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
Community opposition stops nuclear waste dump: U-turn by MP John Cobb on nuclear policy
Hill End nuclear waste dump ruled out due to community opposition, ABC News 29 Jan 16 By Nick Dole
A nuclear waste facility will not be built at Hill End in central-west New South Wales because community opposition to the proposal is so strong, the Federal Government has said.
The site at Hill End, north of Bathurst, was one of six being considered for a nuclear waste facility.
It was offered up by a local landowner, who could be paid four times the land’s market value.
At a packed public meeting on Saturday, dozens of residents spoke against the concept, telling representatives from the Federal Government that Hill End was a “totally inappropriate” location.
Many residents expressed concerns about potential water contamination or the risk of transporting radioactive material. Local resident Kerri Burns said Hill End should be removed from the selection process immediately.
“We’ve been polite, but if this goes further, the gloves are off,” she said.
The audience was told Hill End would remain on the shortlist for now, due to a legislated consultation process.
But the Member for Calare, John Cobb, said he had already communicated the community’s view to Minister Josh Frydenberg.
“I said, ‘We are not going to be building this at Hill End’ and he looked at me and I said ‘The community is against it and they are not going to change their mind’,” Mr Cobb said……..http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-30/hill-end-to-be-spared-nuclear-waste-dump/7127092
It’s Big Money that impels politicians to promote the nuclear industry
from CaptD 31 Jan 16 The first reason is MONEY and I mean BIG Money. Politicians are always gear 
for Nuclear Payback*
* http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Nuclear+payback
Those that support nuclear power because nuclear power somehow supports them; no matter what the health implications or other “costs” are for others.
The “other” reason is that the Nuclear Industry and their Utilities are desperate to create a radioactive waste dumping site for waste is that they are going to want to site Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) very soon, which companies like SD’s General Atomic are now working on. Since CA has a law that says no more nuclear reactors, until a waste site is developed, the lack of a disposal site is the biggest roadblock they face preventing them from deploying SMRs in CA.
I believe that most Utilities will want to phase out Nat. Gas fired Peaker plants and install SMR’s “because they don’t emit CO2.” That is, unless they are going to be making big money using nat. gas like SDG&E will be, since they already have a contract to import Nat. Gas from Mexico (which Sempra owns a share of, so they will be kind of buying Nat. Gas from themselves) for use in their two new state of the art Billion Dollar Peaker Plants that the CPUC just approved for them (despite the fact that the cost of Wind and Solar generation continues to drop almost monthly)!
SCE just had the CPUC decide against approving a Nat. Gas Peaker plant for them, so you can bet that they are now getting “very excited” about installing one or more SMR’s at San Onofre, since the grid wiring connection is already in place and they are going to be guarding that “nuclear waste” site for decades to come.
http://www.kpbs.org/news/2016/jan/08/oceanside-takes-stand-relocating-san-onofres-nucle/
BTW: All waste facilities should be run by the Government, that way they will always be responsible for it, since Big Waste Corp.’s can go out of business any time they want as as everybody knows Radiation is FOREVER since 50 or more than 100 years is forever to everyone living today.
South Australian Cabinet nuclear stooge Leesa Vlahos already spruiking for nukes!
Labor MP Leesa Vlahos says pro-nuclear debate ‘getting easier’ March 16, 2015. South Australian Labor MP Leesa Vlahos says pro-nuclear advocates have started to win the debate in the five weeks since Premier Jay Weatherill announced a royal commission into the nuclear industry……(subscribers only) http://www.afr.com/business/mining/uranium/labor-mp-leesa-vlahos-says-pronuclear-debate-getting-easier-20150313-143fhw &http://www.mypolitician.com.au/SA/politician/leesa-vlahos
Medical isotopes: tax-payer funded ANSTO should be promoting non nuclear technology
Medical isotope production in Australia: Should we be using reactor based or cyclotron technology? 15th January 2016 Dr Margaret Beavis MBBS FRACGP MPH Medical Association for Prevention of War, Australia Health Professionals Promoting Peace
South Australian Cabinet gets two new pro nuclear enthusiasts
Leesa Vlahos’ elevation to the Cabinet of South Australia in the Jay Weatherill government was announced on 18 January 2016.
Vlahos was described by the Australian Financial Review as ‘staunchly pro-nuclear’ and advocated for nuclear power in Australia during the lead-up to the Royal Commission into South Australia’s future role in the nuclear fuel cycle. In her 2015 submission in response to the Terms of Reference for the Royal Commission she stated that she had been an advocate for a “modern and safe” nuclear industry for South Australia “for years”. She also encouraged an investigation of the possibility of developing Thorium-fueled nuclear power.
Peter Malinauskas’ elevation to the Cabinet of South Australia in the Jay Weatherill government was announced on 18 January 2016.
