are six reasons the government’s campaign is wrong
1. The prime minister says that by promising to cut emissions by 45% by 2030, rather than 26% to 28% (as the government has pledged) Labor is “doubling the burden” on Australians. But modelling commissioned by the Coalition from leading economist and former Reserve Bank board member Warwick McKibbinshowed that a 45% cut would shave between 0.5% and 0.7% from gross domestic product (GDP) by 2030, whereas a 26% cut would shave between 0.2 and 0.3%. In other words the difference in the economic cost of the Coalition’s target and Labor’s target is about 0.3% of GDP in 2030. That’s 0.3% of an estimated GDP of over $3.5 trillion. It’s not hard to work out that is not doubling an economic burden. Continue reading
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 