Western Australia’s Environmental Defender’s Office slams biodiversity bill
WA enviro defender slams biodiversity bill https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/wa/a/30797749/wa-enviro-defender-slams-biodiversity-bill/ AAP February 11, 2016, The Environmental Defender’s Office has advised against passing the West Australian government’s biodiversity conservation bill in its current form, saying the touted benefits are illusory. Environment Minister Albert Jacob introduced the bill in November, describing changes to the Wildlife Conservation Act as “the Holy Grail” of legislation change for every government going back to the 1980s.
The EDO, however, has released a 36-page white paper that strongly disagrees with the touted benefits of the changes.
Principal solicitor Patrick Pearlman conceded the bill had some good features including repealing two obsolete laws and substantially increasing potential fines for violations, but takes “a giant step back in many other ways”.
He said the proposed removal of “even the threat of jail time” for harming highly threatened species was particularly disturbing.
Mr Pearlman said the proposed changes would give virtually unfettered discretion to either the state environment minister or the Department of Parks and Wildlife’s chief executive in decision-making, leaving the scientific community and the public out in the cold when it came to identifying vulnerable species, critical habitat or key threats.
The bill would give offenders defences that would likely undermine enforcement efforts, and broadly exempt government and industry from the new law’s reach, he said.
“Even worse, the bill appears to promote short-term declines to foster development and permits the minister to allow species to be taken to the point of extinction,” he said.
Last year, the state government cut the EDO’s funding completely.
Greens ready for #NuclearCommissionSAust report “all about waste dumping”
“It’s all about the dump”: Greens gear up for nuclear war, IN Daily, 12 Feb 16 The South Australian Greens are preparing for a sustained public relations assault from next week, in the assumption that the Royal Commission into the state’s nuclear fuel cycle will recommend the viability of a nuclear waste dump. The commission, headed by former Governor Kevin Scarce, will detail its “tentative findings” on Monday morning, preceding another round on consultation.
Greens MLC Mark Parnell told InDaily the party had prepared a variety of options for leaflets and online material, with staff “putting out a call to Greens members for volunteers to hand out flyers”.
“What we’re doing is trying to anticipate what the Royal Commission might come up with, so there will be no surprises that the waste dump is front and foremost in our thinking,” Parnell said.
“That’s on the basis that nuclear power is incredibly expensive and slow [so] they might recommend it but I always thought that was less likely. The processing and value-adding stuff – my understanding is economically it doesn’t stack up [and] of all the different things they’re looking at, it keeps coming back to the dump.”
He said insiders he had spoken to insist “it’s all about the dump”.
“That’s the impression that we’ve had since about a week after the Royal Commission was announced, once the terms of reference were announced… but we’re preparing for a few different scenarios so we can respond on Monday,” he said.
“We have several different versions ready to go.”
He said his party’s position on nuclear waste storage “hasn’t really changed over the past many years”, and suggested Labor should maintain the position it took in 2004, when it went to the High Court to kill off a federal proposal to establish a repository at Woomera. Continue reading
Senator Scott Ludlam backs 6 Australian communities opposing nuclear waste dump
Greens senator wants towns off shortlist for waste dump site A Greens senator has backed six Australian communities campaigning to stop a nuclear waste dump being established in their areas. The Weekly, Mudgee, NSW, 10 Feb
- Acknowledge the opposition and lack of community support at all six sites, respect previous commitments on non-imposition and the importance of community consent, and remove all six sites from further consideration.
- Initiate a genuinely independent inquiry to investigate long-term stewardship options for spent fuel, reprocessing waste, and other categories of radioactive waste, including drawing on international examples and experience.
- Investigate options for active waste minimisation, including increased use of non-reactor based methods for radioisotope production.
- Clearly reaffirm policy and legislative prohibitions on the importation and disposal of international radioactive waste.
Senator Edwards’ fantasy of free nuclear electricity for South Australia
Free nuclear power is a fantasy: Report http://www.tai.org.au/content/free-nuclear-power-fantasy-report# A new report from The Australia Institute shows that a proposal to establish a global nuclear waste industry in South Australia would fail to secure 90% of the imported waste, leaving an expensive and risky legacy for the state.
The report was commissioned by the Conservation Council of South Australia to analyse the submission to the South Australian Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission by Liberal Senator Sean Edwards. The Royal Commission is due to release tentative results next week.
“The Edwards plan is deeply flawed. It is a plan funded by taking thousands of tonnes of nuclear waste, but would fail to process over 90% of that waste, leaving it to future generations to deal with,” said report author, The Australia Institute’s Dan Gilchrist.
Senator Edwards is proposing that South Australia imports 60,000 tonnes of spent nuclear fuel from other countries, and then leaves most of it, 56,000 tonnes, in dry cask storage which is designed for temporary use.