In February 2014, Malinauskas expressed his openly pro-nuclear position to the media. At the time, the Labor party remained opposed to the establishment of a new nuclear waste repository or nuclear power plant in South Australia. He told The Advertiser:
“I believe climate change is a real challenge we need to face up to, and nuclear energy can be a safe source of base load power, with zero carbon emissions… We should have a mature debate based on science and economics to determine if a nuclear industry is viable in SA.”
That gives the Weatherill gov’t at least 3 spokespeople within Cabinet (including Koutsantonis) who can sing the praises of the Commission’s findings when released next month.
Voters in key Liberal Coalition electorates strongly support renewable energy
Strong Renewable Energy Support In Key LNP 
Electorates http://www.energymatters.com.au/renewable-news/renewables-australia-lnp-em5288/
January 12, 2016 The passion for renewables in Australia isn’t waning, but support for coal appears to be – particularly when it comes to new mines. This is a continuing trend among voters of all political leanings.
72-77% of voters recently polled in conservative electorates support Australia becoming a 100% renewable energy powered nation by 2030.
A ReachTEL-conducted survey of thousands of residents across the federal electorates of New England, Page, Warringah and Dickson in December revealed just 14% to 18% opposed a renewables powered Australia.
The polling of these voters also indicated a global moratorium on new coal mines had strong support; at 50 – 57%.
It will come as no surprise that Labor and Greens voters indicated even stronger support.
“Renewable energy is popular across the political spectrum. Part of Tony Abbott’s undoing was that he placed himself at odds with the electorate on this issue,” said Ben Oquist, Executive Director of The Australia Institute said.“These results show politicians of any hue who undermine support for a 100% renewable future risk an electoral backlash.”
Mr. Oquist also stated construction of new mines in a struggling market is “a recipe for economic disaster.”
“China recently announced a 3 year moratorium on new coal mines. Malcolm Turnbull can and should show the same commitment to deliver on commitments made at the Paris climate meeting in December,” he said.
The chances of a moratorium? Late last year, Federal Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg claimed there was a “strong moral case” for coal. Also in October, the Federal Government granted Adani re-approval to build the massive and very controversial Carmichael coal mine
Back in 2014, the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) issued a wake-up call to investors, stating the global coal industry’s economic models were flawed. IEEFA said major coal projects with a reliance on export markets such as India constituted a huge financial risk.
The Australia Institute is actively campaigning against new coal mines in Australia and says a local moratorium will send the strongest political signal that the reign of coal is over.
Australia’s role in the big nuclear issues for 2016
Five big nuclear issues for 2016 — and Australia’s role in them, Independent Australia Noel Wauchope 5 January 2016, Nuclear issues got next to no discussion in Australia in 2015. That is sure to change in 2016 from five explosive factors, writesNoel Wauchope.
#1: Nuclear weapons “……….. In the event of nuclear war, Pine Gap makes Australia both a participant and a target.
What the experts call a “limited nuclear war” between India and Pakistan is always on the cards as both nations ramp up their nuclear weaponry. What does Australia do about this? The Turnbull Government, ignoring the advice of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties (JSCOT) and pro nuclear power expert Dr John Carlson, goes ahead with insecure uranium sales to India, thus contributing to that India-Pakistan arms race.
All these considerations will matter to Australia in a number of ways in 2016. An obvious example is in the diplomatic tightrope that our Government must walk in its relations with China — Australia’s largest export market.
#2: Indigenous rights……. For 2016, governments must have learned that Indigenous Australians are a force to be reckoned with and that non-Indigenous might join in that anti nuclear struggle. State governments, particularly Western Australia, have sought to strengthen the resources industries’ power to fight Aboriginal land rights. This has to be an issue for uranium mining in 2016 — whether mining developments can continue to ride roughshod over traditional Indigenous traditional land.
#3: Energy technologies Renewable energy is here to stay. ….. Australia leads the world in rooftop solar, with the highest portion of residential buildings with rooftop photovoltaic power. Despite government policy uncertainty, important solar research continues, community solar projects are developing, large scale solar projects are taking off, for example, in New South Wales. Wind power is now also taking off and has long shown its success in South Australia.…….. The nuclear lobby would have everyone believe that nuclear energy is the answer. But even they know that this is not a practical choice for Australia. In February, the South Australia Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission will be announcing its recommendations. Its chief, Kevin Scarce, has already indicated that it is not likely to recommend nuclear power.
In 2016, Australia still has the opportunity to become a leader in truly clean renewable energy technologies, as energy storage systems become a reality…….With 2016 as an election year and with the ALP’s policy of a 50 per cent renewable energy target by 2030, renewable energy developments form a challenging issue.
#4: Australia as the world’s nuclear waste dump….. the South Australian Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission and all that will ensue from its recommendations. Commission head, Kevin Scarce, will no doubt cover his back with worthy statements about proceeding only if there is a social licence, but we can be pretty sure that this expensive year-long Royal Commission is not going to turn its back on its central idea — importing nuclear wastes. Meanwhile, in 2016, the ALP will have to face the push within its ranks to change its existing anti nuclear policy.
#5: The propaganda war….. there will be pressure on Australia’s academic and health authorities, as well, of course, on the mainstream media……. https://independentaustralia.net/environment/environment-display/five-nuclear-issues-for-2016–and-australias-role-in-them,8544
New Directive to Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC) supports renewable energy investment
New clean energy investment mandate a shift from policy proposed by Abbott
Directive to CEFC to focus on innovative and emerging technologies will enhance support for windfarms and small-scale solar projects, Guardian, Shalailah Medhora, 24 Dec 15. The Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC) has been directed to focus on innovative and emerging technologies, reversing a mandate by the former prime minister Tony Abbott that would have specifically blocked funding for windfarms and small-scale solar projects.
The mandate came into effect on Thursday, with a new clause outlining the shift in focus.
“As part of its investment activities in clean energy technologies, the corporation must include a focus on supporting emerging and innovative renewable technologies and energy efficiency, such as large-scale solar, storage associated with large- and small-scale solar, offshore wind technologies, and energy efficiency technologies for cities and the built environment,” the clause said. “ This will in turn increase the uptake of emerging technologies such as large-scale solar and energy efficiency.”
The investment mandate is not exclusive, meaning that established technologies can still be funded, and not retrospective, so projects that have already been funded will not be affected.
“The CEFC will therefore continue to pursue a diverse range of investment activities that are within the scope of the CEFC Act and this new investment mandate,” a statement by the body said.
“Together, the new investment mandate and the accompanying explanatory statement provide guidance on how the CEFC should approach investment in mature and established technologies, such as conventional onshore wind and conventional hydro,” it said. “It is the government’s expectation that, in many circumstances, projects involving mature technologies should be able to secure finance from commercial financing sources.”
The mandate is a shift from what Abbott proposed in July, when he said the body should no longer fund small-scale solar projects such as rooftop panels and wind technology…….
The CEFC chairwoman, Jillian Broadbent, wrote to the environment minister, Greg Hunt, and the finance minister, Mathias Cormann, welcoming the new mandate. She said it was an “appropriate approach that allows the CEFC to support the Australian government policy priorities while still allowing a measure of investment flexibility”. …….http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/24/new-clean-energy-investment-mandate-a-shift-from-policy-proposed-by-abbott
Coal giant Adani in a financial pickle
Adani’s finances go from bad to worse, Independent Australia Lachlan Barker 3 January 2016, Federal and State Governments continue to approve it but the Adani Carmichael project will never eventuate unless an investor with “a financial death wish” can be found, writes Lachlan Barker.
IN OCTOBER 2015, the new Minister for Resources, Energy and Northern Australia,Josh Frydenberg, made a death knellpronouncement on Adani’s Carmichael Coal Mine and Rail Project, indicating that the rail line to the Galilee Basin to serve the mine:
“… wouldn’t be a priority project.”
He added that Adani’s project was:
“… a commercial operation and it needs to stand on its own two feet.”
This makes it pretty clear that the federal government have, at last, recognised that this Adani coal mine has not a chance in hell of making a red cent and federal funding through the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility (named by opponents as the ”Dirty Energy Finance Corporation”) will not be provided.
Additionally, the banks have indicated that they will not touch this project and the one bank that Adani has constantly pointed to as a source of finance, the State Bank of India (SBI), has not actually said “yes” to the project. The SBI has simply received an application from Adani for financing.
Currently, the SBI are reviewing Adani’s application – as they do with any application – and will, presumably, announce their decision soon.
So, with no banks and now without the Australian Government, Adani were left with the solitary hope that the Queensland Government might come to the “white elephant” party.
If that was indeed their main source of hope, they must have been chagrined when, over the Christmas break, a tiny story appeared on the SBS website, headlined, ‘Adani must fund mine: Qld premier’.
The link takes us to a brief story reprinted here:
Queensland’s government has warned Indian mining giant Adani it must finance the controversial Carmichael coal mine on its own.
The federal government on Tuesday approved the expansion of Abbot Point port, which is intended to service the proposed Carmichael mine, prompting Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk to sternly tell Adani not to expect any financial assistance from the state.
“There will be no taxpayers’ money going towards this project,” she said.
At the time of writing, the only entity on the planet prepared to fund the Carmichael mine project – rated as a A$16 billion project (US$11 billion) – is Adani itself.
IEEFA tells us that Adani has already borrowed A$3 billion for the initial investment in the mine and now need to raise the remaining A$13-14 billion (US$9-10 billion). That being the case, the mine looks as likely to be built as environment minister Greg Hunt’s chances of getting an invitation to the Greenpeace Christmas party — for Adani’s financial situation has got worse………https://independentaustralia.net/article-display/adanis-finances-go-from-bad-to-worse,8539
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 