Report: The impossible dream: Free electricity sounds too good to be true. It is.
“The plan relies on technology that has never been deployed commercially – not with all the expertise in France or Germany or Japan or the United States.
“Indeed, logically, if a viable solution emerges, other countries will no longer pay Australia billions to hand over the waste.
“The plan fails to consider a basic economic principle: if Australia can generate free electricity – why wouldn’t other countries?
“Nothing in the plan explains what our great-great grandchildren are meant to do with this legacy. Indeed, the plan never mentions the leftover waste, as if it was not worth worrying about. Worse, all the money is spent in the first 50-60 years. Nothing is left to deal with the leftover waste.
“In many ways it is like a vastly complex loan. Australia will ‘borrow’ many billions of dollars, spend the lot, and leave it to future generations to pay it back. Indeed, a loan would be better, since it would not require South Australia to store tens of thousands of tonnes of radioactive material in the meantime.
“It is no wonder that Senator Edwards has been able to promise free electricity and reduced taxes. He is spending someone else’s money. Eventually, however, the piper must be paid.”
Senator Sean Edwards’ Impossible Nuclear Dream
The impossible dream: Free electricity sounds too good to be true. It is. A new report from The Australia Institute shows that a proposal to establish a global nuclear waste industry in South Australia would fail to secure 90% of the imported waste, leaving an expensive and risky legacy for the state.
The report was commissioned by the Conservation Council of South Australia to analyse the submission to the South Australian Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission by Liberal Senator Sean Edwards. The Royal Commission is due to release tentative results next week.
Senator Edwards is proposing that South Australia imports 60,000 tonnes of spent nuclear fuel from other countries, and then leaves most of it, 56,000 tonnes, in dry cask storage which is designed for temporary use.
Companies like AGL waiting for government clarity on renewable energy policy
AGL puts an each-way bet on renewable energy, The Age February 11, 
2016 Elizabeth Knight AGL:Environmental terrorist or evangelist? Take your pick but financial pragmatist is probably the best description.
The fact is that this company makes most of its earnings off the back of carbon producing coal-fired energy production and is using the proceeds to seed a $3 billion renewable energy fund that will invest in clean sources of power like solar and wind.
There is nothing new age environmentally conscious in this. Like any corporation that is looking to maximise returns, AGL (like several others) understands that the writing is on the wall for the the production of dirty energy – in the longer term. Thus it is making an each-way bet on the future.
Make no mistake, companies like AGL make investment decisions primarily with reference to investment returns rather than environmental outcomes – regardless of the rhetoric. This is the company that last week announced it was winding down its interest in the coal seam gas industry.
Once again it was influenced by community uproar and protests about fracking in their back yards but the decision was one centred on the the gas supply/demand equation and the capital costs of firming up an unreliable coal seam gas resource……..
Renewables tipped to pay off
Longer term it is clear that AGL is taking a punt that the balance will ultimately move between clean renewable energy and the dirty stuff which earns its healthy profits today – hence this week’s creations of the renewables fund.
One of its existing clean energy assets will be effectively vended into this new renewables fund…….
To really move the dial towards producing cleaner energy, companies like AGL need stronger support from the government which under the Abbott government gave them little certainty about how much support and financial incentive would be given to green policies.
And AGL is the first to admit that the changes in government policies over the past 4 -5 years has made investment decisions difficult.
Ultimately AGL, which is the country’s largest generator, its largest emitter of greenhouse gases and the largest builder and operator of renewable energy is a particularly important part of the conversation about Australia’s energy use and generation.
And as such the allocation of its investment should exert some influence on government policy. But it is limited in how fulsome any commitment to investment in clean energy can be until it can be secure with the level and the timing it will receive from legislators. : http://www.theage.com.au/business/comment-and-analysis/agl-puts-an-eachway-bet-on-renewable-energy-20160210-gmqh1t#ixzz3zu51N8JO
South Australia – decision on nuclear expansion at end of 2016
SA govt to hold off on nuclear call http://www.9news.com.au/national/2016/02/09/16/44/sa-govt-to-hold-off-on-nuclear-call South Australia’s government won’t decide whether to expand its nuclear industry until the end of the year, despite a royal commission preparing to release tentative findings.
Former governor Kevin Scarce will on Monday reveal his initial response to whether SA should play a bigger role in the mining, enrichment, energy and storage aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle before releasing his final report on May 6.
Premier Jay Weatherill told parliament on Tuesday that the government will consult with the community and the Commonwealth and provide its response before the end of the sitting year in December.
South Australian Premier Jay Weatherill’s Statement to Parliament on Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission
Premier Jay Weatherill tabled a Statement (9/02/16) outlining the progress and next steps for the South Australian Nuclear Fuel Chain (sorry, they call it “Cycle”) Royal Commission.
Following the release on February 15, of its “tentative findings“, the Commission will hold a five week “comment period”, during which public meetings will be held in:
Adelaide, Port Pirie, Port Augusta, Whyalla, Port Lincoln, Mt Gambier, Ceduna, Renmark, and Aboriginal communities in the Far North and West Coast.
On 6 May, the Commission will present its final report.
Next – community discussion between May and August.
“Once we have the findings, I would anticipate some engagement with the Commonwealth Government about the final report”
Then “a period of decision making where Government will need to assess the evidence gathered by the Commission, and the feedback from the community before outlining its full response to the Royal Commission
I expect to provide a full response to the Royal Commission to the Parliament before the end of sitting this year.”
Rural Australia loses climate science guidance from CSIRO
Martin McDonald: Climate change has not been answered for farmers – we need more information, not less
Cuts to the CSIRO’s climate and land and water research will make finding solutions – and making milk Australian families can afford – ever more difficult
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/09/climate-change-has-not-been-answered-for-farmers-we-need-more-information-not-less
Canberra Times Editorial: CSIRO a chance for PM to lead on climate
Malcolm Turnbull should give the research organisation with a little more room to breathe.
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/comment/ct-editorial/csiro-has-given-the-prime-minister-an-opportunity-to-lead-on-climate-policy-lead-20160208-gmp38x.html
Mel Fitzpatrick: Job cuts threaten to sink science
CLIMATE research community fears Australia’s highly regarded programs are at risk
http://www.themercury.com.au/news/opinion/talking-point-job-cuts-threaten-to-sink-science/news-story/a6932b8499835afe3233593a3df7ac52
Australian Government cuts climate science jobs at CSIRO
CSIRO climate scientists speak out about job cuts
As the boss of the CSIRO continues to defend his planned restructure, senior climate scientists have spoken out about their fears. A Chief Research Scientist has told PM Australia risks losing world-leading research capabilities. Another says climate work that helps with weather prediction, ocean rescue, defence capabilities and natural disaster prediction is under a cloud.
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2015/s4402366.htm
CSIRO staff ponder industrial action over climate shake-up
CSIRO’s staff body has taken steps towards industrial action as the fallout from the restructure continues.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/industrial-relations/csiro-staff-ponder-industrial-action-over-climate-shakeup/news-story/f09aab1d5ae2c0c8128cecd0496d0cab
CSIRO cuts criticised by senior UK climate scientist – don’t stop the underpinning science
A senior climate scientist at the UK national weather service has criticised the proposed job cuts at the CSIRO, which will reduce the organisation’s capacity to monitor climate change.
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2015/s4402135.htm
Michael Slezak: CSIRO climate cuts attack a national treasure when we need it most
Chief executive Larry Marshall is right that we need to invest in adaptation, but this requires a proper understanding of how the climate will change
http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/feb/08/csiro-climate-cuts-would-be-attacking-a-national-treasure-when-we-need-it-most
John Birmingham: Blunt Instrument: CSIRO cuts bring Australia global fame for choosing stupid
From the earliest days of the penal colony the journals of the First Fleet officers remarked upon the weird, often violent climatic changes that made survival in the antipodes such a fraught, contingent affair.
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/comment/blunt-instrument/blunt-instrument-csiro-cuts-bring-australia-global-fame-for-choosing-stupid-20160208-gmovwf.html
Calm heads and clear information needed on nuclear medicine and waste claims
Parliamentary Committee Inquiry into Lucas Heights Nuclear Waste Management Facilities
| Upgrade and extension of radioactive waste management facilities at Lucas Heights House of Representatives, Parliament of Australia, 5 Feb 16 |
 The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works today announced that it is conducting an inquiry into the upgrade and extension of radioactive waste management facilities for the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO).
ANSTO’s submission notes that current storage facilities will reach full capacity early in 2017 and although locations for a new facility are being considered, the new facility is not expected to be operational until 2020. The inquiry will examine existing low and intermediate-level solid waste facilities at Lucas Heights that require extension and upgrade, with extension works for the low-level solid waste facilities expected to be completed by April 2017, and works for the intermediate-level facilities to be completed by June 2018. In addition to upgrading and extending storage capacity, works will include upgrading ventilation and security systems, electrical infrastructure and surrounding roads.The estimated cost of the project is $22.3 million and it is anticipated that the Committee will conduct public and in-camera hearings for the inquiry in the near future. Further information on the public hearing will be available soon on theCommittee’s website. Submissions to the inquiry close on 10 March 2016. NB the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works is neither involved in the tendering process nor the awarding of contracts. Enquiries on those matters should be addressed to ANSTO. For media comment – Office of Senator Dean Smith (Chair of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works) (08) 9481 0349 Committee Secretariat (02) 6277 4636Full details on the project are available on the Committee’s website.
|
Queensland government rejects any nuclear waste dump plan
Queensland says ‘no’ to national radioactive dump plan February 3, 2016 Tony Moore brisbanetimes.com.au senior reporter The Palaszczuk government has ruled out supporting any plan to build a national radioactive waste storage facility anywhere in Queensland.
That includes Oman Ama, the small town on the Cunningham Highway between Inglewood and Warwick, where a private landowner had put forward his property as a potential radioactive waste site.
Information from the Australian government project confirms intermediate-level radioactive waste would be “temporarily” stored at the chosen facility for many years, while the majority of radioactive waste would be low-level.
The International Atomic Energy Agency says intermediate-level radioactive waste “contains higher radioactivity levels than low level waste. It requires shielding when handled. Intermediate level waste – generated during operation of a nuclear power plant – consists mostly of ion exchange resins used to clean the water circulating through the reactor.”
Queensland has now written to the Australian government and asked that all potential Queensland radioactive waste storage sites be removed from the Australian government’s shortlist of six potential sites.
This was revealed in a letter on January 25, 2016, written on behalf of State Development Minister Anthony Lynham, to one of the opponents of the proposed radioactive waste dump.
Private land holder Gordon Donovan – who owns land at Oman Oma, suggested his property as a radioactive dump. The federal government has offered $10 million for the community which is eventually chosen to accept the waste.
The January 25 2016 letter, from Dr Lynham’s policy advisor, says the Queensland government will not support “in any circumstances” a radioactive waste storage facility in Queensland.
I wish to advise that the Queensland government does not support, in any circumstances, anywhere in Queensland being utilised for radioactive waste storage,” the letter says.
“Minister Lynham has specifically written to the Honourable Josh Frydenberg MP, Minister Resources, Energy and Northern Australia, asking that he remove Queensland sites from the Australian government’s shortlist for the storage of radioactive waste.”
The decision was welcomed by Bob Morrish, from the lobby group Friends of Oman Ama which is effectively southern Darling Downs grazing land with a single service station.
“It is very heartening to us to see that the state government will back their legislation dating back to 2007; that’s their Prohibition of Nuclear Facilities Act,” Mr Morrish said……..http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/queensland-says-no-to-national-radioactive-dump-plan-20160203-gmky7j.html
Minister Josh Frydenberg says radiation anxieties are based on myth
Minister dismisses scare campaign, urges residents to embrace opportunity of nuclear waste dump, Courier Mail February 5, 2016 QUEENSLANDERS have been urged not to be scared of radioactive waste, but to embrace the opportunities a nuclear dump could bring.
Resources, Energy and Northern Australia Minister Josh Frydenberg said Queenslanders should not be panicked by nuclear because most fears were based on myth.
The Federal Government has moved to intervene in the debate after a protest campaign in the tiny locality of Oman Ama, near Inglewood, 250km southwest of Brisbane.
A property owner has offered his land to the Government for a mega low-waste nuclear dump and it is one of Mr Frydenberg’s six preferred sites across Australia.
Mr Frydenberg told The Courier-Mail community feedback was important and up to three sites would soon be short-listed.
“It is also important to remember the number of benefits that will flow to the final chosen community,” he said……..http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/minister-dismisses-scare-campaign-urges-residents-to-embrace-opportunity-of-nuclear-waste-dump/news-story/1689fe8fe1a64423cefb24806fa2c25f
Turnbull copying Abbott as destroyer of renewables, stripping Australian Renewable Energy Agency
“The fact that Arena and the CEFC are still on the chopping block shows that the Liberals’ attacks on renewables hasn’t stopped under Malcolm Turnbull. Greg Hunt has confirmed that these two agencies will remain in the Turnbull Liberal government’s sites.”
Renewables agency stripped of members and run by bureaucrat http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/feb/02/australian-renewables-energy-agency-arena-board-terms-expire-bureaucrat
Board terms expire, leaving body tasked with investing in emerging technology in hands of department secretary for second time in two years. ll appointed board members of the Australian Renewable Energy Agency have had their terms expire and have not been replaced, leaving it governed by the secretary of the Department of the Environment, Guardian Australia has learned.
The same thing happened in 2014 while Tony Abbott was prime minister, and the move has now been criticised as an attempt by the Turnbull government to remove the independence of the agency.
According to legislation, the board must consist of the secretary of the Department of the Environment and up to six others appointed by the minister. The agency can operate with the secretary being the only board member, since it reaches quorum when a majority of the board members are present, which now occurs with one.
Parliament sits for the first time in 2016 on Tuesday, with bills abolishing both the renewable energy agency (Arena) and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation still before parliament, despite having been rejected by the Senate. Signs indicate the Turnbull government intends to keep them. 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 